Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Report: Working Group On Climate Nuclear and Security Affairs
Report: Working Group On Climate Nuclear and Security Affairs
Climate, Nuclear,
and Security Affairs
Report One: A Framework for Understanding and Managing the
Intersection of Climate Change, Nuclear Affairs, and Security
NOVEMBER 2017
EDITORS
Christine Parthemore and Dr. Janne Nolan
CONTRIBUTOR
Andrea Rezzonico
WORKING GROUP ON
November 2017
Cover Photo:
Fort Calhoun nuclear reactor during Missouri River flood. June 2011.
US Army Corps of Engineers (Omaha)
contents
4. Next Steps
5. Conclusion
The Center for Climate and Security (CCS) launched a program in 2016 to explore the many
ways climate change, nuclear, and security affairs are combining around the world. In order
to understand the diverse and complex interactions among these three issue areas, CCS, in
coordination with the Nuclear Security Working Group, assembled the multidisciplinary
Working Group on Climate, Nuclear, and Security Affairs. Its members include thought
leaders with wide-ranging experiences in defense, diplomacy, business, academia, journalism,
and international organizations. The Working Groups first workshop was held May 25-26,
2017, at the Airlie Conference Center in Virginia, resulting in this reports framework for
characterizing the dimensions of how climate change, nuclear affairs, and security risks are
intersecting.
We are deeply grateful to all members of the Working Group, and for the considerable time
they have already dedicated to this project. Each of these members shared lessons from their
diverse and extensive experiences, thoughtful questions, findings from their past research
and reporting, and analysis regarding global trends. Many contributed writing to this report,
cultivated new members for our group, introduced us to new concepts, and otherwise
provided critical assistance. We are equally thankful to the numerous experts who provided
early advice regarding the project but could not attend the May meeting.
This project and its successful first workshop would not have been possible without the
persistent support, advice, and expertise provided by the broader CCS team, including Shiloh
Fetzik, Tom Watson, Liese Siegenthaler, Neil Bhatiya, Caitlin Werrell, Francesco Femia, and
many CCS Advisory Board members. Their commitment to creatively addressing global
security risks is a continual source of inspiration.
Finally, we are grateful to the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation for their
generous support for this project.
This report is a summary of ongoing deliberations among experts from different disciplines
who were encouraged to think about the emerging challenges in their respective fields in an
interactive and interdisciplinary manner. This report is intended to remain faithful to the
Working Groups deliberations. As such, at times it may reveal gaps in the ways in which
individuals from one discipline perceive the empirical or policy picture of areas that are
less familiar to them. Though this study marks just a first step, this work should reveal new
insights about the convergences and divergences in how diverse stakeholders understand
pressing global threats.
While this report is based on deliberations among members of the Working Group, specific
statements and ideas do not necessarily represent the views of individual members or consensus
across the full group. Any errors of commission or omission are solely those of the editors.
Brigadier General John Adams, USA (Ret.) - President of Guardian Six Consulting LLC**#
Brigadier General Bob Barnes, USA (Ret.) - Senior Policy Advisor, Center for Climate and
Security**#
Michelle Cann - Director of Operations and Projects, Partnership for Global Security
Lieutenant General John Castellaw USMC (Ret.) - President, Crockett Policy Institute**#
Dr. Daniel Chiu - Director of the Joint Advanced Warfighting Division, Institute for Defense
Analyses
Honorable Sherri Goodman - Senior Advisor for International Security, the Center for
Climate and Security**
Rear Admiral Leendert Len Hering Sr., USN (Ret.) - Advisory Board Member, Center
for Climate and Security**
Ambassador Laura Holgate - Visiting Scholar, George Washington Universitys Institute for
International Science and Technology Policy
Dr. Corey Johnson - Associate Professor and Department Head of Geography, University of
North Carolina at Greensboro
Dr. Geoff Kemp - Senior Director of Regional Security Programs, Center for the National
Interest#
Dr. Marc Levy - Deputy Director of the Center for International Earth Science Information
Network, Columbia University Earth Institute
Dr. Janne Nolan (Project Co-Chair) - Research Professor, Elliott School of International
Affairs; Chair, Nuclear Security Working Group**#
Rear Admiral David W. Titley, USN (Ret.) - Professor of International Affairs and Professor
of Practice in the Department of Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University**
In addition to the Working Group members named above, other experts contributed to the
development of this project but could not attend the groups May 2017 workshop; or preferred
to contribute anonymously at this time.
Two of the gravest threats to global security today are nuclear detonation risks and climate
change. One poses the potential for immediate catastrophe, the other, a perhaps slower but
potentially comparable destructive force. In the post-Cold War era, nuclear dangers and
climate risks present what could be major existential risks to society. Understanding the
connections among climate and nuclear trends, and how they might interact with other
security risks, will enable national security and policy planners.
This project represents an effort to better understand these challenges. It aims to enhance the
integration of analysis and policy formulation regarding future risks, drawing upon a diverse
group of experts in security and defense, climate change and its effects, and nuclear security,
safety, and nonproliferation. The inter-disciplinary experts who formed the Working Group
on Climate, Nuclear, and Security Affairs bring broad and deep experience in government,
science, business, journalism, academia, international organizations, and think tanks.
The first section of this report describes in brief the Challenge in Climate, Nuclear, and
Security Affairs that motivated this project.
The world is facing numerous, diverse nuclear trends. On just the civilian side, several
countries appear to be proceeding with incipient nuclear energy programs or rekindling
efforts that stalled in the past. Some nations with long-standing nuclear energy sectors are
seeking to increase their capacity. Still others are reducing their reliance due to a variety of
economic and other factors. All of these trends hold the potential to raise or mitigate security
concerns depending on the details of how they unfold, and all will influence the trajectory
of global climate change.
Other climate-security concerns stem from the prospect of natural disasters and extreme heat
affecting energy availability. As the climate changes, heatwaves are becoming increasingly severe
and imposing human and economic tolls that are compounded when extreme temperatures
hinder power generation. Such challenges have already been witnessed in places like India
and Pakistan. 3 This shows a confluence of trends that could form unique challenges for
countries seeking or expanding nuclear energy capacity in part to address pressing economic,
social, and health problems stemming from inadequate energy access.
The above-mentioned challenges are occurring at a time of profound change that includes
waves of mass migration around and within key regions, security risks arising from terrorist
threats, technological evolution altering the global security environment, and rising tensions
among leading industrial countries and with smaller states such as Iran and the DPRK.
Many of these troubling trends are evolving simultaneously. Others are highly interrelated
and mutually reinforcing. For example:
Bangladesh is struggling against sea level rise and changing Himalayan glacial
patterns, which are occurring in tandem with rising terrorist threats and the
worsening demands of its overpopulation. These stressors pose serious security
concerns, and could, if they are not addressed adequately in the coming years, raise
concerns regarding security and safety for the nuclear reactors being built with
Russian assistance.
Jordan, a critical security partner of the United States, has experienced domestic
opposition to its plans to move forward with a concerted domestic nuclear energy
program, which is intended in part to help enable desalination efforts and address
the countrys water stresses that are worsening with the combined pressures of
refugees and climatic changes.
Nigeria appears to slowly be progressing on a nuclear energy program just as it is
grappling with daunting terrorist threats, drought, migration, and other challenges
to societal stability and governance.
