Resetting the Frame August 2016

Global Challenges Foundation

Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report Resetting the frame August 2016

© Global Challenges Foundation 2016 RESETTING THE FRAME – RISK REPORT 2016 The views expressed in this report are those of the authors. Their statements are not necessarily endorsed by the affiliated organisations.

Team Editor-in-chief: Julien Leyre Graphic design: Elinor Hägg

Contributors

Seth Baum Ariel Conn Sebastian Malini Mehra, Magali Reghezza Global Cata- Future of Life Farquhar GLOBE Inter- Ecole Normale strophic Risk Institute, Global Priorities national, Supérieure, Institute, New Denver, USA Project, Oxford, London, UK Paris, France York, USA UK

Catherine Ama Alexandra Robert Wiblin Kevin Wong Rhodes Van Dantzig Wandel 80,000 Hours, Global Priorities Centre for Earth Charter, World Future Oxford, UK Project, Oxford, the Study of Accra, Ghana Council, UK Existential Risk, Hamburg, Cambridge, UK Germany

2 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 THE GLOBAL CHALLENGES FOUNDATION works to incite deeper under- standing of the global risks that threaten humanity and catalyse ideas to tackle them. Rooted in a scientific analysis of risk, the Foundation brings together the brightest minds from academia, politics, business and civil society to forge transformative approaches to secure a better future for all.

Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 3 Contents

Foreword 6 Resetting the frame 8 Executive Summary 10 Part 1. Understanding risk 16 Introducing global catastrophic risk 18 New models of nuclear war risk 24 Understanding global systemic risk 32 Why do global catastrophic risks deserve our attention? 38 Part 2. Acting on risk 44 Divestment: a financial tool for risk reduction 48 Resilience building and risk reduction: the Belo Horizonte food security model 54 Managing pandemics in a fragmented world: the role of regional organisations 60 Global catastrophic risk: whose problem is it anyway? 66 Postface: building a shared narrative 74 Continuing the conversation 80 Endnotes 82

4 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 5 FOREWORD

Dear reader,

he Global first issue – Resetting Challenges the frame –, we are Foun- inviting people from all dation, over the globe to take founded in a wider view on global TStockholm, Sweden, in risks. We welcome con- 2012 by Laszlo Szom- tributors from various batfalvy, has a deep fields and backgrounds commitment to increas- to share their insights ing our knowledge and on the topic, and here- understanding of global by reveal new perspec- catastrophic risks. Our tives. belief is that broad and I am very happy in-depth knowledge of those risks is to introduce Julien Leyre as the the main key to mitigate, reduce and – editor-in-chief for our risk reports. hopefully – eliminate most of them. With roots in Europe, now residing During the last two years, in co- in Melbourne, Australia, and with a operation with leading scientists, the vast personal network in Asia, Julien Global Challenges Foundation has is extremely well suited to host and produced annual reports to catego- support this exciting dialogue. rise and analyse global catastrophic Please enjoy this important read! risks. These reports have been well received and appreciated by a large audience within and outside the aca- demic scene. We are now prepared to take these efforts a step further, and I am pleased to introduce the Global Chal- lenges Foundation’s Quarterly Risk Reports, which will offer opportuni- ties for engagement and reflection between our annual publications. Our Mats Andersson aim is to create a forum for conversa- Vice-chairman, tion among a broad range of people Global Challenges Foundation who have an interest in studying and Former CEO, Swedish National understanding global catastrophic Pension Fund, co-founder Portfolio risks. As indicated by the title for this Decarbonization Coalition

6 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 7 INTRODUCTION

Editorial foreword: Resetting the frame

ur inter- our work does not offer connected definitive answers, but world faces rather, hopes to clarify complex the terms of the problem, challenges and spark new ideas. In Othat transcend national the long term, our goal is borders and institutional to identify solid common boundaries. In response, ground to serve as a basis the Global Challenges for action on a global Foundation proposes to scale. host new conversations Editorial work is among leading actors from around not unlike the art of the translator, the world, to prompt a shared under- navigating the flows of two distinct standing of the current challenges languages. When composing this that we face, and explore better ways report, we strove to respect the voices of managing them. Our Quarterly Risk of our authors, while ensuring that Reports will serve as a starting point to diverse audiences would find individ- inspire these conversations. ual pieces accessible and appreciate Complex problems are best un- the unique angle offered by each con- derstood through multiple lenses: tributor on common issues. We hope different frames reveal different per- that this report will constitute an orig- spectives. This first Quarterly Report inal contribution to the field of global gathers diverse contributors from catastrophic risk, prompt a new way of four continents, who bring a wealth thinking about the greatest challenges of expertise across philosophy, law, that we face and, most importantly, be science, policy, finance and commu- stimulating to you. nity work. Their voices come here together for the first time, opening new ways of understanding the field. This report proposes to reset the frame on global catastrophic risk, and support deeper understanding Julien Leyre, editor-in-chief of the greatest challenges that we Global Challenges Foundation, face. As with all good conversations, Melbourne, Australia

8 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Executive summary Julien Leyre, Global Challenges Foundation, Melbourne, Australia.

his report considers a consequences. In addition, to assess type of situation that the probability and magnitude of each the present generation successive link, it needs to gather has never experienced adequate data from scientific exper- directly: one that would tise and historical observations. In Tcause the death of 10% of humanity, the case of nuclear war, with only one or severe damage on a similar scale. occurrence to observe, near-misses Traditional risk analysis considers might also constitute valid data. the following equation: the total risk Systematic analysis conducted in this equals the magnitude of potential manner offers a methodology appli- future damage multiplied by the cable for all key risks, and reveals probability that this damage will new potential aversion or mitigation occur. The risks in this report deserve tactics. (New models of nuclear war attention on the basis of their poten- risk, Seth Baum) tial damage alone, even if the proba- bility seems low. To measure impact adequately, risk modeling must understand not Global catastrophes are not un- only the chains of cause and conse- precedented. In the past, plagues quence, but also the situation where have killed over 10% of the world’s risk might occur. The potential im- population. More recently, in the 20th pact of a risk is not only correlated to century, the world has come close to the trigger event, but also to charac- nuclear war several times. Beyond teristics of the impacted object. As pandemics and political violence, our planet has become increasingly catastrophic damage may result from interconnected, it has also become climate change, other large-scale en- increasingly fragile. Seemingly minor vironmental damage, emerging risks hazards can ripple across our inter- from technology, rare major natural dependent productive, social, and disasters, or risks as yet unknown. political systems, and produce cata- (Introducing global catastrophic risk, strophic outcomes. (Understanding Sebastian Farquhar and Kevin Wong) global systemic risk, Magali Reghezza)

Robust risk modeling entails de- Our assessment of risk is always veloping an analytical scenario that embedded in a certain ethical frame- unpacks the full chain of causes and work, which informs our judgement

10 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

as to whether priority should be given nuclear weapons. In Sweden, Mats to immediate or future impacts, and Andersson, the new vice-chairman whether uncertainty about the future of the Global Challenges Foundation, should affect our current efforts to divested away from carbon intensive address risk. The very modest scale of businesses. His motive was not only efforts to handle global catastrophic ethical: it appears that businesses risks today shows that our global pursuing more environmentally society does not pay much attention sustainable practices also yield better to future generations. (Why do global long-term returns. (Divestment: a catastrophic risks deserve our atten- financial tool for risk reduction, Ariel tion, Robert Wiblin) Conn)

