In her inaugural address as the Montague Burton Chair in International Relations, Neta Crawford brought into focus the discrepancies inherent in conceptions of time and their consequences for the realm of politics. The prevailing ecological and political crises witnessed in contemporary society are, in part, a product of these discordant temporal perceptions. The incongruities between personal, generational, and geological time scales have given rise to a profound schism, fostering a disconnection between physical earth processes and the sociological interpretations and responses they elicit. Consequently, the imperative of politics lies in its capacity to adapt and bridge these temporal variances, thereby forging a path toward effective solutions for pressing global predicaments.
This is not a new problem for all those working in “green” politics; many theorists have pointed out that we too often focus on the spatiality of International Relations and overlook the important temporal dimension. By nature, humans struggle to comprehend the billions of years in a geological timescale, as we are hard-wired to think in terms of our lifespans or in generations. Additionally, geological processes, such as the gradual shifting of continents or the formation of mountain ranges, occur at an imperceptibly slow pace, making it difficult to observe or relate to these transformations. As a result, comprehending geological time scales requires a significant cognitive shift and often necessitates the use of scientific tools and models to aid in conceptualisation. However, this must be done effectively so that we can come to terms with the political adaptations required to cope and overcome environmental catastrophe. Some have already made headway in this area; consider, for example, Oran Young’s work on the dynamics between institutions and global environmental change, which suggests that we need institutions that are more flexible in order to navigate not just physical changes of the earth but also complexity over time. Perhaps even more central to “green” politics are the temporally sensitive problems of intergenerational justice. In an era defined by rapid technological advancements and global interconnectedness, the concept of intergenerational justice emerges as a crucial lens through which we scrutinise the implications of our present actions on the well-being and opportunities of those to come. This temporal consideration, once relegated to the periphery of political discourse, has now ascended to the very centre of our collective ethical deliberations.
At the heart of the discourse lies the enigmatic non-identity problem, a philosophical puzzle that challenges our conventional notions of responsibility by posing the question of whether future generations can be considered wronged if their existence is contingent upon the choices we make today. This intricate dilemma underscores the complexity of our ethical responsibilities across time, urging us to grapple with the nuanced interplay between our present decisions and the potential outcomes for generations yet unborn. Environmental reparations, for example, are a poignant battleground where intergenerational justice is contested. The impact of industrialisation, deforestation, and other anthropogenic activities has left an indelible mark on the planet, affecting ecosystems, biodiversity, and the overall stability of the environment. Discussions surrounding reparations delve into the ethical imperative of rectifying past wrongs, posing essential questions about who should bear the burden of responsibility and how the costs should be fairly distributed across time and nations.
Moreover, the imperative to address climate change intensifies the urgency of our temporal decisions. Debates on justly distributing emissions quotas and transitioning to sustainable practices underscore the ethical dimensions woven into our environmental policies. The repercussions of our choices resonate far beyond our immediate time, echoing far into an uncertain future. The burden of mitigating these consequences falls not only on us but also on the shoulders of generations who will inherit the outcomes of our environmental stewardship. Our ability to navigate the complexities of time in the way we engage in meaningful dialogues about environmental reparations and implement equitable strategies for emissions distribution will determine the tapestry of future politics that we weave. The temporal nature of our responsibilities calls for a heightened awareness of the profound impact our political and environmental choices have on the continuum of time, emphasising the inextricable link between our present actions and the legacy we leave for the inheritors of our shared world.
The interplay between time, our understanding of it, and the urgent need to address urgent threats is exemplified by the Doomsday Clock, created by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in 1947 to serve as both a sobering reflection of existential threats and a call to action. As the world stood at the precipice of a new and terrifying era, with the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki still fresh in collective memory, the clock symbolised the approaching midnight hour of global catastrophe, using the imagery of apocalypse to convey threats to humanity and the planet. Initially, the Doomsday Clock was primarily associated with the risks of nuclear conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. It served as a barometer of the precarious balance between these superpowers and a constant reminder of the dire consequences that could result from a nuclear exchange. The clock fluctuated in response to changes in the international political landscape, oscillating between periods of hope and despair as arms control treaties were signed, negotiations took place, and tensions escalated. Since then, the scope of the clock has evolved to include a broader range of global challenges – including climate change – for which the temporal dimension is paramount in recognising the long-term consequences of our actions and the need for responsible stewardship of the planet.
The clock has now reached 90 seconds to midnight. In the 2023 report, the onset of the war in Ukraine looms large in the reasoning behind moving the clock’s hands forward. The Bulletin’s Science and Security Board, in consultation with the Board of Sponsors, assesses and sets the clock’s time, taking into account a range of global threats that extend beyond nuclear war. It now also encapsulates the existential risks posed by emerging technologies, climate change, and biosecurity. This expansion underscores the recognition that the dangers we face have grown more complex and interconnected and the clock’s relevance continues to evolve to reflect these multifaceted threats. One of the newest areas of concern of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists is the nexus between nuclear weapons and climate change. Individually, these issues are well known to be “threat-magnifiers” but only recently have they been studied in tandem. Not only do rising temperatures increase the likelihood of war at many levels including nuclear, but conversely, war at any scale, especially nuclear, has unimaginable consequences for the earth’s climate and inhabitants. The climate-related channels of war causation are diverse but the most significant is through increasing world temperatures and rising sea levels which would diminish the supply of food and water in many areas, thereby increasing the risk of widespread starvation, social unrest, and human flight. Global corn production, for example, is projected to fall by 14% in a 2°C warmer world according to research cited in a 2018 special report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is magnified by the effect of war on climate. War has a colossal direct and indirect carbon footprint – oil production, storage and transportation infrastructure are often targets of fighting, as has been the case in Colombia, Libya, Syria and Iraq. In the early phases of fighting, the main indirect emissions arise from damaged infrastructure, the loss of vegetation, and the delivery of humanitarian aid. In addition, when energy infrastructure and markets are impacted by conflicts but a need for fuel remains, people often turn to less efficient alternatives. Hence, it is not unlikely that war and climate change create a positive feedback loop that could easily spiral out of control.
In the intricate dance between time, understanding, and action, the Doomsday Clock’s hands continue to tick, urging us to consider not just the spatial dimensions of international relations but also the profound dimension of time. It compels us to take a unified approach to addressing the complexities and uncertainties that define our world. In navigating the challenges of our time, it is useful to reflect on Martin Luther King Jr’s sentiment that ‘the time is always right to do what is right’ and recognise the critical role of time in shaping our responses to existential threats. Hopefully, this will come to serve as a reminder of our responsibility to safeguard the future of our planet and the well-being of generations to come.
This article was originally published in OPR’s Issue 11: Time.
Anna Bartlett is a final year PPE student at Oriel College, Oxford.