“Every single little contribution has an ethical impact”
Everyone bears a responsibility for the energy transition – from the personal level to the political and international levels. Philosopher Prof. Michael Quante is the co-publisher of “Energy Responsibility”, a publication which appeared just recently. In this interview with Anke Poppen he talks about approaches, both large and small, to finding solutions.
What does energy responsibility mean?
The way we act means taking responsibility for the consequences which result from it. We produce and consume energy and, in the process of doing so, we are responsible for our actions – as individuals and as a society as a whole. Questions of fairness are questions of distribution: if I, as a consumer, decide to shun products – nuclear energy, for example – I create an inequality because I do not treat all providers equally. These inequalities need to be countered with criteria for fairness: What are justified measures, and what are unjustified ones? And whom do they affect?
Most people, when they think of the energy transition, undoubtedly think first of all of the economy and politics. What is the contribution that philosophy makes?
The basics for forecasts such as climate models have to be tested using scientific theory. Epistemology, or the theory of knowledge, considers the question of how I can obtain knowledge concerning the future consequences of my actions – think for example of the debates about a storage facility for nuclear waste here in Germany. It is in the case of ethical-normative questions that practical philosophy comes into play: How is responsibility distributed between the state and the individual? What are norms of international fairness in the light of different world views? Moreover, philosophy clarifies whether the questions are of an empirical or an ethical nature.
Do you have an example of this?
Why is it actually important to distinguish between these levels? People just want answers. Or, to put the question in another way: Is it up to academics to make an active contribution to shaping social processes?
We don’t say to people what’s right or what’s wrong, or how they should live; rather, we create conditions for rational debate – without which democracy cannot function. We use methodically verified knowledge to clarify phenomena which are perceived more subjectively in everyday life. In a liberal, democratic society science is funded by taxpayers’ money. This gives rise to the duty to find answers to questions which society puts to us. It is here, as well as in providing education based on the idea of sustainability, that scientists and universities make their contributions. The aim is to enable people to give a more sustainable shape to the institutions in which they work.
What levels of responsibility are there for the energy transition?
It is people who act, not society as such. They act through playing roles and, in the process, speak not just for themselves but for a political party, for example, or for a company or a trade union. Actions which have an institutional character are driven by a different, role-specific responsibility than individual behaviour. The climate crisis is a global process, in the light of which people will need to come to an agreement on how they want to cooperate and convey this through their political representatives. Who is responsible for what in which form of cooperation? This is a fundamental question.
And it is presumably one which is much harder to answer, the greater the number of countries involved …
We need to distinguish between questions of international and national fairness. Many social systems – for example care, health and pensions – are organised by each country for itself. What would a domestic energy-efficient policy look like? Any measure has to be socially viable. On an international level, autonomous states tolerate only a limited amount of interference in their domestic affairs. For this reason, taking into account the justified interests of other participants and developing common aims is a complex task. Complex problems cannot be solved by primarily asserting national or group-specific interests.
One aspect in all this is undoubtedly the rising energy requirements of newly industrialised countries. What responsibility would you attribute to industrialised countries in this case?
We have an historical responsibility. Many economically weak countries have paid the price for the development of countries which are today economically powerful. From an ethical point of view, people in newly industrialised countries should also achieve a certain level of prosperity; for this reason, we need to grant them appropriate development. Fairness does not mean that everything gets equal treatment; rather, that different things are treated in an appropriately unequal way. Different states of development require equal consideration to be given to opportunities for development – although that can lead to an inequality of measures applied. A certain amount of money given to a poorer country can have a much greater effect there than it does here in Germany. If resources are scarce, it is always ethically imperative to use them efficiently.
What is the relationship between this and individual responsibility?
In the case of a global problem, every single individual has a fundamental responsibility. In our democracy we have a large number of rights governing our freedoms. Privileged sections have even more opportunities and, therefore, more responsibility. As a consumer I am responsible for my purchasing behaviour. This leads to a variety of different problems relating to fairness. If a lot of people can no longer pay their electricity bills, we have a distribution problem which has to be solved politically. If I rent a property I don’t have much influence on the type of heating. Nevertheless, renters can advocate sustainable modernisation measures.
But many people ask themselves whether their own little contribution can actually make any difference.
We mustn’t shift personal and political responsibility back and forth. The idea that one small individual contribution makes no difference is not helpful. Seen as an ethical contribution, each individual is most certainly important. Even if one individual measure is not enough to solve a problem, this doesn’t mean that it’s not necessary. Or, to put it in another way: anyone who thinks that other people should solve the energy problem are themselves part of the problem and not of the solution. It’s not so much a question of whether my actions are successful – actually taking responsibility is more important.
Finally, looking at the future: What is our responsibility towards coming generations?
Our new technologies will also have an impact on people who won’t be born for another thousand years. Nuclear waste and plastic waste are examples of this. The ethical approach we have so far taken towards securing our existence is also one which is relevant for our grandchildren – in other words, for people who are already alive now. And here is an important task for philosophers: Which ethical norms are relevant for coming generations which do not yet exist? But, of course, the principle still holds true that anything that does not take into account our grandchildren’s needs will not function.
Author: Anke Poppen
This article is from the University newspaper wissen|leben No. 2, 2 April 2025.
QUICK QUESTIONS:
What might a fair and sustainable energy policy look like?
Prof. Doris Fuchs, PhD, is Director of the Potsdam Sustainability Research Institute and Professor of Sustainable Development at the University of Münster.
Who bears the burden of sustainability?
Dr. Tobias Gumbert is a research associate at the Institute of Political Science.