sign in sign up
<<
Home , Ozone depletion

Eos, Vol. 88, No. 21, 22 May 2007

tern."The treaty also has a built-in mecha­ nism for periodic "conferences of the FORUM parties" to develop mechanisms to meet its objective. The to the UNFCCC, adopted at the third session of the Confer­ ence of the Parties in 1997, entered into The Continuing Environmental Threat of Nuclear force on 16 February 2005, after ratification by Russia. This protocol by itself will not Weapons: Integrated Policy Responses meet the Convention's objective, but it is a step forward, and there are signs that even in PAGE 228,231 tioning, foam blowing, propellants, the United States, public opinion is reaching and other applications. As a result, the con­ a tipping point toward serious policy Humans have come to the realization that centration of these substances has started to responses to deal with the problem [Gore, of the atmosphere with gases and decrease in both the and strato­ 2006]. particles in the past 50 years is the dominant sphere. has begun a gradual recovery cause of atmospheric change [Intergovern­ and may reach its pre-1980 levels by the mental Panel on Change, 2007]. middle of the current century [Ajavon et al, While -use change can produce large 2007].The treaty includes built-in,continuing Although complicated by issues of regional effects, ozone depletion, global meetings of the parties, which have pro­ national defense and prestige, nuclear prolif­ warming, and nuclear smoke all are human- duced amendments to take into account the eration has many aspects in common with driven problems that have actual or poten­ latest observations and scientific under­ global , though they tial global adverse impacts on our fragile standing—produced for them in regular have not been considered in the same sort environment, each with severe conse­ World Meteorological Organization Ozone of policy framework. Casualties from the quences for humanity These effects were, or Assessments—and to adjust emissions regu­ direct effects of a nuclear blast, radioactivity, would be, inadvertent and unplanned conse­ lations to ensure ozone recovery as fast as and fires resulting from the massive use of quences of normal daily activities, the possible. nuclear weapons by the superpowers would defense policies of many nations, and To address the problem of global warm­ be so catastrophic that we avoided such a nuclear proliferation.Thus, we must seek ing, in 1992 the United Nations Framework tragedy for the first six decades after the ways of continuing our normal while Convention on (UNFCCC) invention of nuclear weapons. The realiza­ protecting ourselves from environmental was signed by 194 countries, and has since tion in the 1980s, based on research con­ catastrophe. been ratified by 189 countries. The UNFCCC ducted jointly by Western and Soviet scien­ Ozone depletion and global warming are was signed and ratified by the United States tists [Crutzen and Birks, 1982; Turco et al, already happening, while drastic cooling in 1992, came into force in 1994, and states, 1983; Aleksandrov and Stenchikov, 1983; from smoke from nuclear-generated fires has "The ultimate objective of this Convention... Robock, 1984, Pittock et al, 1986; Harwell and so far been avoided. However, these three is to achieve...stabilization of greenhouse Hutchinson, 1986],that the climatic conse­ threats to humanity and the environment are gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a quences, and indirect effects of the collapse interrelated—for example, nuclear is level that would prevent dangerous anthro­ of society, would be so severe that the ensu­ seen as an alternative to burning carbon for pogenic interference with the climate sys- ing nuclear winter would produce famine fuel, but also could potentially provide nations with the means to produce nuclear 80,000 • weapons. Chemicals harmful to ozone pro­ -•-U.S. Russia duction are no longer used in manufactur­ 70,000 • ing, but their replacements are greenhouse -•-World total gases. These threats have been addressed —^U.S. Deployed with quite different policy responses, and _ 60,000- —B—Russia Deployed O with varying degrees of success so far. na In this article, we present recent research 0) S 50,000* that models the environmental effects of _ W both small-scale and widespread nuclear 2 J* weapons discharges, and show how efforts I 40,000* to save the , and strategies cur­ Z 30,000 rently used to reduce emis­ ' sions, can be paralleled by a global call to avoid climatic catastrophes from the use of 20,000 • % | nuclear weapons. 10,000 • JP Ozone Depletion and Global Warming

