At first glance, the issues of global warming and nuclear proliferation would not appear to… At first glance, the issues of global warming and nuclear proliferation would not appear to have much in common. However, many scientists, scholars and policy experts are discussing the direct impact that these issues have on each other and on global society.

“The critical importance of those two issues has never been more profoundly felt than it is today,” Pitt Chancellor Mark Nordenberg said in his opening address at this weekend’s conference entitled “Securing Our Survival: Meeting the Threats of Nuclear Weapons and Global Warming.”

“Nuclear holocaust and catastrophic climate change may be the only two events that can bring an end to life as we know it,” Nordenberg continued.

More than 200 people attended the conference, which was held on Oct. 12 and 13 in the Teplitz Courtroom of the Barco Law Building at the University of Pittsburgh.

During the symposium the issues of global warming and nuclear weapons were framed in the context of each other. Many of the speakers pointed out that a solution to one of the problems often increases the threat posed by the other.

For instance, nuclear power is seen by many to be a solution to the problem of global warming, since it produces low emissions and could meet the rising demands for energy more easily than other sources presently available. However, greater reliance on nuclear power also creates more nuclear waste, which could be used for the production of weapons.

Similarly, global warming could lead to mass migration of populations and to increased competition for natural resources, creating civil strife and conflict. Sherri Goodman of the Center for Naval Analyses used the situation in Darfur to illustrate the conflict that can result from competition for limited resources.

In the case of Darfur, the genocide that has been committed there arises partially from the competition for water, creating essentially the first “climate change war,” Goodman said.

William W. Keller, director of the Matthew B. Ridgway Center for International Security Studies, issued a call for greater citizen input regarding U.S. nuclear policy, saying, “We should reject the notion that there is a nuclear elite in this country that makes the big decisions of life or death on our planet.”

Dr. Nancy Eligator, professor at the Magee-Womens Hospital and member of Physicians for Social Responsibility, presented the hypothetical scenario of a nuclear attack on Pittsburgh and the damage that would result from such an event.

“As many as 140,000 people would be exposed to lethal radiation fallout … and a meaningful medical response would be impossible for the overwhelming majority of surviving casualties,” she said.

Georgetown University professor Joseph Cirincione, who serves as vice president for national security and international policy at the Center for American Progress think tank, said, “The threat of nuclear terrorism is the most serious threat we face.”

Cirincione estimated that there are approximately 26,000 nuclear weapons in existence today. Of those about 95 percent belong to either Russia or the United States, but that does not mean that all weapons are accounted for in either country.

Cirincione also discussed Iran’s nuclear ambitions. “Nuclear proliferation spreads neighbor to neighbor,” Cirincione said, citing Pakistan and India as neighboring nuclear powers.

The conference was broadcast live online and can be seen online at www.ridgway.pitt.edu.

The conference also addressed topics such as America’s role in the worldwide regulation of nuclear weapons, the problems of tracking and disposing of nuclear waste, and finding alternative sources of energy.

The urgency of the issues was emphasized throughout the conference.

“Another 9/11 event would be terrible,” Cirincione said. “A nuclear 9/11 would be an unprecedented catastrophe, both in human life, in the trillions of dollars of economic loss it would cause, and in the change that it would bring about in the political life of our country. You could take the Bill of Rights and put it up on the shelf and not ever see it again; not because an executive was dictating it, but because the people would demand it.”