Tuesday 27 February 2018

It is now 2 minutes to midnight by the Doomsday Clock!


The world is just ‘2 minutes’ away from a major catastrophe arising from climate change and nuclear weapons. The Doomsday Clock has been set to 11.58 p.m.

The Doomsday Clock was created in 1947 by the Board of the magazine The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. The Bulletin was founded in 1945 by scientists who created the atomic bomb. Shocked by the devastation caused by the Hiroshima bomb, the scientists wanted to raise awareness about the dangers of nuclear technology.

The Clock is a symbolic indicator that warns the public about how close the world is to a potentially civilization-ending catastrophe. Each year, the magazine’s Board analyses threats to humanity’s survival to decide where the Doomsday Clock’s hands should be set. The closer the Clock is to midnight, the closer we are to global calamity.

In 1947, the Clock was set to 11.53 p.m. Since then the Clock was moved forward and backward depending on the state of the nuclear threat. When the US and the erstwhile USSR conducted their first tests of the hydrogen bomb, the hands were moved to 11.58 p.m. In 1991, when the world’s superpowers signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, the Clock was set to 11:43 p.m.

Now, the Clock has become a universally recognised indicator of the world’s vulnerability to catastrophe from climate change, nuclear weapons, and new technologies emerging in other domains. The Clock is reset every January. In January 2017, after the election of Donald Trump as the US President, the Clock was set to 2.5 min to midnight. On January 25, 2018, it was set to 11.58 p.m.

Citing growing nuclear risks and unchecked climate dangers, the iconic Doomsday Clock is now 30 seconds closer to midnight, the closest to the symbolic point of annihilation that the Clock has been since 1953 at the height of the Cold War. The decision to move the Doomsday Clock to two minutes before midnight was made by the Bulletin’s Science and Security Board in consultation with the Board of Sponsors, which includes 15 Nobel Laureates.

The 2018 statement explaining the resetting of the time of the Doomsday Clock noted: “In 2017, world leaders failed to respond effectively to the looming threats of nuclear war and climate change, making the world security situation more dangerous than it was a year ago—and as dangerous as it has been since World War II. The greatest risks last year arose in the nuclear realm. North Korea’s nuclear weapons program appeared to make remarkable progress in 2017, increasing risks for itself, other countries in the region, and the United States. Hyperbolic rhetoric and provocative actions on both sides have increased the possibility of nuclear war by accident or miscalculation …. On the climate change front, the danger may seem less immediate, but avoiding catastrophic temperature increases in the long run requires urgent attention now …. The nations of the world will have to significantly decrease their greenhouse gas emissions to keep climate risks manageable, and so far, the global response has fallen far short of meeting this challenge.”

The Bulletin also said: “The failure of world leaders to address the largest threats to humanity’s future is lamentable—but that failure can be reversed. It is two minutes to midnight, but the Doomsday Clock has ticked away from midnight in the past, and during the next year, the world can again move it further from apocalypse. The warning the Science and Security Board now sends is clear, the danger obvious and imminent. The opportunity to reduce the danger is equally clear. The world has seen the threat posed by the misuse of information technology and witnessed the vulnerability of democracies to disinformation. But there is a flip side to the abuse of social media. Leaders react when citizens insist they do so, and citizens around the world can use the power of the internet to improve the long-term prospects of their children and grandchildren. They can insist on facts, and discount nonsense. They can demand action to reduce the existential threat of nuclear war and unchecked climate change. They can seize the opportunity to make a safer and saner world.”

Sivan Kartha, senior scientist at the Stockholm Environmental Institute and a member of the Bulletin’s Science and Security Board, said: “2017 just clocked in as the hottest year on record that wasn’t boosted by an El Nino. And that matches what we’ve witnessed on the ground: the Caribbean suffered a season of historic damage from exceedingly powerful hurricanes, extreme heat waves struck across the globe, the Arctic ice cap hit its lowest winter peak on record, and the US suffered devastating wildfires. And while this was happening, the Trump administration dutifully carried through on the campaign promise of derailing US climate policy, putting avowed climate denialists in top cabinet positions, and announcing plans to withdraw from the Paris climate Agreement. Thankfully, this didn’t cause global cooperation to unravel, and other countries have reaffirmed their commitment to take action against climate change.”

Monday 5 February 2018

India’s Poor Ranking in Environmental Performance Index (EPI)

The Environmental Performance Index (EPI) is produced jointly by Yale University and Columbia University in collaboration with the World Economic Forum. Policymakers, scholars, non-governmental organizations, and the media have relied upon the biennial release of the EPI for policy insights and tracking of trends in sustainability. The EPI turns the latest advances in environmental science with worldwide datasets to form into a powerful summary of the state of sustainability around the world. The EPI serves as a communication tool for translating complex ideas into simpler, more useful forms.

The single, 0–100 score for each country serves as a starting point for deeper discussions. Country scores on the EPI are translated into rankings. The EPI rankings are intended to inspire countries to engage in healthy competition, vying to rise to the top of their peer groups. Backcasting EPI scores from historic data allows countries to track their progress over time. In these ways, the EPI offers a number of insights that are useful for identifying best practices, informing policy agendas, and setting priorities in environmental governance.

Data analysis for the 2018 EPI was based on creating a composite index. The researchers began by gathering data on 24 individual metrics of environmental performance. These metrics were aggregated into a hierarchy beginning with ten issue categories: Air Quality, Water & Sanitation, Heavy Metals, Biodiversity & Habitat, Forests, Fisheries, Climate & Energy, Air Pollution, Water Resources, and Agriculture.

These issue categories were then aggregated into two policy objectives – Environmental Health and Ecosystem Vitality – and then finally the overall EPI. These metrics provide a gauge at a national scale of how close countries are to established environmental policy goals. The EPI thus offers a scorecard that highlights leaders and laggards in environmental performance, gives insight on best practices, and provides guidance for countries that aspire to be leaders in sustainability.

The 2018 Environmental Performance Index (EPI) ranks 180 countries. The top five countries are:
1.   Switzerland
2.   France
3.   Denmark
4.   Malta
5.   Sweden

The bottom five countries are:
176. Nepal
177. India
178. Dem. Rep. Congo
179. Bangladesh
180. Burundi

Some of the other rankings of interest are:
27. US
70. Sri Lanka
120. China
169. Pakistan

In general, high scorers exhibit long-standing commitments to protecting public health, preserving natural resources, and decoupling greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from economic activity. Switzerland leads the world based on strong performance across most issues, especially air quality and climate protection. India and Bangladesh come in near the bottom of the rankings.

Low scores on the EPI are indicative of the need for national sustainability efforts on a number of fronts, especially cleaning up air quality, protecting biodiversity, and reducing GHG emissions. Some of the laggards face broader challenges, such as civil unrest, but the low scores for others can be attributed to weak governance. The EPI draws attention to the issues on which policymakers must take further action.