In 1947, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, a Chicago-based nonprofit organization, created the Doomsday Clock to symbolize how close they believed the Earth was to human extinction.
At the time, the clock was set at 11:53 p.m., seven minutes to midnight.
Through the years, the scientists shortened the time period and in January 2025, they set the clock at 89 seconds — 89 seconds, a second less than in January 2023 and January 2024, the closest they believe the world has been to “global catastrophe.”
In making their judgment the scientists consider a variety of factors: nuclear war threats, global warming, water and food shortages, biological dangers, and disruptive technologies like artificial intelligence.
But, as I have written in these articles, scientists throughout the world believe we face human extinction from the climate crisis alone.
And, sadly, there are no signs that we will leave the path to “final destruction.” Why? Because we face huge political and economic hurdles that cannot be overcome. The failure “to do anything” at the 29 annual international summit conferences we mentioned in one article prove the point.
The “solutions” on the table presently do little, if anything, to solve the crisis.
• Electric cars: The vehicles use lithium-ion batteries that require cobalt and nickel, leading to mining and the destruction of some of the most pristine areas in the world.
• Recycling: Not everything can be recycled, particularly almost all plastics. Many recycling operations use poisonous chemicals and some emit dangerous fumes. Finally, recycling, even if successful, may slow some contamination; it does not eliminate it.
• Solar energy: The panels use hazardous materials and large projects need huge swaths of land, and disposal of the panels create enormous problems.
• Wind: The turbines invade bird habitats, and create noise pollution and tremor issues on land and, if located on water, in the seas. Also, large projects require significant acreage.
Then there are suggestions on what all of us can do to save the planet, like not opening refrigerators too often, or using an old T-shirt instead of a sponge to clean a counter, or walk, bike, or take public transit.
Yup, we are on the brink of disaster and we are advised that using a T-shirt to clean a counter can help. The other recommendations fall into the same category.
So, what to do? One word defines what needs to be done: We need to sacrifice. And I mean really sacrifice.
As I stated in the introduction, I am a layperson, not an environmental scientist, but here are examples of what I believe we should do. If you believe any of them have even a remote chance of being adopted, contact me.
• Population growth. We need not only to control population but we need to reduce it, perhaps as much as 50 percent. It’s pure logic that if the population continues to grow, we will need more food, water, energy and land on which to expand. Growth will prove deadly. The Earth’s resources are, ultimately, finite.
• We must create a worldwide economy that does not depend on growth. Unless we create a financial system that makes saving the environment profitable, there is little reason to hope that the world will respond effectively. We live by the god of profits. We are ruled by the dollar, ruble, shekel, peso, euro, kopeck, dinar, franc. I would be more hopeful if the international conglomerates and corporations began offering stock in environmental protection programs.
• We need to consider the crisis not in term of decades, but in hundreds and thousands of years. Presently, we propose solutions with target dates of 2030, 2050, etc. What about 500 years from now, or 1,000 years (only 35 to 40 generations). I hear the response already: Who cares? Well, we are talking about saving humanity and hundreds of years is just a blink of an eye in the history of humanity on the planet.
• Drive cars that get 200 to 300 miles a gallon or more and have maximum speeds of, let’s say, 50 miles an hour. That would help. In 1973, after OPEC initiated an oil embargo, the auto industry built smaller cars. But, given that manufacturers considered profit margins unsatisfactory, they sold the public on SUVs.
• Reduce the number of flights daily from 100,000 in half or more. Remember, aviation emits one billion tons of CO2 every year. And opening your refrigerator less frequently will not help.
• Stop ravaging rain forests that are essential to our survival because they absorb CO2. Every hour forests the size of three footballs fields are cut down. Studies project that by 2030, only 10 percent of the world’s forests will remain standing.
• We must reduce cattle farming because cattle release methane gases that are more deadlier than CO2.
• Starkly reduce both commercial and residential construction.
