For Immediate Release

September 8, 2022

The Asahi Glass Foundation Announces the Results of the 31st Annual“Questionnaire on Environmental Problems and the Survival of Humankind”● The time on the Clock has turned back for two consecutive years since 2021, striking 9:35 in 2022. It was the first

period in 12 years the time on the Clock had gone back for two consecutive years.

● Looking at the times on the Clock around the world, the time moved forward more than 10 minutes in North

America, Africa, Middle East, and Eastern Europe & former Soviet Union.

● "Climate Change" has been the top environmental issue since 2011 that the respondents worldwide have had on

their minds.

● The advances made in “Policies and Legal System” and “Social Infrastructure (Funds, Human Resources,Technologies, and Facilities)” were less pronounced than those for “Public Awareness.”● The category most commonly identified as showing signs of improvement in approach was “Climate Change”(30.0%), followed by “Society Economy and Environment, Policies, Measures” (15.1%), and “Lifestyle(Consumption Habits)” (14.5%).
● In respondents’ worldview, “l. No Poverty” was the most selected as the goal that will have the lowest level ofrealization in 2030, followed by “2. Zero Hunger,” and “16. Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions.”
The Asahi Glass Foundation (Chairman: Takuya Shimamura) has conducted an annual survey with environmental
experts from around the world since 1992. This year, we sent the questionnaire to 202 countries around the world,and received responses from 1,876 people in over 127 countries. Below are the main points from this year’squestionnaire results. Further details are available in the report of the “31st Annual Questionnaire on Environmental
Problems and the Survival of Humankind,” or online at the Foundation’s web site, starting at 11 a.m. September 8.
I. Level of the Crisis Facing Human Survival - The Environmental Doomsday ClockI-1 The Time on the Environmental Doomsday Clock

Fig. 1 Change in the Time on the Environmental Doomsday Clock Since 1992

Time on the Clock

9:50
9:47

9:40
9:30

9:46

9:47

9:42
9:35

9:33

9:20
2017

2019

2021

2023

Year

Fig. 2 Change in the Time on the Environmental Doomsday Clock over Six Years■ represents regions where the time retreated further from midnight than last year
■ represents regions where the time became closer to midnight than last year

Fig. 3 Regional Times on the Environmental Doomsday Clock・Looking at the time on the Clock around the world, the Clock went back more than 10 minutes compared to last year
in Asia and Oceania, regions which face the Pacific Ocean, but it moved forward more than 10 minutes in North
America, Africa, Middle East, and Eastern Europe & former Soviet Union, showing a bipolarized tendency. (Fig. 3)
Table 1. Change in the Time on the Environmental Doomsday Clock (World)
Year

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

19981999

2000

Time-

7:49

8:19

8:47

8:49

9:13

9:04

9:05

9:08

8:56

Year

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Time

9:08

9:05

9:15

9:08

9:05

9:17

9:31

9:33

9:22

9:19

2018

2019

2020

Year

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Time

9:01

9:23

9:19

9:23

9:27

9:31

9:33

Year

2021

2022

Time

9:42

9:35

9:47

9:46

9:47

Since the inception of the survey, ■ represents the lowest sense of crisis, while ■ represents the highest.

Time on the Clock (World)

10:00
9:30

Extremely
Concerned

9:00

FairlyConcerned

8:30
8:00
7:30
7:00
1990

2000

2010

2020YearFig. 4 Change in the Time on the Environmental Doomsday Clock since 1992
・The time on the Clock for the world had been moving forward since 2011. However, it has turned back for two
consecutive years since 2021, striking 9:35 in 2022. It was the first period in 12 years the time on the Clock hadgone back for two consecutive years. (Fig. 4)

I-2 Change in the Time on the Environmental Doomsday Clock by Generation (2013 - 2022)

