An Ethical Dilemma in Public Administration
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), after many years of working closely with various environmental scientists, came up with the Clean Power Plan that was meant to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases into the American Atmosphere (Chen, 2017). The agency was acting in line with the commitment made by the United States and many other United Nations member states during the Paris Climate Accord to cut down on the emission of carbon gases. The agency was keen on identifying industries that were responsible for the largest emission of these gases. The survey commissioned by the agency revealed that power generation plants, specifically coal-fired plants, were leaders in the emission of carbon gases (Galpin, Whittington, & Bell, 2015). It was necessary to come up with a delicate balance between economic and environmental benefits. On the one hand, these power stations played a critical role in enhancing energy security in the country. They provided the energy that industrial and domestic sectors needed at a relatively reasonable cost. On the other hand, it was necessary to determine the impact of these plants on the environment.
One of the most important pillars of sustainability is the ability to protect the environment. Instead of shutting down these plants, a plan was developed by this agency to introduce new guidelines for power generation at these stations. It was understood that they played a crucial role in the economy, and the country could not afford to close them. The plan meant that these plants had to use emerging technologies to ensure that their emission of greenhouse gases was reduced to the lowest level possible (Parris, 2016). The federal government, under the leadership of President Obama, approved the plan in 2016 (Yonk, Lofthouse, & Hansen, 2017). It is important to note that most of these stations registered their displeasure with the new policy because of the additional costs involved. The power generation plants stated that they would have no otherwise but to pass on the cost to the customer. To the Environmental Protection Agency, this was one of the greatest achievements in its quest to protect the environment. The new law meant that the United States was committed to the Paris accord.
When the Trump administration took over power, the policy towards environmental conservation took a sharp turn from what the previous administration had embraced. The new administration expressed its displeasure towards a policy that limits the capacity of the United States to produce energy (Stillman, 2010). It took a more relaxed approach to environmental conservation. The biggest dilemma that emerged soon after the assumption of power by the current administration was the announcement that the Clean Power Plan would be abolished under the new administration. It meant that the government would no longer embrace policies that limited the capacity of all power plants in the country, including coal-fired stations, to produce enough energy at the lowest cost possible. It took years of research and serious lobbying by the top managers at EPA to have the plan approved into a law (Gleick, 2014). However, when the time came for its benefits to be seen, there was a sudden change of approach by the new administration.
The dilemma that administrators of this agency faced was how to deal with the sudden change of policy regarding this plan. On the one hand, the agency was keen on implementing the Clean Power Plant not only because it had fought for such a plan for so long but also because it understood the long-term consequences of failing to protect the environment (Marshall, McCarthy, McGrath, & Claudy, 2015). It was developed on the basis that society today has a responsibility to the future generation, and that would be to ensure that the environment remained sustainable. On the other hand, it had to follow the directives of the government as required by the law. Its activities are directly funded by the federal government. The dilemma was worsened by the open admission that the Trump administration made, claiming that it does not believe in climate change (Willrich, 2017). The United States has not been spared by the unpredictable weather patterns that scientists link to global warming and climate change. Many parts of the country are currently facing the problem of water scarcity, while at the same time, others are affected by floods (Palmer & Flanagan, 2016).
Incidences of cyclones have become common, and it has been confirmed that the water level in the ocean is rising (Parris, 2016). These are obvious environmental concerns that cannot be taken lightly. Rolling back on gains that have been made in the fight against environmental conservation is a major concern. The Clean Power Plan was an initiative that was developed out of many years of research and backed by global conventions on environmental conservation. The agency is currently trying to find a way of dealing with the current dilemma. It is trying to find ways of meeting the demands of the new administration but in a way that will not compromise the need to protect the environment. Without having proper environmental conservation policies, this agency will be meaningless, and its leadership is aware of this fact. The solution must be one that ensures that the level of greenhouse gases’ emission is maintained at the lowest point possible (Lijo & Gopalakrishnan, 2015). Achieving such goals may not be easy under an administration that is not committed to the reduction of carbon gases.
Theories of Ethics in Relationship to an Ethical Dilemma in Public Administration
The current ethical dilemma facing the Environmental Protection Agency will need to be addressed. The top managers of this agency know that it is unethical to be in the office and to continue drawing salaries if it is not working towards its mandate. It is also unethical and an injustice to the future generation if these administrators do nothing to protect the environment, knowing the consequences of global warming and climate change. It is necessary to look at relevant theories of ethics that can be applied when trying to deal with this issue at hand (Thiroux & Krasemann, 2017). The researcher will look at a traditional and contemporary theory of ethics that administrators can embrace in this situation.