International institutions such as the International Atomic Energy Agency and
Nuclear Suppliers Group are experiencing new challenges and possibly expanding
missions as nuclear, climate, and security trends converge in much more complex
ways.
As the relationships among climate, security, and nuclear risks become more complex and
interconnected, the challenges posed are converging in new and unfamiliar ways. Yet discussion of
any interconnections typically are limited to debates about the merits of nuclear energy as a means
of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This is only one part of the equation. Security concerns
are often left out, and all three issue areas are too often treated independently from one another.
Without sufficient understanding of how climate, nuclear, and security issues are interrelated,
policies to combat one or another challenge may prove inefficient or even self-defeating.
Key Findings
By design, the Working Group included experts with differing views on the need to maintain or
expand nuclear power generation capacity, specific effects of climate change, security priorities,
the likelihood of nuclear weapons use, the degree to which the spread of civilian nuclear
technologies might compound security challenges in specific countries or regions, and many
other variables. Despite the diversity of views, members concurred that these various factors
are combining to influence the world order and drive complex global security challenges.
Moreover, the group generally agreed that two of the greatest risks to international security
in the 21st Century are nuclear war and catastrophic climate change. Today, the climate,
nuclear, and security events we see unfolding globally are combining in dynamic ways that may
pull the world closer to these two breaking points if not corrected.
The Working Group found that these issues combine to form a new, complex system of
interlinking trends at work in todays world (Section 2). Great upheavals in world history
show how critical it is to understand the grander world order in which events are transpiring,
as well as the interactions among various elements of that order in terms of their potential to
create outsized impacts. Several increasingly discernible elements of the complex system are
also becoming clear, as described in the Section 3 of the report:
Security trends and pathways, such as concerns over nuclear latency and internal
security threats in key countries;
Social, political, and economic disruptions that alter the trajectories of world events;
Governance mechanisms, or the international norms and structures that normally
exert stabilizing influences when they are strong; and
Considerations in how science and technology, research and development, talent,
and markets shape the issues under examination.
All of these factors combine in specific conflict regions to tilt stresses toward or away from
outright conflict or competition.
At the same time, the framework presented in this report can serve as a guide for how
smart planning, preparations, and policies can navigate this combination of stresses
and create a more resilient, stable world. Bolstering international governance mechanisms,
smartly developing and applying key technologies, addressing underlying drivers of insecurity
and instability, and accounting for social and political movements will be required to help
mitigate the types of concerns raised in this report. This is especially critical in the potential
crisis regions where combining security, climate, and nuclear risks must be addressed with
urgency: South Asia, the Middle East, the South China Sea, and Central and North Africa.
The report concludes with a few broad but clear next steps for this Working Group and
others to pursue:
Develop realistic scenarios for which the interlinkages described in this report
combine in potential crisis regions, and game out ways in which applying specific
policies, technologies, normative structures, and other measures can be stabilizing
or destabilizing.
Improve communication. Both nuclear war and climate change present existential
risks, but the public and policy makers have not prioritized either commensurate to
the scale of the risks. Making these and other existential risks comprehensible and
clear to people is an important goal.
Educate Policy-makers. The risks raised in this report must be conveyed in ways
that are relatable and immediate, for example emphasizing the ways to reduce
threats to public health and infrastructure across the country. We must also make
clear what gaps cannot be immediately refilled if U.S. capacities are stripped away,
for example regarding data collection and analytics.
The purpose of this report is to capture an ongoing discussion among experts from different
disciplines who were encouraged to think about the emerging challenges in their respective
fields in an interactive and interdisciplinary manner. Though it marks just a first step, this
work aims to develop new understandings of the convergences and divergences in how diverse
stakeholders understand pressing global threats.
At the same time, governments worldwide are facing growing difficulties managing the
effects of rapidly changing global climate trends, and the intersection of these challenges
with global security and stability. These include a rapidly changing Arctic region, droughts
and other detrimental effects on water systems in many countries, sea level rise encroaching
on coastal areas around the globe, disease patterns changing, and evolving disaster patterns
creating new pressures on civilian capacities and defense forces for many countries. Climate-
security risks that were once projected as possibilities in the 2020s and beyond are already
manifesting. Resulting tensions, periods of transition or instability, and the empowerment
this may bestow on especially-stricken countries raise new concerns for the norms and systems
of global governance that broadly affect security and help create the foundation for managing
nuclear risks. As the global climate changes, heatwaves are becoming increasingly worrisome
for their human and economic tolls, which are compounded when extreme temperatures
hinder power generationissues already seen in places like India and Pakistan. 4
These challenges are occurring at a time of profound global shifts, from, inter alia,
technological change, terrorist threats, increasing waves of population displacement around
and within key regions, rising tensions among leading industrial countries (including the
United States and Russia) and with smaller states such as the Democratic Peoples Republic
of Korea (DPRK). Even as it has been strengthenedfor example, by the Chemical Weapons
Convention inching closer to universalitythe current global weapons of mass destruction
nonproliferation regime is under pressure from events such as the use of chemical weapons
in Syria and the emergence of an international movement (supported by a majority of UN
members) seeking a treaty to ban nuclear weapons.
In some ways, these types of trends are evolving in parallel, shaping the global landscape
alongside political changes, demographic stress, globalization, and other factors. In other
ways, these trends are directly influencing one another and intertwining.
We can already see innumerable examples. Bangladesh is struggling against sea level rise and
changing Himalayan glacial patterns occurring in tandem with rising terrorist threats and the
worsening demands of its overpopulation. These stressors form serious security concerns, and
to some they raise questions regarding the long-term stability of the environment in which
Russia is assisting the Bangladeshi government in building nuclear reactors. 5 Jordan, a critical
security partner of the United States, has experienced domestic opposition to its plans to
move forward on a concerted domestic nuclear energy programintended in part to enable
desalination and help address the countrys dire water stresses that are worsening with the
combined pressures of refugees and climate change. Nigeria appears to slowly be progressing
on a nuclear energy program just as it is grappling with daunting terrorist threats, drought,
migration, and other challenges.
International institutions are likewise experiencing new stresses and challenges as these
seemingly secular trends converge in unpredictable or at least much more complex ways.
In the Nuclear Suppliers Group, India now uses the threat of climate change as additional
rationale for its membership despite its status as a nuclear weapons possessor state outside
of the NPT, adding yet another complexity to an already thorny situation. Similarly, climate
The effects of nuclear weapons and climate change have both driven new legal challenges with
specific countries and in international fora, highlighting new developments in the international
system and, potentially, affording new kinds of influence to small states such as the Marshall
Islands. This influence is extending to ad hoc groups, such as the civil society organizations and
governments that united to advance the nuclear weapons ban treaty, and even individuals such as
small groups of students suing the U.S. government and companies over climate change.
As the relationships among nuclear, climate, and security trends and risks grow more complex
and interconnected, these issues are converging in new ways. However, the current discourse
about these phenomena typically is limited to debating the merits of nuclear energy as a means
of reducing greenhouse gas emissionsonly one part of the equation. Security concerns
are frequently left out of the conversation, and all three issue areas are too often treated
independently from one another. Without sufficient understanding of how climate, nuclear,
and security issues interrelate, however, the U.S. government and global actors may make
advances in one area that inadvertently undercut their objectives in another.
