Content uploaded by Jürgen Scheffran
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jürgen Scheffran on Jan 26, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
10 Global Responsibility | Issue 63 | April 2012
Introduction
Nuclear war and climate change are important dangers of
our time. The nuclear menace has survived the Cold War
and will continue to threaten life on earth as long as its de-
structive potential persists. A renewed nuclear arms race
would consume considerable resources and undermine
the conditions for solving the global problems. Similarly,
global warming is increasingly posing severe dangers for
natural and social systems in many regions of the world,
as it could exceed their adaptive capacities and undermine
international stability. Increased reliance on nuclear en-
ergy to reduce carbon emissions will contribute to various
risks, including nuclear proliferation.
In the future, nuclear and climate risks may interfere
with each other in a mutually enforcing way. Conicts
induced by climate change could contribute to global
insecurity and create more incentives for states to rely
on military force, including nuclear weapons. Climate
change could signicantly aect the delicate balance
between social and environmental systems in a way that
could undermine human security and societal stability
with potentially grave consequences for international
security. On the other hand, nding solutions to one
problem area could help to nd solutions in the other.
Preventing the dangers of climate change and nuclear
war requires an integrated set of strategies and insti-
tutions that address the causes as well as the impacts
on the natural and social environment, strengthen
common, ecological and human security, reinforce
conict-resolution mechanisms and low-carbon energy
alternatives, and create sustainable lifecycles. This arti-
cle examines the linkages between nuclear and climate
risks, identies areas where both threats converge, and
oers an approach to move from security threats to sus-
tainable peace.
Nuclear weapons and climate change:
existential threats to humanity
While the nuclear arsenals have been reduced, more
than 20,000 nuclear weapons still remain, enough to
destroy the planet multiple times over. The continued
existence of nuclear weapons bears incalculable risks and
undermines eorts to prevent further states and non-state
actors from acquiring the bomb. With nuclear deterrence
strategies still in place, the risks of nuclear war remain im-
minent. More than a thousand tons of nuclear-weapons
usable materials remain as well, and with the projected
increase of nuclear energy the precursors for nuclear
weapons development are thus proliferating. The possi-
bility that nuclear weapons or sensitive nuclear materials
could fall into the hands of terrorists cannot be ruled out.
The nuclear weapon states set a bad example that
continues to drive the pursuit of know-how and tech-
nology for nuclear weapons by other states. Military re-
sponses, including missile defence, counter-proliferation
and nuclear weapons, fuel the arms race and undermine
the political stability necessary for the controlled main-
tenance of nuclear weapons, which cannot be guaran-
teed in the long run. Fatal accidents remain possible.
Without a systematic and controlled elimination of the
nuclear threat, an intentional or accidental use of nuclear
weapons is a matter of time. To move away from the nu-
clear abyss, the world needs to abolish all nuclear weap-
ons as well as the main incentives for their development.
Not less dramatic are the risks of global warming,
caused by the emissions of carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases. The fourth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
has drawn a dire picture. Climate change endangers
ecosystems and social systems all over the world. The
degradation of natural resources, the decline of water
and food supplies, forced migration, and more fre-
quent and intense disasters will greatly aect popula-
tion clusters, big and small. Climate-related shocks will
add stress to the world’s existing conicts and act as a
“threat multiplier” in already fragile regions. This could
contribute to a decline of international stability and
trigger hostility between people and nations, under-
mining the conditions for peace.
Cascading risks
During the East-West conict, nuclear war was seen as
humanity’s gravest threat, and it may still be in terms of
potential destructiveness. After September 11, 2001, in-
ternational attention shifted towards terrorism, and the
Bush Administration used the terror attacks as an argu-
ment to make nuclear disarmament, as well as climate
policy, a low priority. This view neglected the fact that
the continued existence of nuclear weapons perpetuated
the possibility of nuclear terror attacks. Furthermore, in-
ternational destabilization resulting from climate change
could provoke conicts and terrorism in fragile regions of
the world.