Following the discovery that substances such as were depleting the ozone layer—a discovery for which , E Sherwood Rowland, and Fig. 1. Number of nuclear warheads in Russia (USSR) and the United States and the total for all Paul Crutzen were awarded the 1995 Nobel the nuclear weapons states /Norris and Kristensen, 2006]. Russia and the United States have Prize in Chemistry—the world's first global more than 95% of the warheads worldwide. The number of warheads began to fall after 1986 environmental treaty, the , following the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and by 2005 was about one third of its was created, in 1987.The treaty was success­ value at the peak in 1986. Current treaties do not require a future reduction in the numbers of ful in pushing society to find replacements warheads, only a reduction in the numbers of warheads that are on strategic delivery systems for ozone-depleting substances, chiefly chlo­ (deployed). Weapons on strategic delivery systems should decline to 1700-2200 for each country rofluorocarbons for refrigeration, air condi­ by 2012. Eos, Vol. 88, No. 21, 22 May 2007 for billions of people far from the target zones, may have been an important factor in the end of the arms race between the One new state per 5 years United States and the Soviet Union [Robock, 1989]. Arms reductions since the 1980s (Fig­ ure 1) have cut the global nuclear arsenal to one third of its prior size, and the United States and Russia have much improved rela­ tions. This may be best symbolized by joint operation of the International Space Station and the 1993 Highly Enriched Uranium Agreement, in which highly enriched ura­ nium from decommissioned Russian weap­ ons is processed into low enriched uranium for use in U.S. . However, the world now faces the pros­ pect of other states developing small, but remarkably deadly, nuclear arsenals. Toon et al. [2007a] address these policy issues in the context of nuclear arms control, but here we focus more specifically on policy impli­ cations related to environmental changes. 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Toon et al. [2007b] recently found that a regional war between the smallest current Year nuclear states involving 100 fifteen-kiloton explosions (the number of weapons likely to Fig. 2. New nuclear states have steadily appeared since the invention of nuclear weapons. In this exist in the arsenals of new nuclear states; figure, the date of the first test, or the date when weapons were obtained, is noted. Israel and did not test weapons so their dates to obtain weapons are uncertain. South Africa India and Pakistan are estimated to have abandoned its arsenal in the 1990s. Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan also abandoned the 110-180 weapons between them) could pro­ weapons they inherited after they left the Soviet Union. The trend line is included not as a best fit duce direct fatalities comparable to all of or as a prediction, but just for reference. those worldwide in World War II. Robock et al. [2007a] showed that smoke from urban firestorms in such a conflict would A Global Nuclear Environmental Treaty United Kingdom, and many more weapons produce significant global temperature and may remain in storage. Hence much larger precipitation changes, lasting a decade or Work on nuclear winter has already led reductions are needed in the Russian and more, shortening the growing season in the to important policy decisions [Robock, U.S. weapon stocks. midlatitudes by a month in major agricul­ 1989]. However, we now propose that it is To make matters worse, there has been a tural areas, and thus affecting world time for a global nuclear environmental steady increase in the number of nuclear supplies. In addition, Robock et al. [2007b] treaty. A nuclear war cannot be won. Even a weapons states (Figure 2). Between 1970, found that although the Cold War and its 'first strike' would be suicidal. Likewise, a when the nuclear proliferation treaty was associated nuclear arms race are over, the 'limited' nuclear war could cause severe signed, and 1980, only nonsignatories to the remaining American and Russian nuclear effects if targeted at cities and industrial treaty, such as Israel and India, created weap­ arsenals could still produce nuclear winter, areas, and it is doubtful that a nuclear war ons. Now, however, signatory countries such threatening the lives of billions of people. could ever be limited.'Star Wars' (the U.S. as North Korea and Iran are violating the Simulations for this new work were car­ ballistic missile defense system also known treaty. Unlike in prior periods, the world no ried out using the latest NASA Goddard as the Strategic Defense Initiative, now the longer seems united in the goal of prevent­ Institute for Space Studies , Missile Defense Agency) is not the answer, ing nuclear proliferation. Addressing this ModelE [Schmidt et al., 2006], the result of since this system will always be 'leaky' Fur­ issue from an environmental viewpoint decades of NASA investment, and the hard ther, the indirect effects of nuclear winter would provide a needed additional perspec­ work and dedication of a large number of could be even greater than the direct tive and help the world to address all the scientists supported by NASA. Because effects, leaving many innocent victims in