Traditional Theory of Ethics: Teleology
When trying to find a way forward in addressing the current dilemma, one of the most appropriate theories of ethics that should be embraced is teleology. Developed by Aristotle in about 320 BC, this theory defines how an entity should achieve its goals (Dobel, 1993). It states that ethics require one to embrace a two-step approach when determining the right course of action to achieve desired goals. First, one must determine the end, which is what should be achieved by a given process. Secondly, it should define means. The theory states that the end must be as ethical as the means. It goes against the popular and unethical belief that the end justifies the means (Perry, 1993). Instead, it states that the means should be as justifiable as the end. One could not claim to have succeeded in meeting the interest of the masses if the process used involved harming other people. The theory acknowledges that sometimes it may not be possible to satisfy everybody. When faced with a situation where options available are not as pleasant as everyone would wish, the theory encourages policy-makers to choose the less evil option. The path taken towards achieving a given goal should be less harmful.
The Environmental Protection Agency can use this narrative to convince the current administration to avoid policies that may jeopardize the implementation of the Clean Power Plan. The regime has a noble goal of ensuring that the United States’ interests are protected. One of the main concerns voiced by the administration is that this plan may increase the cost of producing goods in the United States. It may push companies to move their operations to China, Mexico, and other countries in Asia to cut the cost of their production (Rohr, 1992). However, this theory should be a reminder that when trying to achieve economic benefits for the current generation, the needs of the future generation should not be ignored. Moreover, the government should be reminded that gains made through such ambitious economic plans that disregard environmental concerns can be wiped away by environmental disasters.
In 2005, the states of Florida, Mississippi, Kentucky, Louisiana, Alabama, Ohio, and Georgia were hit by Hurricane Katrina (Palmer & Flanagan, 2016). It remains the costliest natural disaster in the history of the United States. Over 1,836 people lost their lives, and properties worth over $ 160 billion were destroyed in the process (Chen, 2017). The global society, including the United States, had focused on achieving economic success without considering the need to protect the environment. The outcome was that part of the economic success achieved through many years was wiped out, and many people lost their lives. Society cannot afford to ignore the need to protect the environment anymore.
The concept proposed by the teleology theory will also be relevant in defining the actions that administrators of this agency should take. Top managers of this institution should also remember that the result that should be achieved in addressing this dilemma is as ethical as the means used to achieve it. It is in its interest to ensure that the environment is protected. Keeping quiet about and following new guidelines blindly without considering environmental concerns is unethical. This agency has already confirmed that the environment cannot remain sustainable if current policies are not changed. As such, it should make a concerted effort, working closely with other like-minded agencies, to convince the new administration of the need to embrace environmentally-friendly policies (Gleick, 2014). It is also unethical and a form of insubordination to ignore the demands of the current government. Finding a balance between the two conflicting demands may not be easy, but it is the only ethical way of addressing the dilemma.
Contemporary Theory of Ethics: Environmental Ethics
Environmental ethics is one of the popular contemporary ethical theories that go beyond traditional ethics that majorly focused on human beings. This theory emphasizes that ethics should also involve the need to conserve the environment (Stewart & Sprinthall, 1993). The environment is the ultimate protector of human interests. When it is rendered unsustainable, then it may not be possible to protect other primary human interest. For a long time, companies have acted without considering the need to ensure that the environment is protected. The main goal has always been to achieve economic success. However, increasing incidences of natural disasters are a clear indication that it is time to rethink economic activities that ignore the need to protect the environment (Lo, 2013). The theory states that ethics should be grounded on policies friendly to the environment. As Yung and Yu (2016) observe, this theory questions the relevance of some of the modern inventions, such as machines that contribute to the significant emission of greenhouse gases. Policies developed by governments of every nation around the world are to enhance the prosperity of the current and future generations. The current regime in power is focused on ensuring that the country develops as rapidly as society would desire. However, no one wants a short-lived economic success. It should ensure that the United States enjoys its current position as the leading power for a long time.
Using the concepts presented in this theory, administrators of EPA can negotiate with the current regime to find a way of addressing the ethical dilemma that the agency is facing. It is unfortunate that the regime does not believe in climate change and the impact of greenhouse gases on global warming. However, that does not mean the leadership of this agency cannot try to convince the government otherwise. Enemark (2017) argues that when dealing with a controversial issue, it is necessarily important to start from the known to unknown. Climate change and global warming may be controversial topics that many may dispute based on their interests. However, the obvious health consequences of carbon gases in the atmosphere cannot be disputed. Over the last decade, different cities in China, especially Beijing and Shanghai, have been adversely affected by air pollution.
A report by Percival, Schroeder, Miller, and Leape (2018) shows that on January 11, 2018, the level of air pollutants was so bad in Beijing that schools, factories, and public institutions had to close. Thick smog, which medical experts have warned is highly poisonous to children and the elderly, is common every morning and evening in these major cities. If the current trend continues, China will not only have to worry about climate change but also the heavy financial burden of dealing with the looming respiratory diseases. With the number of those suffering from these diseases increasing, the current vibrant workforce in China may be lost. The many years of economic gains may be wiped out by environmental pollutants. These are issues that current administrators should not ignore. If it is difficult to believe that climate change is a reality, evidence of health consequences of air pollution can easily be seen in some of the Asian tigers that embraced economic growth at the expense of environmental conservation.