Following the IPCC reports in 2007, attention increas-
ingly shifted to the security risks of global warming. There
was growing concern about large-scale cascading events
in the climate system that could lead to international in-
stability and become as devastating as a nuclear disaster.
Among the potential tipping elements are the loss of the
South Asian monsoon and the Amazon rainforest, the
breakdown of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation,
polar ice melting and global sea-level rise. In April 2007
and in August 2011, the UN Security Council held debates
on climate change indicating that global warming has
elevated to the top of the international security agenda,
rivaling the threat of war. In Spring 2008, the European
Commission issued a report stating that climate change is
best viewed as a “threat multiplier” which exacerbates ex-
isting trends, tensions and instability in regions which are
already fragile and conict prone. Whether climate change
will lead to violent conict or rather to international coop-
eration, is still debated in the scientic community.
As several natural disasters in recent years have dem-
onstrated, extreme weather events, environmental deg-
Climate Change, Nuclear Risks
and Nuclear Disarmament
By Jürgen Scheran
Bison Skull. Photo: © Dimitri Castrique, www.sxc.hu
11
Global Responsibility | Issue 63 | April 2012
radation and major seismic events can also directly cause
dangers for nuclear safety and security. The wildres
that spread through Russia in the summer of 2010 posed
a severe nuclear risk to the country when they were on
their way to engulf key nuclear sites. In addition, there
was widespread concern that radionuclides from land
contaminated by the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster
could rise together with combustion particles, resulting
in a new pollution zone. Luckily, the authorities man-
aged to contain the res in time. Another example is the
earthquake that hit Chile in February 2010. As was later
revealed, at the time of the quake, a team dispatched by
the US National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
was on a top-secret mission in Chile to gather up danger-
ous nuclear stock. Only twelve hours before the earth-
quake, the NNSA engineers had secured the irradiated
uranium by tting protective impact limiters on it and
placing it in an airtight cask. Thus, the release of radioac-
tive substances was luckily averted.
Japan was less fortunate when a 9.0-magnitude
earthquake and subsequent tsunami hit the country on
11 March 2011 and caused major damage to the Fuku-
shima Daiichi nuclear power plant, disabling the reactor
cooling systems and triggering a widespread evacuation
surrounding the plant. The Fukushima nuclear power
plant is not the only facility located in a natural disaster-
prone area. Research conducted by the International
Atomic Energy Agency reveals that 20 percent of the
world’s 442 working nuclear power stations are in ar-
eas of “signicant” seismic activity. These events conrm
that in an unpredictable environment, nuclear facilities,
weapons and materials represent a highly volatile vari-
able in an already unstable equation.
Global warming or global cooling:
Nuclear winter revisited
Although US-Russian nuclear arsenals have been sig-
nicantly reduced (by more than two-thirds since 1989)
the total number of nuclear weapons in the world is still
sucient to destroy the planet multiple times over. A
comprehensive nuclear attack would eject so much de-
bris into the atmosphere that it could result in a drastic
cooling on a global scale (“nuclear winter”). Huge res
caused by nuclear explosions, in particular from burning
urban areas, would lift massive amounts of dark smoke
and aerosol particles into the upper parts of the atmos-
phere where the absorption of sunlight would further
heat the smoke and lift it into the stratosphere. Here the
smoke could persist for years and block out much of the
sun’s light from reaching the earth’s surface, causing sur-
face temperatures to drop drastically.
Recent scientic studies on nuclear winter suggest
that even a limited regional nuclear exchange could
rapidly cool down the planet to temperatures not felt
since the ice ages and signicantly disrupt the global
climate for years to come. In a regional nuclear conict
scenario where two opposing nations (such as India
and Pakistan) would each use 50 Hiroshima-sized nu-
clear weapons (about 15 kiloton each) on major popu-
lated centres, the researchers estimated that as much
as ve million tons of soot (impure carbon particles)
would be released.