It is tempting to believe that global Local initiatives have the power catastrophic risks are beyond our to jointly reduce risk and increase control, and consequently, that we resilience. The Brazilian city of Belo cannot and should not try to do any- Horizonte developed a food security thing about them. This belief is both policy framework that improved the dangerous and false. We can reduce immediate well-being of its popu- the probability that a trigger event lation, while building long term will occur at a certain magnitude, we resilience from systemic disruption can reduce the probability that a cer- and pandemics, and reducing carbon tain consequence will follow, and we emissions. This model is now scaling can reduce our own fragility to risk, up to other cities in the Global South to decrease the potential damage or through city-to-city partnerships. support faster recovery. This can be (Resilience building and risk reduc- done by identifying and implement- tion: the Belo Horizonte food security ing positive initiatives and policies, model, Alexandra Wandel) improving trust and coordination, and increasing public awareness to International trends, as demon- gain traction and endorsement. These strated by the recent vote in favour of actions can be led or initiated by indi- Brexit, may indicate a shift towards viduals and collectives, by businesses increased regional fragmentation. and civil society, and across all levels In this context, maintaining re- of government. gional collaboration for catastrophic risk management should be seen Market mechanisms have been as a priority. By building a sense of used to address risk. A campaign led mutual trust and joint interest, re- by the Future of Life Institute in the gional organisations such the EU and US resulted in the city of Cambridge ASEAN play a considerable role in divesting pension funds away from increasing the capacity to effectively any company involved in making coordinate national reactions in

12 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 13 emergency situations, whether pan- catastrophic risk: whose problem is it demics or other catastrophic risks. anyway, Malini Mehra) (Managing pandemics in a fragment- ed world: contributions of regional Our efforts to address risk ulti- systems, Catherine Rhodes) mately rest on a core ethical question: how far should we track the conse- Global Catastrophic Risks are not quences of our actions? Depending on restricted by national boundaries – our position, whether we live in the but at a global level, who owns them? developed North or the Global south, The UN Security Council is the clear our answers to this question will have issue owner for nuclear war, and the distinct implications, and the stories recent Paris agreement will increase we tell will differ. In order to face the the role of the UN in managing challenges ahead, financial, regula- climate change. But in both cases, tory and institutional solutions will effective action is currently limited. be required, but underlying these, Meanwhile, individuals have success- there needs to be a cultural change. fully resorted to the judiciary in order An integral form of this change will to take action to address the pressing be telling stories of a unified world risk of climate change. This opens where risks and challenges are part of a window of hope, and alternative a shared destiny. (Building a shared avenues for individual action. (Global narrative, Ama Van Dantzig)

14 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 Definition: global catastrophic risk – risk of events or processes that would lead to the death of approximately a tenth of the world’s population.

Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 15 PART 1 – UNDERSTANDING RISK

Part 1 Understanding risk

16 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 17 PART 1 – INTRODUCING GLOBAL CATASTROPHIC RISK

1.1. Introducing global catastrophic risk

Kevin Wong and Sebastian Farquhar, Global Priorities Project, Oxford, UK

When the potential damage of a risk is of enormous scale, can we simply discount it on the basis of uncertainty or seemingly low probability? Beyond pandemics and political violence, our world may face catastrophic damage from climate change, major natural disasters, emerging technologies or risks as yet unknown.

18 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 19 PART 1 – INTRODUCING GLOBAL CATASTROPHIC RISK

ur world faces many risks. biological weapons of mass destruc- Particularly serious are global tion and natural pandemics. Conse- O catastrophic risks, those with quently, these risks deserve immediate the potential to end the lives of a tenth attention. Risks that may materialise in or more of the world’s population, the longer term, such as catastrophic or inflict comparable damage on our climate change resulting in extreme planet. Even though the probability levels of warming, as well as emerg- that these risks will happen is com- ing technologies like artificial intelli- paratively small, the damage could be gence and geoengineering, all need to so devastating that they deserve prepa- be managed and mitigated in advance, ration and consideration. and consequently deserve attention Though rare, global catastrophic today. In addition, we should devote risks are not unprecedented. Over the some resources to mitigating risks course of history, the world has seen from rare natural events with cata- several disasters of catastrophic scale. strophic potential – such as asteroid In the mid 6th-century, the ‘Great impacts and large volcanic eruptions Plague of Justinian’ killed more than – as well as risks from as-yet-unknown 10% of the world’s population. The processes. extraordinary scale of such an event A number of steps can be taken to can hardly be overstated. World War mitigate these dangers. Some poten- II, though calamitous, killed a com- tial initiatives address a specific threat, paratively small 3% of the global popu- such as improved mechanisms to re- lation. Measured in deaths alone, duce carbon emissions, a continued several of the risks that we are current- focus on nuclear stockpile reduction, ly facing could reach an even greater and enhancing collaboration between scale. researchers and governments on emerging technologies. Other opportu- The Global Priorities Project is a nities are cross-cutting, like integrating collaboration between Oxford’s Future the interests of future generations for Humanity Institute and the Centre into decision-making frameworks, for for Effective Altruism. In April of this example by appointing dedicated om- year, we authored the Global Cata- budspersons or public advocates to strophic Risk Report on behalf of the national governments. Global Challenges Foundation. The report focused on identifying areas of Global catastrophic risks present high risk, understanding interactions interdisciplinary problems, so solu- between risks, and suggesting how we tions must draw on expertise from might respond to prevent or mitigate several domains in order to provide those risks. adequate understanding and options The threats that can hit us in to reduce and mitigate risks. Research the near term are nuclear warfare, into ethical models to weigh up our

20 FIGURE 1.1. CURRENT GLOBAL CATASTROPHIC RISKS

Catastrophic climate change Nuclear war Natural pandemics Extreme forms of climate change, Nuclear exchanges between major A naturally occurring disease, with much more warming than nuclear powers could potentially especially an animal disease that expected, might radically reshape kill millions, render large land becomes transmissible between our planet, causing wide-scale areas uninhabitable, and create humans, could spread widely and ecosystem disruption and large a ‘nuclear winter’ temporarily kill large numbers of those in- increases in extreme weather phe- reducing global food production fected, much like the Spanish flu or nomena, potentially significantly capabilities. Black Death. reducing agricultural output.

Emerging risks Natural catastrophes Unknown risks New technologies, like artificial in- Natural events like asteroid im- Just as scientists 100 years ago telligence, engineered pathogens, pacts or especially large volcanic would not have been able to reli- or geoengineering might be delib- eruptions, which have plausibly ably anticipate the risks of nuclear erately or accidentally misapplied caused mass extinctions in the war, climate change, or engineered and lead to catastrophic outcomes past, could cause ‘particulate pandemics, similarly we should winters’ that temporarily disrupt remember that there may be risks global food production capabilities. that we do not yet know about or do not yet regard as risks, including risks of systemic collapse.

Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 21 PART 1 – INTRODUCING GLOBAL CATASTROPHIC RISK

responsibilities to future genera- implementing a climate strategy re- tions must be coupled with techni- quires sophisticated political negotia- cal scientific knowledge. Implement- tion to overcome major collective ac- ing change then requires political and tion problems. institutional know-how. If we con- Institutions are likely to systemati- sider catastrophic climate change, cally neglect global catastrophic risks, a proposed response must first be largely as a result of market and polit- grounded in an understanding of the ical failures, including the influence relative priority we should place on of special interests, the lack of incen- the well-being of future generations tive to provide global and intergener- and preserving the environment. Re- ational public goods, and the absence searchers must help both understand of precedent for these kinds of disas- the risks and create technical solu- ters. This makes their study all the tions to address their causes. Finally, more pressing.

SEBASTIAN FARQUHAR Sebastian Farquhar leads the Global Priorities Project (GPP) at the Centre for Effective Altruism in Oxford. GPP is a think tank which develops new approaches for policy progress in high po- tential areas based on cause prioritisation tools. Before establishing GPP, Sebastian worked as a management consultant at McKinsey & Co, and was part of the founding team of 80,000 Hours, a project which advises promising young people on the best ways to do good in their careers.

KEVIN WONG Kevin Wong is a Davis Scholar at Princeton Uni- versity, an alumnus of the Pearson United World College of the Pacific, and a collaborator to the Global Priorities Project. He co-founded and directs the Prison Electives Project, a program that develops and delivers humanities courses for New Jersey’s state prisons, and currently works under the supervision of moral philoso- pher Peter Singer.

