Articles

Many energy consumers, and even analysts and policymakers, confront and frame energy and climate risks in a moral vacuum, rarely incorporating broader social justice concerns. Here, to remedy this gap, we investigate how concepts from justice and ethics can inform energy decision-making by reframing five energy problems — nuclear waste, involuntary resettlement, energy pollution, energy poverty and climate change — as pressing justice concerns.

Professor Meghan O'Sullivan was interviewed on November 15th, 2015 for a Wall Street Journal special section on energy, discussing the rapid transformation of the American energy sector in light of low fuel prices, new climate policies and other factors.

During the Cold War, the threat of a nuclear attack came mainly from the U.S.-Russian nuclear arsenals, writes Kevin Ryan. Today, however, the United States and Russia have been forced to adapt to a new nuclear threat—that of dedicated terrorists with money and technological access who seek to obtain and use a nuclear device.

"...[A] primary goal in the next decades must be to remove this risk of near global self-destruction by drastically reducing nuclear forces to a level where this outcome is not possible, but where a deterrent value is preserved — in other words, to a level of minimum deterrence. This conception was widely discussed in the early years of the nuclear era, but it drowned in the Cold War flood of weaponry. No matter how remote the risk of civilization collapse may seem now — despite its being so vivid only a few decades ago — the elimination of this risk, for this century and centuries to come, must be a primary driver for radical reductions in nuclear weapons."

The current global nuclear order is extremely fragile, and the three most urgent challenges to it are North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan. If North Korea and Iran become established nuclear weapons states over the next several years, the nonproliferation regime will have been hollowed out. If Pakistan were to lose control of even one nuclear weapon that was ultimately used by terrorists, that would change the world. It would transform life in cities, shrink what are now regarded as essential civil liberties, and alter conceptions of a viable nuclear order.

Dr. Elizabeth D. Sherwood-Randall's article in Democracy: A Journal of Ideas.

The nuclear program of the Islamic Republic of Iran is becoming an increasingly large issue in Turkey. Even though there were abundant publications worldwide about Iran’s alleged efforts to develop nuclear weapons for more than two decades, Turkish security elite, with few exceptions, have only recently started to raise an eyebrow and express concerns about the subject. To date, their stance vis-à-vis Iran’s nuclear program would be categorized as one of negligence, to say the least. One particular reason for such an attitude was the widespread belief among the Turks that Iran would not be able to materialize its nuclear weapons ambitions anyway because of the adamant opposition of the United States and Israel. In addition, Iran’s obligations under the terms of the NPT and its comprehensive safeguards agreement with the IAEA were also thought to be real impediments. Moreover, Turkey’s NATO membership and the considerable might of the Turkish Armed Forces were believed to be powerful deterrents against Iran, if need be.

While noting that much of this burden will continue to fall on the United States (given its overwhelming military capabilities), the author cautions the U.S. leadership from going it alone. The breadth and depth of the terrorist threat, he argues, require a global coalition that can tackle the problem on a variety of fronts: political, economic, intelligence, and legal.

Dr. Ashton B. Carter in Foreign Affairs.