The pressing need to understand and characterize the fuller range of dynamics is the challenge
that animates the Working Group on Climate, Nuclear, and Security Affairs and this report. 6
Despite the groups diversity, its members concurred that these factors are combining to
influence the world order and drive global security challenges. Moreover, the group generally
agreed that this nexus of subjects helps to capture two of the greatest risks to international
security in the 21st Century: nuclear war and catastrophic climate change. Today, the climate,
nuclear, and security events we see unfolding globally are combining in dynamic ways that,
barring prudent intervention and effective policy innovation, could pull us toward these two
breaking points.
In Section 2, this report describes how the Working Group perceived the complex system
in which climate, nuclear, and security trends and events are interacting, influencing one
another, and shaping the global security environment. It then details the constituent parts
of this system in Section 3, offering numerous examples, ideas, and conundrums. Finally, it
provides a few important next steps in this line of work.
China has been a major focal point since the country publicly detailed plans for
an even-more ambitious rate of nuclear energy expansion in its 2015 climate
The Working Group explored nuclear benefits and risks, including those driven by the political pressure
that public sentiments exert in different countries. Demonstrators stand in the waters of the Bay of Bengal
as they shout slogans during a protest near the Kudankulam nuclear power project, in the southern Indian
state of Tamil Nadu. Demonstrators are protesting against the country's largest nuclear power project, over
fears about the plant's safety. REUTERS/Adnan Abidi
This Working Group did not form consensus positions regarding the benefits
and challenges of nuclear energy. Indeed, its membership was deliberately
designed to include varying ideas on these questions. Even still, the group
generally agreed that our preferences are not the central issue. Countries
pursue nuclear capabilities (or not) for a variety of reasons beyond our control.
It is therefore critical to increase U.S. engagement on the full range of global
nuclear affairs and plan for a range of future scenarios.
The world is already witnessing climate, nuclear, and security events clearly combining and
influencing one another. For several years, it seemed the examples of these interrelationships
could be taken as interesting but independent data points. Today, if addressed collectively,
it is clear that they constitute a complex but discernible system of interlinking events and
trends. Understanding those interlinkages and keeping them stable requires achieving a new
form of gestalt. i
The groups emphasis on understanding the evolving global system at play, rather than
focusing solely on independent events or issues, stemmed from the lessons learned about
great upheavals in our world history, including the years preceding the first and second
world wars. Too often, it is only after empires fall or millions are killed that we examine how
discrete events can collide into a perfect storm, or consider how swiftly nonlinear effects
can trigger dramatic change. Systemic fragility is rarely well recognized until core pillars of
that system break. It is common for governments to hold tremendous expertise and well-
intentioned policies that still prove ineffective due to an inadequate understanding of how
various elements interact. As such, we have a tendency to believe outcomes such as nuclear
war are unlikely, but we may be separated from it only by a series of more minor incidents.
Likewise, we have difficulty understanding how catastrophic climate change stands to reshape
our global security environment, though it is inevitable if we do not act.
The Working Group therefore found it critical to posit both the system at play and its
constituent elements. This can provide a roadmap of sorts to help prevent the world from
experiencing catastrophic outcomes such as nuclear weapons use and runaway climate
changeand shed light on how these grave threats are looming today.
i From Merriam-Webster: something that is made of many parts and yet is somehow more than or different
from the combination of its parts. As several Working Group members described, the true nature of our
evolving global security environment is difficult to understand, let alone manage, without first coming to grips
with the ways in which new interactions among various elements are emerging and their potential to create
outsized, systemic impacts.
In terms of existential risks, many in the Working Group found considerable overlap and
common threads between the risk of nuclear war and unmitigated climate change. Even
if the exact chains of events and causal mechanisms are not well understood today, some
in the group held a general sense that the hotter the world gets, the closer it is likely to
get to the outbreak of conflicts that could escalate into nuclear war. This is not an entirely
new revelation. In a 2007 project to envision potential security consequences of climate
change effects, Leon Fuerth examined climate projections for global average temperature
ii Of course, nuclear war and catastrophic climate change are not the only severe threats the world faces, but
they are clear, and articulating framework of what will move the world closer or further from them can help in
understanding how to address these and other existential risks.
Some experts are concerned that combining tensions over water, territory, and other issues may
increase nuclear detonation risks in regions like South Asia. An Indian Agni-II intermediate range
ballistic missile on a road-mobile launcher, displayed at the Republic Day Parade on New Delhi's
Rajpath, January 26, 2004. Antnio Milena (ABr)
Other plausible scenarios may not be as clear today, but they may occur via a cascade of
small events or surprises that combine to form new, nonlinear trajectories. This is why
understanding systemic risks and remedies is crucial.
The thought experiment at the foundation of this project led the Working Group to discuss
factors that could trigger nuclear war in some depth. iii The group had a wide range of views on
the likelihood of nuclear conflict under different conditions. However, the group agreed that
the emergence of climate change-exacerbated destabilizing forces among current or prospective
nuclear-armed states or sub-state actors is worth special, explicit consideration. As most U.S.
and NATO defense leaders have stated, the group generally agreed that the concept of limited
nuclear war is deeply faulty, not least because decision makers across nuclear-armed countries
do not all share the same risk calculations. Indeed, nuclear conflict may occur inadvertently
and as a result of events that spiral out of control without intentionality. Regions or countries
destabilized by the effects of climate change combining with other security threats could
make nuclear escalation and misperception risks even more likely. iv
iii The Working Group also discussed whether a condition of extreme nuclear proliferation is just as dangerous
as use of nuclear weapons. If we have dozens of countries with nuclear weapon capabilities, is a catastrophic
outcome inevitable? Does it depend on whether we are achieving systemic stability? Some believed that more
complications being introduced, including new nuclear states, inevitably make it harder to keep the system in
balance. Others expressed greater concern over the worlds water challenges. If more countries grow to consider
their neighbors deliberate changes in water systems as acts of war, could this source of rising tensions make
nuclear weapons proliferation or latency even more dangerous?
iv Short of nuclear conflict, some Working Group members considered whether grave instabilities in various
regions could influence more countries to seek the security assurances they believe nuclear weapons provide.
Currently, there is strong evidence of at least five elements comprising a system of distinguishable
security, nuclear, and climate interlinkages. The first described in this report is a category
of security trends and pathways , such as concerns over nuclear latency and internal security
threats in key locations. Second are the social, political, and economic disruptions that alter
the trajectories of world events. Next are governance mechanisms , or the international norms
and structures that normally exert stabilizing influences when they are strong. Fourth, this
report describes considerations in how science and technology, research and development,
talent, and markets shape the issues under examination. Finally, all of these factors combine
in specific conflict regions to tilt stresses toward or away from outright conflict or competition.
Jordan is dealing with numerous internal economic, security, demographic, and environmental pressures as
it pursues nuclear energy. Za'atri camp for Syrian refugees, Jordan. July 18, 2013. U.S. Department of State
Some Working Group members took on warfighting questions. Could these intermingled
challenges complicate the work of those engaged in military operations? The liberation of
parts of Iraq and Syria from the Islamic State have heightened focus on the future of urban
v Nuclear sites in the United States and Ukraine being targeted for cyber attacks make this clear.
These fields could further intersect if urbanization trends that many countries are experiencing
are amplified by the building of large nuclear power generation projects near big cities. This
may be particularly worrisome for coastal megacities where sea level rise stands to clash with
increasing concentrations of people and physical capital, or in cases for which the mixing of
ethnic or religious groups may contribute to social unrest.
