Preventing Climate Conflicts:Cooperative Approaches to Facing the Security Risks of Global Warming by Jürgen Scheffran and Janpeter Schilling

A rapidly depleting resource-base combined with an ever growing demand for energy and food creates a great challenge to the world of the 21st

century. What makes this challenge unique is that humankind is beginning to experience the out-comes of its own unsustainable environmental behaviour on a global scale. With climate change we are becoming threats to ourselves, however with significant differences in terms of the re-sponsibilities of those causing it and the risks to those affected by it. The other global threat com-peting with global warming is nuclear war, which is also predicted to have a devastating but cooling impact on the planet’s atmosphere.

The linkages between climate change, natural re-sources, human needs and societal stability are highly complex and interwoven in various ways (see graph in Figure 1). Since climate change affects many of these links at the same time, there is the possibility that it can trigger cascading events and tipping points, leading to societal instability, security risks and conflicts, especially in already fragile regions. This is the reason why climate change has been called a “threat multiplier”. (For more discussion on the security implications of climate change see the list of related publications at the end of this ar-ticle).

To prevent these destabilizing effects cooperation and strategies are needed which respond to the diverse char-acter and tremendous implications of the problem. The graph can help to identify the decision points along the

causal chain where strategies for stabilizing this interac-tion could be effective. The following article sketches possible options for conflict prevention and cooperation and draws conclusions with a view on the Copenhagen climate change summit in December this year.

International instruments for emission reduction and resource efficiency

The signatories of the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) have agreed to prevent dan-gerous levels of anthropogenic climate change (Art.2). Since greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are the main driver for climate change, reducing them means tackling the problem at its roots. Through more efficient and low-carbon uses of energy, less resources are needed to sus-tain the current level of wealth. For example in Europe this would mean to accelerate the decentralization of the energy market and to make better use of geographi-cally favorable locations for renewable energy. In this context, it is important to further develop sustainability criteria for renewable energy sources such as bioenergy to minimize land use conflicts with food production, en-vironmental protection and development. There is also a significant potential for the efficient use and recycling of waste material.

In order to give developing countries the opportunity to increase their welfare level without having to use low-efficiency, highly polluting technologies (and therefore contributing more to climate change), it is essential that

developed countries need to redirect the subsidies of fos-sil fuel or nuclear power to renewable energy and pro-vide innovative technologies as well as capital. This calls for an intensified use and implementation of interna-tional collaboration, agreements and instruments such as taxes, emission trading schemes, and other Kyoto instruments. Countries can strengthen their cooperation in energy policy through multilateral funds such as the Global Environment Facility or the Carbon Finance Unit. Here, national protectionism has to be replaced by a gen-uine multilateral approach. Cooperative approaches are also important when it comes to internationally recog-nizing the environment as a GHG sink. Countries should be rewarded for preserving natural ecosystems such as tropical rainforests and wetlands. It is a challenge to bet-ter understand and adapt to the natural carbon cycle, rather than transform it with large-scale geoengineer-ing experiments.

Plant in dryed out area. Photo © Max Velsen, www.sxc.hu

Newsletter of the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility

Issue 60October 2009Global Responsibility

ContentsPreventing Climate Conflicts: Cooperative Approaches to Facing the Security Risks of Global Warming ............. 1Double Zero: Negotiation Challenges of Preventing Global Warming and Nuclear War ...............2Imprint and Contact ....................................................2International Conference, KlimaCampus at Hamburg University, November 19/20, 2009 ...........5Future Climate of the Arctic ..........................................5Environment, development, and conflict: The case of Darfur Excerpts from 2007 UNEP Study ..................................6Growth, Development and Climate Change: ................8Mitigation Alternatives in Mexico.................................8Valuing the Earth: A Scientists’ Guide to Understanding Economic Valuation .......................11„CRISIS 21: Civilization‘s Crisis in the 21st Century“ ....12Hiroshima and Nagasaki, August 2009: A Lesson for Abolition ................................................13Upcoming Events .......................................................14International Peace Bureau Questions Choice of Obama for Nobel Peace Prize ......................15Obituary for Maurice Errera .......................................16New German Charity Foundation: Support of the Communication of Concerned Scientists and Engineers.............................................16What is INES? .............................................................17The Challenge of Abolishing Nuclear Weapons ...........17Scientists for a Nuclear Weapon Free World ................18

To be continued on page 3

� Global Responsibility | Issue 60 | October 2009

The world is facing multiple risks and threats which pose enormous challenges to humanity. In the two decades since the end of the Cold War we have seen significant reductions in the nucle-ar arsenals. But with more than 20,000 nuclear weapons left the planet can still be destroyed multiple times over, even more as the explosion of a few hundred nuclear weapons may lead to a dramatic cooling on a global scale. More countries (India, Pakistan and North Korea) have joined the nuclear club, others are getting close, most promi-nently Iran. A number of countries are acquiring ballistic missiles, a few enter the arena of missile defense and space warfare.

Not less dramatic are the risks of global warming, caused by the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The 2007 reports by the Intergov-ernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) draw a dire picture. Climate change is supposed to endanger ecosys-tems and social systems all over the world. Devastating impacts on food and water availability, floods, droughts and storm disasters and large-scale events could affect large populations and force them to migrate. Increas-ingly, the security risks and conflicts of global warming are raised in policy statements and reports from think tanks and research groups.

There are various linkages between nuclear weapons and global warming. As Jonathan Schell has put it in his book „The Seventh Decade”: “The two perils have a great deal in common. Both are the fruit of swollen hu-man power—in the one case, the destructive power of war; in the other, the productive power of fossil-fuel en-ergy. Both put stakes on the table of a magnitude never present before in human decision making. Both threaten life on a planetary scale. Both require a fully global re-sponse.” In both cases, it is largely the most powerful countries causing the problems while most affected are the weakest countries.

It is notable, that both threats to humanity are closely related to the current fossil-nuclear energy system which generates more than 80 percent of the world’s energy. While nuclear power is inextricably linked with nuclear weapons development, fossil energy sources release carbon that drives global warming. Replacing fossil fuels with nuclear fuels to reduce carbon emissions means to replace one problem with another, given the costs, safety concerns and security risks of nuclear power. Some sug-gest geo-engineering approaches to manage the risks, such as nuclear waste management and carbon seques-tration. Burying the dangers underground only hides the problems since neither the nuclear materials nor the carbon will disappear but will remain a time bomb for future generations. More appropriate is to avoid the problem in the first place by a sustainable energy-sys-tem that is nuclear-free and carbon-free.

To move towards a double zero for nuclear weapons and carbon emission, the international community has to work together at an unprecedented scale and nego-tiate viable solutions. While the Kyoto Protocol was not able to reduce emissions to 1990 levels, it is essential to stabilize atmospheric carbon concentrations at non-dan-gerous levels, as required by the UN Framework Conven-tion on Climate Change. As the bare minimum scientists demand that temperature change within this century should not exceed two degrees Celsius above pre-in-dustrial levels. To achieve this goal, an 80% emission reduction or more by the middle of the century is widely held as necessary. Similarly, the elimination of nuclear weapons has found broad support, now including the US President and the UN Security Council. Ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, a strategic arms reduc-tions treaty and a nuclear weapons material cutoff treaty are logical next steps in preparation of the 2010 Review Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. However, a piecemeal approach will not solve the problems, and a larger framework is required in both areas.

To turn rhetoric into concrete actions, non-govern-mental organizations have made concrete proposals for comprehensive solutions in both the nuclear and climate fields. The Model Nuclear Weapons Convention, drafted in 1997 and updated in 2007 by an international group of experts, outlines a path to Global Zero. A model treaty for drastic emission reductions and effective adaptation measures has been presented by non-governmental organizations in preparation of the climate summit in Copenhagen in December this year.

If both problems are not tackled comprehensively, one problem could turn down the solution of the other, as was the case during the Bush administration. Therefore it is essential to strengthen the positive link-ages between both policy areas. Nuclear disarmament would improve the conditions for climate cooperation which in turn would make nuclear weapons more ob-solete. The vicious spiral of death needs to be replaced by a sustainable life cycle, instead of sustained wars we need sustainable peace. To end with Jonathan Schell: “Anyone concerned by the one should be concerned with the other. It would be a shame to save the Earth from slowly warming only to burn it up in an instant in a nuclear war.”

Double Zero: Negotiation Challenges of Preventing Global Warming and Nuclear WarEditorial by Jürgen Scheffran

Dr. Jürgen Scheffran is professor at the Institute for Geography in the KlimaCampus of University Hamburg. He leads the Research Group Climate Change and Security.Contact: juergen.scheffran@zmaw.de

Jürgen Scheffran

Imprint and Contact

International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility (INES)

Schützenstrasse 6aD-10117 BerlinGermanyPhone: +49 (0)30 20 65 38 31Fax: +49 (0) 30 21 23 40 57office@inesglobal.comISSN: 2072-3806

Editorial Team: Prof. Jürgen Scheffran, Dr. Joachim Spangenberg, Gabriele Krauskopf, Reiner Braun

Graphic Design: Benedikt Wohlleben

INES Newsletter ordering informationThe INES Newsletter “Global Responsibility“ costs 3,- € plus postage and packing as follows: In Germany: + 1,50 €Within Europe: + 3,- € All other countries: + 4,- €

Please send your order by e-mail and make a pre-payment bank transfer to the INES office account at Hamburger Sparkasse, Gabriele Krauskopf wg. INES, IBAN DE74 2005 0550 1280 4638 84 BIC: DE74200505501280463884 or send a letter with cash (Euro only please) or an Euro-cheque to the INES office.

�Global Responsibility | Issue 60 | October 2009

Sustainable development cooperation and adaptation

Since developed countries have better means to adapt to and minimize the effects of climate change, they are more robust and less likely to experience environmentally in-duced social shocks. Hence, boosting the economy through sustainable development that addresses the needs of people in less wealthy regions, strengthens the adaptive capabilities to manage climate change and thereby re-duces social vulnerability and security risks. Additionally, promoting human rights and effectively reducing poverty enhances the resilience of societies. In this context, de-velopment cooperation such as the Official Development Assistance and the use of microfinance institutions has to be seen as a measure of security risk containment. Consid-ering the magnitude to contain security risks posed by cli-mate change, it is insufficient to simply expand the current development instruments but develop focused initiatives, e.g. a new international fund to cope with the expected increase of migration phenomena.

Introducing global climate change respon-sibility and justice

The developed countries are responsible for emitting the largest share of GHG. Yet, it is the less wealthy regions of the world who suffer most from the effects of climate change. But this inequity does not only have a social com-ponent between rich and poor and a geographical one be-tween North and South, it also has a temporal dimension which unfolds between current and future generations. To achieve a balance of risks, costs and benefits a new global deal is required that implements ethical principles of climate equity and justice that could lead to a fair and efficient burden-sharing across generations and nations. For this purpose the UN Framework Convention on Cli-mate Change (UNFCCC) introduced the “common but dif-ferent responsibilities” formula to differentiate between the roles of industrialized and developing countries. For

practical purposes, the “polluter pays” and the “ability-to-pay” principles are relevant in this context. The challenge is to set country tailored emission reduction targets that are in sum sufficient to prevent dangerous climate change and concurrently do not overburden single countries or regions. Specific concepts such as the Triptych approach or the Contraction & Convergence proposal seek to achieve the delicate balance. While the first one envisions staged, sector-specific emission allowances to be shared among a group of countries, the second one focuses on a per-cap-ita emission target which will eventually be equal for all countries. A third option called Common but Differentiated Convergence allows countries to choose a reduction path according to their development. It is up to the developed countries to promote international emission reduction tar-gets and to account for an ambitious share of the burden. The willingness of each country to cooperate will be essen-tial in this process.

Strengthening cooperation in risk, insta-bility and conflict management

Cooperation is also highly important in managing risk, instability and conflict, as far as these are already unavoid-able. An intelligent sharing of forces on a regional and glo-bal scale has the potential to mitigate the effects of natural disasters. Among others, this includes flood and wildfire control, disaster relief, protection of refugees as well as prevention of crime and looting. International cooperative emergency plans are especially important for fragile and weak states where national responding capabilities are quickly exhausted when facing natural disasters. For this purpose the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee has set up a Fragile States Group that has defined Princi-ples for Good International Engagement. These principles need to be widely implemented. At this point it should be stressed that improving risk management and interven-tion must not lead to devaluation of crisis prevention, since this clearly remains the favourable option. Given the huge amount of resources still spent for military purposes

and the continued risks of arms races and wars (including nuclear war), it is an imperative to pursue arms control, non-proliferation and disarmament. A nuclear-weapon-free world would be an essential contribution to eliminate the gravest threats our planet is facing. The transformation of security policy would reduce the destructive potential of military forces, prevent new destabilizing developments of advanced weapon systems and establish regional security concepts built on conflict resolution and peace-building.

Small scale cooperation and participation

On the micro level, the inclusion of local citizens and stake-holders can serve as a participatory approach to deal with environmentally related security issues and bring in differ-ent views on solving the underlying problems. Giving the public an opportunity to participate in decision making processes, e.g. through public hearings, surveys, forums and focus groups, opens a window for early conflict pre-vention and mediation. This is particularly important for the management of natural resources where violent conflicts are often more likely due to a lack of alternative ways of articulating disagreement. Local participation can be integrated into regional development cooperation mechanisms.