22 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 Global catastrophic risks present interdisciplinary problems, so solutions must draw on expertise from several domains in order to provide adequate understanding and options to reduce and mitigate risks.

Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 23 PART 1 – NEW MODELS OF NUCLEAR WAR RISK

1.2. New models of nuclear war risk

Seth Baum, Global Catastrophic Risk Institute, New York, USA

How can we assess risks with limited historical precedents, such as nuclear war? With financial support from the Global Challenges Foundation, Seth Baum developed a model that relies on systematic analysis of cause and consequence, taking into consideration near-misses and other incidents. This method helps identify effective mitigation policy, and can be applied to the study of other global catastrophic risks.

24 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 25 PART 1 – NEW MODELS OF NUCLEAR WAR RISK

ulien Leyre: Seth, nuclear war Seth Baum: The starting point is to risk has been a key point of recognize that the risk of nuclear war J focus for your research at the has three different components: the Global Catastrophic Risk Institute. probability of a nuclear war occur- Why is it important to do this kind of ring, the specifics of what happens research? during the war, and impacts after the war. These three parts are inter- Seth Baum: There are two reasons. related, but each needs a distinct type First, nuclear war is an important of analysis. Our research thus far has risk in its own right. It was the first focused on the first and third, but all human-made global catastrophic three are important. risk, and has been a major one ever To assess the probability of occur- since. A staggering 15,350 weapons rence, we model the various pathways still remain, of which 14,300 are through which nuclear war could oc- held by the US and Russia. Right cur. For example, it could be that con- now, 4,000 of these weapons are in ventional war escalates, as in World active deployment, meaning that War II, or that a crisis erupts into a they are available for use at any time. nuclear war, as almost happened A nuclear war could be just mo- during the Cuban missile crisis. For ments away. Yet despite the topic’s each of those pathways, we model importance, there has been little risk the sequence of steps – the chain of analysis of nuclear war. successive events that take us from a The second reason is that studying calm condition to nuclear war. the risk of nuclear war helps us As for impacts, we model the understand and address some various ways that the detonation of challenges shared by the study of nuclear weapons can affect different other global catastrophic risks. For aspects of society and the environ- example, no massive nuclear war ment. This involves a lot of systems has ever occurred, but there was one analysis since there are so many small nuclear exchange in World things that nuclear detonations can War II and, several times since then, impact. The most obvious are direct nuclear war almost occurred. How do effects like buildings collapsing or you use such limited historical data burning and people near the detona- to estimate the probability of a future tion getting hurt and killed. But there nuclear war? This challenge is shared are also many indirect effects like by other global catastrophic risks. nuclear winter and systemic effects across the global economy, and these Julien Leyre: What does the study are really important. of nuclear war risk look like? What’s the first step when you conduct risk Julien Leyre: As you mentioned, assessment on this scale? nuclear bombs have only been used

26 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 FIGURE 1.2. MAPPING PATHWAYS TO NUCLEAR WAR

Conventional Direct War

Conventional Proxy War Intentional Escalation

Crisis True Belief of Intentional Threat Without First Strike Conventional Direct War Nuclear Attack

Conventional Proxy War Inadvertent Escalation

Crisis

Nuclear War Unauthorized Detonation

Detonation Of Nonstate Nuclear Weapon Non-war Nuclear Weapon On Home Soil Accidental Detonation Detonation Weapon On Foreign Soil First Strike False Belief of Believed Nuclear Attack To Be Military Exercise Event Looks Like Retaliation Nuclear Attack Nonmilitary Event False Alarm Human Error Monitoring System Mistake Technology Glitch

once, at the end of the Second World very different from the conditions in War. With so little historical data, how 2016, so it’s not a fair comparison. can you develop robust risk assess- While there has only been one ment? nuclear war, there have been many near-misses: incidents that went Seth Baum: It’s not easy! Traditional partway to nuclear war. They range risk analysis is based mainly on his- from the Korean War in 1950-1951, torical data, but this does not work for when the U.S. considered using nuclear war. The traditional approach nuclear weapons against Chinese would say there has been one nuclear forces, to recent moments in the war in about seventy years of nuclear Ukrainian Civil War, in which Russia weapons being around, therefore has made several nuclear threats. We there is a one-in-seventy chance of combine data on near-misses with nuclear war happening in any given our models of the pathways to help year. But the conditions in 1945 were quantify the probability. However,

Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 27 PART 1 – NEW MODELS OF NUCLEAR WAR RISK

even this doesn’t allow us to calculate is a core benefit of a good risk model. probabilities as precisely as we would Risk reduction isn’t the only factor for other risks. Therefore, an impor- for evaluating policies – for example, tant part of nuclear war risk analysis some policies are more expensive, or is acknowledging inherent uncertain- require more political capital – but risk ty and thinking intelligently about reduction is undoubtedly important. what to do in spite of everything we Limitations in our current risk don’t know. models mean that we can only apply it to certain policies. Improving the Julien Leyre: When all this analysis models so that we can apply it further has been done, how can you apply is a big research priority. Meanwhile, it? How does this risk modeling work they can still help in other ways. help determine the right action to For example, the models show that reduce risk? nuclear war and nuclear terrorism are not completely separate issues. One Seth Baum: That’s a good question. scenario has a nuclear terrorist attack Ultimately, the important part is not triggering a nuclear war between the risk itself, but what people can do countries. So reducing the risk of to reduce the risk. Studying nuclear nuclear terrorism also reduces the war risk is an interesting intellectual risk of nuclear war. Seeing these sorts exercise, but the real reason to do it is of policy insights across the full range that major policy questions depend of nuclear war scenarios and impacts on it. is another benefit of this type of risk Perhaps the simplest question is, analysis. how high should we place nuclear war on the agenda? Attention is a Julien Leyre: What would it take scarce resource, especially for policy- to integrate your model into a more makers, who could be working on so generalised risk mitigation frame- many different issues at any given work? Could we, for instance, quan- time. One conclusion that I see from tify nuclear war risk and other global our risk analysis is that nuclear war catastrophic risks? What would it take should be higher on the agenda than to get there? nuclear terrorism. The probability of nuclear terrorism may be somewhat Seth Baum: It would take a lot of larger, but the severity of a nuclear research! Some global catastrophic war can be much, much larger. risks are relatively well quantified, Another important question is, especially asteroid collisions and which policies are most effective at volcanic eruptions. But even those reducing the risk of nuclear war? A have important missing pieces, espe- good risk model can go a long way cially regarding how impacts cascade towards figuring this out. Indeed, this across the global economy. Modeling

28 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 FIGURE 1.3. NUCLEAR NEAR-MISSES

During the Cuban missile crisis, In September 1983, a Soviet On January 25, 1995, Russian ra- in October 1962, the United States early warning satellite detected dar detected a scientific weather targeted a Soviet submarine that five land-based missiles from rocket over the northern coast of carried nuclear weapons. Two of the United States directed at the Norway. Operators suspected it the three Soviet officers wanted Soviet Union. The officer on duty, was a nuclear missile. President to launch nuclear weapons in Stanislav Petrov, had only minutes Yeltsin reportedly faced the deci- response, but the procedures to decide whether or not this was sion to launch nuclear weapons required agreement between all a false alarm. Procedure would in retaliation. He decided not to, three serving officers. The third have required him to alert his guessing – correctly – that the officer, Vasili Arkhipov, refused, superiors but, on gut instinct, he rocket was not an actual attack. potentially averting nuclear war. reported the incident as a false alarm. Later investigations re- vealed the satellite had mistaken reflections of the sun on the top of clouds for nuclear rockets. PART 1 – NEW MODELS OF NUCLEAR WAR RISK

for that is actually quite similar increase climate change risk by to modeling nuclear war impacts. impeding renewable energy, though These synergies are a reason to study it can (rather morbidly) also decrease various risks together. climate change risk by killing off a lot The other big piece of a general of people so they don’t emit green- global catastrophic risk mitigation house gasses anymore. It can also framework is interaction between cause the failure of a risky environ- the different risks. For example, our mental technology called geoengi- nuclear war impacts model includes neering. In principle, our nuclear war links to several other global cata- impacts model should include full strophic risks. Nuclear war can in- models of these other risks. We’re not crease pandemics risk by destroying there yet, but it’s an exciting research public health infrastructure. It can direction.

