The World: A Brief Introduction

by Richard Haass

  There is as well the option of trying to forestall the use of nuclear weapons if efforts to prevent or dissuade a country from developing them ultimately fail. This would entail trying to establish deterrence, making it clear that any use of nuclear weapons would be met with a devastating response. The problem is that deterrence cannot be guaranteed to work if an individual or government is prepared to act in ways most would view as irrational. There are as well the dangers of misperception, miscalculation, and miscommunication. Nuclear weapons can give a government confidence that it can act with impunity. And as noted earlier, there is the danger that a government in possession of nuclear weapons could decide to transfer them to another country or terrorist group or simply lose physical control of its weapons to such a group.

  Defense, which entails deploying systems that make it difficult for aircraft or missiles carrying nuclear warheads to reach their targets, is another option for countering proliferation. Still, there is the probability—given the technical difficulty in developing systems that are effective against missiles—that one or more warheads might still reach their target, causing great destruction and loss of life. There is no such thing as invulnerability. There is also the risk that improved defense will cause other countries to upgrade their nuclear arsenals so that their leaders can be assured that they can pierce the opposing defenses, which may trigger an arms race.

  There are options that would use conventional (non-nuclear) military force or other means, including cyberattacks, to interfere with or destroy nuclear-related facilities and materials, weapons, and/or their delivery systems before they could be used. A preventive strike would seek to destroy them while such capabilities were being developed or stored. Israel, for example, carried out preventive strikes against nuclear-related facilities in Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007. A preemptive strike, by contrast, would seek to destroy nuclear-capable systems while they were being readied for actual use. Either of these actions involves costs and risks, including the chance that the attack will not destroy the system in question and then surviving systems would be used or that the preventive or preemptive attack could trigger retaliation and escalate a situation into a broader conflict.

  Discouraging or frustrating the spread of nuclear weapons can be difficult or even impossible. But it is also important not to lose sight of the fact that more than seventy years after the United States introduced nuclear weapons for the first time in the final days of World War II against Japan—and close to sixty years since a young candidate for president named John F. Kennedy predicted that as many as twenty countries could achieve a nuclear weapons capability by the end of 1964—there are only nine countries known to have nuclear weapons. And since the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear weapons have not been used. Several countries (including Ukraine and South Africa) voluntarily gave them up, while many others with the capacity to build them have opted not to (for instance, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan). The challenge remains to ensure that those with nuclear weapons limit or reduce their stockpiles and those that do not possess nuclear weapons do not come to possess them. It is a challenge that shows no signs of abating.

  Climate Change

  Global climate change—sometimes called global warming—is the observable shift in climate patterns around the world due to a warming of the atmosphere’s temperature. This is principally caused by human activity—mostly the burning of fossil fuels, primarily coal, oil, and natural gas—that releases carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases in high concentrations into the atmosphere where they trap the sun’s rays and cause an increase in temperature.

  Climate change is thus very different from pollution. Pollution tends to be mostly (although not exclusively) local in its causes and effects. It has an impact on air or water quality, health, marine life, and structures such as bridges that can face accelerated rusting and weakening. Climate change by contrast is global; the effects are felt everywhere even if there is no local contribution. Borders count for naught.

  Climate change is also something fundamentally different from weather. Weather is the day-to-day temperature, precipitation, wind, and the like. On any given day, the weather can be cold or hot, wet or dry. Climate reflects underlying trends and shifts in temperature, precipitation, wind, and more, and although there will be days that do not fit the overall trend, over time the weather will largely reflect the evolution of the climate.

  Evidence of climate change includes measures of average air temperature that show a distinct increase, an increase in the average temperature of the world’s oceans, clear signs that polar ice is melting away, and rising sea levels. While there are natural phenomena, such as volcanoes, that add carbon dioxide to the earth’s atmosphere, scientists are able to measure the source of the unusually high levels of carbon dioxide that have accumulated in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. Careful analysis of atmospheric carbon dioxide allows scientists to conclude that human activity is the source for today’s buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Data also show a marked increase in the concentrations of certain gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane. For instance, the second decade of this century was the hottest ever recorded. 2019 was the second-warmest year ever, trailing only 2016. The years 2015 to 2019 were the five hottest years ever. In addition, the rate at which the world’s sea level is rising has been accelerating.

  As a result of climate change, we are seeing higher sea levels in coastal areas, more severe storms, higher average temperatures everywhere, and expanding desertification. This process is reducing the amount of land that can support human life. The effects of climate change will only increase over time given the lag between energy use and the effects of carbon already released as well as the reality that vast amounts of carbon dioxide and other gases causing climate change continue to be released.