Nuclear power and climate engineering:
high-risk strategies against global warming
Nuclear energy cannot signicantly replace the
huge amounts of fossil energy and causes additional
risks. While fossil energy sources release carbon into
the atmosphere, which is driving global warming, the
nuclear “fuel c ycle” (which is more a chain or a spiral
than a closed cycle) contains a variety of problems and
risks. Radioactive materials are released and accumu-
lated at each stage of the chain, including uranium
mining and fuel rod production, reactor operation and
reprocessing, and transport and disposal. These radio-
active emissions present a risk and conict potential
with international dimensions. An increasing number
of countries acquiring nuclear power as part of a “nu-
clear renaissance” would multiply the nuclear safety,
health and proliferation risks.
Nuclear power is also inextricably linked to nu-
clear weapons development. So far, about one-third
of the countries using nuclear power have built nu-
clear weapons, and only one (South Africa) has given
them up, besides the successor states of the Soviet
Union. A four-fold increase of the world’s nuclear
capacity by 2050 would cause the number of coun-
tries using this form of energy to double (MIT 2003).
At various stages of the nuclear fuel chain, transi-
tions to nuclear weapons technology are possible,
contributing to the danger of their worldwide pro-
liferation. Around 20 countries already have access
to such technologies. This trend would increase with
a further global expansion of nuclear energy. An ef-
fective control which excludes the civil-military dual
use in the nuclear sector does not exist. The difficulty
in distinguishing between civilian and military nu-
clear ambitions remains a source for discrimination,
threat, mistrust and fear in international relations.
Given the safety and security risks of nuclear
power and its limited ability and economic viabil-
ity in addressing global warming, replacing fossil
fuels with nuclear fuels is not a viable alternative.
Nuclear power has been proposed as a carbon-free
technology with the potential for a safe, clean and
cheap supply of electric power that is able to miti-
gate climate change. Because of the long planning
cycles and its inadequacy for use in combustion and
as transportation fuel, nuclear energy cannot re-
place in a reasonable timeframe the large amounts
of fossil fuel currently consumed. Since the uranium
resources are limited, a sustainable energy supply
based on nuclear energy cannot be realized with a
once-through cycle that avoids plutonium reproc-
essing. Even a drastic increase in nuclear energy
could not compensate for the current growth in en-
ergy consumption; it would come too late and is not
effective for preventing climate change and lead to
an enormous increase in plutonium stocks, with all
its problems.
Nuclear waste disposal (whether from nuclear pow-
er production, nuclear weapons programs or nuclear
disarmament) will remain a problem over thousands
of years, and many future generations will have to
bear this load without having the short-term “benet”
of the current generation. After decades of nuclear
energy production, the pile of nuclear waste is still
growing, even though worldwide not a single site for
nal disposal of spent fuels is operating and temporary
storage is continuously being extended. It is uncertain
whether and when a responsible solution to the long-
term disposal of radioactive waste can be found.
Climate engineering (CE) is another high-risk strat-
egy for reducing dangerous climate change by deliber-
ately modifying the Earth System. Suggested measures
include carbon capture and sequestration in biomass,
soil, underground or in the ocean; aerosol emissions
to absorb sunlight in higher layers of the atmosphere
(similar to volcano eruptions); and other means of
changing the Earth’s radiation balance by reecting
sunlight, e.g. through large mirrors in outer space.
To varying degrees, these measures have unknown
costs and risks. Moving from involuntarily changing
the atmosphere through emissions to the intentional
manipulation of the climate system and the regulation
of global temperature (like in a “global air conditioning
system”) opens a Pandora’s Box of competing actions
between countries.
The assessment of climate engineering should not
focus only on the technical and economic dimensions,
but consider the environmental, political and social
implications as well. They may pollute the environ-
ment, consume resources and investments, provoke
public resistance and distract from climate mitigation
policies. If these developments are not avoided, CE
measures could turn into security risks or trigger con-
icts for current and future generations. As a principle,
these techniques should not create more risks than
they avoid. Preference should be given to preventive
mitigation of climate change, followed by adaptation
against unavoidable climate consequences.
