Angela Merkel's Ethical Values Of Getting Rid Of Nuclear Power

Citizens of countries where fossil fuels are being utilized are concerned at the possible chance of global warming. So many greenhouse gases emitted, ice burgs and caps are shifting or melting, that population is beginning to worry about what is going to happen to the environment in the future if this source is kept being used. With nuclear energy we don’t have to worry about the environmental changes. Nuclear energy has

When someone thinks of problems plaguing the world, nuclear energy is not the first thing that comes to peoples minds these days.[1]Nuclear power was once deemed the new energy of the future.[2]However, numerous nuclear power plant accidents around the world put a damper on that notion.The United States considers itself one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world, but 103 nuclear reactors currently operating within her borders, one was bound to fail sometime or another.[3]

An example of the environmental success nuclear energy has provided is France in the 1970s and 1980s. The country switched from using fossil fuels and instead used nuclear energy to supply 78% of its electricity (see figure 3). This in turn lowered the country’s greenhouse emissions by approximately 2% each year since. No accidents have ever occurred at any of France's power plants (Biello, 2013).

Despite the fact the countries continue to increase the production of nuclear energy, my position is that new nuclear power plants should not continue to be built. The current use of nuclear power should be carefully evaluated with a plan to slowly decrease production throughout the world. The negative implications to the environment and economy support my position.

Throughout the years, politicians have been reticent to address a grave issue that will soon effect our population as a global entity. The reduction of our carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere is an accepted and supported solution to reversing climate change. It is widely known that the burning of fossil fuels causes irreparable damage and irreversible change in regards to the environment, but not enough is being done to take initiative and make changes in the way we obtain our energy. Being that our fossil fuels are finite and only located in certain areas of the world, the burning of coal, oil and natural gas are not sensible solutions to our energy and climate dilemma. A largely controversial “solution” to the global energy and climate crisis is nuclear power; a nearly emission free energy source that has seen success famously in France but makes people hesitant towards after incidents like Fukushima in Japan. In order to weigh the pros and cons of a prospective global giant, one must analyze the energy policies of countries where nuclear energy has been the most prevalent, successful, and disastrous. Despite the recent accident in Japan, which may have been enlarged by outside factors, nuclear energy has proven itself to be an energy source efficient enough to sustain an industrialized nation like France, while drastically cutting carbon emissions simultaneously; which are reasons that support its ability to become a transitional energy in the near future.

75% of all electricity used in France is supplied by the clean, pollution-free energy source of nuclear power (Newsela, 2). However, most of the United State’s energy is created from burning fossil fuels that pollute our atmosphere, contribute to global warming, and thus threaten the future of our planet. Nuclear power should be used more in the United States to create clean power that doesn’t pollute our environment, in order to help combat climate change.

William Tucker, author of "Why I still Support Nuclear Power, Even After Fukushima" explains, "It's not easy being a supporter of nuclear energy these days"(Tucker 228). Tucker questions why there is use of harmful nuclear energy when there are better technologies available; in contrast, he then provides examples that prove there are no better alternatives and other energy technologies are equally not without risk. In a five year period, uranium rods sit in a reactor core and transform six ounces of its original weight into energy and as a result obtains the ability to power a large city similarly to the size of San Francisco for five years (Tucker 228). Tucker shows how natural gas, wind mills, solar collectors, and hydroelectric dams are

Angela Merkel is the Chancellor of Germany.   Last fall, she was elected to her third term as chancellor of Germany, making her one of the only two European Union leaders that survived the economic crisis (The Guardian, 2013).   Angela Merkel was named by Forbes in 2014 as the most powerful women in the world (Forbes, 2014).   Angela Merkel’s leadership style is pragmatic and methodical (The Guardian, 2013). Anne Applebaum (2013) states “She reigns. She doesn’t tell people what to do, she doesn’t give orders, and she isn’t bossy or pushy. She doesn’t throw Germany’s weight around or make demands. She simply sets parameters, and then lets everybody else make ‘choices’ themselves.”   Merkel’s leadership style is prudent, democratic, and modest. Merkel prefers discussion, deliberation and consensus (Zeeb, 2013).   The Germans call her “Mutti” (mummy), because she understands what her country wants and makes sure her country gets it (Zeeb, 2013 & The Guardian, 2013). Angela Merkel is a no nonsense leader that is well respected.