possible consequences of current policies. ModelE is able to simulate the entire tropo­ noncombatant nations. All three environmental issues—global sphere, , and mesosphere, from Future nuclear arms treaties need to warming, ozone depletion, and nuclear win­ the 's surface up to 80 kilometers, and address the environmental consequences ter—are global scale, and their international interactively aero­ posed by the potential use of the total num­ resolution requires effective controls on cer­ sols in response to solar heating and chang­ ber of weapons they allow to remain in the tain economic and national activities (chlo- ing wind circulation, we were able to pro­ arsenals. Arms reductions of the past 20 rofluorocarbon production for ozone, fossil duce fundamentally new results, showing years were not enough to protect the planet fuel consumption for C02, and the nuclear that the smoke would persist in the atmo­ from the possible consequences of nuclear fuel cycle in the case of proliferation). For sphere for more than 10 years, an order of smoke, and putting nuclear weapons into the all, there is an ultimate need for a complete magnitude longer than previously assumed. hands of more and more countries only transition to a new regime or total phaseout Robock et al. [2007b] also show that early increases the potential dangers. Figure 1 of certain activities (substitutes for chloroflu- results suggesting that nuclear autumn shows that Russia and the United States have orocarbons in the case of ozone, alternative instead of nuclear winter would follow a reduced their arsenals by one third since energy sources to limit C02 emissions, and full-scale war [Thompson and Schneider, their peak in the 1980s. By 2012, current total disarmament to eliminate the nuclear 1986] were based upon climate models that agreements call for reductions in deployed threat).This has been accomplished in the were not adequate to fully address the weapons that will be about one twentieth of case of ozone, is being addressed in multiple problem because they did not have deep the levels in the mid-1980s. However, there ways to deal with global warming, and enough atmospheres, and could not be run will still be 10 times more of these deployed needs to be addressed in the context of long enough. weapons than those of China, France, or the nuclear weapons. Eos, Vol. 88, No. 21, 22 May 2007

The problems of ozone depletion, global References Schmidt, G. A., et al. (2006), Present-day atmospheric warming, and nuclear smoke are related and simulations using GISS ModelE: Comparison to in situ, , and reanalysis data, linked. In each case, changes to the environ­ Ajavon,A.N.,D.L.Albritton,and R.T.Watson (2007), Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2006, J. Clim., 19,153-192. ment are substantial. Nuclear smoke can Rep. 50, Global Ozone Res. and Monit. Project, Thompson, S. L., and S. H. Schneider (1986), Nuclear change the climate and affect the ozone World Meteorol. Organ., Geneva. winter reappraised, For. Aft, 64,981-1005. layer [Mills and Toon, 2006]. Ozone-depleting Aleksandrov,V.V,and G. L.Stenchikov (1983), On Toon, O. B., A. Robock, R. PTurco, C. Bardeen, L. Oman, and G. L.Stenchikov (2007a),Consequences of gases are also greenhouse gases, and their the modeling of the climatic consequences of the regional-scale nuclear conflicts, , 315, substitutes, although unstable enough not to nuclear war, 21 pp., Proc. Appl. Math, Comput. Cent., Russ. Acad, of Sci., Moscow. 1224-1225. threaten ozone, are also strong greenhouse Crutzen, PJ.,and J.WBirks (1982),The atmosphere Toon, O. B., R. PTurco, A. Robock, C. Bardeen, L. Oman, gases and will need further substitution to after a nuclear war:Twilight at noon,Ambio, 11, and G. L.Stenchikov (2007b), Atmospheric effects and societal consequences of regional scale address global warming. Methane chemistry 115-125. nuclear conflicts and acts of individual nuclear links ozone with global warming. Moreover, Gore, A. (2006), An Inconvenient Truth, 325 pp., Rodale Press, Emmaus, Pa. terrorism,>taos. Chem. Phys., 7,1973-2002. some solutions to global warming can con­ Harwell, M.A., and T.C.Hutchinson (Eds.) (1986), Turco, R. P, O. B.ToonJ. PAckerman, J. B. Pollack, and tribute to nuclear instability. Nuclear power Environmental Consequences of Nuclear War, vol. II, C. Sagan (1983), Nuclear winter: Global conse­ plants, because of their low greenhouse gas Ecological and Agricultural Effects, SCOPE 28, John quences of multiple nuclear explosions, Science, 222,1283-1292. emissions, have been suggested as a way to Wiley, Hoboken, N.J. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) mitigate global warming. However, part of (2007), Climate Change 2007: The Physical Sci­ —ALAN ROBOCK, Department of Environmental their fuel cycle can be used as a source of ence Basis: Contribution of Working Group I to the , Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N. J.; highly enriched uranium and plutonium, Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental E-mail: [email protected]; OWEN B.TOON, and therefore can be used for nuclear weap­ Panel on Climate Change, edited by S. Solomon et Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences ons production. Indeed countries such as al., 18 pp., Cambridge Univ. Press, New York. and for Atmospheric and Space Phys­ North Korea, India, and Iran have obtained Mills, M. J.,and O.B.Toon (2006), Blown away:The ics, University of Colorado, Boulder; RICHARD P help from the rest of the world to construct impact of nuclear conflicts on the global strato­ TURCO, Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic spheric ozone layer,Eos Trans. AGU, 87(52), Fall nuclear power plants ostensibly for power Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles; LUKE Meet. Suppl., Abstract U14A-07. OMAN, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, production, but with the ulterior motive of Norris,R.S.,and H. M. Kristensen (2006),Global Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.; GEORGIY building weapons. nuclear stockpiles, 1945-2006,Bull. . Sci., L. STENCHIKOV, Department of Environmental Sci­ If nuclear power is to be part of the solu­ 62(4), 64-67. Pittock, A. B.,T. PAckerman, PJ. Crutzen, M. C. Mac- ences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N. J.; and tion to global warming, it needs to come Cracken,C.S.Shapiro,and R.PTurco (Eds.) (1986), CHARLES BARDEEN, Department of Atmospheric and from new proposed designs where weapons- Environmental Consequences of Nuclear War, vol. I, Oceanic Sciences and Laboratory for Atmospheric grade nuclear materials are not part of the Physical and Atmospheric Effects, SCOPE 28, John and Space Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder. fuel and are not produced as waste. We need Wiley, Hoboken, N.J. Robock,A. (1984),Snow and feedbacks prolong holistic policies to solve these linked human effects of nuclear winter, , 310,667-670. threats to our environment, so that the solu­ Robock,A. (1989), Policy implications of nuclear tion to one does not compromise the solu­ winter and ideas for solutions, Ambio, 75,360-366. tions to the others. Robock, A., L. Oman, G. L. Stenchikov, O. B.Toon, C. Bardeen, and R.PTurco (2007a),Climatic con­ sequences of regional nuclear conflicts. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 7,2003-2012. Acknowledgments Robock, A, L. Oman,and G. L.Stenchikov (2007b), Nuclear winter revisited with a modern cli­ A.R., L.O., and G.S. are supported by U.S. mate model and current nuclear arsenals: Still National Science Foundation grants ATM- catastrophic consequences,./ Geophys. Res., 0313592 and ATM-0351280. doi:2006JD008235,in press.

ing of the spread of AIDS in Africa. Chapter 3 focuses on factors regarding the storage of BOOK REVIEW nuclear waste and the various geological issues that are important in preventing radia­ tion leaks. The next three chapters (4-6) address Useless Arithmetic: Why Environmental Scientists mathematical modeling of , beach , and problems related to Can't Predict the Future beach nourishment. In particular, the authors note that the use of mathematical Orrin H. Pilkey and Linda Pilkey-Jawis Columbia University Press; 2007; 230 pp.; models to understand beach erosion suffers ISBN 0-231-13212-3; $29.50 from subjectivity, as various assumptions that cannot be validated or that are not applica­ PAGE 232 mates of fish stocks that have led to numer­ ble are used repeatedly. Beach nourishment ous species being overfished and brought to is an interesting concept, but it has failed in The book, Useless Arithmetic: Why Environ­ . As an example of the improper numerous instances, even though mathemat­ mental Scientists Can't Predict the Future, use of quantitative estimation, the authors ical modeling has been used to study the presents a series of examples on the failure cite the manipulation of mathematical mod­ consequences of nourishment. of mathematical modeling of environmental els by fishing proponents, which led to Chapter 7 looks at environmental catastro­ problems. The problems dealt with in this higher estimates of fish stocks than the phes related to open-pit and pres­ book are dominated by coastal process actual numbers. ents several examples, including that of sil­ issues and beach erosion (three chapters) In Chapter 2, the authors outline several ver and copper mining in Butte, Mont. As the and one chapter each on nuclear storage at examples of improper mathematical model­ aftermath of exploitation, the wastes Yucca Mountain, surface mining, and inva­ ing, including military modeling during the from the mines have contaminated surface sive species. Vietnam War, of sand on a beach, (lakes) and ( table) The book starts with a historical perspec­ age of the Earth based on models of cool­ . Chapter 8 focuses on invasive tive of ocean fishing and the incorrect esti- ing, hurricane path predictions, and model- plant and animal species that disrupt the