Nuclear-free and carbon-free:
towards double zero
Whether nuclear risks and climate change will lead to
more conict or cooperation will depend on how hu-
man beings and their societies respond to these chal-
lenges. In the 1992 United Nations Framework Conven-
tion on Climate Change (UNFCCC), countries agreed to
prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with
the climate system. In the 2009 Copenhagen Accord,
most nations supported the goal of limiting global
temperature change to two degrees Celsius by the end
of the century, but failed to dene concrete steps to-
ward that goal. During his election campaign in 2008,
candidate Barack Obama committed to deep cuts of
CO2 emissions by the middle of the century, a goal that
has not been further pursued during his presidency,
and carbon emissions have continued to rise. Obama
also spoke in favour of a nuclear weapon-free world in
Berlin, but concrete measures lag behind rhetoric. The
New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) is
a moderate step towards fur ther reduction of the US
and Russian nuclear arsenals but far away from nuclear
abolition.
On the international level, the goal of nuclear abo-
lition has found wide support, in particular in recent
12 Global Responsibility | Issue 63 | April 2012
resolutions in the UN General Assembly and a vote by
the UN Security Council in 2009. A number of NGOs and
countries expressed their support for a Nuclear Weap-
ons Convention (NWC) that would implement the com-
prehensive goal of a world without nuclear weapons.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s ve-point plan
for nuclear disarmament of 2008 proposes negotia-
tions on a Nuclear Weapons Convention or a framework
of separate mutually reinforcing instruments. Major
progress has not been achieved yet due to resistance
from the nuclear weapon states.
If the nuclear and climate problems are not tackled
comprehensively, one problem could impede solving
the other. As long as countries acquire nuclear power
and nuclear weapons, arms races and threat percep-
tions could spoil international relations, which in turn
could undermine the conditions for cooperative cli-
mate policies. On the other hand, progressing climate
change could undermine human and international
security, causing incentives to use violent means to
protect resources and interests. To avoid doomsday
scenarios, it is essential to strengthen the positive
linkages between both policy areas. Negotiations on
roadmaps for nuclear disarmament and carbon emis-
sion reduction could overcome the stalemate in both
areas. Regional approaches could help to trigger global
solutions, such as establishing Nuclear Weapon-Free
Zones (NWFZ) in the Middle East, Northeast Asia and
the Arctic. Regional partnerships in environmental se-
curity could prevent disasters in climate hot spots and
support the capacity building of societies against the
risks of climate change. In a win-win scenario, nuclear
disarmament would improve the conditions for climate
cooperation which, in turn, would support an interna-
tional political climate that would make nuclear weap-
ons increasingly obsolete.
While nuclear arsenals have declined since the end
of the Cold War and a number of arms control agree-
ments have been achieved, carbon emissions are still
going up and it is not clear when or if a peak will
be reached. The goal of the UNFCCC is far from be-
ing achieved, and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol specied
short-term emission goals for industrialized countries
and introduced several instruments. However, most
countries failed to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emis-
sions to the 1990 levels. For many experts, a maximum
temperature change of two degrees Celsius above pre-
industrial levels and an 80 percent emission reduction
by the middle of the century is essential. While this
does not exclude a number of risks, it is meant as a
barrier against the potentially more dramatic risks at
higher temperatures. To act on a global level, the inter-
national community has to agree on a maximum car-
bon budget for the whole planet that does not exceed
the temperature ceiling, and then allocate admissible
emission pathways to individual countries within the
budget limit according to principles of justice.
Among the short-term steps for nuclear arms con-
trol is US-Russian cooperation on strategic arms reduc-
tions and an international Fissile Material Cut-O trea-
ty on nuclear weapons materials. Similarly, a number
of adaptation and mitigation measures have been
proposed for reductions of GHG emissions which need
to be implemented. However, an incremental approach
alone will not solve the problems in either eld in the
foreseeable future. An integrated legal framework is
required that combines various steps for a nuclear-free
and carbon-free energy system in a coherent approach
toward a “double zero” of nuclear weapons and carbon
emissions.
