Ethical Engineering Decisions

Advancing technology (especially energy sources) to be beneficial to cities, societies, and the people in them is, is without doubt a good thing. When I was first reading each of these articles, I was siding with the natural gas companies. My thoughts were that these normal everyday farmers and landowners were just being stubborn and unwilling to change for the better. After all, these pipes are going to be unseen underground, yield minimum restrictions to the property owner's land, get paid by the government for the land, and the New England area will have a more direct, cheaper source of natural gas. This all sounded good to me, and I felt as if the land owners would agree with the decision after a few years. 

But upon pondering this issue, I feel like I have a more complete understanding of what is really going on. I am not so sure the natural gas corporations are innocently trying to give a cheaper product to the New England area. These guys are thinking about the increase in revenue. They, the corporations, say that they are installing this pipeline will tremendously drive down the cost for the homeowner's and industry's energy bill. Is this what will really happen? No, what will happen is that the corporations will say that they have to pay for the construction cost of the pipeline and that they wont have the same (or more) profit margins if the price is decreased for the New England natives. So the first problem is the cost will remain high.

Another supporting argument that the companies are only looking out for their profit margins, is how they seem to treat the citizens of the towns whose land will be interrupted. I feel like their attitudes, especially with the case in Pennsylvania, are along the lines of we will listen to what you have to say to a point, but it doesn't matter anyways because we are going to lay a pipeline wether you agree or not. They have the power to do this because they know that their monetary power can persuade the elected government representatives to allow them "eminent domain". I believe this is particularly wrong when the corporations are trying to bury their pipes right through the middle of a nature preserve. That precisely contradicts what it means to preserve the land. This is problematic because if this ideology is allowed to progress, Yosemite will be made into a land mine so that a company in Silicon Valley will save $5 a month on their electric bill. I am no tree hugger or extreme nature conservationist, but I do have a problem with a monopolistic company being allowed to destroy everything in its path so that its profits will increase. 

The last problem that I see with this decision is how little the companies are willing to negotiate with the local citizens. Each of the articles read as if the companies can roll over anything that the locals say by appealing to the federal and state governments. Do the people's concerns matter at all? I feel like one way to improve this situation is to really be serious about compensating the natives. This can be done in two ways. First, the upfront payment for the landowner's land can be more substantial. I guarantee that the land that these pipeline companies want is worth much more to them than the appraised value of the land. So the companies can estimate what the land is really worth to them based on the profits that they expect to gain. The second option is to introduce a monthly plan to the residents of disturbed land. This can be thought of as the corporations have to pay rent for their pipes to be buried in the landowners earth. The owners of the land may even be able to set their cost to rent the space. If the corporation thinks that the owner's price is set too high, they can choose a different route in search of cheaper option, or take the financial blow, like everyone else in the economic society has to. If either of these options were implemented, the deal would be more mutually beneficial. The new technologic expansion would happen, benefitting the natural gas industry, while the landowners would get an increase in wealth for renting out their land. 

Engineering decisions should be made on this basis: what is the best, most mutually beneficial option that will progress the health, well-being, and opportunity of the society. The natural gas pipeline decision appears to not place much emphasis on the well-being of anyone who is in the path of the pipeline route. 

Thank you to anyone who takes the time to read my opinions. Sorry for any errors that might be present in my spelling, grammar or logic. 

Chris Maurice