Global governance and institution building

All of the cooperative options discussed, call for a new glo-bal governance architecture to implement an integrated set of effective strategies, ranging from mitigation to adaptation and from the local to the global level. This re-quires a strong international framework and institutions to produce appropriate solutions, rules and regulations. The goal is to create a combined strategy out of sustainable energy use, environmental protection, economic develop-ment and preventive security policy, incorporating states as well as non-governmental actors. New concepts of adaptive governance would adjust the actions and inter-actions to the complex and changing environment created by climate change.

Conclusions and implications for Copenhagen

The magnitude and complexity of the climate change challenge and its possibly severe and far reaching security implications can be at the same time overwhelming and depressing. This article tried to show that, while the im-portance of climate change can hardly be overemphasized, there are manifold ways, levels and sides from which the problem can be tackled. In order to succeed, it is essential that we understand climate change as a common problem which we can only face together by jointly developing the problem-solving capacities of our global society. Since en-vironmental destruction, societal instability and conflict are mutually reinforcing each other in a negative coupling, the world is facing the double challenge of achieving a dual transition to both sustainable development and to peace and security – concepts which can strengthen

Fig. 1: Causal links between climate change, natural resources, human needs and societal stability, with possible strategies.

Article from page 1 continued

ImpactProtection

Migration

Energy & Carbon

Stress

Preservation

Adaption

Response

Sustainable Development

Conflict PreventionCooperation & Peace

Participation & Governance

Climate Change

NaturalResources

Human Needs

Societal Stability

� Global Responsibility | Issue 60 | October 2009

each other in a positive way (see Figure 2). Integrated strategies seek to develop synergies between environ-mental policy, development policy and security policy. In December of this year, the participants of the world

climate conference in Copenhagen have the opportu-nity to show that they have understood this as well. The industrialized countries have to lead the way into a new climate policy area which is characterized by collective,

responsible and sustainable actions. Ambitious and con-crete emission reduction targets have to be the outcome of the summit. But as we have seen, this is only a small part of the solution. Comprehensive cooperation efforts in all disciplines and on all scales are necessary. A shift in international policy towards a combination of distribution mechanisms, market processes and interest structures is needed which adequately meets the inequities associated with climate change.

Figure 2: The transition from the negative coupling between climate-induced environmental destruction, instability and conflict to a positive coupling between sustai-nable development, peace and security. Janpeter Schilling is a research associate and

phd-student in CLISEC. As a young geographer he is interested in the interface of climate and peace re-search, particularly in Africa. Contact: ZMAW, Bundesstr. 53, 20146 Hamburg, Ger-many. Emails: juergen.scheffran@zmaw.de, janpeter.schilling@zmaw.de.

Jürgen Scheffran is professor in climate change and security (CLISEC) in the Institute for Geography and the KlimaCampus Cluster of Excellence at the University of Hamburg. KlimaCampus brings together meteorolo-gists, oceanographers and ecologists with social and economic experts as well as conflict researchers and media scientists. The CLISEC research group analyses and models possible impacts of climate change on hu-man and international security and regional conflicts.

Instability and War

Peace and Security Sustainable Development

Environmental Destruction

Confl ict Emission Increase

CooperationEmmissionreduction

Barnett, J., 2003: Security and Climate Change, in: Global Environmental Change, 13,1: 7-17.

Barnett, J.; Adger, W.N., 2007: Climate change, hu-man security and violent conflict, in: Political Geogra-phy, 26: 639-655.

Brauch, H.G.; et al (Eds.) 2008: Globalization and Environmental Challenges: Reconceptualizing Security in the 21st Century. Hexagon Series on Human and Envi-ronmental Security and Peace, vol. 3, Springer-Verlag.

Brauch, H. G.; et al. (Eds.), 2009: Facing Global Environmental Change: Environmental, Human, Energy, Food, Health and Water Security Concepts. Hexagon Se-ries on Human and Environmental Security and Peace, vol. 4, Springer-Verlag.

Brauch, H.G., 2009: Securitzing Global Environ-mental Change, in: Brauch et al. 2009: 65-102.

Brown, O., 2007: Weather of Mass Destruction? The rise of climate change as the `new´security issue, International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), December. http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2007/com_weather_mass_destruction.pdf.

Brown, O.; Crawford, A. 2009: Climate Change and Security in Africa. A Study for the Nordic-African Foreign Ministers Meeting, IISD, March.

Brzoska, M., 2009: The Securitization of Climate Change and the Power of Conceptions of Security, in: Security and Peace, 27,3: 137-145.

Bulhaug, H.; Gleditsch, N.P.; Theisen, O.M., 2008: Implications of Climate Change for Armed Conflict. Paper commissioned by World Bank Group for‘Social Dimensions of Climate Change’ workshop, Washington, D.C., 5-6 March 2008, at: <http://siteresources.world-bank.org>.

Campbell, K. M.; et al. 2007: The Age of Conse-quences: The Foreign Policy and National Security Im-

plications of Global Climate Change (Washington, D.C.: Center for Strategic and International Studies: Novem-ber).

Carius, A.; Tänzler, D.; Maas, A., 2008: Climate Change and Security - Challenges for German Develop-ment Cooperation. Eschborn: Gesellschaft für technische Zusammenarbeit (gtz).

CNA [The CNA Corporation], 2007: National Secu-rity and the Threat of Climate Change (Alexandria: VA: Center for Naval Analysis); at: <http://securityandcli-mate.cna.org/>.

Dabelko, G.D., 2009: Avoid hyperbole, oversimpli-fication when climate and security meet, in: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, (Aug. 24), at <http://www.the-bulletin.org/web-edition/.

Fagan, B., 2004: The Long Summer. How Climate Changed Civilization (New York: Basic Books – London: W. Clowes Ltd.).

Gleditsch, N.P., 1998: Armed Conflict and the Envi-ronment: A Critique of the Literature in: Journal of Peace Research, 35,3 (May): 381-400.

Karas, T.H., 2003: Global Climate Change and Inter-national Security. SAND2003-4114 (Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories, November).

Maas, A.; Tänzler, D., 2009: Regional security im-plications of climate change. A synopsis. Adelphi Report 01/09 (Berlin, Adelphi Consult).

Nordås, R.; Gleditsch, N.P., 2007: Climate change and conflict, in: Political Geography, 26 (6): 627-638.

Nordås, R.; Gleditsch, N.P., 2009; IPCC and the climate-conflict nexus, Paper presented to Synthesis Conference of the Global Environmental Change and Security program, Oslo, 22–24 June.

Raleigh, C.; Urdal, H., 2007: Climate change, envi-ronmental degradation and armed conflict, in: Political

Geography, 26 (6): 674-694.Scheffran, J., 1999: Environmental Conflicts and

Sustainable Development: A Conflict Model and its Ap-plication in Climate and Energy Policy, in: Carius, A.; Li-etzmann, K. (Eds.); Environmental Change and Security: A European Perspective (Berlin: Springer): 195-218.

Scheffran, J., 2008: Climate change and security, in: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 64(2) (May/June): 19-25.

Scheffran, J. 2008: Climate Change: A Security Threat?, INES Newsletter, Special Edition for the INES-UNAM Conference, Mexico City and Oaxtepec, 29.2.- 3.3.08, 14-16.

Scheffran, J. 2008: Preventing Dangerous Climate Change, in: V.I. Grover (ed.), Global Warming and Cli-mate Change, Science Publishers (2 Vol), 449-482.

Scheffran, J. 2009: The Gathering Storm - Is Climate Change a Security Threat?, Security Index, 87,2 (Spring): 21-31.

Scheffran, J. 2009: Climate change, Human Secu-rity and Societal Instability: Conflict or Cooperation?, Paper presented at Synthesis Conference, Global Envi-ronmental Change and Security, Oslo, 22–24 June.

UNDP 2007: Fighting Climate Change, Human De-velopment Report 2007 (New York: United Nations De-velopment Program).

WBGU 2008: World in Transition – Climate Change as a Security Risk (London: Earthscan); at: <http://www.wbgu.de/wbgu_jg2007_engl.html >.

Welzer, H. 2008: Klimakriege – Wofür im 21. Jahr-hundert getötet wird, Fischer Verlag.

Zhang, D.D.; et al. 2007: Global climate change, war, and population decline in recent human history, in: Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS), 104,40 (4 December): 19214-19219.

Literature on Climate Change, Security and Conflict

�Global Responsibility | Issue 60 | October 2009

Climate change is becoming a focal point for security and conflict research and poses a challenge for the world’s poli-cymaking and governance structures. The magnitude and diversity of risks associated with global warming could trig-ger a sequence of cascading events, involving environmental degradation, economic decline, social unrest and political instability, that could threaten human security and societal stability and lead to violent conflict. In parts of the world (no-tably in Africa, Asia and Latin America) the erosion of social order, state failure and violence could go hand in hand. In the worst-affected regions, conflicts may spread to neighbouring states, e.g. through refugee flows, ethnic links, environmental resource flows or arms exports. Such spillover effects can de-stabilize regions and expand the geographical extent of a cri-sis, overstretching global and regional governance structures. The devastating impact of hurricane Katrina in 2005 and the 2003 heat wave in Europe demonstrated that not only poor countries are vulnerable to climate change but the world’s ri-chest nations as well. Climate change could increase resource competition between major powers (e.g. in the Arctic) and in-duce strategies with additional risks and conflicts (e.g. nuclear power, bioenergy, geo-engineering).The workshop aims to bring together national and interna-tional experts to explore and discuss main elements of the current “state of the art” in terms of knowledge on security implications and conflict potential of climate change. Fur-thermore participants will explore research needs, both with respect to problem analysis and methodologies. Besides providing a snapshot of the current debate, it aims at building connections among individuals and research groups that can provide a basis for establishing an international network on climate security and conflict. In addition to reviews of current knowledge, the workshop organizers also invite suggestions for new efforts by the research community. This concerns both traditional concerns, such as the causal relationship between resource scarcity and violent conflict, as well as future large scale and cascading effects triggered by climate change. Effects for consideration can include harvest losses, floods,

droughts, sea-level rise, mass migrations and natural disaster, that together with other factors could lead to social stress, so-cietal instabilities, security risks and violent conflicts.

Guiding questionsWhat are the major causal chains between climate chan-ge and violent conflict, and what is the empirical basis for these linkages, revisiting previous assessments of environmental conflict?Which approaches, methods and theories are helpful for the analysis of the links between climate change, social stress and violent conflict?Is it adequate to call climate change a threat to national or international security?Are broader security conceptions (such as environmental or human security) useful for evaluating the violence risks of climate change?What is the likelihood, potential damage and resulting risk for violent conflict of water and food scarcity, mass migrations and natural disasters induced by climate change? Will the international community face more violent con-flict or more cooperation on climate change and the use of natural resources?What are the most likely and most adequate responses of the world’s policymaking and governance structures to address the climate-conflict nexus and what can institu-tions contribute?

Examples of possible topics1. Empirical basis of linkages between environmental stress

and violent conflict, revisiting the debate on violent reac-tions to resource scarcity

2. Empirical basis of past climate change and prediction of climate futures, in the context of potential effects on humans that might possibly cause conflicts, in particular water and food scarcity, migration, disasters

3. Conceptual approaches and contributions of academic

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

disciplines to understanding causal effects, cascading potential and tipping points in climate-security interac-tions

4. Impacts and conflicts associated with response strategies to address climate change, such as nuclear power, bioe-nergy, geo-engineering, disaster management.

5. Security concepts and their relations to climate change and violent conflict, connecting to the “securitization” discourse

6. Regional case studies of climate-induced security risks and conflicts: Sahel zone and Darfur, Middle East, Southern Asia, Central Asia, Latin America, Mediterrane-an, Arctic

7. Mechanisms and institutions for addressing climate se-curity challenges and opportunities for strengthening international cooperation and peace.

When: November 19/20, 2009Where: KlimaCampus, Hamburg University, in cooperation with the Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy (IFSH) and the Centre for Science and Peace Research (ZNF)Organizing Committee: The conference will be organized by a local organizing committee of participants in the Klima-Campus, Universität Hamburg, including: Jürgen Scheffran (coordination), Michael Brzoska, Martin Claussen, Anita En-gels, Lars Kaleschke, Martin Kalinowski, Jürgen Ossenbrügge. International Program Committee: Frank Biermann, Alexander Carius, Geoffrey Dabelko, Nils Petter Gleditsch, Bill Hare, Peter Nardulli, Karen O’Brien, Úrsula Oswald Spring, Ole Wæver, Oran YoungProgram: For more information see website: http://clisec.zmaw.deContact: Prof. Dr. Jürgen Scheffran, Research Group Climate Change and Security, Institute for Geography, KlimaCampus, University Hamburg, ZMAW, Bundesstr. 53, 20146 Hamburg, Germany; phone +49 (40) 42838-7722, email juergen.schef-fran@zmaw.de, regarding conference: ClimateSecurity@uni-hamburg.de.

Climate Change, Social Stress and Violent Conflict International Conference, KlimaCampus at Hamburg University, November 19/20, 2009

As the Arctic regions of the world enter into a period of unprecedented change, it would be well to plan now for policy and practice that will ensure and enhance the security of peoples, lands and oceans of the Arctic. The future is as near as tomorrow, next year, or decades from now, and to the end of this century and beyond.

