Climate change vs. nuclear disarmament

You get grants from here, dah, dah, dah, dah, dah… But you don't go into issues of war. So we just having now a big thing about climate change, but most of the profits of climate change now do not acknowledge that military production is a major factor in climate change. Yeah. We spend $2 trillion a year on war and weapons with the CO2 must be enormous, 10% or something, but it's not on the agenda.

So you get big organizations like Catholaid, Catholic fund for overseas development, uh, who will talk about climate change all over the place, but they don't make the connection at all with nuclear weapons.

(Bruce Kent, 2019)

The recurrent theme in my interviews was the changing focus concerning activism. It seemed that all my informants had reflected on the current public discussion concerning the risks of climate change. They were mostly happy that the youth had found a form of activism that channelled their concerns to the decisionmakers. However, they also seemed to be concerned that climate activism and topics related to social injustice are taking too much space from the discussions on nuclear weapons. As public knowledge of nuclear weapons decreases, the new generations are less and less aware of their impact and the gravity of the issue in current politics. I named these emerging themes as ‘the discourse of the worry of forgetting’, which could be read widely from the interviews.

We know that young people are very engaged with issues. I mean, look at the movements we've seen in the last couple of weeks the climate rebellion process, you know, like striving for… are leaving school on strike to raise the alarm bell about climate change.

So I think there's a kind of a radical dynamic amongst young people at the moment that just wants to engage with these sorts of issues.

(Patricia Pulham 2019)

Yes. It's interesting now to see, it's very interesting to see now if there's anybody who thinks that you would survive or want to survive a nuclear war. Yeah. But just gone out of consciousness because there's so many issues that are to, and yet it's just as dangerous now as it ever has been…Right. There's not international consciousness at all, I don't think is climate change and just general stuff has taken over and yet it's still there and it's still near misses. Interesting, isn't it?

(Ruth Overy 2019)

Youth activism is seen strongly in a positive light, as the comments show. The power of the youth groups is acknowledged, but the worry emerges from the target of the activism. The insufficient awareness of nuclear weapons is framed as a worry, as the nuclear disarmament movement turns grey. However, his concern is only part of the truth. For instance, Lisa

Carson (2018) cites the survey from 2013, which states that 91% of youth consider nuclear weapons to be inhumane and brings out the feminist perspective on nuclear disarmament, which some of my informants also found as one of the critical drivers of their activism.

However, the opinion on nuclear weapons does not state how well the youth grasp the scope, impact, and the number of nuclear weapons and the possible threats that they cause.

When this is applied to the perspective of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), the steps in this discourse are rather multifaceted. The social wrong is semiotically wrapped around the existence of nuclear weapons throughout my interviews, but here the social functions become more contradictory. Although the informants perceive climate activism in a positive light, the concern of forgetting the nuclear issues still lurks in the background. The informants also give examples of how climate change and nuclear weapons are interconnected. The so-called fusionist approach mostly focuses on the nuclear winter and the short-term effects of the detonation of a nuclear device for the climate. This approach is somewhat amicable, as it would prefer the coexistence of these topics in public discussion.

I think that's the best way to think of it as a community of movements and at different times, different things come to the for this issue, you know had its time in the, in the 80s the legal issue had its time in the 90s. Now we have the ICAN wave, you know, so there's been many different ways and many different sub-communities who come to the fore and that's how I think how civil society often works. Yeah, climate change you could do something similar(….)

(…) I mean we can survive but will we prosper? In this time, you know, there's a lot of competition for especially younger activists’ energy and it's going more into climate change, and migration, and human rights and some other things. But we do have this very rich history of campaigning, you know decades and decades of it. When it's done well, it's just marvellous.

(Colin Archer, 2019)

The value of climate change activism is also clearly recognized, as it shows the logical continuum of the chain of social movements in history. This view emphasizes the power of the social movements and their place in the world. Themes change, also inside the movements. For instance, the nuclear disarmament movement actively took part in protests against the Vietnam War, and its end led to decreasing interest in disarmament activities as well (Wittner 2003). The social movements under consideration seem to be strongly interconnected, and the nuclear disarmament activists identify themselves as being on the same side as the climate activists. Moreover, some of my informants had a background in other social movements, such as solidarity movements and international development coordination.