SETH BAUM Seth Baum, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Global Catastrophic Risk Institute, a nonprofit think tank that Baum co-founded in 2011. GCRI analyses the risk of catastrophes that could cause major permanent harm to human civilisa- tion, such as global warming, nuclear war, and future artificial intelligence technologies.

30 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 Which policies are most effective at reducing the risk of nuclear war? A good risk model can go a long way towards figuring this out.

Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 31 PART 1 – UNDERSTANDING GLOBAL SYSTEMIC RISK

1.3. Understanding Global Systemic Risk

Magali Reghezza, Ecole Normale Supérieure, Paris, France

What new kinds of risks arise from globalisation? In our interconnected age, productive, technological and socio-political systems around the world have become interdependent. As a result, seemingly minor events can quickly ripple into large consequences, and impacts are increasingly difficult to anticipate, both locally and globally. This new situation calls for new models of risk governance.

32 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 33 PART 1 – UNDERSTANDING GLOBAL SYSTEMIC RISK

ince the end of the 1990s, a systems. Globalisation has intensified new type of risk has emerged, and diversified exchanges around the S which we may describe as world. More broadly, it has increased global systemic risk. This type of interdependence between territories, risk has two main characteristics. On and created conditions where distur- the one hand, patterns of cause and bance can spread very far, very fast. consequence are increasingly hard to This happens across critical informa- discern. On the other hand, potential tion and transport networks, produc- impacts can no longer be calculated tive and market systems, financial locally, nationally or regionally, but and commercial organizations, and must be considered on a global scale. eventually ends up affecting political systems and geopolitical equilibrium. Global systemic risk is charac- We might expect that a large inter- terised by complex causal chains, with connected global system would be potential triggers occurring at distant less exposed to risk than smaller points in time and space. The chain fragmented ones. However, such a may start with a large sudden shock system is vulnerable precisely because (terror attacks, natural catastrophes, of its complexity. Each interdependent technological breakdowns), or take relationship can cause a ripple effect, the form of slowly building pressure and each internal fluctuation lead to (environmental, political or social critical change through the system in degradation); it ends with massive the form of a chain reaction. The 2008 losses and disruption worldwide. More Global Financial Crisis is an example importantly, even small initial hazards of such a process. The initial subprime can ripple into larger and larger waves crisis was a local phenomenon, con- of systemic disruption. In 2006, a local nected to the US real estate market and submarine earthquake off the coast of national banking practices, but its con- Taiwan destroyed six optical cables, sequences became global. Financial, and ended up causing major Internet social, political and even environmen- access failure across East Asia. In 2010, tal impacts have been and continue a volcanic eruption in Iceland resulted to be experienced across the world on in the temporary paralysis of global air a global, local and individual scale, traffic. Consequences of such seem- many years after the initial crisis. ingly contained local events might Systemic interdependence leads reach even larger scales, with cata- to relative opacity when it comes to strophic consequences. understanding risk. Predicting the This increasing disconnect between probability, cost and magnitude of the magnitude of cause and conse- risk is becoming increasingly dif- quence is largely due to the extreme ficult. In addition, it is harder to complexity of our current produc- anticipate where impact will be felt tive, technological and socio-political most acutely. In a globalised world,

34 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 35 PART 1 – UNDERSTANDING GLOBAL SYSTEMIC RISK

distinguishing local and global effect impacts on food availabilities in de- is increasingly difficult. Instead, the veloping countries, particularly when new norm is ‘glocalised’ risk, merging local conditions are already tense, local and global processes. What hap- due to droughts or conflict. Local pens at the local level both depends food insecurity in the poorest areas and impacts on what happens at the fuels conflict and migration, which global level, and vice-versa. become factors of political and geo- Food security may be the best political destabilisation at the local, example. Historically, famine and national and regional scale. Eventu- food shortages have been connected ally, these tensions might ripple into to local events (war, natural disaster, global disruption. epidemics). But food production sys- Traditional models of risk miti- tems are now globalised. As a result, gation, centered on the State and a localised drought in the US will not framed within national boundaries, result in local food shortages, but af- are ill-adapted to these new forms of fect the cost of cereals on global mar- risk. To face them, we must invent kets. This reduced availability due to new forms of governance that can climate variation feeds speculative support coordinated action on a bubbles on food products. Higher global and a local scale. global food prices may have negative

MAGALI REGHEZZA Magali Reghezza, Ph.D, is a specialist of natu- ral and environmental risk. She is director of studies at the Ecole Normale Supérieure De- partment of Geography in Paris, and a member of the National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) laboratory of physical geography in Meudon. Her research focuses on urban vul- nerability, resilience and adaptation, with parti- cular interest in systemic environmental risks in the Paris metropolitan area.

36 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 Small initial hazards can ripple into larger and larger waves of systemic disruption.

Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 37 PART 1 – WHY DO GLOBAL CATASTROPHIC RISKS DESERVE OUR ATTENTION?

1.4. Why do global catastrophic risks deserve our attention?

Robert Wiblin, 80,000 Hours, Oxford, UK

On what basis do we justify that our leaders’ and policy makers’ attention should go to a specific issue? Our current decision-making systems discount future generations, and the results of risk mitigation efforts are often untrackable. On this basis, considering their enormous potential impact on humanity’s future, we can assume that global catastrophic risks deserve more attention than they currently receive.

38 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 39 PART 1 – WHY DO GLOBAL CATASTROPHIC RISKS DESERVE OUR ATTENTION?

lobal catastrophic risks are policy or global poverty. These risks hazards with relatively low especially threaten future generations, G probability of occurrence but and there’s good reason to expect that very high potential impact. Some of we undervalue their interests relative these risks come from natural events to our own. A focus on the present is (e.g. comets and super-volcanoes), encoded in almost all government while others are caused by human- and business decision-making. This ity itself (e.g. climate change and the comes in the form of a ‘discount rate’ development of new weapons of mass on benefits and costs in the future of at destruction). Addressing them will least 3% a year. This alone means that clearly yield positive outcomes in the a projected impact on someone living long-term – catastrophic risks can in 2116 is weighed just 5% as much as cause huge damage and put society’s an identical impact on someone today. whole future in doubt. Some of these risks could even lead Anecdotally, it seems that govern- as far as human extinction. If you ment decision-makers pay little take a long-term perspective and con- attention to low probability risks that sider the impacts on future genera- haven’t already occurred, because tions, over millions of years in the there is little pressure from voters to future, anything that causes human do so. Much more attention is given extinction could prevent hundreds to the risk of terrorists using anthrax of billions or even trillions of people than using smallpox, even though the from living. Even on the lower end latter could do thousands of times as of the impact scale, a global nuclear much damage. The natural explana- war could kill hundreds of millions tion is that as anthrax has been used as or even billions of people directly. a weapon, people have responded by It could also radically reduce the making governments responsible for possibility of long-term achievement preventing it from happening again. from human civilisation, putting us on a permanently worse trajectory. Work on global catastrophic risks As a result, we evaluate this cause as has two main aspects: studying the highly important, even if the probabi- risks, and then reducing the probabi- lity of occurrence is small. lity and magnitude of the risks. Three The fact that only 0.1% of spending main types of skills can put one in a from key foundations and philan- good position to tackle these problems: thropic bodies goes towards tackling • expertise in developing and advo- these risks strongly suggests that the cating for government policies, area is uncrowded relative to what’s at especially in security (e.g. deep stake. There may be various reasons knowledge of existing policy for catastrophic risks receiving less at- and interests groups involved in tention than issues such as education government food stockpiles)

40 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 FIGURE 1.4. EFECTIVE ALTRUISM

Many of us want to do good, but it is often unclear where our efforts would be most effectively directed. Effective altruism is a movement that aims to answer the question: how can we do the most good? 80,000 Hours is one of the founding organisations in the effective altruism movement. Its goal is to figure out how people can use their career to make the biggest possible contribution to society. One key way to increase impact is to choose the right problem to work on. 80,000 Hours assesses how pressing problems are relative to one another based on three criteria: how much harm the problem is causing or could cause; how difficult it is to solve; and whether it is already getting the appropriate level of attention. On all criteria, work on global catastrophic risks scores very highly.

Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 41 PART 1 – WHY DO GLOBAL CATASTROPHIC RISKS DESERVE OUR ATTENTION?

• analytical thinking skills (e.g. Overall, 80,000 Hours regards global many philosophers and mathema- catastrophic risks as one of the most ticians work on identifying and pressing problems in the world today, quantifying catastrophic risks) and we would recommend that people • subject-specific expertise (e.g. a with suitable skills use their career to PhD in how pandemics begin and tackle them, so that the next genera- spread). tions aren’t wiped out by their impact.

ROBERT WIBLIN Robert Wiblin studied both genetics and eco- nomics at the Australian National University. He worked as a research economist in various Australian Government agencies, then moved to the UK to work at the Centre for Effective Altru- ism, first as Research Director then as Execu- tive Director, before returning to research with 80,000 Hours.

42 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 A focus on the present is encoded in almost all government and business decision-making, in the form of a ‘discount rate’ of at least 3% a year. This alone means that a projected impact on someone living in 2116 is weighed just 5% as much as an identical impact on someone today.

Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 43 PART 2 – ACTING ON RISK

Part 2 Acting on risk

44 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 45 46 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 All global challenges have a fundamental ethical dimension, best understood through this one question: how far into the future should we track the consequences of our actions?

Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 47 PART 2 – DIVESTMENT: A FINANCIAL TOOL FOR RISK REDUCTION

2.1. Divestment: a financial tool for risk reduction

Ariel Conn, Future of Life Institute, Denver, USA

Can we harness market mechanisms to reduce risk? When companies favor short-term gains at the expense of long-term safety, divestment offers concerned citizens a tool of action. Beyond their direct effects, divestment campaigns can impact corporate behaviour through media pressure. Aside from ethical considerations, divestment can also make good business sense. Companies that take sustainability seriously tend to do better in the long-term, as reflected in the success of recent divestment initiatives by Swedish pension funds.

48 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 49 PART 2 – DIVESTMENT: A FINANCIAL TOOL FOR RISK REDUCTION

he greatest risks facing the nuclear weapons divestment cam- world today are almost entirely paign, based off of the successful T manmade. In fact, when it European campaign, Don’t Bank on comes to two of the greatest threats – the Bomb. FLI worked with the City climate change and nuclear weapons of Cambridge in Massachusetts to – some companies are actively and help the city divest their $1 billion even intentionally exacerbating the pension fund from companies that problem, simply because it improves create nuclear weapons or parts for their short-term bottom line and nuclear weapons. As part of their share-holder value. This near-sighted effort to bring public attention to the approach is dangerous for human- idea of nuclear divestment, they also kind. But it also allows more ethically- worked with MinutePhysics to create inclined individuals and institutions a humorous video about the dangers to take meaningful action in defense of nuclear weapons, and they’ve built of our future: they can divest. version 1.0 of a nuclear divestment web app. Divestment for social good gained In a Huffington Post article, Susi popularity in the 1980s, as people and Snyder, who led the Don’t Bank on the companies divested from South Africa Bomb campaign, said, “Public exclu- to fight apartheid. Tobacco companies sions by investors have a stigmatizing suffered a similar fate. More recently effect on companies associated with divestment campaigns have cropped illegitimate activities. [...] While it is up against child labor, fossil fuels, unlikely that divestment by a single and nuclear weapons. While there is financial institution or government little evidence that divestment hurts a would be enough for a company to company’s share price, there is broad cancel its nuclear weapons associated agreement that stigmatization can contracts, divestment by even a few draw greater media attention to a com- institutions, or countries, for the same pany’s role in a problem, damaging reason can affect a company’s strate- their public image. gic direction.” In response to a divestment cam- Mats Andersson, new vice-chairman paign against them, Lockheed Martin of the Global Challenges Foundation, announced in 2013 that they would also has a strong history of divestment cease all involvement in the creation for social good. As CEO of Swedish of cluster munitions. Investors are pension fund AP4, Andersson pursued hoping for a similar response to sustainable and socially conscious campaigns dedicated to sustainability investments, while nearly doubling and decreasing the risks of nuclear the size of the company’s funds. He’s weapons. argued that carbon divestment doesn’t This year, the Future of Life Insti- just make sense from an environmen- tute (FLI) launched its own US-based tal perspective, but it also makes good

50 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 51 PART 2 – DIVESTMENT: A FINANCIAL TOOL FOR RISK REDUCTION

business sense. Companies that take The world is financially driven, and long-term issues like sustainability divestment offers socially-conscious seriously are more likely to take their shareholders a means of influencing business seriously. Such companies a company’s actions for the good of will likely prove better investments humankind. Only a few large organi- over time. sations or institutions need to divest As Andersson said in the Chief from companies with questionable Investment Officer, “Climate change priorities, and the resulting media investing is not about charity or good attention can have a snowball effect, public relations, it’s about dealing influencing more and more organisa- with risks. If you do that properly you tions to follow suit. Divestment is a will enhance your returns in the long great tool for individuals and organisa- term.” tions to fight for social good.

ARIEL CONN Ariel Conn oversees digital media and communi- cations at the Future of Life Institute (FLI). She’s studied English, physics and geophysics, and her background is a mix of advertising, mar- keting, and scientific research. FLI’s mission is to catalyze and support research and initiatives for safeguarding life and developing optimistic visions of the future, including positive ways for humanity to steer its own course considering new technologies and challenges.

52 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 Only a few large organisations or institutions need to divest from companies with questionable priorities, and the resulting media attention can have a snowball effect.

Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 53 PART 2 – RESILIENCE BUILDING AND RISK REDUCTION: THE BELO HORIZONTE FOOD SECURITY MODEL

2.2. Resilience building and risk reduction: the Belo Horizonte food security model

Alexandra Wandel, World Future Council, Hamburg, Germany

How can local action reduce global risk? Food security remains a challenge in many parts of the world. Food shortages affect hundreds of millions, impacting the welfare of populations, and creating a potential source of risk, for both developing and developed nations. In response, the city of Belo Horizonte implemented a policy framework for food security that improves local resilience and stability while reducing climate change emissions. This model is now scaling up to other cities in the Global South.

54 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 55 PART 2 – RESILIENCE BUILDING AND RISK REDUCTION: THE BELO HORIZONTE FOOD SECURITY MODEL

ccording to UN estimation, Despite the vast nature of these over 800 million people in the challenges, exemplary policy solu- A world are undernourished. tions already exist. Cities, states and Hunger kills more people each year regions across the globe have already than AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis begun to implement innovative combined. Faced with the inter- policy solutions that seek not only connected challenges of climate to meet current human sustenance change and rapid population growth, needs but also secure those of future secure access to food remains a daily generations through our transition struggle for millions of people around to a sustainable planet. In the face of the world. inevitable and mounting challenges Malnutrition is a direct factor in lies the opportunity to transform global catastrophic risk. Food short- our food and agricultural systems ages not only lead to increased mor- to mitigate climate change, become tality and morbidity. They can also more climate-resilient, use natural weaken the health of populations resources sustainably and contribute and make them more vulnerable to to poverty reduction. pandemics. In addition, local food shortages can impact population In 2009, the first Future Policy Award flows and increase political instabil- honoured one of the most fundamen- ity, leading to increased risk of politi- tal human rights – the right to food. cal violence. The inspiring winner was the com- More importantly, food short- prehensive policy framework for food ages are systemically connected and nutrition security developed and with climate change. The negative implemented by the Brazilian city of effects of global warming affect the Belo Horizonte. most vulnerable population groups, The system is based on the legal including small-scale farmers in the right to food for all citizens. The Global South, disrupting local envi- law applies to every stage of the ronmental conditions and affecting food chain, including research and local food availability. In turn, when development of farming technology – handled carelessly, this may lead to with increasing focus on organic and temporary local agricultural prac- urban farming – support for farmers’ tices that harm local environmental markets, waste reduction efforts, conditions further, as well as carbon- decentralised distribution, feeding intensive food imports. Thus, food and health education programmes, security, agriculture, climate change, and operation of popular restaurants. public health and political stability A special Secretariat for Food and are intrinsically intertwined, and Nutrition Security (SMASAN) coordi- food shortages will undoubtedly af- nates the different programmes and fect our future. manages partnerships with relevant