Climate change in the Arctic has been surprising the ex-perts who participated in the work of the IPCC1 (Intergov-

ernmental Panel on Climate Change) because the rate of change of average temperature is exceeding predictions. The paper draws on current publications and websites, scientific research papers and breaking news about the future climate of the Arctic. The year 2050 is the target year by which mas-sive interventions are to be accomplished; the means of inter-national cooperation to achieve this is to be discussed at the December 2009 Conference in Copenhagen. Denmark. The successor agreement that will commence when the Kyoto Protocol ends in 2012 will be drawn under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

The information in this paper has been acquired from many credible sources, but relies somewhat disproportion-ately on climate change effects noted and projected in the Canadian Arctic. Nevertheless, climate change is global so observations about changes in land, sea and ice will be appli-cable throughout the Arctic, perhaps with minor alterations to fit regional conditions.

The future climate of the Arctic is examined here by look-ing at the projected condition of the polar ice cap, and the climate changes associated with it. Then a survey of the con-sequences of the Arctic climate change gives a sense of the vast extent and effect of the new conditions in the Arctic. The inescapable conclusion is that significant international atten-tion is required to bring governance and an orderly adapta-tion regime to the Arctic, now a new frontier for the planet. A sense of urgency is vital.

To read the paper (pages 70-94) and see the complete documentation of the conference please visit: http://www.pugwash.org/reports/nw/nwfz_sept09.pdf#

Future Climate of the ArcticConference on an Arctic Nuclear Weapon Free Zone Copenhagen, Denmark 10.-11. August 2009, by Adele Buckley

Ice Calves Large pieces of iceberg floating in a blue lagoon in Iceland. Photo: Daniel West © www.sxc.hu

Adele Buckley, Pugwash Council, Canadian Pugwash

� Global Responsibility | Issue 60 | October 2009

Conflicts have directly affected over 60 percent of the country [Sudan] for the last 50 years, and hence greatly influenced its development. Understanding Sudan’s complex mosaic of conflicts is an essential first step in establishing the linkages between conflict and environ-ment in the region.

It is acknowledged that there are many factors that contribute to conflict in Sudan that have little or no link to the environment or natural resources. These include political, religious, ethnic, tribal and clan divisions, economic factors, land tenure deficiencies and histori-cal feuds. In addition, where environment and natural resource management issues are important, they are generally contributing factors only, not the sole cause for tension.

Linkages between environment and conflict

The linkages between conflict and environment in Sudan are twofold. On one hand, the country’s long history of conflict has had significant impacts on its environment. Indirect impacts such as population displacement, lack of governance, conflict-related resource exploitation and underinvestment in sustainable development have been the most severe consequences to date. On the other hand, environmental issues have been and continue to be contributing causes of conflict. Competition over oil and gas reserves, Nile waters and timber, as well as land use issues related to agricultural land, are important causative factors in the instigation and perpetuation of conflict in Sudan. Confrontations over rangeland and rain-fed agricultural land in the drier parts of the coun-try are a particularly striking manifestation of the con-nection between natural resource scarcity and violent conflict. In all cases, however, environmental factors are intertwined with a range of other social, political and economic issues.

DarfurUNEP’s analysis indicates that there is a very strong link between land degradation, desertification and conflict in Darfur. Northern Darfur – where exponential popu-lation growth and related environmental stress have created the conditions for conflicts to be triggered and sustained by political, tribal or ethnic differences – can be considered a tragic example of the social breakdown that can result from ecological collapse.

It is important to note that while environmental problems affect rangeland and rain-fed agricultural land across virtually all of Sudan, they are clearly and strongly linked to conflict in a minority of cases and regions only. These linkages do exist, but their significance and geographic scale should not be exaggerated. That said, there is substantial evidence of a strong link between the recent occurrence of local conflict and environmental degradation of rangeland and rain-fed agricultural land in the drier parts of Sudan, exacerbating other sources of conflict, as is presently the case in Darfur.

Fighting in Darfur has occurred intermittently for at least thirty years. Until 2003, it was mostly confined to a series of partly connected tribal and local conflicts. In early 2003, these hostilities escalated into a full-scale military confrontation in all three Darfur states, which also frequently spills into neighbouring Chad and the Central African Republic.

The ongoing Darfur conflict is characterized by a ‘scorched earth’ campaign carried out by militias over large areas, resulting in a significant number of civil-ian deaths, the widespread destruction of villages and forests, and the displacement of victims into camps for protection, food and water. Over two million people are currently displaced, and casualties are estimated by a range of sources to be between 200,000 and 500,000.

The environmentally significant factors that contrib-ute to conflict related to rangeland and rain-fed agricul-tural land have been divided into four groups:

supply: factors affecting the available resources; demand: factors affecting the demand for resources;land use: changes affecting the way remaining resources are shared; and institutional and development factors.

While all the purely environmental factors are ‘supply’ issues, they have to be put into the context of ‘demand’ and ‘institution-specific’ factors.

Supply – an unreliable and dwindling resource

The environmental issues affecting agriculture in Sudan all result in a dwindling supply of natural resources:

Desertification, soil erosion and soil exhaustion (depletion of nutrients and compaction) lower ag-ricultural productivity and, in the worst cases, take land out of use for the long term. This has been well documented but poorly quantified in Sudan;Deforestation, particularly in the drylands, has resulted in a near permanent loss of resources in-cluding seasonal forage for pastoralists and natural fertilizer/soil recovery services for farmers. Defor-estation rates in the areas studied by UNEP average 1.87 percent per annum; Historical climate change has reduced productivity in some areas due to a decline in rainfall. A major and long-term drop in precipitation (30 percent over 80 years) has been recorded in Northern Darfur, for example. The implications of such a decline on dry rangeland quality are obvious; and Forecast climate change is expected to further re-duce productivity due to declining rainfall and in-creased variability, particularly in the Sahel belt. A drop in productivity of up to 70 percent is forecast for the most vulnerable areas.

Ever increasing demands on resources

The demand for natural resources in Sudan is uniformly increasing, due to the following factors: Human population growth is the underlying driver of increased demand for natural resources. Sudan has an overall growth rate of over 2.6 percent per annum, masking much higher localized rates. In central Darfur, for example, government statistics indicate a regional population (linear) growth rate of 12 percent per an-num, from 3 persons/km2 in 1956 to 18 persons/km2 in 2003. These growth rates are indicative of large-scale in-migration, in this case mainly from the north and possi-bly due to environmental factors such as desertification; livestock population and growth rates. Government officials and academics have tracked the population increase of livestock since the 1960s. In northern and central Sudan alone, it is estimated to have increased by over 400 percent between 1961 and 2004.

••

•

•

•

•

•

•

Environment, development, and conflict: The case of DarfurExcerpts from the 2007 UNEP Study “Sudan Post-Conflict Environmental Assessment”

Fuelwood market in Nyala, Southern Darfur. Photo: © UNEP

�Global Responsibility | Issue 60 | October 2009

Land use changes – a dwindling share of resources for pastoralists

The horizontal expansion of agriculture into areas that were previously either rangeland or forest has been a well recognized trend for the last four decades. The northwards expansion of rain-fed agriculture into mar-ginal areas historically only used for grazing has been particularly damaging. Three examples from the recent UNEP-ICRAF study of land use changes illustrate a major reduction in rangeland areas due to expanding agricul-ture:

In Ed Damazin, Blue Nile state, agricultural land (mainly mechanized), increased from 42 to 77 percent between 1972 and 1999, while rangeland effectively disappeared, dropping from 8.3 to 0.1 percent; In the El Obeid region of Northern Kordofan, rain-fed agricultural land increased by 57.6 percent bet-ween 1973 and 1999, while rangeland decreased by 33.8 percent and wooded pasture by 27 percent; and In the Um Chelluta region of Southern Darfur, rain-fed agricultural land increased by 138 percent between 1973 and 2000, while rangeland and closed woodland decreased by 56 and 32 percent respectively.

In addition to the loss of grazing land, agricultural expansion has also blocked livestock migratory routes between many of the widely separated dry and wet season pastures, and between the herds and daily wa-tering points. A further complication is that sedentary farmers are increasingly raising their own livestock, and are hence less willing to give grazing rights to nomads in transit.

Institutional factors – failing to rectify the issues

In summary, the rural environment has been impacted by a combination of ill-fated reform and development programmes, as well as legal reforms and failures in en-vironmental governance. One key issue is the difficulty of developing and applying a practical, just and stable system of rural land tenure in an ethnically complex society of intermingled sedentary farmers and transhu-mants/nomads. This has not been achieved in Sudan so far.

The net result – disappearing liveli-hoods for dryland pastoralist societies

The clear trend that emerges when these various el-ements are pieced together is that of a significant long-term increase in livestock density on rangelands that are reducing in total area, accessibility and qual-ity. In environmental terms, the observed net result is overgrazing and land degradation. In social terms, the

•

•

•

reported consequence for pastoralist societies is an ef-fectively permanent loss of livelihoods and entrenched poverty. Pastoralist societies in Sudan have always been relatively vulnerable to losing their livelihoods due to erratic rainfall, but the above-noted combination of factors has propelled many pastoralists into a negative spiral of poverty, displacement, and in the worst cases, conflict. Their coping strategies, which have been well documented, include:

Abandoning pastoralism as a livelihood in favour of sedentary agriculture, or displacement to cities; Increasing or varying the extent of annual herd movements where possible, with a general trend towards a permanently more southerly migration; Maximizing herd sizes as an insurance measure (assisted by the provision of water points and ve-terinary services); Changing herd composition, replacing camels by small animals, mainly sheep, in response to the curtailment of long-distance migration; Competing directly with other grazers for preferred areas of higher productivity (entailing a conflict risk); Moving and grazing livestock on cropland without consent (entailing a conflict risk); and Reducing competition by forcing other pastoralists and agriculturalists off previously shared land (as a last resort - the proactive conflict scenario).

Variations of all of these strategies can be observed throughout Sudan, particularly in the drier regions.

Conclusions on the role of environmen-tal issues in conflicts over rangeland and rain-fed agricultural land Pastoralist societies have been at the centre of local conflicts in Sudan throughout recorded history. The most significant problems have occurred and continue to occur in the drier central regions, which are also the regions with the largest livestock populations, and un-der the most severe environmental stress. As there are many factors in play – most of which are not related to the environment – land degradation does not appear to be the dominant causative factor in local conflicts. It is, however, a very important element, which is growing in significance and is a critical issue for the long-term resolution of the Darfur crisis. The key cause for concern is the historical, ongoing and forecast shrinkage and degradation of remaining rangelands in the northern part of the Sahel belt. Much of the evidence for UNEP’s analysis is anecdotal and qualitative; it has been gath-ered through desk study work, satellite images and in-terviews of rural societies across Sudan. The consistency and convergence of reports from a range of sources lend credibility to this analysis, although further research is clearly needed, with a particular emphasis on improved quantification of the highlighted issues and moving be-yond analysis.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Looting of natural resources - war economy resource extraction

Natural resource looting is defined as the uncontrolled and often illegal extraction of natural resources that commonly occurs during extended conflicts. In this context, natural resources are often badly impacted and also have a role in sustaining the conflict. In Sudan, the resources in question are timber (lumber and char-coal), ivory and bushmeat. Although oil is a contested natural resource in Sudan, it is excluded from this dis-cussion as UNEP found no evidence of significant un-controlled, concealed or illegal extraction. The looting of timber occurred on both sides in the north-south conflict. The most significant extraction concerned high value timber in Southern Sudan and fuelwood for charcoal in the Nuba mountains. In Southern Sudan, UNEP received consistent verbal reports, backed by literature, of extraction and export (regional and in-ternational) of plantation teak and natural mahogany by government as well as SPLA forces and associated militias, though extraction was limited on both sides to areas within their respective control and close to transportation corridors. Northern government forces extracted timber from Wau, exporting it north via the rail link, and from Juba and other Nile towns, ex-porting by barge. The SPLA exported plantation teak southwards, from the Equatorial states to Uganda. Both UNEP teams and the follow-up Darfur Joint As-sessment Mission field teams found an active lumber industry in central Darfur, in historical as well as cur-rent conflict areas. While it was not possible to deter-mine who the main actors in this trade were, it was clear that some uncontrolled logging linked to the conflict was occurring.

The elephant population in Southern Sudan was decimated during the north-south conflict. While it is likely that much of the ivory was shipped to Khar-toum, which is the centre of ivory carving in the re-gion, there is no firm evidence to identify the main actors of elephant poaching and ivory transportation. Note that while rhinoceros horn was undoubtedly a poaching target in Southern Sudan during the early stages of the conflict, this trade has stopped due to the virtual extinction of rhino in the region. Though UNEP did not find proof of an ongoing widespread commercial bushmeat trade, local people in Southern Sudan reported that both sides in the north-south conflict had taken bushmeat to feed their forces, with the result that the larger edible mammals such as buffalo, giraffe, zebra and eland are locally extinct throughout much of the south. In sum, the looting of natural resources has undoubtedly occurred in Sudan and has caused significant damage. However, the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement has reduced the scale of such activities, though looting remains an issue for Darfur, and to some extent for the Nuba mountains.