・This year, the only respondents who reported advanced times on the Clock were those in their 60s and over, butthe Clock was set back among respondents in their 20s to 50s. (Fig. 5)・Since 2013, when the Clock was 9:01, the times reported by respondents in their 20s and 30s had mostly kept
moving forward, but in 2018, the time on the Clock hit 10:00 for these age groups due to the impact of the growing
sense of crisis among the Chinese respondents in their 20s and 30s. The time reported this year was as much as 16
minutes earlier than the previous year. (Fig. 5-1)
・There are many survey respondents in China and those in their 20s and 30s, who account for nearly 90% of thetotal number of respondents in China, seem to consider that environmental issues in China have improved due tothe environmental measures being taken by the Chinese government. (Fig. 5-2)
10:30

Time on the Clock

10:00
9:30
9:00
60s & Over

8:30

40s & 50s
20s & 30s

8:00
7:30
2013

2015

2017

2019

2021

2023

Year

Fig. 5-1 Change in the Time on the Environmental Doomsday Clock by Generation

11:00
N. America

Time on the Clock

10:30
10:00

W. Europe

9:30

World ave.

9:00

China

8:30

Japan

8:00
7:30
2012

Taiwan
2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

Year

Fig. 5-2 Change in the Time on the Environment Doomsday Clock Since 2013

II. “Environmental Issues to be Taken into Account” in Determining the Time on the ClockIn determining the time on the Environmental Doomsday Clock, the questionnaire asked respondents to select, fromthe following nine categories of environmental problems, the three most pressing issues for the country or region
where they reside, and rank them in order of importance. (See the Questionnaire Report for further details.)
Nine Environmental Issues to be Taken into Account:
1. Climate Change, 2. Biosphere Integrity (Biodiversity), 3. Land-system Change (Land Use),
4. Biochemical Flows (Pollution/Contamination), 5. Water Resources, 6. Population, 7. Food,
8. Lifestyle (Consumption Habits), 9. Society, Economy and Environment, Policies, Measures
II-1 Weighted Average Selection Percentage of the Nine Environmental Issues

・The top two issues that the respondents selected in determining the time on the Environmental Doomsday Clockhave remained unchanged for four years in a row: “Climate Change” ranked first (32%), followed by “Biosphere
Integrity (Biodiversity)” at 13%. The percentage of each issue has changed little for five years. (Fig. 6)
II-2 Weighted Average Time on the Environmental Doomsday Clock of the Nine Environmental Issues

・When arranging the “environmental issues to be taken into account” for the entire world on the Environmental
Doomsday Clock, “Society, Economy and Environment, Policies, Measures” was at 9:49, “Biosphere Integrity(Biodiversity)” 9:43, “Climate Change” 9:40, and “Lifestyle (Consumption Habits)” 9:38, were all closer tomidnight than the world’s average time of 9:35. (Fig. 6)・It is noteworthy that although “Biosphere Integrity (Biodiversity)” had shown the closest time to midnight until
last year, “Society, Economy and Environment, Policies, Measures” became the issue with the strongest sense ofcrisis and the Clock moved forward by 15 minutes from 9:34 last year to 9:49 this year. It seems that Russia’s
invasion of Ukraine has affected this result.

Fig. 6 2022 Distribution of the Environmental Issues,Showing Selection Percentage of Respondent's 3 Most Pressing Issues and the Time on the Clock<The details regarding regional distribution of “Environmental Issues to be Taken into Account” are described insection III-1-2-5 of the Report.>

III. Signs of Improvement in the Approach to Environmental Issues: Comparison with the Situation Prior to2015, When the Paris Agreement and SDGs Were Adopted
Signs of improvement were investigated from the three perspectives, (1) Public Awareness, (2) Policies and Legal System,and (3) Social Infrastructure (Funds, Human Resources, Technologies, and Facilities). We asked, from a list of “EnvironmentalIssues to be Taken into Account,” the respondent’s opinion on whether there have been signs of improvement in the approachto global environmental issues with respect to a decarbonized society and where they saw signs of improvement.
We calculated the average score by quantifying the answers on whether there had been any improvements and givinga score of “-2” for the answer “Definitely not,” “-1” for the answer “Not really,” “0” for the answer “Cannot sayeither way,” “+1” for the answer “Somewhat,” and “+2” for the answer “Definitely.”
III-1 Progress in a Transition to a Decarbonized Society・Overall, with regard to transitioning to a decarbonized society, the results showed an equal lack of progress in“Policies and Legal System” and “Social Infrastructure (Funds, Human Resources, Technologies, and Facilities)”
compared with “Public Awareness.” (Fig. 7, based on Tab. 8 in Report)