• We must cut back, drastically, on logging, mining, fishing, farming, the use of pesticides, etc.
Then there is plastic. We need — must — must, cut back or even eliminate its use. Indeed, it is probably impossible to repair the damage plastics have already done.
I cite these few examples only as illustrations of the kind of commitment that is needed to assure a habitable planet. But regrettably that will never happen because no community in the world will ever adopt projects that eliminate jobs or temper the insatiable appetite for profit. The politics and economics are insurmountable.
Twenty-seven countries have levied “carbon taxes” on manufacturers emitting CO2 hoping the financial burden will reduce contamination. Of course, that does not solve the problem; many just pay the tax.
Former vice president Al Gore, for all his fine work with his book and movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” in discussing possible solutions, does not mention one that requires sacrifice — from halting population growth to curbing air traffic. (In 2007, he shared the Nobel Prize for his work on the environment with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.)
The optimists and climate deniers tell us not to worry. The Earth is very resilient. True. But to give the Earth a chance to recover we must stop the assault. We are using resources faster than they can be replenished.
To conclude: I finished this series on a beautiful day. I went outside, scanned a blue cloudless sky and then realized that we are polluting space as well. Yes, space.
In what is called the low Earth orbit (LEO), there are 6,000 tons (12 million pounds) of “junk” — paint from spacecrafts, rocket parts, “dead” satellites — flying around the planet at 18,000 miles per hour.
I went to NASA’s website to see what it says about this, expecting it to be defensive since it is the country’s space agency. But it wasn’t.” It called the LEO the “world’s largest garbage dump,” posing threats to manned and unmanned flights.
“The space around the planet is filled with rubbish,” because, NASA adds, it is too expensive to clean up the mess — just like on Earth.
“It’s time to take out the trash!” NASA says.
Yes, but where do we put it?
So, the Doomsday Clock will steadily continue its countdown on when the Earth will become inhabitable. But it’s not the symbolic one we have to worry about.
—————
This is the fifth and concluding column in a series of articles on the environment.
At the time, the clock was set at 11:53 p.m., seven minutes to midnight.
Through the years, the scientists shortened the time period and in January 2025, they set the clock at 89 seconds — 89 seconds, a second less than in January 2023 and January 2024, the closest they believe the world has been to “global catastrophe.”
In making their judgment the scientists consider a variety of factors: nuclear war threats, global warming, water and food shortages, biological dangers, and disruptive technologies like artificial intelligence.
But, as I have written in these articles, scientists throughout the world believe we face human extinction from the climate crisis alone.
And, sadly, there are no signs that we will leave the path to “final destruction.” Why? Because we face huge political and economic hurdles that cannot be overcome. The failure “to do anything” at the 29 annual international summit conferences we mentioned in one article prove the point.
The “solutions” on the table presently do little, if anything, to solve the crisis.
• Electric cars: The vehicles use lithium-ion batteries that require cobalt and nickel, leading to mining and the destruction of some of the most pristine areas in the world.
• Recycling: Not everything can be recycled, particularly almost all plastics. Many recycling operations use poisonous chemicals and some emit dangerous fumes. Finally, recycling, even if successful, may slow some contamination; it does not eliminate it.
• Solar energy: The panels use hazardous materials and large projects need huge swaths of land, and disposal of the panels create enormous problems.
• Wind: The turbines invade bird habitats, and create noise pollution and tremor issues on land and, if located on water, in the seas. Also, large projects require significant acreage.
Then there are suggestions on what all of us can do to save the planet, like not opening refrigerators too often, or using an old T-shirt instead of a sponge to clean a counter, or walk, bike, or take public transit.
Yup, we are on the brink of disaster and we are advised that using a T-shirt to clean a counter can help. The other recommendations fall into the same category.
So, what to do? One word defines what needs to be done: We need to sacrifice. And I mean really sacrifice.