� Global Responsibility | Issue 60 | October 2009

It is not a question (a disputable matter) any more that the world is warming, that this warming is caused by the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) and that the effect on the climate system of the GHG released will last for centuries1. If, according to Hansen, a safe limit to stabilize the CO2 concen-tration in the atmosphere is 350 ppm2, with the

current concentration of 389 ppm, we have already about 200 thousand millions of tons (Mtons) in ex-cess. Certainly, the world needs to deploy technol-ogy that can replace traditional energy sources in the short and middle terms (10-25 years).

Indeed, there is no alternative other than rapid and effective mitigation to avoid the major adaptation tasks

and the climate risks to come. There are many known energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies that can contribute to reduce the carbon output of the world‘s economy to the atmosphere. A growing number of countries now recognizes the importance of energy efficiency through the entire energy chains, smart-grid systems and improved energy storage, and agrees in ac-celerating the demonstration or development of clean energy projects. However, in order to lower carbon emis-sions in energy, a mixture of technologies, to be applied in different scales, adapted to the variety of countries and regions, should be developed. On the one hand, the traditional model of building huge scale power centrals to distribute energy is becoming obsolete, and the normal waste of energy is enormous (about 60% in electricity). On the other hand, the International Energy Agency (IEA) projects that the world demand on oil, coal and natural gas will continue to grow up continuously 3. While IEA‘s evaluation can be questioned, we also know there is a risk of economical instability linked to the exploitation of fossil fuels, and many industrialized countries have realized they must stop reliance on this. Nevertheless, the energy demand is growing as well at stable rates in rapidly developing nations like China, In-dia, Korea, South Africa, Brazil or Mexico. Thus, even if the goals to a low carbon economy are agreed and met in the richer and industrialized countries, developing countries like the ones mentioned could easily contrib-ute to rising the world‘s temperature, if they don‘t make efforts to limit GHG as well. More importantly, in these countries such efforts must be encompassed with the building of sustainability.

Growth, Development and Climate Change: Mitigation Alternatives in MexicoBy Alberto Salazar

The largest current use of renewable energy in Mexico is hydropower Photo © www.peswiki.com

Summary

The findings of UNEP’s assessment of the environ-mental impacts of conflict in Sudan can be summa-rized as follows: Direct impacts are overall minor, but indirect and secondary impacts are major:

environmental impacts related to population displacement: very significant; looting of natural resources: significant; environmental governance and information vacuum: significant; and funding crises: very significant.

These f indings indicate that the way for ward on environmental issues in post- confl ic t Su-dan should not focus on the direc t legacies of confl ic t (which are relat ively minor). Atten-tion should instead be paid to the indirec t and secondar y impac t related issues, as well as to chronic problems. This would be best achieved by integrating al l of the issues into a hol ist ic recover y programme rather than attempting to separate them on the basis of confl ic t l ink-ages.

•

••

•

Recommendations

This report’s 85 detailed recommendations include individual cost and time estimates, and nominate re-sponsible parties for implementation. The integration of environmental considerations into the current UN programme in Sudan needs to be significantly improved. In addition, the environment-related expenditure that does occur – while acknowledged and welcome – suf-fers from a range of management problems that reduce its effectiveness. 1. Invest in environmental management to support

lasting peace in Darfur, and to avoid local conflict over natural resources elsewhere in Sudan. Because environmental degradation and resource scarcity are among the root causes of the current conflict in Darfur, practical measures to alleviate such problems should be considered vital tools for conflict preven-tion and peacebuilding. Climate change adaptation measures and ecologically sustainable rural devel-opment are needed in Darfur and elsewhere to cope with changing environmental conditions and to avoid clashes over declining natural resources.

2. Build capacity at all levels of government and im

prove legislation to ensure that reconstruction and economic development do not intensify environ-mental pressures and threaten the livelihoods of present and future generations. The new govern-ance context provides a rare opportunity to truly embed the principles of sustainable development and best practices in environmental management into the governance architecture in Sudan.

3. National and regional government should assume increasing responsibility for investment in the en-vironment and sustainable development. The injec-tion of oil revenue has greatly improved the financial resources of both the Government of National Unity and the Government of Southern Sudan, enabling them to translate reform into action.

4. All relief and development projects in Sudan should integrate environmental considerations. Better co-ordination and environmental mainstreaming are necessary to ensure that international assistance ‘does no harm’ to Sudan’s environment.

The full text of the study is available for download from www.unep.org/sudan

�Global Responsibility | Issue 60 | October 2009

Mexico and Central AmericaThe entire region of Central America is highly vulnerable to Climate Change due to its varied geographical condi-tions, great biodiversity and poverty. Besides, the lack of promotion of clean energy technology in this region is likely to cause a dramatic jump in the total emissions for the decades to come. In countries like Cuba, Nicara-gua or the Dominican Republic, the energy services are behind population growth and to date they represent a promising market to many potential providers. The case of Mexico is particularly important in the region, due to the size of its economy, its stage of development and the size of its population (109 million). Several mitiga-tion studies have appeared recently, showing that the mitigation potential of the country is high. The German Federal Environment Agency presented a proposal in which Mexico could reduce 39% of its GHG emissions from energy, transport and industry, with respect to the „business as usual“ scenario, by 2020 4; the Energy Rev-olution scenario for Mexico (Greenpeace)5 states that, by 2050, it could lower its level of energy emissions to 60% less than the level of 2005. The World Bank has re-cently developed a detailed economic study considering all sectors, in which the mitigation potential of Mexico is estimated to be (roughly) 8,169 Mtons of CO2eq. by 2030 6. The economy of the country, which is 14th in the world rank with major carbon emissions, is highly inten-sive in the use of fossil fuels (93%); in the energy sector, which is mainly controlled by the Federal Government, the share of fossil fuels is 88.4% (the most important, natural gas and oil). Due to its heavy use, Mexico has to rely on net importation of both gas and coal for elec-tricity. It thus seems contradictory that, at this state of affairs, new coal plants are still scheduled (Pacific coast) and one has been opened in January 2009. Additionally, energy in Mexico is not well distributed: generation ca-pacity is now 40% higher than demand, but 6 million people have no access to electricity and about 24 mil-lion of small domestic fireplaces are in use.

Renewable Energy

Renewable energy potentials in Mexico have been eval-uated and are enormous. While the total power capacity in the country is currently 46‘500 MW, the potentially of wind energy for electricity in Mexico could be up to 60,000 MW in 10-25 years; only in the states of Baja California, Oaxaca and near-by sea waters of the Pacific Ocean, this potential is estimated to be of 44‘350 MW 7. There are currently projects of electricity generation for about 2‘500 MW, to be installed by 2012; yet, many of these will be delayed due to shortages in investment. Even more, one cannot ensure that there will be other new projects to come. The wind potential for other uses, like water pumping, has not been estimated.

The largest current use of renewable energy in Mex-ico is hydropower, which amounts 23% of total electric-ity production 8; its potential in the territory has been estimated to be about 11‘500 MW 9, of which 2‘250 MW are already in project. Using hydropower instead of carbon, Mexico could avoid close to 240 Mtons of CO2eq by 2030. However, large hydropower stations are also

problematic, due to the strong social and environmental negative impacts they may have. The largest hydro po-tential belongs to the southern states of Chiapas, Guer-rero and Oaxaca, which are also quite populated and poor; many projects have been facing scandalous con-flicts with rural communities, which have been affected either by the work of the companies, military activities, or both. On the other hand, the so-called mini-hydro‘s, whose national potential amounts to 3‘250 MW, are limited in use and often face connection problems.

Geoenergy is the second important option for renewable energy in use. The current geo-electric-ity production is about 2% (950 MW) of the total; this already places Mexico as the third largest world pro-ducer. Considering its high potential (2‘500 MW), us-ing geothermal energy Mexico could avoid up to 620 Mtons of CO2eq. by 2030 and obtain, at the same time, a considerable saving of US$ 1‘200 millions. In contrast, nuclear energy (which is not renewable) stands as a controversial option in all national strategies of energy; with nuclear reactors it would cost about US$3‘500 mil-lion to obtain 24% less carbon mitigation than by using Geoenergy 6. The nuclear option seems to play a role for export, considering the proximity of the country to the United States. Finally, there is also a small-scale poten-tial use of geoenergy for cooling/heating systems which has not been estimated.

Solar radiation in Mexico ranges between 3-7 W/m2.9 It has been calculated that 0.1% of the incoming solar radiation in the territory accounts for the energy con-sumption of the entire country. Solar energy could have a rapid and promising development in the country; the main limitations, so far, are initial investment and legal regulations. This option also represents many business and job opportunities: some barriers should be removed and partnerships should be found. The extended use of photovoltaic panels in new residential developments could reduce 50 Mtons of CO2eq. by 2030, while us-ing solar concentrators for electricity generation could avoid 2,250 Mtons of CO2eq. by the same year6. In Solar energy, as in the other options of renewable energy, small and medium scale applications need to be acti-vated.

Bioenergy is perhaps the most visible candidate to be used more effectively with local resources. The di-verse uses of biomass have a mitigation potential of 890 Mtons of Co2eq by 2030 6. One can use organic incinera-tors; produce bio ethanol from crop waste or sugar cane; obtain biodiesel from low irrigation plantations; capture biogas in stables; recycle and convert materials such as thermoplastic with cellulosic fibers; use wood pellets to feed machines, boilers or stoves, etc. To date, the most outstanding programs which promote renewables cor-respond to the agriculture and farming ministry (SA-GARPA). However, a number of options that contribute to both, lower carbon emissions and improve produc-tion stand in university labs, working as pilot programs, or are used by few „avant-garde“ industries. In order to have a global impact, the know-how‘s of such projects need to expand very rapidly in the social networks and trade markets in the years to come.

Public PolicySwitching the main sources of energy to renewable/non pollutant sources in Mexico is controversial. During the Poznan conference, Mexico has committed „volun-tarily“ to reduce current GEI emissions to one half by 2050. This seems to be a very ambitious goal; perhaps adopted rather by the international atmosphere, in the sake of the image the government wants to promote of the country. But to date, there has not been developed any kind of serious policy in the energy scenario. A gen-uine energy transition has proven to be difficult to plan and dangerous to manage, since a large inertial trend is inherited in the energy sector, with evident monopolist practices and subsides, due to the influence of the en-ergy lobbies that profit from the current situation. The Mexican government declined in June 2009 the offer to join IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency) arguing lack of personnel for this purpose. While the Senate approved in 2008 an Energy Transition Fund, it has not been yet included in detail in any kind of pro-gram (investment in infrastructure is currently behind the expectations of the own government). So far the entire Mexican Climate Change Strategy has been in-sufficient; concrete actions, explicit means and funds are needed to achieve the goals, but these have not been stated clearly, nor have measurable-quantitative indicators been given. The Special Program for Climate Change (PECC, in Spanish) that was presented in July 5th did not bring anything new 10. It contains large lists of the main areas to work; references to currently on-going programs, which can help reducing GHG emis-sions; vague proposals, signing of statements, etc. The sections dedicated to the renewable energy sector in the energy projections are merely reports on the trends followed by several sectors and do not indicate any sort of promotion policy. The National Strategy for the En-ergy Transition and Sustainable Use of Energy of July 9th is practically void 11; it simply repeats the intentions of the PECC. Indeed, it seems that the problem of the GHG emissions has not been taken seriously by some government agencies. For many decades, the formula of adopting technology from strong industrialized countries has been used. The best option to natural gas and carbon is related to the benefit of using nuclear en-ergy in order to diversify the energy mix, and supports the idea of adopting carbon capture and storage: these are the options which require the highest investments. Much of the work presented in [10,11] appears to be a mere response, following the formulas suggested by the IEA, and perhaps assuming that financing for such projects should come from international agreements such as CDM (Clean Development Mechanism). If the Mexican energy sector felt itself as being in any kind of crisis, it might find an opportunity to restructure. It might consider strategic decisions in order to combine the renewable energy projects with some major ques-tions in Mexico and North America, such as the future of oil exploitation and the projections of electric-ity generation. But the high bureaucracy seems to be just waiting for better times in the emissions trading system; for an easy and direct way to open the agree-ments that will account for the major emissions cut.

10 Global Responsibility | Issue 60 | October 2009

Talking about open access to the grid, or a different pricing for renewables, is still far from reality; reducing the subsidies to fossil fuels is unthinkable.

Nevertheless, it is clear that the large-scale clean energy projects will be just one aspect of the efforts needed in the Climate Action. Actually, while Global Warming is an enormous challenge for countries like Mexico, at the same time, it represents a great oppor-tunity to change, in the years to come, the type of eco-nomic development; it is a chance to reduce the strong inequity; to stop the degradation of the environment; to end losing its (yet) rich biodiversity. However, the lack of vision in Mexico to integrate many of the cli-mate change alternatives with the urgent need of im-proving the inner development is remarkable. In fact, many of the ideal candidates for the use of renewable energy can be found in the small and medium scales, decentralized and diversified: these are the agents that drive the ordinary people‘s economy. Engineers, scien-tists and architects interested in practical solutions are needed; support to people who can produce sustaina-ble technology and promote the direct exchange of ac-cessible technology. This means, public policy must in-clude the possibility to work with the people engaged in social and economic activities, in the practice.