Definitely

2.0

Public Awareness
Policies & Legal System
Social Infrastructure

1.5

Somewhat

1.0
0.5

Cannot sayeither way

0.0

2020

2021

2022

Year
Fig. 7 Progress in a Transition to a Decarbonized Society: Change in Average Scores from 3 Perspectives<Progress in a Transition to a Decarbonized Society: The details are shown on page 27 of the Report.>

III-2 Categories Showing Signs of Improvement

・The category most frequently selected for showing signs of improvement was “Climate Change” at 30.0%, followed
by “Society, Economy and Environment, Policies, Measures” at 15.1%, and “Lifestyle (Consumption Habits)” at
14.5%. (Table 2, Fig. 8)・Concerning efforts against “Climate Change,” the respondents see more improvements in “Public Awareness (1.28)”
than in “Policies and Legal System (0.75)” and “Social Infrastructure (0.71).” The score of each issue has changed
little since last year. (Table 2)
Table 2. Signs of Improvement: Selection Percentage and Average Score in Signs of Improvement (2022)
Signs of Improvement
Selected Category

Selection
Percentage (%)

PublicAwareness

Policies andLegal System

Social Infrastructure

30.0

1.28

0.75

0.71

15.1

1.03

0.99

0.76

Lifestyle (Consumption Habits)

14.5

1.11

0.62

0.70

Biosphere Integrity (Biodiversity)

7.3

1.14

0.96

0.57

Biochemical Flows (Pollution/Contamination)

6.9

0.91

1.02

0.75

Water Resources

3.8

1.13

0.79

0.83

Population
Land-System (Land Use)

3.1

0.93

0.72

0.62

2.9

0.79

0.87

0.58

1.9

0.83

0.36

0.69

14.6---

Climate Change
Society, Economy and Environment,
Policies, Measures

FoodNo Sign of Improvement<Signs of improvement in the approach to environmental issues: The details are shown on pages 26-29 of the Report.>

There areImprovemnets

2.0

Public Awareness
Policies & Legal System
Social Infrastructure

1.5

Perhaps someimprovements

1.0
0.5

Cannot sayeither way

0.0

2020

2021

2022

Year
Fig. 8 Signs of Improvement (Climate Change): Change in Average Scores from 3 Perspectives<Signs of Improvement (Climate Change): The details are shown on page 28 of the Report.>

IV Realization of 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs) in 2030Regarding realization of 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs) in 2030, we asked the respondents to choose andrank three goals (out of 17 SDGs) that will have the highest/lowest level of realization in 2030, in terms of therealization level in respondents’ world view and in the respondents’ own country/region. Responses were analyzed
by the 1st-3rd summation method, and the results are shown in Fig.9. More detailed data is available in the 2022
annual report of the survey.
(Respondents' World View) Highest Level of Realization(Respondents' World View) Lowest Level of Realization
1. No Poverty
2. Zero Hunger
3. Good Health and Well-being
4. Quaity Education
5. Gender Equality
6. Clean Water and Sanitation
7. Affordable and Clean Energy
8. Decent Work and Economic Growth
9. Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
10. Reduced Inequalities
11. Sustainable Cities and Communities
12. Responsible Consumption and Production
13. Climate Action
14. Life below Water
15. Life on Land
16. Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
17. Partnerships for the Goals
0102030405060
1st-3rd summation, multiple answers

Fig. 9-1 SDGs That Will Have the Highest/Lowest Level of Realization in 2030

(Respondents' Own Country) Highest Level of Realization(Respondents' Own Country) Lowest Level of Realization
1. No Poverty
2. Zero Hunger
3. Good Health and Well-being
4. Quaity Education
5. Gender Equality
6. Clean Water and Sanitation
7. Affordable and Clean Energy
8. Decent Work and Economic Growth
9. Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
10. Reduced Inequalities
11. Sustainable Cities and Communities
12. Responsible Consumption and Production
13. Climate Action
14. Life below Water
15. Life on Land
16. Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
17. Partnerships for the Goals
010203040
1st-3rd summation, multiple answers

