Ⅲ. “Questionnaire on Environmental
Problems and the Survival of Humankind”
A 21-Year Summary

12
12
9

12
12
9

12

3

9

6

3

9

12
12

6

9:08
9
08

9 15
9:15

6

12

3
9

3
6

9 05
9:05

9:05
9
05
0

12
12

3
9

6

3
6

9 17
9:17

12
9

9 08
9:08

3
6
7 49
7:49

12
12
9

12
12
12
12
9

3

9

3
6

6

8 56
8:56

12
9

9:31
9:3
9
31
31

3

12

6
8 47
8:47

9

12
9

12
9

3

9

12
12

3
6

9

9 13
9:13

9
6

12
12
9

12
3
6

3
6

6
9:05
9
0
05

9

9

9 08
9:08

3

9:04
9
04
0

3
9:22
9
9:2
22

3
6

12

6

9

12

3
6

12
12

12

6
8:49
8
49

3
9:33
9:3
9
33

3
6

8:19
8
19

9 23
9:23

3
6
9:01
9:0
9
01
01

9:119
9:19
9

CONTENTS
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................339
1. Overview of the Survey Conducted ..................................................................................................................340
2. Questionnaire Summary ....................................................................................................................................342
2.1 Awareness of the Crisis Facing Human Survival........................................................................................342
2.1.1 The Environmental Doomsday Clock................................................................................................342
2.1.2 The Environmental Conditions of Concern .......................................................................................345
2.1.3 The Environmental Doomsday Clock-New Approach ......................................................................346
2.2 Progress towards Agenda 21 .......................................................................................................................350
2.2.1 Progress in 20 Categories of Agenda 21 ............................................................................................350
2.2.2 Progress in 10 Categories of Agenda 21 ............................................................................................351
2.3 Impediments to Addressing Environmental Problems................................................................................352
2.3.1 Impediments to Addressing Environmental Problems.......................................................................352
2.3.2 “Pursuit of Profit” as Impediment to Addressing Environmental Problems .....................................353
2.4 About Nuclear Energy and the Environment .............................................................................................356
2.4.1 Public Sentiment towards Nuclear Power after the Fukushima Nuclear Accident............................356
2.4.2 Nuclear Energy Policy in Respondents’ Countries ...........................................................................359
2.4.3 Information Dissemination in Respondents’ Countries.....................................................................361
3. Collaboration Activities Overseas .....................................................................................................................362
4. In Closing ..........................................................................................................................................................363
Attachment-1 List of 175 Countries Responded to the Survey since 1992 ..........................................................365

Introduction
Twenty years ago in June 1992, the United Nations Conference on Environmental and Development was held in Riode Janeiro and the “Rio Declaration on Environment and Development” was adopted giving people a significant
sense of hope for the future of the global environment. Unfortunately, however, after 20 years, despite the participation of 98 heads of states and cabinet members, the Rio+20 closed its doors without notable achievement. We fearthat these conditions will lead to a sense of resignation and diminished interest among the wider public towards solving environmental problems.

Since 1992, The Asahi Glass Foundation has conducted an annual survey—“Questionnaire on Environmental
Problems and the Survival of Humankind” —with experts around the world. To date, we have surveyed nearly 15,000
respondents in 175 countries worldwide on their opinions about the problems faced by the global environment. The
questionnaire solicits their knowledge and diverse opinions and publishes the results in a report.

The questions cover topics such as “The Environmental Doomsday Clock” and “Progress towards Agenda 21,”
which have been surveyed continuously since the inception of the survey as well as those that focus on specific environmental problems for a given year such as global warming, energy, population, water, poverty, food, waste, biodiversity, environmental education, and lifestyle. Recently, we introduced a new set of categories of key environmental
conditions, in the hope of achieving a clearer depiction of experts’ concerns about the environment along with a morecomprehensive analysis of “The Environmental Doomsday Clock” results.

Following is an excerpt from the results obtained from our survey. It shows a shift in “awareness of the crisisin the survival of humankind” over the past 21 years, drawn from the questionnaire items “The Environmental
Doomsday Clock” and “Progress towards Agenda 21.” It also illustrates why environmental problems show no signsof moving towards a solution 20 years after the Rio Summit, specifically, respondents’ views on impediments to addressing environmental problems as well as their opinions on nuclear power after the Fukushima Nuclear Accident inMarch, 2011.

We are grateful to be able to finally publish this summary report on our 21-year survey. We are also truly
obliged for the consistent support we have received from environmental experts around the world. Without that support, the valuable portrayals of the Earth’s environment through the eyes of experts could not have been put together.

339

1. Overview of the Survey Conducted
The survey questionnaire is distributed to environmental experts around the world including members of governmentorganizations, NGOs, academic and research institutions, corporations and mass media. It is published in Japanese,
English, Chinese, Korean, and Spanish, and sent out to approximately 7,000 respondents every April and collectedby June. After the responses are compiled, compared, and analyzed, the survey results are announced in September.
The report is available in Japanese, English, Chinese, and Spanish.
As shown in Table 1.1, the questionnaire has been sent out to 204 countries (including Japan) since 1992 with responses returned from 175 countries. (As for countries responding, please refer to the Attachment-1 on P315.)