Sustainability and Potentially Important Sectors

Sustainability is known among many academic and so-cially committed circles which take as departure point to reconcile, in the long term, the developmental goals of society with the natural limits of our planet 12. The large amount of research work on sustainability [13-15] strongly suggests that the path to sustainability is worth to fol-low: it should strengthen the capability of our societies to adapt to the new climatic conditions; it should make the economy as a whole more competitive; it should make less controversial the structure of our society. However, the inability to grasp the significance of these concepts prevails so far. If we understand sustainability as an ide-al about the society, based in material results, we also understand that only sustainable ways can give a per-manent solution to global warming. An entirely different kind of society must be brought in. We have to change our style of life, our production methods, transportation, and the type of urban development. Since the interac-tions between social structures and natural systems are complex, we thus perceive that the impacts and the type of technological solutions for such problems have social and political implications. Therefore, we should include these implications when making choices.

In countries like Mexico (in Central or Latin America) where public resources are limited, and we often face many complex problems, one must face Climate Change beyond an environmental and global approach; one should integrate the actions of one strategy as a part of another strategy as much as possible. The highest priority must be given, thus, to the carbon mitigation options that best contribute to solving an aspect of the socioeconomic and environmental crisis our countries

are living in, and not to the actions that seem to ap-pear more visible in the short term; in other words, one should stop simulating action, limited to respond to the international call, or to preserve the interests of the few. For instance, a good option to face food crisis is to finance renewable energy options among rural com-munities in order to increase their productivity, or to promote soil conservation practices in order to reduce the use of fertilizers and GHG emissions from agricul-ture. In the cities, to invest in public transportation (train, buses, or roads for bikes) instead of fossil fuels subsides or extending the highway map, etc.

Among the climate change alternatives (which are really requisites) in which we are behind, we can men-tion the following: 1) substitution of fossil fuels (e. g., using a domestic solar water heater mitigates about 0.5 t CO2e/(m2) per year); 2) energy saving and effi-ciency practices to improve among 30-50% of energy consumption; this might include a fund to replace old devices, encouraging new technologies; 3) a new set of regulations for (green) building and improved quality standards for equipment and replacement; 4) public investment in research and technology development (public investment in research between 1995-2008 corresponds to 0.36% of the national income); 5) a national strategy of „zero deforestation“ (the average loss of forest land is about 0.5 million ha. per year), which can include reforestation for bioenergy (e.g., producing bio ethanol from abandoned or degraded lands); 6) an integral transformation of the agriculture sector (which, due to the current practices, destroys its own productive basis) including use of renewables, the production of organic fertilizers and biogas, techniques of soil conservation and agro ecology; 7) improvement of the cities‘ traffic and promotion of massive sustain-able transport; 8) waste management and recycling programs (since 10% of the national GHG emissions correspond to this sector).

As we can see, the above mentioned are all essen-tial affairs of the State (understood as the ensemble of people, government and territory). In this respect, although the sustainability quest seems to be the right thing to do for this country, it seems tough. The domi-nant classes do not have a strong need to change; the largest part of the research community does not con-sider sustainability as a topic. It thus remains as a great challenge to establish a dialogue with decision making groups, entrepreneurs and people‘s associations, to put to work some of the proposals mentioned in the na-tional or regional agendas. Perhaps, ignoring this con-cept today is what defines the absence of leadership in a meaningful way to climate change in Mexico, and explains why many decisions are frequently made in favor of the most immediate economic and particular interests. Hopefully the political scenario will change, and the regulatory barriers for renewable sources of energy projects will be removed in the years to come. However, one must extend the scope of the climate ac-tion, aiming for structural changes, and supporting the options that would clearly benefit our society (health, unemployment) or help solving other environmental

problems (deforestation, water). These issues are criti-cal for the developing world; they are novel aspects in which it can become pioneer.

References1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(IPCC), 4th. Assessment Report, 2007.2 J. Hansen et. al., „Target atmospheric CO2:

Where should humanity aim?“, Open Atmos. Sci. J., 2, 217-231 (2008).

3 International Energy Agency (IEA), World En-ergy Outlook, 2008.

4 „Proposals for Contributions of Emerging Economies to the Climate Change Regime under UNFCCC post 2012“, ECOFYS & Wuppertal Institute, on behalf of The Federal Environment Agency (Umweltbundesamt), Germany; October 2008.

5 „Energy Revolution for Mexico“, Greenpeace Mexico in collaboration with CIE-CIEco (UNAM), Unión de Científicos Comprometidos con la Socie-dad (UCCS), cand The European Renewable Energy Council; Mexico, November 2008.

6 The MEDEC proyect: „Mexico: Esudio para la Disminución de Emisiones de Carbono“, The World Bank; to be published.

7 World Wind Energy Association, 2005.8 Secretaría de Energía (SENER), Balance Nacion-

al de Energía, México; 2007.9 „Towards a Cleaner Planet: Energy for the Fu-

ture“, J. Clapp, J. L. Cervantes-Cota y J. F. Chávez (Editors); Springer, 2006.

10 Programa Especial de Cambio Climático (PECC), SEMARNAT, Mtexico, July 2009.

11 Estrategia Nacional para la Transición Energética y el Uso Sustenable de la Energía, SENER, Mexico; July 2009.

12 United Nations. 1987. „Report of the World Commission on Environment and Develop-ment.“ General Assembly Resolution 42/187, 11 December 1987. Ret.: 2007-04-12

13 R. Kates, W. C. Clark, et al.; „Sustainability Science“; Science 292 (5517): 641–642 Decem-ber 2000.

14 „Energy in a Finite World“, W. Haefele. & The Energy Systems Program Group of the Internation-al Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Balinger, Cambridge, U.K., (1981); C. S. Holling, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 4,1–23 (1973).

15 „The Industrial Green Game“, National Acade-my of Engineering; Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, DC (1997).

Alberto Salazar collaborates with Unión de Cientìfi-cos Comprometidos con la Sociedad (UCCS) in Energy and Climate Change and teaches at Universidad Anáhuac México Sur (UAS)

11Global Responsibility | Issue 60 | October 2009

Ever since the Costanza et al (1997) popularised the terminology of economics publishing an es-timate of the global value of ecosystem services, and since the Stern Review caused a trend change in the public discourse and in political rhetoric when monetising the impacts of climate change (Stern 2006), the monetary value of the social and natural environment (also called the natural and the social capital stocks) has found increasing attention in the public debate. More and more scientists and engineers which want – as respon-sible citizens – to make their professional insights on peace and sustainability issues accessible to lay citizens do so by no directly referring to their insights and suggestions, but by using cost argu-ments, i.e. the language of economics. The two main motives are

raising additional funds for environmental protec-tion by emphasizing its economic value, andchanging decisions affecting the social and natural environment (ending the situation of giving a zero value to it), based on Cost-Benefit Assessments CBA, for instance calculating the overall negative effects of a war, even for the winner.

However, both the framework and conceptual base of the terminology are disputable – in the current crisis the world view of economists has turned out to be nei-ther reliably robust nor extremely realistic. Well-argued doubts have been raised whether economic concepts provide tools adequate for solving the Earth’s problems. This is even more the case for monetisation, despite the honourable intentions of many of its proponents: the jury is still out to find if the monetary valuation of such things as the integrity of nature and the cohesion of our societies is the method of choice. Thus in order to be competent in deciding whether or not, and if so in which circumstances and with which caveats to use the language of economics is an important challenge to scientists and engineers. The following argumentation is intended to provoke some thoughts and to provide the background information necessary for an independent – and in that sense –enlightened judgement.

Values

To achieve this end, a closer look at what economic valu-ation can measure, how it does it and what the results finally do mean is advisable. But first it is important to better understand the object of measurement: what is “value”? Answering that question is the domain of phi-losophy, particularly of axiology, a sub-discipline deal-ing with value issues . Here different approaches and definitions of value categories, sometimes competing, can be found, but the most important are:

•

•

ideal values (from Platonism), abstract objects, eternal, unchangeable, perfect types, of which par-ticular objects of sense are imperfect copies, real and objective things that exist independently of us and our thinking, entirely non-physical and non-mental, unchanging and causally inert — that is, they can-not be involved in cause-and-effect relationships with other objects (Balaguer 2004). As ideas can not be perceived by human senses, whatever knowledge we derive from that source is unsatisfactory and uncertain. Valuation may be described as treating concrete objects as abstract ones, allocating value (i.e. a degree of importance) to them based on their content of goodness. This allows for an ordinal scale ordering of actions, but not for a cardinal measure-ment.real values, emphasised by Naturalism, a summary term for a variety of philosophical, scientific and artistic approaches. As opposed to Platonism, they consider real world objects as the only relevant basis to be taken into account. The approach of ontological naturalism can be summarised as “nature is all there is and all basic truths are truths of nature” (The En-cyclopaedia of Philosophy 1996). Epistemologically, this leads to methodological naturalism, the require-ment that hypotheses are explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events (familiar to natural sciences, but less so to economics). In this system of thought, values are necessarily determined by the inherent characteristics of the natural objects, which are predetermined and evolve according to the laws of nature. subjective values, also based on real world objects, but instead on their inherent characteristics they are based on subjective preferences. Thus they are social constructs, based on what humans individually or collectively value as important to them. Economics is one example of subjective valuation.

Before going any further, it should be noted that economic valuation represents a rather fundamental paradigm shift for the natural sciences in general. Formerly determined to reduce subjective influence on their measurements as much as possible, here subjective preferences are intro-duced as the valid basis for a new measurement method.

Subjective Values

Subjective value can be intrinsic (the value intrinsic to

•

•

•

moral subjects, it is a priori not open to exchange and substitution), inherent (utility directly provided by a unique object, valued for its own sake) or instrumental (an object as a means for achieving a given purpose; the value of the same object can vary with the purpose for which it is used). The instrumental values can be further subdivided into use values (subjective utility from having access to and being able to use a certain object, includ-ing the personal satisfaction gained from the use of the object) and exchange values (the ratio in which goods are exchanged against each other based on the subjec-tive preferences of different agents). Note that utility is conceptualised as a scalar, a common property of all goods constituting general commensurability, but not directly measurable. The price is a proxy, guaranteeing that goods of all kinds are mutual based on their respec-tive utility. Now, finally, we have reached the domain of economic valuation. Natural and social goods can pro-vide both, use and exchange values, but by definition only the latter have a price and thus an economic value. Already here another characteristic of economic meas-urement becomes obvious: whereas a rare species or the social cohesion of a community should be treated as hav-ing inherent value and deserving protection in their own right, applying the economic calculus defines the objects subdued to it as a priori substitutable, no longer unique, and it limits protection to the cases where there is a net utility gain from doing so.

“In the domain of purpose, everything has either a price or a dignity. Whatever good has a price can be replaced with something equivalent; goods standing above all pric-ing, and thus having no equivalent, have a dignity”

Immanuel Kant (own translation)

The method, the instrument and the object

Now that we have the method (exchange value calcula-tion) and know the measurement instrument (the market determining the price), we can ask how apply them to the objects chosen, i.e. to social and environmental, material and immaterial goods.

Using the economic calculus to determine the ex-change value of real products in real markets is straight-forward: the price is the value. For instance, take the value of timber and of non-timber forest products (not neces-sarily easy to measure) as the exchange value of what the forest produces. However, that does not provide value

Valuing the Earth: A Scientists’ Guide to Understanding Economic ValuationBy Joachim H. Spangenberg

Object: System traits Functions Economic value

Scientific method: descriptive analyticalsubjective,preference based

Table 1

1� Global Responsibility | Issue 60 | October 2009

figures representing the total of the value of a forest, but only a part, the currently sold products at market prices.

Thus the next step undertaken is to apply the method to non-market goods1, usually those having a use but no exchange value. This means the investigator has the instrument and the measurement methodology, but no real object to apply it to. What can be done is describing the hypothetical object (damage cost, replacement cost, avoidance cost) and derive plausible hypotheses about which measurement the instrument might deliver if it were applied. This is not an unusual approach in natural sciences, but the way hypotheses are derived in experi-mental sciences. In economics, however, there is no way to test the hypothesis: the hypothesis itself is the result. If based on a good assessment, derived in a plausible way and the assumptions made transparent, this is still a valuable contribution from economic valuation. The resulting figures can be helpful in environmental man-agement and guide investment to reduce damage (cost) in the social as much as in the environmental domain. But this still falls short of capturing the full value people attribute to desirable social and environmental charac-teristics.

So the final step economists take is to try the economic valuation of hypothetical goods in hypothetical markets, i.e. to assume that there would be a measurement instru-ment which could be applied to some imagined object of measurement. What are the results to be expected? The question cannot be seriously answered, as the instrument imagined (a market) is not applicable to the imagined objects (non-market goods): it is a bit like imagining a yardstick to measure the length of a litre of water, or measuring the weight of a mathematical object (i.e. a category error).

Furthermore, as there are different ways of imagining the tool (the market providing the valuation by defining a price), little wonder then that a plethora of methods have been developed, all simulating a market, but in a differ-

ent way and with not necessarily comparable results. As none of the methods developed is applicable to all the cases there is no chance to standardise the method (thus defining a convention how to determine the length of a litre of water).