  Rising sea levels and flooding put low-lying coastal areas and entire island countries at risk. Climate change (in its effects on temperature as well as the spread of salt water) also poses potentially irreversible threats to various forms of animal, marine, plant, and insect life. As a result, it will affect crop yields, disease prevalence, and much else.

  It is a question of when—not if—large and growing areas of countries become uninhabitable owing to prolonged freshwater shortages, extreme heat, widespread flooding, and frequent, costly storms. Bangladesh may well be the first country with a substantial population to face this problem on a large scale. The amount of land able to support human existence is shrinking and will continue to shrink, while the world’s population will continue to grow, which may lead to food and water shortages and even political instability. One statistic sure to increase is the number of people forced to move within their countries (becoming internally displaced) when coastal areas become uninhabitable owing to higher sea levels; the number of refugees will also rise when their home countries can no longer support them. Climate change is not just a major humanitarian, economic, and health problem but a national security issue as well.

  Source: Peter U. Clark, et al. “Consequences of Twenty-First-Century Policy for Multi-Millennial Climate and Sea-Level Change.” Nature Climate Change 6 (2016): 360–69.

  Climate change has come about because of the sharp increase in the consumption of fossil fuels. Over the past fifty years, consumption has nearly tripled. What accounts for the greater use are population increases and economic growth, initially in the United States and the rest of the developed world but increasingly in the developing world and in China and India in particular. Much of the use is associated with transportation, buildings, and industrial production.

  Oil generates roughly one-third of the energy consumed, while nearly 30 percent comes from burning coal. Natural gas is third, at just over 20 percent, which means that fossil fuels combine to account for close to 85 percent of all energy use. Hydropower accounts for 7 percent of primary energy consumption, renewable forms of energy such as solar, wind, a
nd tidal account for 4 percent, and nuclear power for another 4 percent. The difference between these last two categories is that use of renewables is growing in absolute and relative terms and nuclear power is shrinking as a result of costs and politics.

  Deforestation is a significant cause of global warming, responsible for a good deal of global carbon emissions. Healthy tropical forests absorb carbon dioxide, but when they are cut down to make room for agriculture or to produce timber, not only are they no longer able to absorb carbon as effectively, but their stored carbon is also released into the air. Brazil and Indonesia, in particular, are two countries whose forests are shrinking, and unless their governments take steps to protect these forests responding to climate change will be more difficult.

  That global warming is a reality caused by human activity is widely accepted by scientists, although a small minority questions whether what is taking place is in fact an enduring trend caused by the use of fossil fuels or is instead part of a cycle of warming and cooling that the planet has seen before (although at a much slower pace). But there is a near consensus in the scientific community that climate change is real and that human activity is its principal cause. To refuse to act on the basis that the evidence is not 100 percent certain is not justifiable given the overwhelming strength of the evidence and its implications. We all purchase insurance, even though we do not expect to have our homes flooded or destroyed in a fire. Even climate skeptics should be able to support some policy efforts as a hedge against the possibility that climate change is in fact real and costly. The most urgent debate is not whether climate change is real but what we should do about it.

  The critical policy question is how to best mitigate, or effectively reduce, overall carbon and other emissions and therefore reduce the pace and scale of climate change. Many mitigation approaches involve developing and deploying technologies that increase the efficiency of those fuels that are used. Increasing the number of miles automobiles can drive on a gallon of gas is one example, while creating more fuel-efficient jet engines for airplanes is another. Technology can also help to filter emissions so that fewer greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere. Other technologies are designed to “capture” carbon and other gases so they are not released into the atmosphere but are instead (to cite one strategy) injected underground or converted to a useful product. There are costs associated with mitigation, but there are also jobs to be created and profits to be made given the growing market for cleaner energy. The notion that responsible policy and economic growth are at odds is not backed by the evidence.

  Mitigation can also involve shifting to alternative fuels that release little or no greenhouse gases. These include wind, hydroelectric, and solar power, the so-called renewables whose use is now the fastest growing among all fuels, as well as nuclear power. The development of electric cars that don’t use any gasoline is another example of successful mitigation. (This is true even if the electricity that powers an electric car comes from fuels that release greenhouse gases because overall there is a reduction in the amount of carbon dioxide released.) Another tactic for mitigation is shifting from one fossil fuel (say coal) to another (such as natural gas) that releases lower levels of greenhouse gases while producing an equivalent amount of energy. Increasing energy efficiency (or lowering what is termed energy intensity, the relationship between economic output and energy input) by adopting new technologies also helps. Encouraging forestation or discouraging deforestation is also an effective strategy, because forests absorb carbon and thereby reduce climate change.