56 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 FIGURE 2.1. THE FUTURE POLICY AWARDS

The Future Policy Award celebrates policies that create better living condi- tions for current and future generations. The aim of the award is to raise global awareness for these exemplary policies and speed up policy action towards just, sustainable and peaceful societies. The Future Policy Award is the first award that celebrates policies rather than people on an inter- national level. Each year, the World Future Council identifies one topic on which policy progress is particularly urgent. Past awards were held in partnership with the UN Convention on Biodiversity, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN, the UN Forum on Forests, the UN Office of Disarmament Affairs, UN Women, UNICEF and the Inter-Parliamentary Union.

Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 57 PART 2 – RESILIENCE BUILDING AND RISK REDUCTION: THE BELO HORIZONTE FOOD SECURITY MODEL

departments such as health, educa- closer interaction between small rural tion, parks and spaces, waste man- producers and urban consumers. agement, etc, as part of a holistic ap- Due to its effectiveness, this policy proach. A strong emphasis is placed has strongly influenced Brazil’s na- on healthy nutrition and the inclu- tional ‘Zero-Hunger’ strategy and has sion of family farmers into a localised been recognised by UNESCO and the and sustainable food system. UN Food and Agriculture Organisa- A central result of the policy tion as a model for cities in the Global framework is the near elimination of South. hunger in Belo Horizonte. There have A feasibility study conducted by the been significant decreases in child German Federal Agency for Inter- mortality, reduction in childhood and national Cooperation (GIZ) concluded adult malnutrition, increase in local that the model was highly trans- and organic food production and ferable. Urban areas in Africa, par- consumption, more stable income for ticularly Windhoek in Namibia, are farmers, and greater access and avail- now in the process of implementing ability of food for all. programmes modelled on the Belo In addition, the policy has had Horizonte model through a knowl- multiple positive side effects such edge transfer facilitated by the World as increased resilience to the effects Future Council. The policy model of of climate change and a reduction Belo Horizonte has potential to be of greenhouse gas emissions from scaled up further across the Global food transportation – as well as lower South, reducing local and global ex- exposure to variation in food prices posure to systemic risk. internationally – as there is now a

ALEXANDRA WANDEL Alexandra Wandel is Director and Vice-Chair of the Management Board of the World Future Council. The World Future Council works in close collaboration with civil society, governments, businesses and international organisations to research future-just legislation and advise and support decision-makers in their concrete imple- mentation.

58 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 Cities, states and regions across the globe have already begun to implement innovative policy solutions that not only seek to meet current human sustenance needs, but also secure those of future generations.

Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 59 PART 2 – MANAGING PANDEMICS IN A FRAGMENTED WORLD: CONTRIBUTIONS OF REGIONAL SYSTEMS

2.3. Managing pandemics in a fragmented world: contributions of regional systems

Catherine Rhodes, Centre for the Study of Existential Risk, Cambridge, UK

What role can regional initiatives play in risk reduction? The recent Brexit vote might indicate a global trend towards national fragmentation. In this context, it is important to remember the role of regional organisations in reducing and managing large-scale risks such as pandemics. Institutions like the EU or ASEAN not only develop integrated systems to test and circulate medicines, they also build a sense of mutual trust and shared interests that help coordinate national reactions in times of crisis.

60 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 61 PART 2 – MANAGING PANDEMICS IN A FRAGMENTED WORLD: CONTRIBUTIONS OF REGIONAL SYSTEMS

nternational coordination and be expected to pay to maintain its national action are both vital participation, and could find its influ- I to pandemic preparedness and ence diminished in areas such as the response efforts. But regional coor- design of prevention and response dination systems – such as regional strategies. Brexit may also result in a offices of the World Health Organisa- reduction of the UK’s contributions tion or regional organisations like to global health research efforts and the European Union (EU) or the networks, particularly those funded Association of South East Asian by the EU and/or involving collabo- Nations (ASEAN) – can also have ration with partners in other member great value. They can reduce costs states. This would represent a loss to to individual states by centralising other states as well as the UK, which medicine authorisation procedures, is currently a leader in medical and they can help identify and fill gaps scientific research. This is something in national capacities, and they can we should strive to avoid. develop strategies more responsive to the particular context, structures Not all regions have established and vulnerabilities of their members. strong pandemic preparedness and More generally, regional efforts can response systems. But apart from the build relationships and trust be- EU, there has been a notable expan- tween states, providing the basis for sion of efforts in the South East Asia good communication and coordina- and Western Pacific regions over the tion during crisis events. past decade. This includes work by The European Union’s systems ASEAN improving communication have developed substantially over and information sharing between the past fifteen years in response to states and across government de- various outbreak events, including partments, laboratory networking, SARS, H5N1 influenza, and H1N1 and standard setting for outbreak influenza. The recent British vote to investigation and response. There leave the EU – generally referred to is also a joint initiative of the two as Brexit – raises questions regarding regions focused on capacity building, continued participation of the UK in the Asia Pacific Strategy for Emerg- European pandemic management ing Diseases. In regions with lower systems. The EU systems are reason- capacities and greater vulnerabilities ably comprehensive and include to outbreaks, political fragmentation disease prevention and control, vac- is likely to have a more severe impact cine and medicines authorisation and on individual states than political emergency systems for outbreaks. It fragmentation in Europe, where – on seems unlikely, therefore, that the UK both an individual and regional basis would choose to withdraw from these – institutions and systems are well systems. However, it would probably established.

62 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 63 There are, however, more signifi- pandemic was not as severe as cant forms of political fragmentation anticipated, but such behaviour that are damaging to global pandemic in the future could easily result in responses. The way states behaved failure to contain an outbreak in its during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pan- early stages, causing higher damage demic is illustrative of these. During globally. An intermediary level of the outbreak, states seemed to revert coordination, based on trust and to a narrow conception of national in- tested systems could be a significant terest. Rather than seeking a distribu- contributor to better global outcomes. tion of resources (such as vaccines and The significant contribution that anti-virals) optimal to containing the regional coordination efforts can outbreak – e.g. by targeting countries make to management of pandemics most affected or vulnerable – they and other global catastrophic risks sought primarily to secure resources should motivate us to try to address for their own populations, with the dynamics of political fragmenta- advance orders from a small group of tion, and build relationships that will developed countries taking up almost enable states to collaborate effectively all vaccine manufacturing capacity. during crises. In the end, the 2009 H1N1

CATHERINE RHODES Catherine Rhodes is academic project manager at the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk in Cambridge, UK. In the context of extreme technological risks, Catherine is particularly in- terested in understanding the intersection and combination of risk stemming from technology and risk stemming from governance (or lack of it). She has particular expertise in international governance of biotechnology, including biosecu- rity and broader risk management issues.

64 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 Regional efforts can build relationships and trust between states, providing the basis for good communication and coordination during crisis events.

Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 65 PART 2 – GLOBAL CATASTROPHIC RISK: WHOSE PROBLEM IS IT ANYWAY?