Devise a Plan to Aid in Ethical Decision Making That Leads to an Ethical Solution
The current leadership of Environmental Protection Agency has succumbed to the pressure by the Trump administration to abolish the Clean Power Plan (Magill & Aramesh, 2016). However, that should not be the right approach to dealing with the current dilemma that the agency is facing. It has taken several years to achieve such a plan, and eliminating it without having an appropriate alternative is unprofessional of these leaders and unfair to the environment. It is necessary to devise a plan to aid in ethical decision-making that would help solve the problem in a way that does not pose serious environmental threats. One of the best ways of doing that is to have an alternative to the current plan that the current government has rejected. The government is keen on ensuring that energy production is not compromised in the country. Most of the critics of the Clean Power Plan argue that it may increase not only the cost of this important factor of production but also affect its reliable availability (Tomain, 2017). This issue should be addressed effectively in the new plan. The proposal should ensure that these power plants will produce enough energy at the most competitive cost possible, but in a way that does not pose a serious threat to the environment.
Top leaders should draft a proposal to the government that explains how the conflict can be addressed. It can come up with a new proposal that will help achieve the same goal of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Instead of requiring these coal-fired power plants to cut down on their emissions, this agency can recommend the use of new technologies that can reduce the level of emission in these firms. The new policy will ensure that the production capacity of stations remains the same, if not increases but in a way that does not pose a threat to the environment. The proposal should define some of the emerging technologies in energy production that these plants can embrace to enhance their output while at the same time protecting the environment. For instance, every station may be required to embrace green energy production alongside their coal-fired systems. They can be required to embrace energy production using solar and wind power which are gaining popularity in Europe. They can emulate best practices common in Germany where a significant proportion of energy is now produced using renewable sources (Reamer, 2013). Under the new policy, these stations will be expected to balance coal-fired energy production strategies with renewable energy production practices to meet the country energy demand at the lowest cost possible.
The management of EPA should remember that it is dangerous to play politics with the issue of the environment. When developing this alternative plan, EPA should remind the government and policy-makers in this country of dangers of environmental pollution. According to Parris (2016), the United States Department of Health and Human Services is currently overburdened by the cost of managing cancer, diabetes, stroke, coronary diseases among others. Having a highly polluted environment may worsen the current health problem. Smoke from engines has an obvious impact on the health of people around plants. For those who are skeptical about the issue of climate change, this new plan should remind them of the health problems that are directly caused by carbon gases.
Personal and Professional Leadership in the Public Sector
The ethical dilemma presented in this study shows the personal and professional leadership that is expected of people entrusted with public offices. The case shows a serious dilemma for EPA’s leader when the new administration indicated that it would be nullifying the Clean Power Plan that many environmentalists had viewed as a major milestone towards protecting the environment. One the one hand, the top leadership of this agency can comply with the new directives to please the new administration and avoid any confrontation with the government. In so doing, it will be ignoring all the environmental benefits that came with the plan (Chen, 2017). On the other hand, trying to convince the government to rethink its view towards the plan may be a demanding task, especially when the top government officials have stated that they do not believe in climate change. However, succeeding in such demanding task would be of benefit to the environment.
It is at this stage that professionalism will be needed in such an organization. It is always tempting to take the easiest way of addressing an ethical dilemma. In this case, it will be easy to follow the directives of the new administration and ignore the environmental concerns. However, leaders of this agency should question the reason why this plan was developed in the first case (Alagan & Aladuwaka, 2018). They should understand that when EPA comes with strategic plans, it should not be subject to constant political interference. The agency cannot ignore demands of the current government. However, it is the responsibility of leaders to explain to the new regime reasons why a given policy was embraced, undesirable outcomes it was keen on avoiding, and how it can blend well with the policies of the new administration. Doing so will demonstrate the leadership and interpersonal skills of those assigned to manage this agency. They will demonstrate that they are committed to protecting the environment, while at the same time working closely with the country’s top leadership.
How Addressing the Dilemma Illustrates the Meaning of Professional Integrity
Parris (2016) defines professional integrity as “the professional who consistently and willingly practices within the guidelines of the mission of a chosen profession under the obligation of a Code of Ethics” (p. 65). Top leaders of EPA are professionals who are entrusted with the responsibility of enacting policies meant to protect the environment. As the definition states, they are expected to willingly and consistently work as per guidelines of provided in the mission of their organization. In this case, the mission of EPA is to protect the environment. During the Obama administration, this agency came up with the Clean Power Plan. The goal of this plan was in line with the mission of the agency. When a new regime came to power, the mission of the agency did not change. As such, leaders were expected to willingly and consistently remain consistent and support the plan that focused on protecting the environment. Abandoning the plan goes against the requirement of the agency to be consistent in its actions. Embracing contradicting policies every time a new regime comes to power will compromise the ability of the agency to meet its goals. It will also compromise the professional integrity of its leaders. Whenever there is a dilemma such as the one it is currently facing, Code of Ethics should always define the right path that should be taken to find a lasting solution.