Changing to renewable sources of energy that have less of an impact on the environment has become a hot topic in the last ten years, and at the center of this ethical debate is coal energy. As of 2013 about forty-three percent of electricity produced in the United States came from coal energy, while it also produced a staggering seventy-seven percent of carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation. This rate is much higher in other less developed countries around the world (Coal, 2013). With coal energy still being one of the major forms of energy production, coal energy companies are still trying to secure new contracts to mine coal in new places throughout the United States. Recently this issue has reached the Pacific Northwest as Ambre Energy has been working on obtaining a permit to mine and transport coal through the Columbia River Gorge with mining in Boardman, Oregon. As of today their permit has been denied, but they are in the process of appealing this decision. There are many ethical issues on both sides that will ultimately determine whether or not Ambre Energy is allowed to proceed and obtain a permit to mine and ship coal from Boardman, Oregon. If approved current estimates are that Ambre Energy would be mining and shipping approximately eight million tons of coal per year through the Columbia River Gorge (Friends, 2014). The ethical lens that most easily pertains to this situation is Utilitarianism, which is the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Considering both short and long term consequences is also very important when using this lens to make an ethical decision (Johnson, 2012). It’s likely that both sides in this case utilized this type of thinking when making the decision on whether or not to mine and transport coal in the Gorge. From Ambre Energy’s perspective it could be argued that the greatest good is providing energy to those who need it most, especially in overseas Asian countries such as China where nearly 17 percent of the world’s population resides, and 81 percent of their electricity is produced from coal energy (Coal Statistics, 2013). Using this same ethical lens the opposition in the State of Oregon says that the long term environmental effects of coal mining and burning have a significant impact on everyone and that it isn’t worth the short term benefit of providing energy overseas for profit. One of the biggest oppositions to this project is the organization, Friends of the Columbia River Gorge and the biggest long term effect they mention is that coal is one of the biggest contributors to global climate change (Friends, 2014). In their eyes the helping to prevent climate change is the greater good that affects everyone worldwide. The issue of whether or not to allow Ambre Energy to mine coal in the Columbia River Gorge can also be evaluated through Rawls’ Justice as Fairness, which means that the greatest benefit should be given to the least advantaged members of society (Johnson, 2012). From Ambre’s perspective they are providing the energy that can be turned into electricity for the people who need it the most. Their biggest coal exports are to Asia where there are many disadvantaged people that live off electricity that is provided by burning coal. In China, where the average family lives off an income of just two-thousand U.S. dollars a year there is a great need for cheap energy (Wong, 2013). Without companies such as Ambre Energy many of these less fortunate people wouldn’t have electricity. Members of the opposition believe that the method and distance by which this coal is being shipped causes more problems than it solves. This starts with the coal being shipped from inland Oregon to the coast via train. Each one of these uncovered train cars would lose approximately one pound of coal dust per mile traveled. A one-hundred and twenty car train traveling the eighty-five miles to the coast would lead to about ten-thousand pounds of coal dust escaping the train during transport (Friends, 2014). This coal dust could have a significant impact on the fish and wildlife throughout the Gorge. This would also affect some of the least advantaged workers in America; it stands to reason why the opposition wouldn’t want these workers to be exposed to these harmful substances. Prolonged exposure to coal dust can lead to bronchitis, emphysema, and toxic heavy metal poisoning (Friends, 2014). This point of view makes sense when looking through Rawls’ ethical lens, which claims that each person has an equal right to the same basic liberties that are compatible with similar liberties for all (Johnson, 2012). The majority of American workers aren’t asked to sacrifice their health in this way while conducting their daily jobs. Whenever making a tough ethical decision each party’s values should also be taken into consideration. For those in support of Ambre Energy moving forward with their Gorge coal project security is very important, which refers to family security, national security, or the stability of society (Johnson, 2012). The stability of society and family security are both important to Ambre supporters. On a local level Ambre Energy would be providing many new jobs and benefits for those citizens that live in the Boardman, Oregon area. Ambre estimates that it would be providing over two-thousand temporary construction jobs and over one-thousand ongoing operation related jobs, while also paying Morrow county over a million dollars a year in property taxes once their plant is operational (Ambre, 2012). These job opportunities and taxes would give a significant boost to the economy in the Boardman area. On an international level Ambre would be providing energy to some of the least fortunate people in Asian countries overseas. These new coal shipments could help drive down the price of coal in some of these countries and make electricity more affordable. Power is also a very important value to Ambre and their supporters, meaning social power, authority, or wealth (Johnson, 2012). For Ambre this is largely a business decision and gaining wealth is part of almost any decision that a for profit organization makes. It’s easier to see why Ambre is continuing to pursue this project in the Columbia River Gorge. With early coal export estimates in excess of eight million tons per year, Ambre stands to make some very substantial profits and increase their wealth (Friends, 2014). Following right along with power is the value of achievement which is defined as successful, capable, ambitious, and