As I noted before, the fear regarding the future of the nuclear disarmament movement is somewhat apparent in the interviews. Since the Cold War ended, the images of the enemy have been changing on the stage of international politics (Herrmann and Ficherkeller 1995).

The previous bipolar world order has changed first to the unipolar US-led world system and then to a multipolar circle where China and other possibly evolving Eastern superpowers such as India are raising their heads. This makes the nuclear situation and more challenging to the general public to follow the discussion and decide their side on a potential conflict.

The most significant nuclear scare has moved from Western Europe to multiple different points of the world, such as to the Korean peninsula and the border of India and Pakistan.

The narrative of the threat of communism has been replaced by the image of rogue states, whose nuclear status is often disputed (Homolar 2011).

I mean, it was amazing, but you know, up and down, up and down that the public concern is very fickle. It changes, you know, other things become important. And the crucial factor was the end of the Cold War. That's what made everybody sort of relax and say oh, well, it's all it's all over.

There's no risk now.

Well, of course, it's not true. We still have tens of thousands of nuclear weapons and we have great hostility between all the powers look at the India and Pakistan just this week, you know, we almost nuclear war. I mean, it's terrifying and Trump and Putin and it's just awful. We need a really big protest.

But the action is now somewhere else. Climate change, rightly, is very important people mobilizing on that but not with hundreds of thousands. Internet has been a big factor in this change, you know, people do politics in a different way now. Yeah, it might… I mean there was the big

demonstration against the Iraq War 2004, 2003, 15th of February, you know, probably the biggest demonstration ever anywhere. I mean worldwide 10 million people on the same day. That is something of a high point. I'm not sure, you know, if we will ever get that again, partly because of the way the electronic age disperses people's attention and people feel that they can, they can click on something. Yeah, you know, and it does something, they don't don't need to go and do it and then you say well...

We did that big demonstration and they still invaded Iraq, you know, it didn't work, you know, so we're struggling with, with big societal problems in a way in terms of how we can find a new, a new approach. Now back to the local authorities, as part of this ICAN campaign on the treaty, many people are trying to get local authorities to pass resolutions to say that we support the treaty. I have some doubts about it because, you know, local governments don't sign international treaties, it's national governments will do and there's not much that they can actually do about it. Where's with it with local civil defence policy, there's all sorts of things that the local authority has

responsibility for any emergency planning, but this one doesn't bear much fruit. Many of the cities they're already anti-nuclear cities, they're already members of Mayors for Peace. So I said to people here. Well, I'm not I'm not terribly enthusiastic about doing work at that level.

(Colin Archer 2019)

The abovementioned developments have indeed had their effect on the nuclear disarmament movement and its popularity. As I presented in the literature review, the history

of the nuclear disarmament movement has three different waves of popularity according to the research, and public interest in the movement has fluctuated notably in the past.

However, the last of the waves took place decades ago, which understandably raises questions as to the future of the movement. My informants began their activism in different decades, but they belong more or less to the same generation. As the number of young people is decreasing in Europe, the resources for activism are also smaller than they were when the baby boomers reached their adolescent years. Moreover, the focus of the action is shifting more to social media, especially when it comes to active youth (Haddix et al.

2015), which means that innovation is needed when the movement plans new activities.

… a nuclear winter ...And you know that the, the debate and the research and the work on that...

And one of the things that we would like to do given the concern about climate change is actually to kind of focus people also in the fact that if you had any kind of significant nuclear exchanges, it's also climate change. Possibly very sudden and very dramatic that could take place and that people have got to be aware of these two strands that are climate changing in the way that he thinks(…)

(…)I see them very much as the same. And in fact, we could easily link them together, you know, if you have these kinds of weapons systems you have, as I said with the transportation of them.

Yes, there's a risk of terrorism. But we, we also have the climate change element of that is wailing the environmental degradation element and... So they are linked and, and related in this way. I would say currently with younger people because the emphasis in recent years has been very much on global warming and the environmental damage.

I would say that many of them see this as the priority and... So one of our tasks is again to do the educational work and see, you do remember this huge issue is there has never the risk factor.

Sometimes has diminished a bit, other times has increased but this is something that no human being should ever be allowed to have the power to do...Have that amount of power of destruction and you know, this is something we need to get cross.