The ministers of foreign affairs and other officials from the P5+1 countries, the European Union and
Iran meeting for a Comprehensive agreement on the Iranian nuclear programme. Beau-Rivage Palace,
Lausanne, Switzerland. March 30, 2015. U.S. Department of State
For most Working Group members who raised this question, Iran served as a prominent
example. Additionally, a number of other states with advanced nuclear energy sectors have
not diverted resources into weapons programs, yet continue to raise latency concerns. It is
axiomatic that security environments facing nuclear-capable countries can change and that
seemingly cooperative regimes can be replaced or evolve in unexpected ways. Climate change
further destabilizing such countries would add yet additional concerns. A shift towards a
greater global emphasis on nuclear energy, as such, requires a commensurate redoubling
of support for strong nonproliferation regimes and commitment to international oversight,
even in cases for which the risks of diversion or compromise seem remote today.
Fairly or not, nuclear energy programs in countries as diverse as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey,
Egypt, and Indonesia may raise latency concerns as long as they possess any capacity to divert
efforts into a clandestine nuclear weapons program. Their choices of reactor technologies,
primary suppliers and partners, and other specifics will be critical to shaping these perceptions.
And while it already has nuclear weapons, Indias nuclear energy and missile technology
cooperation with Russia will continue to evoke suspicions about a lack of adequate demarcation
between civilian and military nuclear programs. For these and other countries, Working
Group members voiced concerns that climate change effects could exacerbate the very kinds
of economic, social, and political stresses that can influence nuclear latency concerns.
In addition to questions raised about the impact of climate change effects on Irans future,
such as increased water scarcity, the Working Group discussed numerous, diverse views on
what lessons can be drawn regarding its nuclear activities. Iran proved that countries can use
nuclear power as a cover for investment in a nuclear weapons development program. At the
same time, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action reached among the P5 plus 1 states in
2016 could demonstrate that robust international inspections can help dissuade states from
crossing the line. Some thought the Iran case also showed international unity, critical at a
time when North Koreas nuclear and missile advancements and other world events are testing
vi As with the likelihood of a nuclear detonation, the Working Group held diverging views on the degree to
which latency concerns are mitigated by international safeguards, standards, and norms.
The contracts and technology transfer terms used by particular suppliersand what ancillary deals
are madematter as well in assessing long and short-term potential security risks. For many, suppliers
coupling military assistance with nuclear energy deals introduces serious concerns.14 The buy-own-
operate model now in favor in countries such as Turkey and Jordan, for which Russia is now the
main supplier, may make nuclear energy viable for countries that could not otherwise afford it. This
may be net positive for stability in some countries. In others, the underlying strains on society and
government demand special consideration. Nigeria, which appears to be progressing with its nuclear
energy plans after years of delays, is one example that worried some Working Group members.15 While
the country would benefit from additional energy supplies, it is struggling with a dramatic youth
bulge, high unemployment, some of the most rapid urbanization rates in the world, extensive drought,
disease outbreaks, population displacement, and the continuing threat of Boko Haramin addition
to a history of disaffected citizens and terrorist groups blowing up energy infrastructure. Ensuring
governmental and societal capacity to address these challenges while developing a new nuclear sector,
if those plans move forward, will require significant resources and collaboration.
communitys ability to detect, deter, and defend against nuclear threats. vii Additionally, aging
and shuttered reactors around the world will need to undergo decommissioning processes in
the decades ahead. If political will for nuclear funding declines, the safety of these processes
may be undercut and security could lag considerably and create serious new challenges.
Short of a full pivot away from nuclear energy, Working Group members posed the question
of whether a lack of transparency and/or confidence about how nuclear technologies were
being applied could interfere with efforts to manage climate challenges or sufficiently reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. Taken further, several imagined a dilemma in which pushback over
nuclear energy could drive influential countries such as Russia, China, or India, for example,
to declare geoengineering as the only alternative for addressing climate change and pursue it
vigorously.
For any pathway nuclear energy takes in the future, the weakening U.S. role in the nuclear
suppliers market, and in international nuclear affairs in general, are already posing serious
security challenges. Relationships and programs that are grounded in assumptions that
countries like the United States, Japan, and France will continue their past presence in the
international market may be outdated, with implications for the influence of these countries.
If the American presence in international nuclear affairs declines, it will both serve as a
detriment to U.S. national security policy objectives and disadvantage U.S. companies. We
discuss this issue further in later sections of this report, as it raises numerous concerns given
the daunting trends already present in the global security environment and onset of the
effects of climate change.
vii The Global Nexus Initiative has conducted significant work on these and related issues. See http://
globalnexusinitiative.org/
Kazakhstan, Japan, the United States, the Marshall Islands and other countries have seen influential
social and political movements rise in reaction to nuclear legacies. Nuclear weapon test Bravo (yield
15 Mt) on Bikini Atoll. The test was part of the Operation Castle. The Bravo event was an experimental
thermonuclear device surface event. U.S. Department of Energy.
Unknowable trends and events will certainly have starring roles as well, and must be considered as climate,
nuclear, and security trends combine. The Working Group imagined many shock events that could lead
to abrupt, possibly unwise decisions by governments and other actors. One might be a major atmospheric
change, for example from geoengineering attempts, or if China rapidly reduced its pollution and the
reduction of reflectants causes a spike in heating. Another could be a major increase in the number
of countries installing nuclear energy inducing further, even more dramatic changes in the suppliers
market. Individuals might create swift change (positive or negative) via nefarious acts, technological
breakthroughs, or an entrepreneurial individual trying to sell small reactors to every country in the world
(a Tesla of nuclear reactors, as one participant described).
One next step for this Working Group will be to identify pathways by which any number of security
and other trends and pressures from climate change can combine with nuclear issues in time and space
to drive isolated threats and systemic risks. Social, political, and economic disruptions will shape these
threats and risks, as outlined in the next section.
Satellite image of three hurricanes in the Caribbean/Gulf of Mexico, and wildfires in California.
September 2017. NOAA.
Signs of many of these and other effects of climate change are already
manifesting globally. Security analysts and other experts, including
many in the Working Group, have long considered what these types of
physical changes mean for stability, prosperity, and conflict conditions
especially as they combine with and influence other trends. 21 Some of
these include:
Notably, many observed climate change effects are already outpacing past
projections. 25 These and other impacts will have serious repercussions
for the security forces and institutions of the United States and other
countries. As numerous defense leaders have described, the changing
global climate already holds implications for equipping, planning,
prepositioning assets, training, installation management, and budgeting. 26
These types of disruptions affect international social and political dynamics that have a bearing on
geopolitics. They also influence the domestic political environment in the United States and other
countries, and affect how climate, nuclear, and security decisions are made. The Working Group
generally agreed that the human dimensions of these challenges are extraordinarily influential,
incredibly complicated and difficult to predict, and too often ignored in examinations of global
security trends.
In terms of social disruptions, the group found a positive trend to be a high degree of social
capital and advocacy surrounding climate change, including in developing countries. The
Paris climate change agreement would not have come to fruition otherwise, showing the
potential for social pressure to steer global trends. Energy poverty serves as a significant social
disrupter as well, including by influencing patterns of population movement and intermixing,
and drawing lines between haves and have-nots.