This implies that economic value measurement is dif-ferent from measurement in science in that all measure-ment results are not absolute (with a certain error margin of the method and statistical variations), but are method-ology dependent. When measuring the value of any object with different methods, they can be (sometimes widely) diverging. In other words: the information “the price of object A is B €” is meaningless unless the measurement method explicitly described: measuring the same char-acteristic, the value, of the same object with a different method (often only a small deviation from the first one) and in the same measurement unit (money) would de-liver results which are just as “correct” or “sound” than the others, but might diverge from each other by several orders of magnitude. Consequently, there is no such thing as THE value of non-market goods and services, but there can be several ones. To determine the error margin, it would be necessary to use all applicable measurement methods simultaneously – which would document the best available knowledge, but still different objects would be measured using different sets of methods, and with due to the method dependency the measurement results would not be comparable.

Scientists should be aware of the shift in analysis from analytical to subjective, of the limitations of applicability of the economic calculus, and of the different meaning of measurement. In economics, where experiments are hardly possible, measurement is often replaced by com-puter simulations, based on the same assumptions than the hypothesis to be tested. Thus besides the limited replicability of measurements, there are inherent differ-ences between economics and sciences which should not hinder a fruitful cooperation, but which those involved

should be aware of in order to develop a responsible way of collaboration. Simply borrowing some concepts and key words is not enough, but might do more harm than good, now and in the future.

Not everything that can be counted counts, and not every-thing that counts can be counted

Albert Einstein

ReferencesBalaguer, M. (2004) „Platonism in Metaphysics.“ Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Accessible at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/platonism/: 2 April 2009Costanza, R., d‘Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O‘Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., van den Belt, M. (1997). „The Value of the World‘s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital.“ Nature 387(May 15th): 253 - 260.Stern, N. (2006). The Stern Review Report: The Econom-ics of Climate Change. London, H.M. Government: 576 p The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Supplement (1996). Key word: Naturalism: Macmillan, Houndmills, UK: 372-373.

1 Economists use a different terminology. To them, use values are all those values linked to the use of a good, directly and indirectly, consumptive and non-consumptive. All direct use values are exchange values, as is a part of the indirect use values, whereas non-use values in economics parlance (existence value, heritage value, bequest value etc.) are either instrumental use values or inherent values in the ter-minology used here.

Dr. Joachim Spangenberg is Vice Chairman of the Sustainable Europe Research Institute Germany e.V. (SERI), Contact: Joachim.Spangenberg@gmx.de

The aim of this book is to explore the links between the various problems facing civilization today. Although the problems are well known, it is useful to list them:

Threats to the EnvironmentThe global environment is being destroyed by excessive consumption in the industrialized countries, combined with rapid population growth in developing nations. Climate change threatens to melt glaciers and polar ice. Complete melting of Greenland‘s inland ice would result in a 7 meter rise in sea level. Complete melting of the Antarctic ice cap would produce an additional five meters of rise.

Growing Population,Vanishing ResourcesThe fossil fuel era is ending. By 2050, oil and natural gas will be prohibitively expensive. They will no longer be used as fuels, but will be reserved as feedstocks for chemical syn-thesis. Within a hundred years, the same will be true of coal. The reserve indices for many metals are between 10 and 100 years. Reserve indices are defined as the size of the

known reserves of metals divided by the current annual rates of production.

The Global Food CrisisIt is predicted that by 2050, the world‘s population of hu-mans will reach 9 billion. This is just the moment when the oil and natural gas, on which modern energy-intensiveagri-culture depend, will become so expensive that they will no longer be used as fuels. Climate change may also contribute to a global food crisis. Melting of Himalayan glaciers threat-ens the summer water supplies of both India and China. Rising sea levels threaten to inundate low-lying agricultural land, and aridity produced by climate change may reduce grain harvests. Furthermore, aquifers throughout the world are being overdrawn, and water tables are falling. Topsoil is also being lost. These elements combine to produce a threat of widespread famine by the middle of the 21st century.

Intolerable Economic InequalityToday 2.7 billion people live on less than $2 a day - 1.1 billi-

on on less than $1 per day. 18 million of our fellow humans die each year from poverty-related causes.

Meanwhile, obesity is becoming a serious health prob-lem in the rich part of the world. In 2006, 1.1 billion people lacked safe drinking water, and waterbourne diseases killed an estimated 1.8 million people. The developing countries are also the scene of a resurgence of other infectious dis-eases, such as malaria, drug-resistantant tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS.

The Threat of Nuclear WarDespite the end of the Cold War, the threat of a nuclear ca-tastrophe remains severe. During the Cold War, the number and power of nuclear weapons reached insane heights 50.000 nuclear weapons with a total explosive power equi-valent to roughly a million Hiroshima bombs. Expressed differently, the total explosive power was equivalent to 20 billion tons of TNT, 4 tons for each person on earth. Today the total number of these weapons has been cut approxi-mately in half, but there are still enough to destroy human

„CRISIS 21; Civilization‘s Crisis in the 21st Century“ Book by Prof. John Scales Avery, Excerpt from the introduction

1�Global Responsibility | Issue 60 | October 2009

I was invited by the Japanese peace movement and my journey lasted from July 31st 09 till August 14th 2009.I was deeply touched as I attended the ceremony of the city of Hiroshima on August 6, 2009. On this hot morning 50,000 people were rushing to the Hiroshima Peace Me-morial Park, commemorating and admonishing.A cold shiver ran down my spine, the situation weighs heavily on my heart: beautiful cranes, the music and touching moments that no one can ever forget.

Thoughts and feelings come into my mind: August 6th 1945 at 8.15 am – a captivating summer morning under a deep blue sky. An airplane in Hiroshima’s skies disturbs the peace and delivers a single message shortly after. A bright bolt of lighting incinerates everything, followed by an atomic cloud. This message leaves marks of 140.000 incinerated and charred corpses – and an eradicated city. The atomic age has begun with unique brutality: Since that day, humankind is able to destroy its own civilisa-tion.

At the events of Hiroshima and a few days later in Nagasaki, the messages of the Mayors and the speakers of the UN are clear: Abolition of nuclear arms! The pub-lic appearance of Japan’s Prime Minister Tasso turns into an embarrassment due to his disbeliefs in a successful abolition. After more than 60 years and over 30 lost trials, PM Tasso has to officially acknowledge all Hibakushas as victims and has to compensate them; all of this shortly before the elections.

However this counts as a great success of the Japa-nese section of the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA) which has been actively involved in the struggle for the victims’ rights. These days have been deeply rooted in the conscience of the Japa-

nese people which can only be compared to the ideals of freedom of the people from the former Soviet Union.

Furthermore the awareness of the Japanese people is the barrier against the current imperialistic policy of Japan: Under the nuclear umbrella of the United States, Japan intends to amend the 9th paragraph of peace in the constitution enabling a further militarisation of the coun-try. Although huge parts of the society are against this development, first steps for more rights of the military and for some intervention operations have already been initiated – against the will of the people. However Japan’s military is still far away from its strategic waypoints which are necessary for a close cooperation with NATO.

Despite the deep public opposition against US military presence by the Japanese people, US warships - nuclear-power operated and with nuclear weapons on board – are recurrently visiting the base in Okinawa. Furthermore this base is used for the deployment of nuclear weapons as well as for the military intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nevertheless protests and actions of civil resistance keep alive the problems in the public consciousness near-ly every day. However this daily resistance is not always broadcasted in Japan’s mass media.

Even the current Japanese government – facing sig-nificant doubts that a government led by the DPJ will mark a difference - misuses the reckless nuclear weapon policy to increase its armament. There is only one option for a world without the distinction between Nuclear Weapon-States and have-not states: a world without nuclear weapons.

These ideals were shaping the international multi-day conference which the Japanese peace movement had organised in Hiroshima from August 3-5 and in Nagasaki from August 7-9, 2009. The events of the peace move-ment were a part of the main events which both cities as well as “the mayors for peace” and the UN representatives had initiated.

The total number of participants at the events was im-pressive: Although 300 people from at least 30 countries already attended the event of Hiroshima, a manifestation of over 7.000 participants from Japan and from interna-tional spheres marked a success in Nagasaki. I was very pleased to join the discussion at the main plenary event

as well as at the study groups.Although the new US administration still justifies

well-grounded scepticism about the abolition of nu-clear weapons, the participants of the events saw a his-toric chance in US President Barack Obama’s speeches in Prague and Cairo for a nuclear-weapon free world. This is indeed a huge challenge for the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference which will be held in May 2010 in New York. Increasingly, a number of statements de-mand the beginning of negotiations concerning a con-vention on nuclear weapons.

A campaign initiated by 30 Nobel Price laureates and the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility (INES) found special attention at the events in Hiroshima: The campaign is linked to the Rus-sell-Einstein Manifesto and appeals to the scientific com-munity to support the abolition of nuclear weapons. This appeal with its scientific support is unique if compared to the past 25 years. Nevertheless the stakes have never been higher to spread the ideals in peace campaigning and turning it into a realistic “mass movement of the peo-ple”. Spreading these ideals is not only the task of INES but needs support from many groups.

The peace movement and all other social movements are called to fight for a nuclear-weapon-free world and against the resistance of the military-industrial complexes and of NATO. Therefore it is of greatest importance to plan and prepare intensive actions before and during the NPT conference. A united opinion of all attending participants - nationally supported and internationally coordinated – is an important goal. 12 million signatures for a nuclear-weapon-free world which the Japanese peace movement collected during the NPT PrepCom conference in 2009 serve as a model. Additionally, the number of supporting Japanese peace organisations shall be doubled until the conference in 2010. An impressive demonstration and an international congress before the NPT 2010 conference are already under planning as well as powerful actions in different countries e.g. a Peace Flame rallye which will be transported by many people from the United Kingdom via France to New York.

The international peace movement is urgently called to take actions for the massive mobilisation of the people.

Water lanterns on Motoyasu River, Hiroshima Photo: © Yasuhiro Arakawa, filickr.com

Hiroshima and Nagasaki, August 2009: A Lesson for AbolitionBy Reiner Braun

civilization many times over. The danger of accidental nu-clear war remains severe, since many nuclear missiles are on hair-trigger alert, ready to be fired within minutes of a warning being received. Continued over a long period of time, the threat of accident will grow to a near certainty. Meanwhile, the number of nations possessing nuclear we-apons is growing, and there is a danger that if an unstable government is overthrown (for example, Pakistan‘s), the country‘s nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of subna-tional groups. Against nuclear terrorism there is no effective defense.

The Military-Industrial ComplexIn 2008, world military budgets reached a total of 1.47 tril-lion dollars (i.e. 1.47 million million dollars). This amount of

money is almost too large to be imagined. The fact that it is being spent means that many people are making a living from the institution of war. Wealthy and powerful lobbies from the military-industrial complex are able to influence mass media and governments. Thus the institution of war persists, although we know very well that it is a threat to ci-vilization and that it is responsible for much of the suffering that humans experience.

Limits to GrowthA healthy economic growth rate of 4% per year corresponds to an increase by a factor of 50 in a century, by a factor of 2,500 in two centuries and 125,000 in three centuries. No one can maintain that resource-using, waste-producing

economic activities can continue to grow except by refusing to look more than a certain distance into the future. It seems likely that the boundaries for certain types of growth will be reached during the 21st century. (Culture can of course con-tinue to grow.) We face a difficult period of transition from an economy that depends on growth for its health to a new economic system: steady-state economics.

The problems just mentioned are difficult and serious, but they all have solutions. The aim of this book is to show how the challenges facing civilization are interlinked and thus to throw some light on the remedies.

The book can be ordered here: www.lulu.com/john189You may download the 336-pages book as PDF for free: www.ccs.ki.ku.dk/~john/crisis21/csbk.pdf

1� Global Responsibility | Issue 60 | October 2009

The Federation of German Scientists celebrates its 50th anniversary

The Federation of German Scientists (VDW) was founded on October 1st 1959 by a group of well-known physicians such as Carl-Friedrich von Weizsäcker and Nobel Price Laureates Max Born, Otto Hahn, Werner Heisenberg and Max von Laue.

Already two years before, these scientists had signed the “Declaration of Goettingen” calling for a new direc-tive in the responsibility of science due to the destructive potential of nuclear weapons during the cold war.

The issues concerning war and peace, especially the abolition of nuclear weapons, are still relevant nowadays as well as controversial. The responsibility of scientists due to technological and global developments still re-mains an integral part of the discussions and social dis-courses. These issues are going to be the central points of two important and upcoming events of the VDW:October 23rd 2009: 50th anniversary celebration in Ber-linOctober 24th/25th 2009: Conference of the VDW and the German Physical Society (DPG) in Berlin Further information at: www.vdw-ev.de

Matching Analytical Sensitivities with Proliferation Signature Concentrations in the Environment.Workshop by the Independent Group of Scientific Experts on the detection of clandestine nuclear-weapons-usable materials production (iGSE).2.–4. November 2009, Vienna, AustriaThe workshop is the culmination of the iGSE efforts of the last two years, during which several smaller workshops on specialised aspects of the remote detection problem were held.