influential (Johnson, 2012). Like any company achievement is very important to Ambre and getting this contract approved would give them a very good chance at becoming a larger and more profitable organization. There are also some very important values that the opposition has in their stand against Ambre Energy mining coal in the Gorge. One of the most important values to them is benevolence, which means being helpful, honest, forgiving, loyal, and responsible (Johnson, 2012). In their eyes the responsible and loyal thing to do is not let Ambre mine coal because of the negative impact it could have on the environment, and not just the local environment but the global environment. The pollution that burning coal creates can travel back to the United States in as little as five days, and this practice is also one of the biggest causes of global climate change. Being honest is also a big part of the benevolence that is important to the opposition, and they claim that Ambre’s internal documents show that they haven’t been forthcoming and honest about the amount of coal they are actually trying to mine and move through the Columbia River Gorge (Friends, 2014). The next most important value to those in opposition of Ambre Energy’s Gorge coal mining operation is universalism, meaning broad minded, wisdom, social justice, and equality (Johnson, 2012). To them social justice is the most important part of making the decision to oppose Ambre. From their point of view there is no social justice in this operation, because of how much this project would negatively affect the wildlife and citizens of Morrow County. The huge increase in train rail traffic would require additional construction of new train tracks which would take away from the beauty of many scenic areas while also increasing the risk of train derailments and accidents (Friends, 2014). When it comes to making a decision on a matter of this importance it can often be helpful to go through a somewhat scripted decision making process. The first step in resolving any ethical dilemma is identifying what the problem is. In this case identifying the ethical problem is easy; should Ambre Energy be allowed to mine and ship coal in the Columbia River Gorge despite the environmental impacts it will have? The goal is to come up with a recommendation to Ambre and the local government that could satisfy both sides. Now that the problem has been identified some deeper investigation must take place. First important stakeholders must be identified, in this dilemma they are Ambre Energy, citizens of the Gorge, the Asian countries that receive Ambre’s coal exports, and anyone who is concerned about the environment and global climate change. Further analyzing this problem through various ethical lenses and values is also helpful during this step. Since those were laid out earlier through the Utilitarian and Rawl’s Justice as Fairness lens, there is no need to go through that step again. With the problem, stakeholders, values, and ethical lenses that apply to this problem now identified it’s time to lay out possible solutions. The first obvious solution is to deny Ambre Energy’s appeal to start their coal project and thus prevent the potential negative environmental impact of mining and shipping coal. The second obvious solution is to allow Ambre Energy to move forward with its coal mining project which would boost the local economy, but also cause potential environmental and health issues. A possible third option is to compromise by changing the current terms of Ambre Energy’s Gorge project. This could be done by agreeing to terms where Ambre is only allowed to mine and ship a certain amount of coal, to where the environmental impact can be reduced while still helping the local economy. The amount of coal that Ambre would be allowed to ship would also be partly dependent on rail traffic. Preventing additional construction of railways is very important to the opposition, so finding out how much coal could be shipped with the current railway logistics is an important part of this solution. The last part of this compromise would be to figure out if there are coal customers that are closer than Asia so the environmental impact during shipping can be further reduced. With the possible solutions laid out it’s time to settle on the one that works the best. Given how many countries are still dependent on coal energy it makes sense to find a more responsible method to mine and ship this valuable resource. The best way to do this is for both sides to compromise and work on the third option that was laid out above. If this compromise doesn’t work for both sides then the ultimate decision should be made through the Utilitarian lens by weighing the greatest good for the greatest number of people (Johnson, 2012). The local economy, Ambre Energy, and various Asian countries would all benefit from this project going forward. From the other side everyone on earth is a stakeholder and would be affected by the coal emissions that cause an increase in the rate of global climate change. Based on that argument this project should not be allowed to move forward if a compromise that makes sense for both sides cannot be reached. To implement the compromising solution future meetings between the local government and Ambre Energy would need to take place so both sides can discuss a solution that minimizes the environmental impact while also allowing Ambre Energy to be profitable. If that solution isn’t feasible then no further action is needed as the local government has already successfully denied Ambre’s permit. If no compromise is made then the local government will very likely deny Ambre Energy’s appeal as well.

References

Ambre Energy - Morrow Pacific project. (2012, January 1). Retrieved November 23, 2014, from

http://www.ambreenergy.com/morrow-pacific-project

Coal. (2013, June 1). Retrieved November 17, 2014, from

http://www.eia.gov/kids/energy.cfm?page=coal_home-basics

Coal Statistics. (2013, January 1). Retrieved November 17, 2014, from

http://www.worldcoal.org/resources/coal-statistics/

Friends of the Columbia Gorge : Stop Coal Exports Through the Gorge. (2014, September 1).

Retrieved November 17, 2014, from http://www.gorgefriends.org/section.php?id=79

Johnson, C. (2012). Organizational Ethics: A Practical Approach (2nd ed., pp.

20,27,57,58,107,108). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications.

Wong, E. (2013, July 19). Survey in China Shows a Wide Gap in Income. Retrieved November

22, 2014.