As I stated in the introduction, I am a layperson, not an environmental scientist, but here are examples of what I believe we should do. If you believe any of them have even a remote chance of being adopted, contact me.
• Population growth. We need not only to control population but we need to reduce it, perhaps as much as 50 percent. It’s pure logic that if the population continues to grow, we will need more food, water, energy and land on which to expand. Growth will prove deadly. The Earth’s resources are, ultimately, finite.
• We must create a worldwide economy that does not depend on growth. Unless we create a financial system that makes saving the environment profitable, there is little reason to hope that the world will respond effectively. We live by the god of profits. We are ruled by the dollar, ruble, shekel, peso, euro, kopeck, dinar, franc. I would be more hopeful if the international conglomerates and corporations began offering stock in environmental protection programs.
• We need to consider the crisis not in term of decades, but in hundreds and thousands of years. Presently, we propose solutions with target dates of 2030, 2050, etc. What about 500 years from now, or 1,000 years (only 35 to 40 generations). I hear the response already: Who cares? Well, we are talking about saving humanity and hundreds of years is just a blink of an eye in the history of humanity on the planet.
• Drive cars that get 200 to 300 miles a gallon or more and have maximum speeds of, let’s say, 50 miles an hour. That would help. In 1973, after OPEC initiated an oil embargo, the auto industry built smaller cars. But, given that manufacturers considered profit margins unsatisfactory, they sold the public on SUVs.
• Reduce the number of flights daily from 100,000 in half or more. Remember, aviation emits one billion tons of CO2 every year. And opening your refrigerator less frequently will not help.
• Stop ravaging rain forests that are essential to our survival because they absorb CO2. Every hour forests the size of three footballs fields are cut down. Studies project that by 2030, only 10 percent of the world’s forests will remain standing.
• We must reduce cattle farming because cattle release methane gases that are more deadlier than CO2.
• Starkly reduce both commercial and residential construction.
• We must cut back, drastically, on logging, mining, fishing, farming, the use of pesticides, etc.
Then there is plastic. We need — must — must, cut back or even eliminate its use. Indeed, it is probably impossible to repair the damage plastics have already done.
I cite these few examples only as illustrations of the kind of commitment that is needed to assure a habitable planet. But regrettably that will never happen because no community in the world will ever adopt projects that eliminate jobs or temper the insatiable appetite for profit. The politics and economics are insurmountable.
Twenty-seven countries have levied “carbon taxes” on manufacturers emitting CO2 hoping the financial burden will reduce contamination. Of course, that does not solve the problem; many just pay the tax.
Former vice president Al Gore, for all his fine work with his book and movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” in discussing possible solutions, does not mention one that requires sacrifice — from halting population growth to curbing air traffic. (In 2007, he shared the Nobel Prize for his work on the environment with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.)
The optimists and climate deniers tell us not to worry. The Earth is very resilient. True. But to give the Earth a chance to recover we must stop the assault. We are using resources faster than they can be replenished.
To conclude: I finished this series on a beautiful day. I went outside, scanned a blue cloudless sky and then realized that we are polluting space as well. Yes, space.
In what is called the low Earth orbit (LEO), there are 6,000 tons (12 million pounds) of “junk” — paint from spacecrafts, rocket parts, “dead” satellites — flying around the planet at 18,000 miles per hour.
I went to NASA’s website to see what it says about this, expecting it to be defensive since it is the country’s space agency. But it wasn’t.” It called the LEO the “world’s largest garbage dump,” posing threats to manned and unmanned flights.
“The space around the planet is filled with rubbish,” because, NASA adds, it is too expensive to clean up the mess — just like on Earth.
“It’s time to take out the trash!” NASA says.
Yes, but where do we put it?
So, the Doomsday Clock will steadily continue its countdown on when the Earth will become inhabitable. But it’s not the symbolic one we have to worry about.
—————
This is the fifth and concluding column in a series of articles on the environment.
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Three-County & Full Pass also available