  All this and more is taking place, but it would be wrong to exaggerate what can be expected as a result. Given expected increases in global population and economic growth, it will be extremely difficult to lower energy use from fossil fuels. Coal emissions alone have been responsible for one-third of the 1.0 degree Celsius increase in average global temperature, according to calculations by the International Energy Agency. To date, the benefits of falling coal use in Western Europe and North America have been offset by rising coal use in Asia. China now accounts for about half of the world’s coal use, and it would have to dramatically alter its policies to change the landscape. Under a business-as-usual scenario where no further regulations are made in China and India, coal, which produces the greatest amount of carbon for the amount of energy it generates, is projected to account for some 20 percent of all energy use in 2040, down from 27 percent today. Oil (projected to account for 28 percent of all energy use in 2040) will remain the most widely used form of energy. Renewables (wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, and so on) are expected to reach some 15 percent of all energy consumed in 2040, still trailing coal and natural gas. Nuclear power (owing to high start-up costs and political opposition) is expected to account for only 5 percent of energy consumed. In short, despite greater efficiencies and an improved mix of fuels, increased global energy consumption will continue to add to the climate change challenge for the foreseeable future.

  No global body or mechanism is in a position to mandate mitigation-related efforts. Rather, mitigation takes place voluntarily and at the national or local level, although there is a global effort to encourage broad nonbinding international agreements for countries to undertake more ambitious efforts to lower their emissions of the gases causing climate change.

  Several approaches for setting global climate policy have been suggested. One idea (often termed cap and trade) is for the world’s governments to agree on a total amount of emissions. Each country would receive a quota. In principle, a market could be established in which permits for emissions could be purchased by those governments wishing to exceed their quota and sold by those who would rather receive money than use up their full quota. The goal would be both to place a ceiling on total emissions worldwide and to incentivize reductions at the national level. The same approach could also be introduced by individual countries at the national level even if other countries did not participate.

  Another idea that has garnered considerable interest would be to levy a tax on emissions, thereby encouraging lower levels. This is usually described as a carbon tax. The tax would discourage activities that produce large amounts of greenhouse gases and encourage the replacement of some fuels and energy forms with others that are more efficient or release lower levels of greenhouse gases.

  Most governments have yet to endorse either cap and trade or a carbon tax. Wealthier countries fear they would be pressured to slow their economic growth in order to meet more stringent emission targets, transfer large sums of money to developing countries, or both. Certain businesses judge that costs would rise and profits would decline. This concern tends to be overblown. The automobile industry, for example, has demonstrated an ability to adapt by increasing the fuel efficiency of its vehicles and introducing electric vehicles. Climate concerns can stimulate opportunity and growth—for example, in solar and wind and other so-called green technologies.

  Developing countries are wary of and unable to pay for any consequential constraints on carbon. They also need funds to cope with climate change and have yet to receive the full access to capital that has been promised from the industrialized nations. Countries such as China and India have been slow to make substantial cutbacks in coal use and ask why they should not be allowed to develop to a level where their average citizen can enjoy the same quality of life as an average American or European. Around the world, political opposition to pricing carbon has been intense. Disagreements such as these mean that international efforts, begun in earnest in 1995, are far from achieving necessary action.

  Instead, the world seems to have agreed for the time being on a path in which individual governments set their own goals (“nationally determined contributions”) for emissions ceilings. Meeting in Paris in 2015, nearly all of the world’s governments did just this. In addition, they set a collective goal of limiting the total increase in average global temperature to 2 degrees Celsius or some 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit over preindust
rial levels. One problem is that the national goals articulated at the gathering represented intentions rather than firm commitments and that even if each country met its emission targets, the increase in temperature would still be higher than the overall ceiling the governments set. The sad truth, though, is that even these modest and admittedly inadequate targets will not be reached. Governments agreed to review their climate goals every five years, something that holds open the possibility of their adopting more ambitious objectives. One complicating factor is the U.S. decision under President Donald Trump to exit the Paris Agreement, which leaves open the question of what the world’s second-largest emitter of carbon dioxide will do to address climate change.

  THE WORLD IS WARMING

  Global temperature change over pre-industrial average (Celsius)

  Source: Climate Action Tracker; The New York Times.

  Climate change will thus likely become more severe and outpace international efforts meant to limit or counteract it. Thus, a second area of national and international activity has grown up in which local and national governments take steps to decrease their vulnerability to existing or projected effects of climate change. Such steps, termed adaptation, can involve such things as discouraging or prohibiting people from living in coastal areas that are vulnerable to flooding or in regions susceptible to wildfires. Barriers can be set against higher seas and flooding. Funds can be made available at the local, national, or international level to assist victims of climate change or to reduce vulnerability to its manifestations. Regulations can affect where and how homes are built. None of this resolves the climate change challenge, but such efforts can help stave off its worst effects. The financial cost of adaptation, however, is certain to be significant.