No, today’s talker isn’t about the mystery of why the Mayan calendar runs out in 2012 (“Dang, my chisel broke.” “Ah, forget it. No one will notice. Wanna catch the ritual sacrifice and go out for bite?”) It’s about the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists decision to move their “Doomsday Clock” one minute closer to midnight. That gives the world a figurative five minutes.
The group, which started the clock in 1947 and last updated it in 2010 by moving it back a minute, said it appeared the progress it had hoped world leaders were making did not come about. The group cited the ongoing failure to address global warming or take stronger steps to reduce nuclear weapons and control the proliferation.
This is a rundown of the major issues affecting the position of the clock.
Here’s a summary from Allison Macfarlane, chair of BAS’ Science and Security Board and a member of the Blue Ribbon Commission on American’s Nuclear Future:
“The global community may be near a point of no return in efforts to prevent catastrophe from changes in Earth’s atmosphere. The International Energy Agency projects that, unless societies begin building alternatives to carbon-emitting energy technologies over the next five years, the world is doomed to a warmer climate, harsher weather, droughts, famine, water scarcity, rising sea levels, loss of island nations, and increasing ocean acidification. Since fossil-fuel burning power plants and infrastructure built in 2012-2020 will produce energy—and emissions—for 40 to 50 years, the actions taken in the next few years will set us on a path that will be impossible to redirect. Even if policy leaders decide in the future to reduce reliance on carbon-emitting technologies, it will be too late.”
The group noted that various actions that would make the world safer haven’t happened — ratification by the United States and China of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; better, multinational management of civilian nuclear material; a stronger oversight role for the International Atomic Energy Agency; international climate change agreements; retirment of older coal plants and requiring carbon capture in newer ones; and vastly increasing investment in alternative energy.
The clock has been as far back as 17 minutes from midnight in 1991 after the end of the Cold War and movement toward greater disarmament, and as close as two minutes in 1953 after the United States and Soviet Union each tested hydrogen bombs. You can find the whole timeline here.
So, what do you think? Does this pretty much fall along the usual fault lines of liberal vs. conservative on climate change and defense spending? Or is it more nuanced?