RTCC logo

Climate and nuclear threats leave world ‘five minutes to midnight’

Doomsday Clock at ‘five minutes to midnight’ say scientists in letter to UN chief Ban Ki-moon

800px-Apocalypse_vasnetsov

The four horsemen of the apocalypse could be riding nearby, according to the scientists responsible for nuclear weapons

By Sophie Yeo

Alarm bells are ringing for scientists, who have set the Doomsday Clock at five minutes to midnight for the second year in a row.

Climate change and nuclear weapons programmes mean the world is teetering on the edge of an apocalypse, say the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists who, every year, adjust the foreboding minute hand to indicate our proximity to catastrophe.

In a letter to UN chief Ban Ki-moon, the scientists write: “even though there have been positive developments in the renewable energy field over the last year, worldwide efforts to limit the carbon dioxide emissions that cause climate change have largely stalled, with emission-reduction programs being used as political footballs in several industrialized countries.”

The Doomsday Clock was set up in 1947 by the scientists who helped to develop the first atomic weapons in the Manhattan Project in 1945.

Since then, they have reset the minute hand each year to reflect how close the planet has moved towards an apocalyptic catastrophe.

At first, this was a response to nuclear threat—it dipped to an all-time two minute to midnight low in 1953 when the US and Soviet Union both tested thermonuclear devices—but since 2007, it has also factored in the threat of climate change.

doomsday-clock

Ignoring the signals

In 2013, the UN’s latest and most comprehensive climate science report stated that the facts behind climate change was “unequivocal” and would bring along problems such as rising sea levels, acidifying oceans and shrinking ice sheets.

But despite this message, and the development and falling costs of renewable energy, “the world has failed to effectively curb emissions and adapt to a changing climate,” say the scientists, citing stalling efforts to cut emissions across the industrialised world.

This was most clearly demonstrated by Japan, they say, who reneged on their 25% emissions reduction pledges to an increase of 3.1% on 1990 levels in the midst of the UN’s climate change negotiations in November last year.

This is in addition to the failure of Russia and the US to reach an agreement over their nuclear weapons, exacerbated this year by Putin’s decision to shelter American NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.

“Since the end of World War II, the Bulletin has focused on the interface between scientific discovery and self-governance. Humanity has been sorely tested during its attempts to control the implements of nuclear warfare,” write the scientists in their letter to Ban.

But they add: “The difficulties of managing dangerous technology are perhaps even more challenging when the threat is not the fierce immediacy of atomic explosion, but slow, creeping dangers like rising carbon-dioxide levels or increased access to dual-use science.”

Related News

Nuclear “essential” in climate fight say leading scientists

IPCC chief Pachauri says climate fight “five minutes to midnight”

China leads nuclear energy expansion in Asia

Burke’s Blog #1: UK energy guru on why nuclear is not the answer

  • Philip Haddad

    I am glad someone is recognizing the threat of nuclear technology. Even if they were absolutely safe, nuclear power emits more than twice the total heat as its electrical output. It is heat, not CO2 that is the main problem. (All energy ultimately becomes heat). The heat emissions alone from our energy consumption are four times the amount that can be attributed to the actual measured rise in atmospheric temperature. If the “scientists” studying the cause/s of global warming did not consider this and include it in their climate models they were derelict and were promoting their own preconceived belief that CO2 was going to be determined as the cause. You can determine for yourself the potential for global warming. For example: in 2008 heat emissions were 50x10E16 btus. The mass of the atmosphere is 1166x10E16 pounds with a specific heat of 0.24 Btu/ #-*F. And it keeps rising. From the standpoint of heat emission, methane is no better than coal. It emits one half the CO2 for a given amount of heat delivered, but CO2 is NOT the main problem.