2.4. Global catastrophic risk: whose problem is it anyway?

Malini Mehra, GLOBE International, London, UK

Who is ultimately responsible for global catastrophic risk? For nuclear war, the UN Security Council is the clear owner, and the recent Paris agreement shows progress in global coordination on climate change. But in both cases, under existing structures, a considerable level of risk remains. Meanwhile, hope may come from elsewhere: where legislative powers have failed, individuals are now resorting to the courts as alternative channels to address the challenge of climate change.

66 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 67 PART 2 – GLOBAL CATASTROPHIC RISK: WHOSE PROBLEM IS IT ANYWAY?

ne of the central dilemmas in 2017. This could augur well for global addressing the thorny subject catastrophic risks being placed on O of global catastrophic risk is, the Security Council’s agenda. Under who bears responsibility for dealing revitalisation reforms introduced in with it? In management speak, who 2014, newly-elected members now is the issue owner? More colloquially, have six months to prepare for their whose problem is it to handle? terms before assuming council re- For conventional hard security risks sponsibilities. such as nuclear war – a top-level ‘con- The Security Council derives its tinuing risk’ according to this year’s authority from the United Nations Global Challenges Foundation Annual charter and deals with threats from Report – the answer is clear. National both UN member states and non- governments have a duty to protect State actors, such as terrorist groups. their own citizens, and regional mili- Threats from the former are governed tary pacts such as NATO, ANZUS, or by multilateral agreements such as the InterAmerican Treaty of Recipro- the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation cal Assistance (Rio Treaty), have been of Nuclear Weapons and bodies such set up with the explicit goal to ensure as the International Atomic Energy security for their members. But over Agency. Threats from the latter are and above them, the United Nations dealt with through a special subsidiary Security Council is the international body established by the Security body vested with the authority to ad- Council called the 1540 Committee. dress issues of peace and security, and The 1540 Committee is directly therefore the global issue owner. responsible for managing the threat of the use, and proliferation, of The Security Council comprises weapons of mass destruction by fifteen Members, five permanent rogue elements and terrorist groups. and ten non-permanent, elected by It derives its legal authority by virtue the UN General Assembly for 2-year of Resolution 1540 (2004) which terms each. The five permanent imposes “binding obligations on all members are China, France, the Rus- States to adopt legislation to prevent sian Federation, the United Kingdom the proliferation of nuclear, chemi- and the United States. The ten non- cal and biological weapons, and their permanent members, in alphabetical means of delivery, and establish order, are Angola, Egypt, Japan, Ma- appropriate domestic controls over re- laysia, New Zealand, Senegal, Spain, lated materials to prevent their illicit Ukraine, Uruguay and Venezuela. trafficking.”1 In June 2015, Sweden was elected by the General Assembly to succeed As a creation of the Security Council, Spain on the Security Council for a the 1540 Committee could also, in two-year term, starting on January 1, theory, resort to Security Council

68 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 sanctions as an enforcement tool to is, of course, at the forefront of compel members states to comply concern for many low-lying, small with these legal obligations. island states as a result of climate Elsewhere within the UN system, change and subsequent sea-level the response on nuclear weapons ap- rise. Climate change is another of pears more equivocal. For example, the ‘continuing risks’ highlighted by the International Court of Justice the Global Challenges Foundation (ICJ, another Security Council Annual Report in 2016 and, in fact, creation) ruled in its 1996 Advisory in December 2014, the Pacific Island Opinion on Nuclear Weapons that it state of Palau announced it was “cannot conclude definitively whether seeking an advisory opinion from the threat or use of nuclear weapons the ICJ on climate change damage. It would be lawful or unlawful in an would seek guidance from the Court extreme circumstance of self-defence, on how the ‘no harm rule’ and the in which the very survival of a state UN Law of the Sea Convention apply would be at stake.”2 Hardly encourag- to climate change damage.3 Most ing if one’s very existence as a state recently, the Commission on Human was threatened by nuclear annihila- Rights of the Philippines, a constitu- tion from a neighboring state. tional body, has been approached by This existential fear of annihilation public-interest groups to assess the

Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 69 PART 2 – GLOBAL CATASTROPHIC RISK: WHOSE PROBLEM IS IT ANYWAY?

responsibility of the world’s top 50 close to twenty countries (including fossil fuel companies such as Shell, the French parliament) have now Exxon and BHP Billiton, for human ratified the Paris Agreement since it rights violations as a result of loss and opened for signature on 22 April 2016. damage caused by climate change.4 The Agreement will formally come into force once it has been ratified For climate change, unlike nuclear by national parliaments in fifty-five proliferation, there is no global issue countries that represent at least 55% owner. The only global treaty that of global greenhouse gas emissions. exists to address the Global Cata- National governments and parlia- strophic Risk of climate change is the ments can already enact laws and United Nations Framework Conven- regulations that give the Agreement tion on Climate Change (UNFCCC domestic legal effect. After ratifica- 1992). tion by the required number of signa- Article 2 of the Convention sets out tory countries, the agreement will its objective as follows: “The ultimate come into effect for all UN member objective of this Convention and any countries, with enforcement subject related legal instruments that the to international laws and regulations. Conference of the Parties may adopt One can argue, however, that the ob- is to achieve, in accordance with the jective of the Convention has already relevant provisions of the Conven- been overtaken and undermined tion, stabilization of greenhouse gas by events. Recent reports of record- concentrations in the atmosphere at breaking extreme weather events and a level that would prevent dangerous phenomena such as widespread coral anthropogenic interference with the reef bleaching, unprecedented Artic climate system. Such a level should be ice melt, drought in India and wild- achieved within a time-frame suf- fires in North America have added to ficient to allow ecosystems to adapt a high-pitch of alarm at the gathering naturally to climate change, to ensure storm of climate impacts. With 2014, that food production is not threatened 2015 and now 2016 consecutively and to enable economic development confirmed as the hottest year in the to proceed in a sustainable manner.”5 century – and the planet reaching its But the Convention is not legally highest temperatures in 5000 years – binding on Member States in a con- it is little wonder that scientists now ventionally understood way and does openly describe the situation as a not constitute global climate change climate emergency.6 law as such. Its provisions, as with the recently concluded Paris Agreement, While the UN Security Council have to be translated into domestic has debated climate security on two legislation passed by national par- occasions (2007 and 2011)7, there liaments to acquire the force of law. are no visible attempts to formalise This process has already begun and attention to this global catastrophic

70 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 FIGURE 2.4. WHEN COURTS RULE ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Where governments are perceived to Meanwhile, in Pakistan, an extra- fail, those affected by climate impacts ordinary though lesser-known ruling are increasingly taking to the courts by the Lahore High Court took place for redress. The most well-known is in September 2015. In this case, an the Urgenda case in the Netherlands. individual farmer, Asghar Leghari, In 2013 a Dutch NGO, the Urgenda acting on his own initiative, took the Foundation, and 900 citizens took the government of Pakistan to court for government to court for failing to re- failing to enforce its own framework spond adequately to climate change. law on climate change. With his In a widely-publicised decision in livelihood damaged by successive June 2015, the District court in The catastrophic floods, the farmer from Hague, after taking the known scien- Punjab province filed a complaint in tific evidence into account, ordered the Lahore High Court in summer the Dutch government to reduce its 2015. Within weeks, the sitting judge, emissions by a minimum of 25% by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, had 2020 compared to 1990. The country not only ruled in favour of Leghari, is currently on a path towards 17% but also set in motion a series of re- in 2020. The ruling sets an important medial steps. Justice Shah concluded legal precedent affirming the danger that “the most serious threat faced presented by climate change to so- by Pakistan is that of climate change”. cieties, based on the scientific facts, The court’s September 2015 ruling and affirming the duty of govern- established a high-powered Commis- ments to act. The Dutch government, sion supporting the government to despite parliamentary and public deliver on domestic commitments on opposition, is presently appealing the climate change, including adaptation decision. measures to protect the livelihoods of vulnerable groups such as agricul- tural workers. PART 2 – GLOBAL CATASTROPHIC RISK: WHOSE PROBLEM IS IT ANYWAY?

risk through a separate committee to rise in popularity as a measure for structure as with the 1540 Commit- short-term redress, and to establish tee. In the meantime, the pulverizing principles of transboundary respon- force of climate impact is leading sibility of State and non-State actors some to the doors of the courts for such as business and industry for the judiciary to rule where legislators climate change damage. and policymakers have been unable As with the whole field of global to effect change quickly enough. For catastrophic risk, this is a rapidly example as in the Urgenda case in the changing area and one is likely to see Netherlands and the Leghari case in developments in the near to mid- Pakistan, where petitioners claims of future establishing clarity on who climate inaction by national govern- owns the issue, and what is required ments were upheld by sub-national at the global level to more effectively courts. Litigation is therefore likely manage this global catastrophic risk.

