#Define intensity driver

An apples-to-apples comparison of hydrogen production carbon intensity would hold benefits for stakeholders throughout the value chain-producers, users, engineers, academia, market participants, investors and policymakers. Precise measurements of hydrogen’s carbon intensity at the production facility (also known as the asset level) are needed to more accurately reflect the environmental bona fides of a given kilogram of hydrogen produced and overcome the limitations of the “color-wheel” labeling model. There is a high degree of variability in the carbon intensity of hydrogen production, even using the same technologies or pathways. At the invitation of GTI, NETL experts are offering their technical expertise and capabilities to assist industry in the pursuit of the development and deployment of hydrogen technologies in a carbon-constrained future.

#Define intensity driver

Thus, the level of moral intensity is higher when an act has a significant effect on a single individual, as opposed to a modest effect on many people.WASHINGTON, DC (FEBRUARY 16, 2022)-GTI Energy, S&P Global Commodity Insights and the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) today launched the Open Hydrogen Initiative (OHI), a new collaboration to further transparency into the environmental impact of hydrogen production and help unlock its full potential as an important driver of energy transitions. This is an inverse function of the number of people affected by an act of a given magnitude.

Thus, an effect that will be experienced by the person in the adjacent cubicle has a higher proximity effect than when the effect will be experienced by someone in a different country.

When there is a high degree of proximity, a person is much more likely to carefully evaluate the available choices. This is the feeling of nearness, either socially, psychologically, culturally, or physically, that the person has for the victims (or beneficiaries) of the act in question. When the effect is in the near future, it is considered to have a higher degree of moral intensity, and so is more likely to prevent unethical behavior. This is the length of time between the present and the onset of the consequences of a moral decision.

Thus, the level of moral intensity increases in conjunction with the probability of an adverse event arising from a decision. This is a calculation that the act in question will actually take place, and that the act will either cause harm or create a benefit. Social consensus is frequently codified into laws, which make it quite clear what is and is not acceptable. When there is a high degree of social consensus, there is little ambiguity about what should be done. This is the degree of social agreement that an act is either good or evil. Most moral decisions do not reach a threshold above which there are such massive effects, so the magnitude of the consequences only applies to a small number of situations. Thus, a decision that causes the death of a person is more consequential than one that causes a minor injury. This is the sum of the harms imposed on the victims of the decision (or alternatively, the sum of the benefits of the recipients). This model holds that there are several specific issues that influence how a person makes a moral judgment. The concept was best described by Professor Thomas Jones of the University of Washington, who devised the issue-contingent model.

When there is a high degree of moral intensity, this typically increases a person’s moral sensitivity and judgment, resulting in decisions not to engage in unethical behavior. Moral intensity is the degree of feeling that a person has about the consequences of a moral choice.