This next workshop will encompass all major topics: the formation and emission of tracers for nuclear-weap-ons-usable materials at the production site (HEU as well as Pu), their transport through the atmosphere and environment, and technologies for their measurement and classification. Accordingly, the four main sessions will be:1. Signatures of uranium conversion and enrichment2. Signatures of plutonium production3. Tracer concentrations in the environment4. Measurement technology and sensitivity

For further information please visit:

http://www.igse.net/index.php?id=53or contact the iGSE Coordinator Simon Hebel: shebel@physnet.uni-hamburg.de

Reaching Nuclear Disarmament - the Role of Civil Society in Strengthening the NPT6.–8. November 2009, Stockholm The conference constitutes an arena for civil so-

ciety organizations, politicians and profession-als to meet in preparation for the 2010 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. The Conference will focus on the role of civil society in strengthening the NPT. Our objectives are to increase public interest in Nuclear Disarmament and to sup-port and inspire the existing Movement against Nu-clear Weapons that acts on national and international levels.

For further information on the program please con-tact the Swedish Network for Nuclear Disarmament here:http://nucleardisarmament.se/club/page/public/in-dex/7472

Rolling Back Militarism: a Task for the Global movement.

International Peace Bureau Annual Conference14.–18. November, Georgetown University, Washington DC/USAThe conference is co-organized with Peace Action, America‘s largest grassroots peace network. This event is an invitation to engage in a strategic process, to examine our campaigning priorities and options, to explore new ways to challenge the militarism we see around us, and to build international connections and partnerships. The programme includes a central con-ference (14.-15.11.) and a day-seminar on military spending (17.11.), plus the annual IPB Council meet-ing and a planning session for the NPT Review next May. It will also be the occasion for the award of the IPB‘s annual *Sean MacBride Peace Prize*.

INES Program Director and IPB Board member Reiner Braun will give a view from Europe on „The war in Afghanistan/Pakistan - How to get out.“ The discussion panel includes Phyllis Bennis, Institute for Policy studies; Paul Kawika Martin, Peace Action and others.For further information please visit: www.ipb.orgor contact Colin Archer at mailbox@ipb.org

Pugwash Symposium on Energy, Cli-mate Change, and Global Food Security

4 December, 2009Lectures and discussion from the floor by: Prof. M.S. Swaminathan (Swaminathan Research Foundation, India; Former President, Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs), Prof. Mario Giampietro (Institute for Environmental Science and Technology, Universitat Autonoma de Barcellona, Spain), Ms. Jan-et Larsen (Director of Research, Earth Policy Institute, Washington, D.C.), Prof. Klaus Illum (Consultant on Energy and Environment. )Prof. Jürgen Scheffran (Re-search Group on Climate Change and Security, Univer-sität Hamburg), Prof. Gunnar Westberg (IPPNW and Sahlgren‘s Adademy of Medicine, Goteborg, Sweden).

Upcoming EventsNPT – Conference in New York, May 2010

The 3rd Review Conference on the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) will be held from May 3rd – 30th in New York City/USA. We overcame a lost decade of nuclear disarma-ment. US President Barack Obama’s speeches have revealed new hope and due to these conditions it is not exaggerated to label the NPT conference as an historic event.

Either there will be serious steps towards nu-clear disarmament, which US President Barack Obama and other supporters such as Gordon Brown and Dmitri Medwedew demand, leading to a “global zero” situation, or the NPT regime will go off course concerning the uninhibited increase in nuclear weapons. A contract system with two classes of states has no future in a multipolar world with the demand for equity; have-not states have to bow to the political position of power exercised by the five nuclear-weapons-states.

The central point of all actions initiated by the peace movement is to demand a world free of nuclear weapons. This core demand for the NPT Review Conference 2010 is the starting point for negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention. Thus the world is at the crossroads between seri-ous nuclear disarmament and the delaying poli-cies of the last 40 years.

The chances for an extensive support of a “global zero” proposal have to be materialised, adding to the existing activities. Acting immedi-ately and exerting pressure is an important task of the peace movement – on national as well as international levels. Currently there cannot be further progress in nuclear disarmament with-out political pressure. The path for a nuclear-free world can only be established if German and international peace movements jointly intensify their actions.

INES has started its campaign „Scientists for a Nuclear-Weapons-Free World“, already signed by 31 Nobel Price laureates and other well-known scientists. At t its core, INES has addressed the scientific community and has started to prepare itself for the NPT Review Conference 2010.

Furthermore INES is an active part of a world-wide coalition of peace organisations which pre-pare a large demonstration and the international conference in May 2010 in New York. You can find additional information on the INES website: http://www.inesglobal.com/campaigns.phtml

If you have further inquiries, you are cordially invited to contact the INES Program Director Reiner Braun who represents INES at the interna-tional preparatory committee: hr.braun@gmx.net

1�Global Responsibility | Issue 60 | October 2009

15th Conference of the Parties under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP15) in CopenhagenThe COP15 will be held in Copenhagen between De-cember 7th and 18th 2009. Many NGOs will participate with spectacular programs criticising the irresponsibil-ity of the current policies and working out sustainable alternatives. INES and a few Danish organisations are co-operatively organising an event on “Climate and con-flicts”. INES and Pugwash Denmark will jointly organise a Symposium on Energy, Climate Change and Global Food Security on December 4th dealing with climate and conflicts and with the preparation for the COP15. For further information please visit: http://www.ines-global.com/events-2009.phtml

KlimaForum 09, 7.-18.12.09, Copenhagen

KlimaForum09 is the climate summit of the global civil society and counterpart of the official UN conference.INES workshop „Climate Change and Conflict/Future Wars“: 17.12. 1-4 pm.Further information: www.klimaforum09.org

INES Council Meeting 2010

The next INES Council Meeting will be held from 16.-18. April 2010 at the Charles Léopold Mayer Foundation for Human Progress 38 rue Saint Sabin, F 75011 Paris-France.The invitation to all INES members will be sent out soon.

INES Council members 2007 Photo: Stefan Mothes

While congratulating the U.S. President on this highest of global awards – notably for having restored hope to millions concerned about the state of the planet – the organisation raised nu-merous questions about the choice. „The Norwe-gian Nobel Committee shows very little respect for the intentions behind the Prize”, says Tomas Magnusson, IPB President. „Nobel was explicit in his intention to support people and initiatives in need of the prize money to advance their peace work.“

Obama‘s achievements are so far very mixed. De-spite his positive steps to pull US troops out of Iraq and close Guantanamo, Obama committed himself even before he was elected President to increasing the US

military presence in Afghanistan, and just a few days ago refused to consider withdrawal. US drones are still bombing villages in North-West Pakistan in the hope of eliminating Al Qaeda militants. Eight years on from 9-11, the world‘s military superpower remains - together with its NATO allies - bogged down in a bloody and controversial conflict.

Furthermore, the first military budget passed under Obama‘s administration is the largest in history - $534 billion (plus billions more for ongoing war operations). This can scarcely be considered a contribution to „the reduction in standing armies“ ; stipulated in Nobel‘s will.

It is of course true that the arrival of the new team at the White House has transformed the prevailing mood

in international relations and put an end to the uni-lateralism of the Bush years. Obama‘s Prague speech, the subsequent negotiations with the Russians and the abandonment of the Missile Defence plans for Eastern Europe have invigorated efforts towards nuclear dis-armament. His efforts to reach out to Muslim nations and communities are helping soften some of the sharp antagonisms between the Islamic world and the West.

However we have seen little real progress in the past year in resolving the Iranian and North Korean nuclear crises; the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is still desperately stuck; and Obama has not yet overcome opposition in his own country to even elementary disarmament measures such as the Comprehensive Test Ban or the very necessary radical steps on climate change. Natu-rally, IPB shares the hope of the Nobel Committee that the Prize will strengthen him in his efforts.

On balance it is perhaps too early for this particular Nobel Peace Prize. „Obama will no doubt make a bril-liant Nobel speech“, commented Tomas Magnusson. „But it would have been wiser to wait for some more concrete results before greeting him as one of Nobel‘s ‚champions of peace‘. Meanwhile there are hundreds of outstanding individuals and peace organisations all over the world for whom the award of the Nobel Peace Prize would have massively boosted their reputation and prospects. For them this is an opportunity lost.“

The International Peace Bureau is dedicated to the vision of a World Without War. We are a Nobel Peace Laureate (1910), and over the years 13 of our officers have been recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize. Our 300 member organisations in 70 countries, and individual members, form a global network which brings togeth-er expertise and campaigning experience in a common cause. Our main programme centres on Sustainable Disarmament for Sustainable Development. We wel-come your participation.For further information please visit:www.ipb.org

International Peace Bureau Questions Choice of Obama for Nobel Peace Prize

Barack Obama 44th President of the United States of America, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate. Photo: ©2008 Jack Thielepape/jmtimages, www.flickr.com

Nyhavn, Copenhagen. Photo:© Cicero Kal-El, www.sxc.hu

1� Global Responsibility | Issue 60 | October 2009

Last summer INES received the sad news that one of its founding members, Professor Maurice Errera of Brus-sels, Belgium, had died on the eve of his 95th birthday.

Maurice Errera was born on June 15, 1914, into a well-known Jewish family of bankers and academ-ics. Among the latter were the botanist Léo-Abraham Errera, who coined the term molecular biology, the mathematician Alfred Errera, the lawyer Paul Errera and Jacques Errera, a renowned physical chemist, all at one time or another professors in Brussels. Maurice Errera used to tell the story how he met and dined with Albert Einstein in Jacques‘s house during Einstein‘s sev-eral visits to Belgium in the twenties and thirties.

After taking a doctor‘s degree in medicine, Maurice Errera specialized in the new field of radiobiology. He joined the famous ”Cloître-Rouge group” around Pro-fessor Jean Brachet, who did pioneering research in molecular biology, discovering many properties of the DNA and RNA molecules. The name of the group re-lates to the old monastery on the outskirts of Brussels, where the laboratories were inititally located. Errera‘s work was concentrated on the effects of radiation on the nucleus of the cell. He made several professional visits to the United States and eventually became a professor at the Université Libre de Bruxelles. His sci-entific books, Effets biologiques des radiations: aspects biochimiques (1957) and the two-volume Mechanisms

in Radiobiology (with Arne Forssberg, 1960), became the standards of the day. He received several honours, among them an honorary membership of the Biophys-ics section of the Académie royale des Sciences, des Lettres et des Beaux-Arts de Belgique.

Maurice Errera‘s expertise in radiation took him to the United Nations Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), where he worked as a member of the scientific secretariat and a member of the Belgian delegation from 1956 to 1958. The pioneering first report of UNSCEAR in 1958 produced previously secret information about fallout exposure, and hitherto unknown information about natural background and medical exposure. The Belgian del-egation was the only western one which supported a strong wording in the report demanding ”an im-mediate cessation of test explosions of nuclear weap-ons”, a wording deemed ”unscientific” by the major-ity of the Committee. Another document of the first UNSCEAR, which received much attention, was the Letter to the medical press, emphasizing the necessity of diminishing by all possible means the exposure of patients. Errera returned to work on UNSCEAR reports in 1962 and finally in 1982, when he was the repre-sentative of Belgium in the Committee.

Errera engaged himself in the work of nongovern-mental organizations. In 1969, he was among the founders of the Belgian branch of L‘Institut de la Vie, an organization created by the French biologist Maurice Marois in 1960 for the study of the problems confront-ing humankind in the conservation and development of life, and for putting into action means that can con-tribute to solving these problems in a scientific envi-ronment. Maurice Errera remained on the board of the Belgian branch of the Institut de la Vie until his death, and it was as a representative of this organization that he attended the Challenges congress in Berlin in 1991 where INES was founded. Institut de la Vie (Belgium) became a member organisation of INES and Maurice Errera an active Council member, who attended many INES events and contributed to the INES Newsletter. His themes were a culture of peace, a world of justice, solidarity and peace, as well as responsible and active civil societies.

Professor Zenon Bacq, Errera‘s colleague in UN-SCEAR, returned to Belgium from the founding congress of IPPNW (International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War) in 1980 with the idea of building a

Belgian branch. He contacted Errera, who promised to try. Aided by a peace activist, Mrs. Ghislaine Vankeer-berghen, he set to the task. They wrote letters to the rectors of all the universities in Belgium asking them to join an honorary board, and all responeded favour-ably. With this impressive support, the medical corps of Belgium was convinced, and the Belgian branch of the IPPNW could be founded. Errera remained an active member for a long time, and eventually became the Honorary President of the organization.

His engagement for a culture of peace led Errera to join in the organization of the ”International University Peace Days”, sponsored by the industrial and commer-cial mecenat Emile Bernheim. As a continuation of this work, Errera paid visits to several rectors of Belgian universities to convince them that peace studies should be taken up as a subject. There were no funds available, however, and nothing concrete was achieved. Some years later the Bernheim Foundation was created, and in the paragraph 3.4 bis of its statutes declared that one of the aims of the Foundation is to ”contribute to the defense and promotion of peace” - I would not be surprised if Maurice Errera had some part in this addi-tion to the statutes. With the support of the Founda-tion the Pôle Bernheim for Peace and Citizenship at the Université Libre de Bruxelles was created. Errera active-ly supported the institution until his retirement. Pôle Bernheim is also an INES member organization, and its director Eric Remacle has actively cooperated with INES, e.g. in the workshop Einstein and peace lessons for today in 2005, where Maurice Errera was the only participant who had actually met Einstein in person.

In INES we remember Maurice Errera for his con-vincing interventions, his deep commitment to peace, his strongly held convictions and his positive attitude. He was a true model for a responsible scientist. He is deeply missed.