To turn rhetoric into concrete actions, non-govern-
mental organizations have made specic proposals for
comprehensive solutions in both the nuclear and cli-
mate elds. The Model Nuclear Weapons Convention,
drafted in 1997 and updated in 2007 by an interna-
tional group of experts, outlines a path to Global Zero.
A model treaty for drastic emission reductions was
presented by NGOs in preparation of the 2009 climate
summit in Copenhagen, but unfortunately did little in
inuencing the outcome. To make progress, it is the
major powers that have to commit to drastic reduc-
tions in emissions and nuclear weapons.
Responsibility of scientists and engineers
Since scientists and engineers invented the technolo-
gies to exploit fossil energy and nuclear power, they
have a special responsibility in abolishing both. With
the advent of nuclear weapons, physicists called for
nuclear disarmament. Joseph Rotblat refused to con-
tinue working on the Manhattan Project to build the
atomic bomb when he learned that the bomb was no
longer needed against Hitler. He called for the moral
responsibility of scientists, in the form of a voluntary
Hippocratic Oath. In conjunction with the Pugwash
Conferences, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize
in 1995 for his eorts towards nuclear disarmament.
12 years later the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, together with Al Gore, received the Nobel
Peace Prize for their eorts in studying and educating
on man-made climate change.
Because of their expertise, scientists and engineers
can make major contributions to abolishing the nuclear
arsenals (e.g., by verifying the disarmament process),
as well as develop the technologies necessary for a sus-
tainable energy transition that would avoid further hu-
man-induced global warming. The challenge to avoid
dangerous climate change could foster the readiness
for cooperation, on local and global levels. And a push
toward nuclear disarmament could help transform the
international security landscape into a more peaceful
and sustainable world order.
Towards Cooperative Security
and Sustainable Peace
To establish a foundation for peace that prevents cli-
mate change and nuclear war, it is crucial to develop
and establish the concepts of cooperative security and
sustainable peace. New concepts of security could
serve as building blocks for a more peaceful world,
including common security (pursuing common re-
sponses to common threats), ecological security (pre-
venting environmental problems from turning into
security risks) and human security (shielding and em-
powering people against acute threats). Satisfying hu-
man needs and harnessing human capabilities makes
societies more resistant to climate change and allows
them to implement low-carbon energy alternatives
and conict-resolution mechanisms. Both require the
creation of institutions that ensure the benets of co-
operation via establishing and enforcing common rules
and regulations. Reducing poverty and implementing
human rights would signicantly strengthen human
security and build problem-solving capabilities. Less
wealthy countries need development cooperation and
international nancial assistance, e.g., by eectively
using micronance. A “Green New Deal” would provide
the framework for the nancial, knowledge and tech-
nology transfer required to build a low-carbon society
that tackles the challenges of energy security, climate
change and human development at the same time.
There will be no role for nuclear weapons in a
peaceful and sustainable world. On the contrary:
they prevent it because they are based on principles
fundamentally violating the conditions for peace and
sustainable development. The world should eliminate
and prohibit these weapons that symbolize so badly
the last century of violence. They belong to the past,
not to the future.
Prof. Jürgen Scheran is professor at the Institute
of Geography, head of the Research Group Climate
Change and Security (CLISEC) at the KlimaCampus
Excellence Initiative, University of Hamburg, and co-
editor of Global Responsibility. Email: juergen.schef-
fran@zmaw.de.
A more comprehensive full-length version of this
article (including complete references) can be found
at: J. Scheran (2011) Climate Change, Nuclear Risks
and Nuclear Disarmament - from Security Threats to
Sustainable Peace, Report for the World Future Coun-
cil. At: http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/leadmin/
user_upload/PDF/110517_WFC_Scheran_Report.pdf