In the following, the benefits and drawbacks of generating electricity with the use of nuclear energy will be discussed.

The disastrous meltdowns that cause whole cities to become uninhabitable, as well as leaving families homeless and laborers without jobs, have defined the negative perspective of what people see in nuclear power. However, even after such catastrophes, the pure raw energy output makes nuclear power essential for the future of the human race. As time passes, the world’s energy usage has grown an increasingly massive size every year due to the consumption swell of energy. Despite nuclear plants being a heavily controversial topic internationally, its advantages are very well recognized and it’s causing nuclear plants to slowly become the basis of our growing society.

I think that we should not build the nuclear power plant in East Pennsboro township because it is a bad idea and could wipe out their entire town. Few reason are power plants are big targets for terrorism, also a lot of money goes into making this plant and next thing you know it could have a meltdown or produce deadly waste. Another reason is the waste won’t go away for 200-500 thousand years, which could affect our water sources and pollute our waters. Also there are high risks and unknown risks of what could happen to the power plant. So I think that we shouldn’t have a nuclear power plant.

as it was hoped to lower the price of electricity, and utilise nuclear power for

The world's natural resources are being consumed at an alarming rate. As these resources diminish, people will be seeking alternative sources by which to generate electricity for heat and light. The only practical short-term solution for the energy/pollution crisis should be nuclear power because it is available, cleaner and safer.

The surprising realization of potentially irreversible effects on the planet and the living beings due to the continued growth and development of human race has welcomed in a new period of environmental ethical debate. As we get more acquainted with the after effects of continuously burning fossil fuels, the more we start looking for alternatives. As indicated by the 2012 World Energy Outlook, the International Energy Association (IEA) suspects near to a 35% increment in worldwide energy utilization by, therefore this demand will be ultimately met by increased dependency on fossil fuels. Thus this gives another prominent reason to look for more clean alternatives of fossil fuels. Nuclear Power is one of those clean alternatives. Nuclear Energy is one of the energy options being used worldwide that could be made more extensive because of its ability to not produce significant CO2 as compared to other fossil fuels, thus resulting in less global warming. However, when taking into account the aftermath of utilizing nuclear energy, it is really important to understand the ethical considerations that lie under nuclear energy programs. Till date, there have been many nuclear incidents in the world that has forced everyone to reconsider about nuclear power, some of them have affected everyone more than the others like The Nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, The Three Mile

In the modern society, energy is considered one of our most valuable resources. Humanity has managed to tap several sources of energy and utilize it for their daily activities. Almost everything in the society is dependent on energy; otherwise, humanity would cease to exist. The sources of energy vary from firewood, solar energy, geothermal energy and nuclear energy. The sources vary depending on the amount of energy that can be harnessed. Nuclear energy is a controversial subject when it comes to energy matters. Theorists argue that the world’s sources of energy are being depleted at such high rates, that the future will not favor humanity. Richard Watson establishes this ethical argument in his work known as Anti-Anthropocentric Ethics: he argues that any ethics should be based on the survival of humanity (Watson 245). Therefore, an inquiry that should be made in line with energy and ethics should consider the question; is modernization worth killing humanity? Nuclear power sources provide such high energy that can power industries and sustain industrial processes for longer times. The problem with the nuclear power energy is the danger it poses to the society and humanity as a whole (Ingram 37). The Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Russia is a good example relative to the effects of nuclear power and the environment. This essay seeks to analyze and evaluate the ethical issues raised by the Chernobyl nuclear plant as source of energy