How information is transmitted, received, and interpreted has feedback loops across climate,
nuclear, and security issues, with social media forming a potent mechanism for this nexus.
The group agreed that social media can be positively harnessed regarding these issues,
but that its contributions and effects are relatively unpredictable. It can likewise cause a
harmful form social cohesion by facilitating the spread of misinformation. Important but
underappreciated are social medias roles in nuclear monitoring and verification, tracking
environmental changes, and understanding conflict. Such tools will be critical for addressing
this nexus of trends.
In terms of positive disruptions, social conceptions of safety cut across climate, nuclear,
and security issuesand provide a coherent hook for reaching diverse publics. People in
many countries are demanding protection more than they used to and holding governments
accountable, and most publics want reassurances that the energy they are being supplied
with will be safe. This heightened demand includes responses to natural disasters, disease
outbreaks, and nuclear safety concerns, for example after Japans Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear
site was devastated by tsunami.
Religion is yet another important factor, but often marginalized in analysis of security
threats. Many places where we see nuclear, climate, and security factors intertwining also
experience strong religious influences, including South Asia and the Middle East. Religion
can inform public views on all of these issues in multiple directions, often simultaneously.
Various religious groups participate in anti-nuclear activism and pressure governments to
address climate change, for example. Individual religious leaders can have strong impacts as
well, as seen in Pope Francis being highly vocal on climate change and nuclear weapons as his
influence grows as a global leader even for non-Christians.
In both religious and secular ways, there is evidence that people in many parts of the world
are becoming more clannish. The activism of civil society groups, individuals, and countries
that pushed the nuclear weapons ban treaty, and the P5 separating themselves from many
nuclear disarmament fora in recent years, are examples of factional lines becoming more
stark. Additional signs are emerging from Brexit, independence referenda in Iraqi Kurdistan
and Catalonia, and statist approaches emerging on both climate and nuclear issues in states
like California. Sub-state actors banding together to remain committed to international
climate goals despite retracted support at the federal level may be yet another example, and
one thatin combination with the rise in terrorism, the influence of wealthy individuals,
and other trendsraises questions of whether nation-states will lose dominance in shaping
climate, nuclear, and security affairs.
Generational divides can likewise influence positive and negative disruptions. Lack of
knowledge regarding nuclear weapons and energy by younger generations can be detrimental
to creating political will for any policy changes. Conversely, younger citizens tend to be much
more active regarding climate change.
As part of this dimension, some Working Group members discussed the important role of
universally shared, defining moments and experiences for affecting social and political cohesion
regarding specific issues. In Japan, the shared experience of the countrys devastation from the
March 11, 2011, triple crisis has facilitated a deeply-felt movement against nuclear energy.
The nuclear realm may be witnessing the most dramatic social and political disruptions
among the global concerns the Working Group explored. There is a strong sense that the
existing system of international norms, institutions, and relationships is under intense
pressure. Major changes in U.S. politics, signs that the United States is lagging behind in
the nuclear suppliers market, and U.S. leaders openly questioning longstanding tenets of
nonproliferation and disparaging steps to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons all
factored into the Working Groups concerns. The division between the P5 and most of the
worlds governments regarding disarmament policies and the nuclear weapons ban treaty are
leading many to question whether the system built around the NPT will survive. Significant
uncertainties abound. For example, publics around the world openly questioning the premise
that nuclear weapons make possessors and their allies safer could prove to be either a stabilizing
or destabilizing trend. Here the divisions in attitudes between the so-called global north and
south will play an important role, as will specific countries such as Japan, Kazakhstan, and
the Marshall Islands where populations have experienced the effects of extreme radiation
exposure.
Numerous effects of climate change (or climate alterations driven by nuclear warfare or
geoengineering) hold the potential for world-changing economic and social disruptions.
Water and food insecurity are likely mechanisms. The ability of the global agriculture system
to adapt to the changing climate and ongoing biodiversity loss, while meeting the worlds
growing food needs, is in serious question. It is also not clear to what degree governments
are able to absorb and manage these changes. Social order can easily be disrupted by changes
in food patternsnot just by food insufficiency, but by changing herding lands and forced
dietary shifts that carry important cultural implications. Around Lake Chad and Western
Africa, for example, drought is already affecting agriculture and extremist groups in ways that
feed off one another. In the Middle East, changing water availability is certainly impacting
society in various ways that extend far beyond physical effects. The contributions of Syrias
long-term drought to its civil war, which has led to mass suffering and affected security
dynamics across the region and into Europe, is one clear example. 28
Topping off these concerns, it is clear that one of the most profound global disruptions is
likely the decrease in American influence over international norms, events, and regimes.
International nuclear norms are already shifting in parallel to these broader changes in
the global order. In just one example, there is a rising inclination to discuss the use of
nuclear weapons as an option for de-escalating conflicts. Newcomers to the nuclear arena are
increasingly challenging once widely-held non-use and no-testing norms; some experts and
officials even in established nuclear weapons possessing states are doing so as well.
The Summit process may be an example for future mini- or multilateral progress on the types of issues
addressed in this report. Opening Plenary of the Nuclear Security Summit 2016, in Washington DC,
April 01, 2016. Narendra Modi
While we have organizations to promote nuclear safety, security, and safeguards, enforcement
mechanisms and international support are uneven across these fields. Many Working Group
members believe governance for nuclear security is the least adequate of the three, even
after concerted improvements fostered by the Nuclear Security Summits process. Further,
one of the most important playersthe IAEAmay not be resourced properly to handle its
expanding, critical roles. Its needs may grow further if nuclear suppliers introduce multiple
types of new reactors in the future and if its contributions to global security continue to grow.
In addition to these nuclear challenges, there is a clear void of governance frameworks that
unite these concerns with climate and security threats. The normative structures of these issues
have thus far been built mostly in isolation of each other. The Working Group adamantly
believed that it was necessary for international bodies to factor in the growing intersections
of these issues. Doing so becomes all the more pressing when faced with scenarios such
as climate stresses disrupting the social fabric of communities and potentially resulting in
destabilizing governments. 29
Incremental upgrades to the current system, which has clearly reached its limits, may
not be optimal for addressing this deficiency; nor are a purely top-down regime or single
governance structure or institution. Rather, the solution may require the right combination
of international regimes, norms, and organizations. Helpful elements could be peer review
systems that include government and non-governmental experts and institutions. Multi- and
minilateral cooperative structures have likewise proven successful in augmenting international
governance. Harmonizing international regulations in nuclear affairs, and developing any
international governance system or basic norms for geoengineering, would be important
steps as well.
As this report discussed previously, Russia and China are further shifting global affairs as they are
perceived to be taking advantage of the void the US and other traditional international leaders are
leaving behind. One clear manifestation is both states utilizing nuclear energy investments in other
nations to expand their geopolitical influence. In addition to the nuclear realm, China in particular
is exhibiting clear indications that it seeks to dominate in both climate and security affairs as well.
The declining U.S. role in the nuclear suppliers market, and Russias rising dominance of
it, is a defining shift in global affairs. American influence in the Nuclear Suppliers Group
and other fora, and the U.S. ability to use nonproliferation programs to project its influence
and reinforce deterrence, may already be waning. With these trends, U.S. influence on
supply chains and safety may decrease. Many voiced concerns that we will see the spread of
technologies that we dont have control or influence over, and that may lead to new nuclear
risks. The suppliers landscape may affect innovation as well: while China, as a newer supplier,
seems quite focused on innovation, Russia may be disinclined to invest in technological
advancements the more it dominates the international market.