Fig. 9-2 SDGs That Will Have the Highest/Lowest Level of Realization in 2030

・In respondents’ world view, “9. Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure” and “13. Climate Action” were selectedby respondents in many countries as the top two goals that will have the highest level of realization in 2030,
followed by “7. Affordable and Clean Energy.” (Fig. 9-1, green)
・“1. No Poverty” was selected as a goal that will have the lowest level of realization in 2030, followed by “2. ZeroHunger,” and “16. Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions.” This is an indication that many people around the world
believe these goals are difficult to achieve. (Fig. 9-1, red)・In many countries and regions, “2. Zero Hunger,” “4. Quality Education,” and “6. Clean Water and Sanitation”
were selected, on average, as goals that will have the highest level of realization in 2030. (Fig. 9-2, green)
・In the respondents’ own country or region, “1. No Poverty,” “10. Reduced Inequalities” and “13. Climate Action”
were most commonly selected as goals that will have the lowest level of realization in 2030. The first two goals
were also most commonly considered to have the lowest level of realization on average, indicating that these arecommon major challenges worldwide. (Fig. 9-2, red)This survey includes a section where respondents are invited to provide their opinions and write about theenvironmental realities they face in their region of the world, as well as offer suggestions for improvement. This year,
we received a total of over 700 comments from 95 countries abroad. These comments will be published on the Asahi
Glass Foundation website at 11a.m. on September 8.

For more information, please contact:
Toshihiro Tanuma, PhD, Director, Commendation, “Blue Planet Prize”
The Asahi Glass Foundation
2nd Floor, Science Plaza 5-3 Yonbancho Chiyoda-ku Tokyo 102-0081, Japan
Phone: +81-3-5275-0620 Fax: +81-3-5275-0871 e-mail: post@af-info.or.jp URL: https://www.af-info.or.jp

Appendix● Regarding the “Questionnaire on Environmental Problems and the Survival of Humankind”
Since 1992, the Asahi Glass Foundation has conducted a survey every year with experts around the world who areknowledgeable and are involved in environmental issues. The respondents are environmental experts who work or
who have worked for governments, universities, research institutions, NGOs, corporations, and mass media. Theseexperts are queried about various endeavors to counter environmental problems. The questionnaire is produced in sixlanguages (English, Chinese, French, Korean, Spanish, and Japanese) and is sent out in April every year, and returnedby June. After the responses are compiled and analyzed, the survey results are published in September. This year, thequestionnaire was sent to respondents in 202 countries including Japan, with responses returned from over 127
countries. The highest respondent percentage by organization in descending order is, universities and research
institutions, corporations, NGOs/NPOs, central governments, local governments, and mass media. (Fig.8, Table 3)

Mass Media
2%
Government
11%
Others11%

Table 3. Number of Countries SurveyedOrganization
not stated0%

RegionUniversity,ResarchInstitute38%

Corporation
18%
NGO/NPO
20%

Number of Countries

Africa30Asia21

Mexico, Central America, The Caribbean

10

Eastern Europe & former Soviet Union

17

Western Europe

18

Middle East

13North America2Oceania

6South America

10Total127

Fig. 8 Breakdown of Respondents by Organization● Facts about This Year’s Questionnaire
Survey period: April to June 2022
Respondents:
Environmental experts who work or who haveworked for national or local governments, NGOs,
NPOs, universities, research institutions,
corporations, and mass media, worldwide (listedon the Asahi Glass Foundation database).
Number of questionnaires mailed:25,770 (23,997 to overseas respondents
and 1,773 to respondents in Japan)
Number of questionnaires returned: 1,876
Response rate: 7.3%

Table 4. Number of Respondents SurveyedRegion

Number of Respondents

Japan

493

%

Overseas

1383

73.7

World Total

1876

100.0

26.3

Africa

80

4.3

Asia

1213

64.7

Mexico, Central America, The Caribbean

47

2.5

Eastern Europe & former Soviet Union

32

1.7

Western Europe

192

10.2

Middle East

34

1.8

North America

156

8.3

Oceania46

2.5South America

76

4.1

1876

100.0

Total