The
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
is a media organization, publishing a free-access website and a
bimonthly magazine. It
began as an emergency action, created by scientists who saw an
immediate need for a public reckoning in the aftermath of the atomic
bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Since
1947 it has published the Doomsday
Clock,
which to date has been updated a total of 24 times. “The
closer the clocks’ hands move toward midnight, the closer humanity
supposedly moves toward self-inflicted destruction. As well as
assessing risks from nuclear war, the scientists incorporate dangers
from climate change, bioweapons and more.” [Time
Magazine,
24 January 2023]
Science
and Security Board,
Bulletin
of the Atomic Scientists,
2023
Doomsday Clock Statement,
24
January 2023:
A
time of unprecedented danger: It is 90 seconds to midnight
This
year, the Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists moves the hands of the Doomsday Clock forward, largely
(though not exclusively) because of the mounting dangers of the war
in Ukraine. The Clock now stands at 90 seconds to midnight—the
closest to global catastrophe it has ever been.
The
war in Ukraine may enter a second horrifying year, with both sides
convinced they can win. Ukraine’s sovereignty and broader European
security arrangements that have largely held since the end of World
War II are at stake. Also, Russia’s war on Ukraine has raised
profound questions about how states interact, eroding norms of
international conduct that underpin successful responses to a variety
of global risks.
And
worst of all, Russia’s thinly veiled threats to use nuclear weapons
remind the world that escalation of the conflict—by accident,
intention, or miscalculation—is a terrible risk. The possibility
that the conflict could spin out of anyone’s control remains high.
Russia’s
recent actions contravene decades of commitments by Moscow. In 1994,
Russia joined the United States and United Kingdom in Budapest,
Hungary, to solemnly declare that it would "respect the
independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine"
and "refrain from the threat or use of force against the
territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine..."
These assurances were made explicitly on the understanding that
Ukraine would relinquish nuclear weapons on its soil and sign the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty—both of which Ukraine did.
Russia
has also brought its war to the Chernobyl and Zaporizhzhia nuclear
reactor sites, violating international protocols and risking
widespread release of radioactive materials. Efforts by the
International Atomic Energy Agency to secure these plants so far have
been rebuffed.
As
Russia’s war on Ukraine continues, the last remaining nuclear
weapons treaty between Russia and the United States, New START,
stands in jeopardy. Unless the two parties resume negotiations and
find a basis for further reductions, the treaty will expire in
February 2026. This would eliminate mutual inspections, deepen
mistrust, spur a nuclear arms race, and heighten the possibility of a
nuclear exchange.
As
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned in August, the world has
entered “a time of nuclear danger not seen since the height of the
Cold War.”
The
war’s effects are not limited to an increase in nuclear danger;
they also undermine global efforts to combat climate change.
Countries dependent on Russian oil and gas have sought to diversify
their supplies and suppliers, leading to expanded investment in
natural gas exactly when such investment should have been shrinking.
In
the context of a hot war and against the backdrop of nuclear threats,
Russia’s false accusations that Ukraine planned to use radiological
dispersal devices, chemical weapons, and biological weapons take on
new meaning as well. The continuing stream of disinformation about
bioweapons laboratories in Ukraine raises concerns that Russia itself
may be thinking of deploying such weapons, which many experts believe
it continues to develop.
Russia’s
invasion of Ukraine has increased the risk of nuclear weapons use,
raised the specter of biological and chemical weapons use, hamstrung
the world’s response to climate change, and hampered international
efforts to deal with other global concerns. The invasion and
annexation of Ukrainian territory have also violated international
norms in ways that may embolden others to take actions that challenge
previous understandings and threaten stability.
There
is no clear pathway for forging a just peace that discourages future
aggression under the shadow of nuclear weapons. But at a minimum, the
United States must keep the door open to principled engagement with
Moscow that reduces the dangerous increase in nuclear risk the war
has fostered. One element of risk reduction could involve sustained,
high-level US military-to-military contacts with Russia to reduce the
likelihood of miscalculation. The US government, its NATO allies, and
Ukraine have a multitude of channels for dialogue; they all should be
explored. Finding a path to serious peace negotiations could go a
long way toward reducing the risk of escalation. In this time of
unprecedented global danger, concerted action is required, and every
second counts.
Countervailing
dynamics: Addressing climate change during the invasion of Ukraine
Addressing
climate change requires faith in institutions of multilateral
governance. The geopolitical fissure opened by the invasion of
Ukraine has weakened the global will to cooperate while undermining
confidence in the durability, or even the feasibility, of broad-based
multilateral collaboration.
With
Russia second only to the United States in global production of both
natural gas and oil, the invasion of Ukraine sparked a rush to
establish independence from Russian energy supplies, particularly in
the European Union. From the standpoint of climate change, this has
contributed to two countervailing dynamics.
First,
the elevated energy prices have spurred investment in renewables and
motivated countries to implement policies that support renewables
development. With this rise in deployment, the International Energy
Agency now projects that wind and solar energy combined will approach
20 percent of global power generation five years from now, with China
installing nearly half of the new renewable power capacity.
At
the same time, however, high natural gas prices have driven a quest
to develop new gas supplies, spurring investment in natural gas
production and export infrastructure in the United States, the EU,
Africa, and elsewhere, largely financed by major oil and gas
transnationals and investment firms. This private capital continues
to flow into developing new fossil fuel resources, even while public
finance is facing pressure to pull out. All G7 countries have pledged
to end public financing of international fossil fuel projects this
year, and the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, a group of eight
countries, has formally committed to end new concessions, licensing
or leasing rounds for oil and gas production and exploration, and to
set a timeline for ending production that is consistent with their
Paris agreement pledges.
Notwithstanding
these two processes, both of which should in principle reduce demand
for Russian gas, Russia was on course in 2022 to earn as much as the
previous year from oil and gas exports, largely owing to continued
European demand.
As
a consequence, global carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil
fuels, after having rebounded from the COVID economic decline to an
all-time high in 2021, continued to rise in 2022 and hit another
record high. A decline in Chinese emissions was overshadowed by a
rise in the United States, India, and elsewhere….