MALINI MEHRA Malini Mehra is Chief Executive of the GLOBE International Secretariat. GLOBE International brings together prominent serving politicians and lawmakers, across party lines, to exert their authority and powers of law-making, legislative and budgetary oversight to advance practical action on sustainable development. As a civil society leader, Malini served on UN Secretary- General Kofi Annan’s Panel on UN-Civil Society Relations and co-authored two UN flagship Human Development Reports. She was the architect of the UK Governments’ pioneering Sustainable Development Dialogues with China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Mexico, and has served on the corporate boards of numerous world-leading companies.

72 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 The pulverizing force of climate impact is leading some to the doors of the courts for the judiciary to rule where legislators and policy makers have been unable to affect change quickly enough.

Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 73 POSTFACE: BUILDING A SHARED NARRATIVE

Postface Building a shared narrative

Ama Van Dantzig, Earth Charter, Accra, Ghana

How can we build a sense of collective responsibility for risks that affect us all? Depending on where we live, in the developed North or in the Global South, we most likely tell different stories about the world that we live in. This fragmentation stands in the way of effective measures to address global catastrophic risk. And so, we must invent and share new stories, stories of a unified world where risks and challenges form part of a shared human narrative.

74 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 75 POSTFACE: BUILDING A SHARED NARRATIVE

ll global challenges, whether are selective: African resources are environmental degradation, welcome, people searching for unpol- A wars or poverty, have a fun- luted homes – not so much. damental ethical dimension, best understood through this one ques- Improved international and local tion: how far should we track the environmental regulations could consequences of our actions? This form an important part of addressing question applies to all official -ac these interconnected problems. But counts of history and, indeed, to any we will not reach a systemic solution narrative construction, collective or to the major challenges that we face personal. without a shared understanding of Let us consider the progress of what is at stake, and a sense of com- new communication technology. Its mon destiny. positive effects are well documented, Sixteen years ago, the Earth Charter informing a global tale of increased was launched as an effort to build connection through the power of a shared ethical framework for a innovation. But if we change the globalised world. It brought together frame, and look slightly further, the civil society, political and spiritual story changes. Most of the mineral leaders, including representatives of resources that make up our devices indigenous people from around the are extracted from the “Global South”, globe. After a decade long process of with significant consequences on consultation and negotiation, sixteen local environment and social struc- core principles were distilled, and the tures. Then, after a few years of use Earth Charter – the people’s treaty – in the developed world, outdated was born. This was the most inclusive gadgets finish their lifecycle in the and participatory process ever associ- “Global South”. ated with the drafting of an inter- Ghana has one of the largest elec- national declaration. tronic waste dumps in the world. Young unemployed people, often mi- The Earth Charter proposes a vision grants from the North of the country, for a just, sustainable and peaceful spend their days burning used elec- world. This vision is one in which tronics to extract valuable minerals environmental protection, human and resell them. The air, the soil and rights and human development are the nearby ocean waters are heavily interdependent and indivisible. The polluted, with direct impact on the Earth Charter emphasises the im- health of these Ghanaian youth and portance of unity in diversity: “We local communities. Some choose to stand at a critical moment in Earth’s search greener pastures, and venture history, a time when humanity must across the Mediterranean towards choose its future. As the world be- a cleaner Europe. But Europeans comes increasingly interdependent

76 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 and fragile, the future at once holds This vision is anchored in Indi- great peril and great promise. To genous wisdom. Its core principle is move forward we must recognize that our efforts to create a sense of that in the midst of a magnificent di- common destiny across the globe – versity of cultures and life forms we uniting people across space – must are one human family and one Earth be accompanied by parallel efforts community with a common destiny. to build a sense of common des- We must join together to bring forth tiny between generations – uniting a sustainable global society founded people across time. This continuity on respect for nature, universal hu- between generations is fundamental man rights, economic justice, and a to the worldview of most indigenous culture of peace. Towards this end, people. When it comes to decisive life it is imperative that we, the peoples choices, we must look beyond our of Earth, declare our responsibility contemporaries, and fully consider to one another, to the greater com- our responsibility to both our ances- munity of life, and to future genera- tors, and future generations. tions.” Most indigenous groups use

Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 77 POSTFACE: BUILDING A SHARED NARRATIVE

stories to capture this sense of com- fragmented or whole, by the stories mon purpose, and instill a profound we tell, and the stories we listen to. reverence for life among their people. New stories will lead us to new solu- Stories give an understanding of the tions, and make us question our idea world and our place in it. Therefore, of progress. We are at a turning point. setting the right frame for the sto- To face the challenges of our inter- ries that bind us together is a crucial connected world, we must invent new ethical and intellectual challenge. modes of storytelling that can include Stories of technological progress the many voices of the planet, those of rarely feature Ghanaian waste dumps. the developed West and North, those Stories of African misery rarely men- of a rising Asia and those of the Global tion affordable technology, and the South. We must invent new stories possibilities it opens. Until they do, that will help the youth of today, living systemic problems will continue to in fragmented countries, become the grow in this fragmented world, and joint ancestors of tomorrow’s unified the risks that we face will remain. world. Together, we must start telling But things can change. We can new stories that make change both choose to think of the world as imaginable and urgent.

AMA VAN DANTZIG Ama Van Dantzig is a Dutch-Ghanaian innovator and community leader. She co-founded and directs Dr. Monk, an international innovation studio with headquarters in Amsterdam and Accra, and is a member of the Earth Charter Council. The Earth Charter is a universal expres- sion of ethical principles to foster sustainable development, launched in 2000 following an extensive community engagement model on a global scale. It inspires the Earth Charter Initiative, a global network that embraces, uses and integrates the principles expressed in the charter.

78 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 To move forward we must recognize that in the midst of a magnificent diversity of cultures and life forms we are one human family and one Earth community with a common destiny.

– Earth Charter

Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 79 CONTINUING THE CONVERSATION

Continuing the conversation

e hope the conversation will continue. You can help us by simply sharing this report with a friend or colleague. We’re looking for partners around the world to join future publications, organise events, workshops and talks, or more W generally support our engagement effort. For more information, visit our website: www.globalchallenges.org

ADDITIONAL CONTACT INFO

The Global Challenges Foundation: Strandvägen 7A 114 56 Stockholm Sweden

info@ globalchallenges.org +46 (0) 709 98 97 97

80 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 CONTINUING THE CONVERSATION

Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 81 ENDNOTES

Endnotes

1. http://www.un.org/en/sc/1540/ 5. http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/ 2. https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/professor-sands- background_publications_htmlpdf/application/pdf/ lecture-on-climate-change-and-the-rule-of-law.pdf conveng.pdf 3. http://www.climatelaw.org/cases/ 6. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/ by-country/international-tribunals/ jun/17/shattered-records-climate-change-emergency- international-palau-seek-icj-advisory-opinion/ today-scientists-warn international-palau-seek-icj-advisory-opinion/ 7. http://climate-l.iisd.org/news/un-security-council- 4. http://www.theguardian.com/ debates-security-impacts-of-climate-change/ sustainable-business/2016/may/07/ climate-change-shell-exxon-philippines-fossil-fuel- companies-liability-extreme-weather

82 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 ENDNOTES

Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016 83 84 Global Challenges Quarterly Risk Report August 2016