(Isobel Lindsay 2019)

Actually, young people, now taking its company against nuc… nuclear weapons. Cause they bring extermination. They just don't kill lots of human beings. They sterilize a planet. So I bet for 30 years I've been seeing extermination rebellion, that now young people are really realizing that climate changes, it's February's warmest, February ever.

(Brian Quail 2019)

A comparison between climate change and nuclear exchange as disasters provides different timeframes of destruction. Although the results of climate change are already apparent in different parts of the planet, their development is more straightforward to predict than a conflict that involves a possible sudden nuclear detonation. Moreover, civil protection during climate-induced disasters is understandably simpler than after a nuclear strike. Climate change also brings devastating threats that are very difficult to solve in the current

timeframe, combined with a lack of action. One of these is a significant rise in the Wet Bulb Global Temperature (WBGT), which can make a significant area of the habited world unlivable without technical interventions such as air conditioners (Takakura et al. 2019). The rise of the WBGT especially strikes the vulnerable parts of the population, such as the poor, disabled and elderly. However, even such drastic consequences are predictable and have notably more reaction time than a single nuclear detonation over a densely populated area.

The sudden nature of a nuclear exchange seems to be the most significant concern of my informants. Even though it is not as inevitable as climate change, if the risk actualizes, the consequences are more disastrous and less controllable than with any other disaster. The vulnerabilities, especially with current localized civil defence plans and movement with Nuclear Free Local Authorities, are acknowledged, as they know that civil defence in the case of unrestrained nuclear war would be impossible to arrange adequately. As the univocal opposition to nuclear weapons has fragmented into the smaller movements and interest groups, the lack of attention regarding the issue is understandably worrisome for the disarmament activists. This notion also highlights their expertise on the issue, as their worry reflects the facts.

The informants have acclaimed the recent successes of the movement, such as Nobel Peace Prize received by the ICAN campaign for its work towards the nuclear ban treaty in the UN, but there is still room for pessimism and worry. The current uncertainty, such as the turbulent relations between the US and North Korea or between India and Pakistan, are often causing worry. The uncertainty of the nuclear situation, devolution of the former nuclear treaties, and the passivity of nuclear states are the main nominators when it comes to signing the UN ban treaty. As nuclear weapon systems are not at the centre of current public concerns as they used to be during the Cold War, the knowledge of their importance to world politics is not as evident as it used to be before. As seen from the previous extract, the activists acknowledge the new nuclear risks stemming from extra state activities, such as international terrorism. This threat can also be identified from the academic discussion post 9/11 (e.g. Helfland et al. 2002, Martin and Kushner 2011 413–437).

What's going to happen to you. They thought it was going. And we know so many statistics about how almost did happen. And now we're not saying, I am. And I suspect a lot of people are in that same, even when you hear about, um, Pakistan and India. My re- my response now all the time is, it's not going to happen.

(Ruth Overy 2019)

This unpredictability of the nuclear situation combined with the perceived indifference of the public construct the core of the discourse. The combination creates a deep state of uncertainty regarding the future of the movement, as the lessening interest and youth’s focus on other issues risks discontinuity over generations. Especially in the UK, other major political events, such as Brexit, have been filling the social space, which takes the attention away from the nuclear issue even more. Even though significant changes are coming to the nuclear weapon arsenal of the country, as Trident is renewed, it seems that the political field is rather indifferent towards these significant developments. This indifferent attitude towards nuclear weapons and the lack of knowledge of their power and impact result in a vicious circle where the risk of a nuclear incident is buried under an assumed minimal probability by the public.

The unawareness of nuclear weapons pairs with Beck’s idea of the invisible power of the experts. As the effects and after-effects of a nuclear blast are complicated to grasp for a layperson, and as the public discussion does not bring any desire to improve understanding, especially the youth does not see the topic as motivating. As the effects and drivers of climate change are already visible and more comfortable to understand, and the probability of its influence on everyday life is significantly greater than a nuclear exchange, it might be understandably seen as the threat having the most priority for humanity. Even though climate change is intertwined with political decision-making, it is not as dependent on high-level politics as the risk of a nuclear exchange, which might make it easier to protest against without specific political boundaries. Moreover, the actions against climate change are significantly easier to implement in everyday life by individual choice-making, which empowers climate activists, thus making it a more appealing choice as a social movement.

5.3.2 From juxtaposition to co-existence: combined power to addressing organized