There is a technological concern raised by the suppliers question, and it is broader than the
often-discussed questions of enrichment and reprocessing. Nuclear engineers and operators
have learned much in the past 35 years, and newer nuclear reactors are significantly safer than
those of decades past. If suppliers export older-model reactors as energy solutions to climate
change when newer, more advanced models are available to meet the needs of the importing
country, that may in itself introduce unnecessary risks.
Looking further to the future, Working Group members raised the prospect that the current
changes in the nuclear suppliers market may be mild compared to scenarios of greater
disruption. If existing export control systems and suppliers regimes sufficiently weaken, will
we lose the ability to legitimize some nuclear providers while delegitimizing others? Might
the DPRK become a supplier? Under what conditions do we lose control over such questions?
What mechanisms are in place to enforce decisions made for the greater good? Can we impose
penalties on countries that choose options we dont like?
Beyond which countries supply the future nuclear energy market, in whatever form it takes,
the group considered whether specific technologies are particularly advantageous regarding
safety and materials security. Second, the group debated the pros and cons of overtly pushing
those technologies into countries experiencing thorny climate and security challenges.
Some Working Group members noted that larger reactors may be more important for making
a major difference in mitigating greenhouse emissions, but many countries with high security
and climate risks may not in the near or medium term have the grid capacity or human
resources to manage them effectively. Looking ahead, small modular reactors may be more
ideal than alternative models for stabilizing some areas in desperate need of energy and water
while reducing proliferation risks. A serious question for the U.S. government is whether to
attempt to hasten the advancement of these or other types of reactors to market by offering
incentives, creating testbeds, or taking other measures. Notably, the United States is not the
only potential supplier for small modular reactors. Russia, China, or others could bring these
or other new reactor technologies to market faster and without some of the constraints U.S.
companies face.
One possible shift could add power to how this category affects the grander system: if the
private sector comes to dominate actions and investments that used to be mostly government
controlled. The growing private sector role in space may portend shifts in the weather, climate,
or nuclear arenas for the United States. Investors and venture capitalists are emerging to
potentially reshape these landscapes, investing in private companies that are performing the
types of research, development, and testing roles that were once dominated by the National
Labs and other federal government agencies. This is in contrast to countries such as Russia and
China, where the governments are remaining more in control. The work of these countries
and the degree to which innovative American companies work with and through themwill
have implications for who can access new technologies, how they will be distributed, and
whether they are made broadly available.
There are operational and business model details that could contribute stabilizing forces in countries
grappling with climate and security stressors. The build-own-operate nuclear deals concluded in recent
years by Turkey and Jordan establish multi-decade relationships with their supplier countries, and
may prove less costly than these countries continuing their heavy dependence on imported fossil fuels.
Similar models may also indirectly bring in capital for desalination that would be difficult to raise
solely for reducing water stress.
Data
Data will play important roles in
systemic stability or instability,
including with important
applications across climate,
nuclear, and security issues. Data
used for weather and related predictive capabilities developed in the United States are critical
to forecasting and understanding details of the changing climateincluding in ways critical
to national security agencies. The U.S. government has greatly improved these capabilities to
account for the fact that weather variables today are not behaving like they used to.
Reducing U.S. government involvement in data collection and analysis would have several
clear consequences. Limiting our ability to predict weather patterns that are outside of the
norm is a serious security concern, and could leave the American people and infrastructure
more vulnerable. NOAA and NASA have been at the forefront of improving U.S. models and
providing U.S. data and future projections for use by the international community. If the
U.S. ceases to provide these global goods, other countries or private companies might not
fill the gap, or may not do so without financial or political concessions. Either way, the U.S.
government loses its leading edge in knowledge and influence.
Perhaps more worrisome, data collection and analysis are not capacities the United States
can instantly rebuild. Day to day collection informs the process in an ongoing manner and
refines the skills of American personnel. Forensic investigation methods are less precise than
those by which U.S. experts continuously collect data over time, and reliance on them could
exacerbate the problem of not being able to forecast properly.
Human capacity and talent Ninth annual Western National Robot Rodeo and Capability
will determine whether the Exercise at Sandia National Laboratories. The five-day event offers a
international community finds challenging platform for civilian and military bomb squad teams to
stability or instability in the practice defusing dangerous situations with robots help.
Randy Montoya / Sandia Labs.
face of mounting climate,
nuclear, and security strains.
While this is a global issue,
the United States is witnessing
specific concerns in this regard.
The national security community plays a unique role in this picture, and suffers unique
challenges. The National Labs have suffered loss of nuclear-related capacity, some as a result
of positive arms control progress. At the same time, they have expanded important capacities
in areas such as energy, cyber security, countering biological threats, and climate change. In
all of their areas of expertise, the National Labs cannot quickly bring back capacities that
they lose, holding negative implications for national security and American innovation. Even
if the Labs maintain their current strength, it may still be insufficient for the diversity and
scale of the U.S. security threats they must help in addressing.
There are positive signs on the international side, with bright spots such as CERN (the
European Organization for Nuclear Research) and the UAEs Masdar initiative. However,
there is still no single organization focusing on advances in basic sciences or developing
technologies that cross climate vulnerability, energy challenges, nuclear security and safety,
dual-use challenges, and other issues in unison.
The decline of the U.S. nuclear industry may be placing negative pressure on the Navy in
particular. Recruiting for the nuclear Navy may become more difficult due to a belief that
there will not be as many nuclear jobs in the private sector when service members retire. The
Navys nuclear experts are also working with more advanced technologies that the U.S. private
sector is currently, so their skills may not align well to the available civilian job market.
Other Considerations
Numerous other categories of technologies are likely to play increasingly important roles in
addressing climate change, nuclear, and security threatsincluding many with applications
across all of these domains. For all of these, the question lingers of whether the United States
will lead in creating new markets and supplying the workforces to feed them. Examples include
artificial intelligence (AI), robotics, and 3D printing, which can be used for myriad climate
change-related challenges and security applications, and will create both helpful tools and
new risks in nuclear matters. Advances in sensing and detection are already exerting influence,
and can be used in combination with AI platforms and robotics to great effect. Modeling
capabilities have long aided decision making and planning, and hold great potential for
gaming out how applying disruptive technologies and trends could affect the climate, nuclear,
and security space. The internet of things and industrial internet of things are beginning
to have strong effects, including on energy supply and demand, and may offer hooks for
bringing skilled non-experts into the equation of solving complex security challenges.
In several areas, many Working Group members recognized that governments must play an
active role in ensuring security needs are met, incentivizing innovation, and setting norms and
standards. Geoengineering is one clear example, as it is currently ungoverned, carries clear security
implications, and could bring negative effects to some parts of the world. Given the unacceptable
security risks of climate change in a business-as-usual scenarioincluding devastating sea level
rise, mass displacement of people, and morethe U.S. government can continue its focus
on incentivizing breakthrough advances in carbon dioxide removal and power storage and
management in ways that private companies with a responsibility to return profits cannot.
Fragile States Index. Highlighted countries either have established nuclear power programs, are taking
steps towards expanding existing programs, are in planning stages of development, or are actively
exploring nuclear energy options. The Fund For Peace.
