Global Shield Briefing (24 January 2024)
Risk perception and assessment, cascading regional conflicts, and new features for the newsletter.
Welcome to 2024!
Before we get going, we want to share a quick update about the newsletter. Based on the feedback to the survey in the previous newsletter, we’ve decided to make a few tweaks. Thanks to those who responded!
For starters, our regular update will be badged as the “Global Shield Briefing”. As always, it will highlight a few items of particular interest from the latest policy, research and news on global catastrophic risk (GCR). We want our audience to be among the most knowledgeable in the world on GCR. And instead of every two weeks, we’re spreading it out to once every three weeks. It’ll make sure the content is of high quality and doesn’t clog your inboxes.
And, once in a while, you’ll also get a “Global Shield Explainer” where we dive deep into a specific topic of high interest or importance. It could be to outline a specific policy, or to explore a unique aspect of GCR, or to present a new way of thinking about GCR. We’re going to make them relevant, timely and informative, with the goal of helping our readers see GCR in a new or brighter light.
We’ll continue to experiment with new content and features over time, which we think will make the briefings even more valuable. So please continue to provide feedback and ideas on what you’d like to see. And please share the newsletter with colleagues and friends.
Going from risk perception to risk assessment
The World Economic Forum released the 19th Edition of the Global Risk Report. Over 90 percent of survey responses assessed a moderate or greater risk of global catastrophe in the next decade. Of this, 17 percent believed that a global catastrophic risk would occur. The four highest-rated risks over the next decade also painted a picture of the type of catastrophes that participants were most concerned by: extreme weather events; critical change to Earth systems; biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse and natural resource shortages. Adverse outcomes from AI technologies - the first time this was listed as an option - was rated as sixth highest over the next decade.
The Doomsday Clock is still at 90 seconds to midnight. The announcement by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists keeps the Doomsday Clock at the closest to midnight the Clock has ever been in its 76-year history. The decision is based on the continued risk of nuclear weapons as well as the potential catastrophe caused by climate change, biological threats and artificial intelligence.
Policy comment: Both these announcements highlight the need for governments to conduct national risk assessments, including for global catastrophic risk. The WEF’s annual global risk report is based on the survey responses of around 1500 experts across academia, business, government and civil society. And the Doomsday Clock’s position is set by a board of scientific experts and it is not clear how the verdict is made. These results can therefore succumb to recency bias and gut feeling of risk - not necessarily a quantified or objective basis.
A more thorough risk assessment would consider many of the same threats listed in the report. But it would also need to evaluate the scale of threat posed, as well as the country’s (or international system’s) ability to manage the threat. It also needs to consider how risk converges and cascades. Very few countries conduct a national risk assessment, even fewer conduct it in a systematic and comprehensive manner, and only one – the US – is conducting a specific assessment of GCR. Both the WEF report and the Doomsday Clock shows how the perception of risk around the world is high. A government-led, detailed national risk assessment process can better translate that sense into targeted and actionable plans.
Reckoning with the cascading global consequences of regional conflicts
The world is seeing the greatest number of concurrent conflicts since the end of World War II, according to the Uppsala Conflict Data Program. Conflicts between Israel and Palestine and between Ukraine and Russia continue to dominate the news and policymakers’ bandwidth. Iran and Pakistan traded blows this past week. The US and UK conducted strikes on Houthi rebels in Yemen after persistent attacks on ships in the Red Sea. A peace treaty between Armenia and Azerbaijan is still being hashed out. The cease-fire and rebuilding in Ethiopia remains tenuous, just as its tensions with Somali bring them closer to conflict. Eastern Congo is ravaged by civil war, having already claimed 6 million lives. The latest war in Sudan continues to spiral. Once combined with other stressors, particularly climate change, we are in a state of polycrisis.
Policy comment: As we mentioned back in October, GCR policy researchers and advocates would be wise to not ignore regional conflicts and their secondary and tertiary effects on GCR. These conflicts are a humanitarian crisis, drawing in resources and capacity from under-resourced diplomatic corps, multilateral agencies and civil society groups. They become testing grounds for new capabilities – as well as the basis for the threat of weapons of mass destruction. They create escalation potential that might bring the great powers in contest diplomatically, and, potentially, militarily. And they cascade globally through disruption to global shipping and supply chains. Beyond all that, from a purely ethical perspective, a field that cares about reducing the risk of catastrophe must reckon with the crises that are already wreaking havoc.
Case study: the role of intelligence in GCR assessment
As a new feature, we include a case study on real-world government efforts on global catastrophic risk. These case studies present opportunities for policy researchers, advocates and practitioners to learn and adapt to their own country contexts.
Every four years, the US’s Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) releases the Global Trends report. Released just as the new presidential administration is inaugurated, it aims to inform the incoming commander-in-chief of the global environment they’re entering. In 2021, the 7th edition of its Global Trends report contained a short but unprecedented section on existential risk:
The next report is under development, probably to be released in early 2025, and we expect to see further exploration of existential and global catastrophic risk.
Lesson for GCR policy: Of the many arms of government that can contribute to reducing global catastrophic risk, intelligence capability could be critical. Intelligence collection and analysis would help lead government efforts to detect, understand and warn senior policymakers of the threats. Because of the uncertainty and complexity around GCR, a dedicated intelligence mission could be tasked with coordinating various intelligence activities related to identifying, assessing and responding to GCR. It would ensure strategic, coordinated and sustained efforts on GCR within the intelligence community, and lend greater credibility to intelligence efforts and findings. In the US, for example, the ODNI already houses a “National Intelligence Manager” for “Climate and Global Issues”. A slight repurposing to global catastrophic risk could see the intelligence community play a leading role in identifying the gravest of threats to national and international security.