Maurice Errera INES founding member

Claus Montonen is the INES treasurer and Professor for theoretical physics at the University of Helsinki/Finland.

Obituary for Maurice Errera (1914 – 2009)

On July 20th, 2009 the founding meeting of a new German organisation to support the work of INES was held in Berlin.

We are pleased to welcome Prof. Claus Montonen as Chair of the foundation, Prof. Kathryn Nixdorff as Vice-

Chair and Moritz Rehmet as Treasurer.As a start the German Foundation will support the

INES Campaign Scientists for a nuclear weapons-free world especially in the German speaking countries. We are ready to accept your membership applications. This

is particularly interesting for Germans, since donations to the foundation will be tax deductable.

For further information (in German) please contact the INES office at office@inesglobal.com or Moritz Reh-met at moritz.rehmet@web.de.

New German Charity Foundation: Support of the International Communication of Concerned Scientists and Engineers

1�Global Responsibility | Issue 60 | October 2009

The recommended annual fees are 100 € for organizations with up to 200 members; 200 € for larger organizations. The rule of thumb for individual membership fee is 1 per mille of annual net income.

Ways to giveOnline (PayPal): www.inesglobal.com

INES bank account at ABN Amro, Amsterdam/Netherlands IBAN: NL23ABNA0568896998 BIC: ABNANL2A

German members may use the office account at Hamburger Sparkasse BLZ 200 505 50 , Account No. 1280463884

US members may send cheques to the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation: PMB 121, 1187 Coast Village Road, Suite 1, Santa Barbara, CA 93108 Please state clearly as INES contribution!

Please Support our Work by Paying Your Membership fees and by Renewing Your Membership!

The International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility (INES) is an independent non-profit organisation commit-ted to influencing the role and the impact that science and technology have on society.

INES efforts focus on disarmament and inter-national peace; ethics in science; responsibilities of scientists and the responsible use of science and tech-nology; just and sustainable development.

INES was founded in 1991 in Berlin at the inter-national congress “Challenges - Science and Peace in a Rapidly Changing Environment“ and has become a network of over 200 organisations and individual members.

Innovative ReorganisationA thorough reorientation of science and tech-

nology is necessarily based on integrated system approaches and the acceptance that science can never claim to fully tackle all aspects of reality. Only through innovative reorganisation and public accountability can the scientific and engineering

communities meet their obligation to contribute to a sustainable future.

Challenges for Scientists and Engineers

Rapid changes in our environment and our societies are forcing us to become more conscious of our role in the world. Science and technology are employed in a worldwide competition for military and economic power. The impacts of this competition have global implications. We have entered a phase in which global developments are in conflict with basic requirements for human survival. Large stocks of weapons of mass destruction, the overexploitation of limited common resources, and a heavily unbalanced world economy provide fundamental challenges to human civilisation and may even threaten its existence.

Engineers and scientists play a key role, both in de-veloping new knowledge that might threaten inter-national security and in providing positive solutions for the future. They are as much a part of the problem as they can be a part of the solution.

INES Goals

Abolition of nuclear weaponsPromoting the responsible and sustainable use of science and technologyImplementing ethical principles in the education of scientists and engineers

What you can do: get involved!

Become a member! Join a strong and grow-ing network. Make a donation and support the network’s effort for a sustainable future! Your donation will help us educate and inspire people throughout the world. Bank account at ABN Amro in Amsterdam/ Netherlands. INES,IBAN: NL23ABNA0568896998 BIC: ABNANL2

••

•

•

•

•

What is INES?

www.inesglobal.com

David Krieger (ed):The Challenge of Abolishing Nuclear Weapons

„This book examines one of the greatest challenges of our time, the nuclear weapons threat to all Creation, and provides hope and a reasoned pathway to a more secure future. Its message is more than timely; it is urgent.“Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu

Book Details: ISBN: 978-1-4128-1036-4, July 2009, 242 pp. $49.95

1� Global Responsibility | Issue 60 | October 2009

Prof. Dr. Peter C. AgreNobel Laureate in Chemistry (2003), USA

Prof. Dr. Abhay AshtekarDirector of the Institute for Gravitational Physics and Geometry at Pennsylvania State University, India / USA

Prof. Dr. Simone BeisiegelChairwoman of the Scientific Commission of the German Council of Science andHumanities, Germany

Prof. Dr. Günter BlobelNobel Laureate in Physiology / Medicine (1999), USA

Reiner BraunExecutive Director of the German Section ofInternational Association of Lawyers against Nuclear Arms (IALANA) and Program Director of INES, Germany

Prof. Dr. Elias J. CoreyNobel Laureate in Chemistry (1990), USA

Mairead Corrigan-MaguireNobel Peace Prize Laureate (1976), UK (Northern Ireland)

Prof. Dr. Paul CrutzenNobel Laureate in Chemistry (1995), Germany / Nether-lands

Prof. Dr. Johann DeisenhoferNobel Laureate in Chemistry (1988), Germany / USA

Dr. Jayantha Dhanapalaformer UN Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs and former Sri LankaAmbassador, Sri Lanka

Prof. Dr. Hans-Peter DürrAlternative Nobel Prize Laureate (1987) andformer President at the Max Planck Institute for Physics and Astrophysics, Germany

Prof. Dr. Manfred EigenNobel Laureate in Chemistry (1967), Germany

Prof. Dr. Richard R. ErnstNobel Laureate in Chemistry (1991), Switzerland

Prof. Dr. Gerhard ErtlNobel Laureate in Chemistry (2007), Germany

Prof. Dr. John FinneyProfessor of Physics at University College London, Pugwash Council member, UK

Prof. Dr. Johan GaltungFounder and Director of TRANSCEND International, Alternative Nobel Prize Laureate (1987), Norway

Prof. Dr. Hartmut GraßlFormer Director at the Max Planck Institute for Meteoro-logy, German Environment Prize winner (1998), Germany

Prof. Dr. Paul GreengardNobel Laureate in Physiology / Medicine (2000), USA

Prof. Dr. Herbert A. HauptmanNobel Laureate in Chemistry (1985), USA

Prof. Dr. Alan J. HeegerNobel Laureate in Chemistry (2000), USA

Prof. Dr. Dudley R. HerschbachNobel Laureate in Chemistry (1986), USA

Dr. David KriegerChairman of INES and President of the NuclearAge Peace Foundation (NAPF), USA

Prof. Dr. Herbert KroemerNobel Laureate in Physics (2000), Germany / USA

Prof. Dr. Sir Harold KrotoNobel Laureate in Chemistry (1996), UK / USA

The INES campaign Scientists for a Nuclear Weapons-Free World was launched successfully on August 6th, 2009 (Hiroshima Day). 49 first signatories, 31 of them Nobel Laureates, supported the campaign and gave it a remarkable start.

For at least 25 years, there has been no comparable campaign

supported by so many prominent members of the scientific

community and beyond.

INES Program Director Reiner Braun presented the appeal (see back

page) at the World conference against atomic and hydrogen bombs in

Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The appeal was published by various newspa-

pers including the well known Ahi Shim Bun (Japan‘s Leading Newspa-

per) and Aka Hata. Several radio stations reported about the appeal.

The INES campaign „Scientists for a Nuclear-Weapons-Free World“ is,

at its core, a petition representing scientists and engineers from across

the globe. Our goal is to increase scientific as well as public awareness

on nuclear weapons issues, and to add weight to calls for a Nuclear

Weapons Convention conferring the obligation on all states to achieve

complete nuclear disarmament by 2020. A nuclear weapons-free world

is possible, realistic, necessary and urgent - but it will not be attained

without the efforts of a large number of committed scientists and en-

gineers.

Our appeal constitutes a part of the global peace actions preparing

the NPT Review Conference (New York 2010), an event of critical impor-

tance to the non-proliferation movement.

We would be appreciative if you could help us reach wider parts of the

scientific community.

Scientists for a Nuclear Weapons-Free World

1�Global Responsibility | Issue 60 | October 2009

Prof. Dr. Yuan T. LeeNobel Laureate in Chemistry (1986), Taiwan

Prof. Dr. Jean-Marie LehnNobel Laureate in Chemistry (1987), France

Prof. Dr. Rita Levi-MontalciniNobel Laureate in Physiology / Medicine (1986), Senator for Life in the Italian Senate, Italy / USA

Prof. Dr. Bernard LownCo-founder of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW – Nobel Peace Prize 1985), USA

Prof. Dr. Wangari MaathaiNobel Peace Prize Laureate (2004), Kenya

Dr. Ronald S. McCoyFormer Co-president of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), Malaysia

Prof. Dr. Sir James MirrleesNobel Laureate in Economics (1996), UK

Prof. Dr. Erwin NeherNobel Laureate in Physiology / Medicine (1991), Germany

Prof. Dr. Marshall NirenbergNobel Laureate in Physiology / Medicine (1986), USA

Prof. Dr. Ryoji NoyoriNobel Laureate in Chemistry (2001), Japan

Prof. Dr. Valery S. PetrosyanProfessor at Lomonosov State University and Open Ecological University, Russia

Prof. Dr. Martin L. PerlNobel Laureate in Physics (1995), USA

Prof. Dr. John C. PolanyiNobel Laureate in Chemistry (1986), Canada

Sir Richard J. RobertsNobel Laureate in Physiology / Medicine (1993), UK

Prof. Dr. Shoji SawadaRepresentative Director of Japan Council against A & H Bombs, Japan

Prof. Dr. Jack SteinbergerNobel Laureate in Physics (1988), USA

Dr. Mark Byung-Moon SuhPolitical Scientist, Pugwash Council member,South Korea

Prof. Dr. Sir John E. SulstonNobel Laureate in Physiology / Medicine (2002), UK

Dr. Jakob von UexküllFounder of the Right Livelihood Award (Alternative Nobel Prize) and initiator of the World Future Council, Sweden / Germany

Prof. Dr. Martinus J.G. VeltmanNobel Laureate in Physics (1999), Netherlands

Prof. Dr. John E. WalkerNobel Laureate in Chemistry (1997), UK

Judge Christopher Gregory WeeramantryAlternative Nobel Prize Laureate (2007) and former Chair of the International Court of Justice; Sri Lanka

Dr. Christine von Weizsäcker,Biologist, Coordinator of the ECOROPA biotechnology programme, Germany

Prof. Dr. Ernst-Ulrich von Weizsäcker, Founder and former President of the Wuppertal Institute, Club of Rome member, Germany

Prof. Dr. Kurt Wüthrich,Nobel Laureate in Chemistry (2002), Switzerland

The INES campaign Scientists for a Nuclear Weapons-Free World was launched successfully on August 6th, 2009 (Hiroshima Day). 49 first signatories, 31 of them Nobel Laureates, supported the campaign and gave it a remarkable start.

Scientists for a Nuclear Weapons-Free World

What you can do:

Sign the appeal individually or as an organisation;

Publish the appeal on your website or in your newsletter and

forward it to the members of your organization;

Collect as many signatures as possible within your network;

Promote the appeal through your organization; and

Issue your own statement in support of our common cause.

Become a member of INES

•

•

•

•

•

•

A-Bo

mb D

ome,

Hiro

shim

a. Ph

oto:

© Ka

thy d

e la C

ruz,

www.

sxc.h

u

Scientists and engineers bear a heavy burden of respon-

sibility to society for the creation of nuclear weapons.

The immense destructive power of these weapons was dem-

onstrated on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and

in over 2,000 atmospheric and underground nuclear tests on the

lands of indigenous peoples.

Thermonuclear weapons are capable of destroying cities,

countries and civilization. They could end intelligent life on

Earth.

Humanity has been warned again and again of the perils of nu-

clear weapons and nuclear war.

We recall the Russell-Einstein Manifesto, issued on July 9,

1955. The Manifesto warned, “Here, then, is the problem which

we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we

put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?”

Human fallibility and nuclear weapons are a dangerous and

unacceptable mix.

We rely upon human theories concerning nuclear weapons,

such as the theory of nuclear deterrence, at our peril.

Since Nagasaki, humankind has been spared nuclear war far

more by good fortune than by sound planning. This good for-

tune will not be possible to maintain indefinitely – particularly,

as is foreseeable, if nuclear weapons continue to proliferate and

fall into the hands of non-state extremist groups.

Nuclear weapons were created by humans, and it is our re-

sponsibility to eliminate them before they eliminate us and

much of the life on our planet. The era of nuclear weapons must

be brought to an end. A world without nuclear weapons is pos-

sible, realistic, necessary and urgent.

Therefore, we the undersigned scientists and engineers, call

upon the leaders of the world, and particularly the leaders of the

nine nuclear weapons states, to make a world free of nuclear

weapons an urgent priority.

We further call on these leaders to immediately commence

good faith negotiations, as required by the nuclear Non-Prolifer-

ation Treaty and the 1996 Advisory Opinion of the International

Court of Justice, with the goal of achieving a Nuclear Weapons

Convention for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transpar-

ent elimination of nuclear weapons by the year 2020.

Finally, we call upon scientists and engineers throughout the

world to cease all cooperation in the research, development,

testing, production and manufacture of new nuclear weapons.

Scientists for a Nuclear Weapons-Free World

online at

Sign the Appealwww.inesglobal.com