While climate, nuclear, and security threats are clearly compounding in a number of crisis
regions today, the term is not meant to indicate that there are predictable outcomes to
the complex dynamics they house. Our predictive capabilities are normally low in conflict
studies and nuclear affairs, and climate change effects are happening faster than many models
projected in the past. Rather, crisis regions are places for which it is most critical to take
stabilizing measures and push positive interactions across the system. Such interventions
could include assistance in all-hazards disaster preparedness, designing safety and security
systems, and providing appropriate technologies. These types of stabilizing actions must also
account for the underlying political, social, and economic drivers at play.
Disasters hitting already-fragile places could also abruptly create crisis regions. This could
be the case for even for relatively stable countries pushed beyond their response capacity by
natural or manmade disasters that suddenly overwhelm them. It is not a stretch to imagine
sea level rising and then a major storm hitting a coastal megacity that is already under strain
from population growth, resource stress, and underemployment. Geoengineering experiments
creating unintended consequences or unevenly distributed effects could act in a similar fashion.
At the same time, identifying crisis regions can assist in prioritizing the highest-payoff
interventions. For any region of concern, we can work through how applying or increasing
environmental and nuclear technologies could serve as a stabilizing force by helping to address
energy poverty, reduce water stress, create jobs, and build institutional capacity. For countries
overly reliant on fossil fuels to drive their economy, gaining nuclear capacity can help a
population to feel empowered by no longer needing to drill its value out of the ground, as
one participant noted. In order to have a positive impact, ramping up nuclear capacity in these
areas will require working through issues like security and safeguards, spent fuel disposition,
personnel training and reliability, and public communicationsall of which, if done well, can
be used to strengthen societies and institutions. Optimally, these types of advances would be
accompanied by technologies and capacity-building for reducing climate change risks.
Moreover, like defense alliances, long-term nuclear relationships with responsible suppliers
can strongly influence crisis regions. Countries such as Russia, China, and Japan have long
recognized the strategic importance of entering into enduring relationships surrounding nuclear
systems, especially with countries currently among the nuclear have-nots. As one Working
Group member noted, if American leaders could develop the political will and command U.S.
institutions to TVA countries like Jordan or Indonesiain other words, assist in establishing
functional and profitable energy systems building on the successful history of the Tennessee
Valley Authoritythe United States would gain deeper knowledge regarding their nuclear
activities and wield greater influence over measures to reduce stress from security- and climate-
related tensions.
Over the long term, the prospects of nuclear energy serving as a stabilizing influence in crisis
regions will also depend on whether suppliers help to ensure that nuclear safety, security, and
safeguard personnel and institutions are robust and resilient even under strains. Other key
variables will be countries abilities to ensure that grid capacity is sufficient to sustain their
nuclear energy plans, and how they mitigate any latency concerns as may be perceived by their
publics or the international community.
As is often the case, entire regions could be at risk when a combination of stressors go wrong
just in one country or region. Syria has shown this ever since sociopolitical pressures and
oppression by Assad met with the effects of long-term climate change-exacerbated drought
in the lead up to the Syrian civil war. The conflict has killed more than 400,000 people,
displaced more than 11 million, facilitated the spread of various terrorist groups, drawn
Russia and NATO countries into tense military and diplomatic standoffs, and contributed to
greater region-wide fracturing between Shia and Sunni states and populations. The Working
Group identified several countries that seem to hold the ingredients for these kinds of
complex nuclear-climate-security crises to unfold and affect their broader regions, including
Iran, Russia, North Korea, and Turkey. 32
In terms of regions of highest concern today, the Working Group identified the following as
worth examining for scenarios that could lead to systemic failure and even countries reaching
either or both breaking points.
South Asia is certainly witnessing nuclear, climate, and security risks, which are already combining
in a variety of ways. Unfortunately, it may be the perfect example of the geopolitical instability that
already exists in a region combining with climate and nuclear stressors in dangerous ways. The wider
region holds three countries with nuclear weapons, and numerous terrorist networks. There is regular,
active fire between Indian and Pakistani forces. Tensions in Kashmir, while long enduring, are rising
once again and now combining with the proximate pressures of new nuclear weapons and water stress.
India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh are all planning nuclear energy expansions, including in collaboration
with Russia and China, at the same time as they are grappling with declining glacial melt and damming
of shared river systems, high population growth, sea level rise, severe heat stress and other natural
disasters, migration and internal population displacement, and other pressures. Fisheries collapsing in
the Bay of Bengal and Indian Ocean are adding yet further pressure, and threatening the livelihoods
and food security of millions. The Working Group generally agreed that South Asia should therefore
form a top priority for defusing complex security, nuclear, and climate triggers.
If these intertwined climate, security, and nuclear issues do not feature prominently as the
United States alters its approach to the Middle Eastfor example, through its presence or
absence in the emerging nuclear energy market, and its expanding ties with Saudi Arabia
the countrys engagement may not prove to be a stabilizing force.
Over 1 Million in Tahrir Square, Egypt, demanding the removal of the regime and for Mubarak to step
down. February 2011. Jonathan Rashad / Flickr.
Finally, Central and Northern Africa formed a region of concern given the potent
combination of mass migration, drought, terrorism, deforestation, weak governance, and
other factors inflicting the area. While today this area holds just a few research reactors,
several countries intend to pursue larger nuclear programs. Whether these ambitions lead to
While we must focus on regions for which crisis conditions are already apparent, these spots
should not be the sole focus. This is in part because of the globalization of hazards wherein
impacts and disruptions in one part of the world can have implications on security thousands
of miles away. f For example, the 2010 climate-exacerbated droughts and wildfires in Russia
and China contributed to a rise in bread prices in Egypt preceding the Arab Spring. So even
nations that may not be in critical nuclear-climate-security regions will not necessarily be
immune from the risks. The Working Group advised ongoing and persistent evaluation of all
areas that house potentially-dangerous nuclear capabilities, climate-influenced pressures, and
major security challenges.
The group raised the potential for seismic disruptions in Europe, for example. Already
pressurizing this region are strains in the NATO alliance; security, economic, and climate
drivers bringing in a massive wave of migrants and refugees; risks of rising nationalism and
political fracturing; and Russias conventional, hybrid, and nuclear threats looming. A key
event such as a major turn in EU member state elections, a dramatic wave of climate change-
influenced disruptions within Russia, or any number of Arctic contingencies could trigger an
unpredictable, high-consequence series of events. We wont always know in advance or watch
for the most important indicators, especially given the potential for climate disruptions to
natural systems that have been consistent for hundreds or thousands of years. It is imperative
to build systemic resilience beyond specific geographies in order to have a chance of navigating
such changes.
Nuclear risks and climate change are two of the most significant
threats to global security and stability.
Extreme heat, flooding, sea level rise, and natural disasters are
already showing signs of affecting power generation, and could
take nuclear facilities out of operation in countries already short
on electricity and high on social or political pressure; the same
pressures could affect nuclear weapons-related sites.
The blocs formed and specific commitments made for climate
change negotiations influence other diplomatic tracks and
perceptions of global leadership.
Nuclear energy sites could be targeted for attack by terrorist groups
or others, including in countries adding nuclear capacity in part to
alleviate water stress.
In many countries, religious and social advocacy groups often link
nuclear and climate concerns.
Nuclear materials security and proliferation concerns could help
keep the world hooked to high fossil fuel dependence, making
dangerous, business-as-usual climate change scenarios more likely.
Climate and nuclear sciences share intertwined histories. The work
by the National Labs across these and other issue sets have led to
more comprehensive contributions to U.S. and global security.
New technologies and innovative combinations of existing ones
can be applied to address climate, nuclear, and security challenges
independently and in tandem.
Forced migration, including that influenced by climate-related
stressors, affects security, stability, and nuclear affairs, for example
by driving energy demand in new locations, facilitating illicit
networks, and complicating security around nuclear sites.
All of the connections listed in this report can be used for more
effective international collaboration. For example, climate change
can be used as an easier opening for working on tough nuclear and
security questions with countries hesitant to focus singularly on
the latter issues.
As described in this report, the Working Group attempted to begin the monumental task
of describing the complex system we see at work and its constituent elements. This proved
one key premise of this project: that climate, nuclear, and security events are combining in
discernible patterns, not just in random, singular ways. Moreover, this framework proves
that the programs, analysis, journalism, and policies many Working Group members have
developed over recent years combine in a logical fashion. Considering their wide-ranging,
multidisciplinary work in unison reveals critical new insights regarding how the world is
changing, and what new security threats and opportunities are arising.
This group will continue to develop the ideas in this report and contribute additional insights.
Some will also explore policy options. In the meantime, a few general next steps are already
clear.
First, we must develop realistic scenarios for which the elements of the system described
in this report combine in potential crisis regions, and game out ways in which applying
specific policies, technologies, normative structures, and other measures can be stabilizing
or destabilizing. This is urgent for regions such as the Middle East that appear to be pushing
forward on nuclear energy programs as their security and climate-related struggles persist.
Such an examination must include the regions political and religious tensions, refugee crises,
ongoing droughts and heatwaves, and desires to move their economies beyond hydrocarbon
dependence before that field is no longer sufficiently profitable. Positive advances must also
be considered as scenarios are developed.
Next, we must improve communication. Both nuclear war and climate change are potential
existential risks, but the public and policy makers have not prioritized either commensurate
to the scale of the risk. For better or worse, looming or manifested threats can drive public
appetite for the types of structures that will be needed to avoid the breaking points we describe
in this report. Making these and other existential risks comprehensible and addressing them
appealing to people is an important goal.
Finally, for the United States, educating policy-makers will be critical. The risks raised in this
report must be conveyed in ways that are relatable and immediate, for example emphasizing
the ways to reduce threats to public health and infrastructure in states and districts across the
country. We must also make clear what gaps cannot be immediately refilled if U.S. capacities
are stripped away, for example regarding data collection and analytics.
The framework and details shared in this report represent just the first step by the Working
Group on Climate, Nuclear, and Security Affairs. The world is in an early stage of understanding
how these trends interact, and how they influence and are being influenced by broader,
monumental changes in the world order. Continuing our drive for deeper understanding is
critical as many government leaders, publics, and experts around the world agree that the
world is moving closer to the game-changing breaking points of nuclear war and catastrophic
climate change. The task of rebalancing the global system and avoiding these outcomes will
require continued effort by this Working Group, many of its members and their organizations,
and hopefully many additional actors in the years ahead.
1 The emerging debate about investing in icebreakers and potentially arming them with cruise missiles or
other offensive weapons is but one example. Megan Eckstein, Zukunft: Changing Arctic Could Lead to
Armed U.S. Icebreakers in Future Fleet, U.S. Naval Institute News, May 18, 2017.
2 For example, Brazil committed more than 200,000 Army personnel to assist with the latest Zika outbreak,
which was found to be influenced by climate change. Brazil deploys 220,000 troops to battle Zika
mosquitoes, Associated Press, February 13, 2016. Likewise, the number of base evacuations and contributions
of personnel and equipment to responding to the 2017 hurricane season in the United States and Caribbean
are still unfolding. See also Shiloh Fetzek, Caitlin E. Werrell, and Francesco Femia, eds., Military Expert
Panel Report: Sea Level Rise and the U.S. Militarys Mission, Center for Climate and Security, September
2016.
3 See, for example, S.C. Herring, A. Hoell, M. P. Hoerling, J. P. Kossin, C. J. Schreck III, and P. A. Stott,
eds., Explaining Extreme Events of 2015 from a Climate Perspective, Bulletin of the American Meteorological
Society 97 (12), S1S145, 2016. It is also notable that Pakistani leaders blamed Indias coal-fueled power
plants and climate change for contributing to its deadly 2015 heatwaves: Jamal Shahid, Hot air from
Rajasthan power plants may have fanned Karachi heatwave, The Dawn, June 25, 2015.
4 See, for example, S.C. Herring, A. Hoell, M. P. Hoerling, J. P. Kossin, C. J. Schreck III, and P. A. Stott,
eds., Explaining Extreme Events of 2015 from a Climate Perspective, Bulletin of the American Meteorological
Society 97 (12), S1S145, 2016. It is also notable that Pakistani leaders blamed Indias coal-fueled power
plants and climate change for contributing to its deadly 2015 heatwaves: Jamal Shahid, Hot air from
Rajasthan power plants may have fanned Karachi heatwave, The Dawn, June 25, 2015.
5 See also Petr Topychkanov, Why the Bangladeshi Public Has Concerns Over the Rooppur Nuclear
Project, Carnegie Moscow Center, February 27, 2017. As noted later in this report, the Working Group
raised wide-ranging geopolitical, economic, safety, security, and nonproliferation consequences of Russia
dominating the nuclear suppliers market, including specific issues arising from recent Russian financing and
operating model offers.
6 Hereafter referred to as the Working Group. See page 5 for a list of Working Group members.
7 International Atomic Energy Agency, Nuclear Power and the Paris Agreement, November 2016, p. 2.
8 Kathy Chen and David Stanway, China media again touts plans to float nuclear reactors in disputed South
China Sea, Reuters, July 15, 2016; David Stanway, Enter the Nimble Dragon: China looks to small reactors
for nuclear edge, Reuters, June 14, 2017.
9 See, for example, John Mecklin, ed., It is two and a half minutes to midnight: 2017 Doomsday Clock
Statement, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Science and Security Board (2017).
10 Leon Fuerth, Security Implications of Climate Scenario 2: Severe Climate Change Over Next 30
Years, in Kurt M. Campbell, Alexander T.J. Lennon, and Julianne Smith, Project Co-Directors, The Age
of Consequences: The Foreign Policy and National Security Implications of Global Climate Change, Center for
Strategic and International Studies and Center for a New American Security, November 2017, p. 78.
11 Zia Mian, Kashmir, climate change, and nuclear war, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, December 7,
2016.
12 Mujid Kazimi, Ernest J. Moniz, and Charles W. Forsberg, Study Co-Chairs, The Future of the Nuclear
Fuel Cycle, (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2011), p. 112. Though it is a starker position than most
Working Group members took, Robert Socolow and Alexander Glaser wrote in 2009 that the continued
salience of nuclear weapons makes the world not now safe for a rapid expansion of nuclear energy...Nuclear
war is a terrible trade for slowing the pace of climate change. The authors also posited several solutions
for addressing this conundrum. Socolow and Glaser, Balancing risks: nuclear energy & climate change,
Daedalus (Fall 2009), p. 31.
November 2017
EDITORS
Christine Parthemore and Dr. Janne Nolan
CONTRIBUTOR
Andrea Rezzonico