Table 1.1 Number of Countries Surveyed /Responding (1992-2012)
Regions

Overseas

Number of Countries Surveyed

Number of Countries Responding

Asia

25

23

Africa53

50

Oceania158Western Europe

25

22

Eastern Europe & former Soviet Union

28

24

Middle East

16

12

USA & Canada

22Central America

27

21South America

1212Overseas Total

203

174

Japan

1

1

Total

204

175

No response
2％
National
Government
11%
Local
Government
11%

AcademicandResearch
Institute24％

Nongovermental
Organization
19％

Corporation
16％
Others17％

Figure 1.1 Affiliation of Respondents

340

Table 1.2 shows a shift in the number of questionnaire respondents over the past 21 years. Overall, it shows that there
are more respondents from Asia, Western Europe, the United States and Canada than from Africa, the Middle East,
Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, and Oceania. Specifically, respondents from Asia (except Japan) prominently increased from 2007 due to the increase in Chinese respondents. The number of respondents over the 21 years
totals approximately 14,800 people, with an average response rate of 18.3%. Of the respondents, approximately 80%
are men and 20% are women.
Table 1.2 Shift in the Number of Respondents Over 21 Years (1992-2012)

Japan
United States & Canada
Western Europe
Asia (except Japan)
Latin America
AfricaOceania
Estern Europe & former Soviet Union
Middle East
Region of respondents unknown
Overseas Total
Total
Response Rate

1st
1992
877
49
39
30
11
9*
9
13
9*
17
168
1054
28.3%

Japan
United States & Canada
Western Europe
Asia (except Japan)
Latin America
AfricaOceania
Estern Europe & former Soviet Union
Middle East
Region of respondents unknown
Overseas Total
Total
Response Rate

11th
2002
303
55
79
68
27
41
24
29
12
1
336
639
16.0%

2nd
1993
61
22
38
43
37
40
22
13
6
0
221
282
11.0%
12th
2003
315
76
98
88
37
55
39
66
30
2
491
806
18.0%

3rd
1994
189
23
62
92
36
53
22
17
4
6
315
504
20.8%
13th
2004
324
68
90
139
40
44
32
57
9
0
479
803
22.2%

4th
1995
248
25
79
62
48
62
22
14
16
0
328
576
21.7%
14th
2005
312
65
91
92
32
39
26
42
10
0
397
709
19.5%

5th
1996
282
51
77
63
35
32
21
16
11
1
307
589
18.4%

15th
2006
307
49
70
90
23
37
22
36
21
0
348
655
16.4%

6th
1997
306
38
65
63
41
52
18
15
14
1
307
613
19.1%

16th
2007
322
47
70
140
36
35
18
30
17
0
393
715
18.3%

7th
1998
279
62
60
54
33
51
21
18
15
2
316
595
17.9%

17th
2008
314
32
67
187
50
24
14
28
15
1
418
732
16.8%

8th
1999
293
59
79
60
27
39
13
14
12
1
304
597
18.5%

18th
2009
324
42
60
192
46
28
23
35
7
0
433
757
17.8%

19th
2010
292
28
55
212
27
20
13
21
6
1
383
675
15.7%

9th
2000
311
93
88
81
26
53
17
19
11
3
391
702
20.5%

10th
2001
292
58
84
83
35
55
30
22
22
3
392
684
17.3%

20th
2011
468
129
80
223
26
24
17
27
5
1
532
1000
14%

21st
2012
357
105
119
387
42
33
17
26
9
6
739
1096
15.4%

* Figure includes the total for Africa and Middle East

1st

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

6th

7th

8th

9th

10th

11th

12th

13th

14th

15th

16th

17th

18th

19th

20th

21st

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Male

995

195

390

444

470

470

475

486

552

540

530

658

680

592

549

571

565

618

538

770

823

Female

44

61

110

119

108

132

109

95

126

119

89

119

107

91

94

100

115

124

122

216

262

14

11

No response
Total

15

26

4

13

11

11

11

16

24

25

20

29

16

26

12

44

52

15

15

1054

282

504

576

589

613

595

597

702

684

639

806

803

709

655

715

732

757

675 1000 1096

This questionnaire contains a section inviting respondents to comment freely about the realities of environmental
problems around the world along with their opinions on the subject, as well as strategies and ideas to improve theglobal environment. In the 14 years from 1998 to 2012, we received 1,748 comments from Japan and 1,936 fromabroad for a total of 3,684 comments. We included a number of these comments in the final report each year startingin 1998 through 2010, and in 2011, began publishing all comments.
Note: In this report, “Asia” is all of Asia except Japan. Further, Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore are classified as the “AsiaFour.” Other Asian countries are classified as the “Rest of Asia.” The United States and Canada, Western Europe, Japan, Asian Four areclassified as “A region,” while the remainder of the Rest of Asia, Latin America, and Africa are classified as “B region,” and Oceania,
Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, Middle East are classified as “C region.”341

2. Questionnaire Summary
2.1 Awareness of the Crisis Facing Human Survival“The Environmental Doomsday Clock” is a survey item indicating the sense of crisis respondents feel about the continued survival of humankind given the deterioration of the environment. The degree of crisis is expressed by selecting a time on the clock, a device that the Foundation created independently.

9:01 – 12:00
Extremely concerned

0:01 – 3:00
Barely concerned

12
9

3
6

6:01 – 9:00
Fairly concerned

3:01 – 6:00
Slightly concerned

2.1.1 The Environmental Doomsday Clock
The Average Global Time over the 21 Years of the Survey
The following diagram shows the average global time over the 21 years of the questionnaire. It responds to the question,“To what extent do you feel that the current deterioration of the global environment has created a crisis that will affect thesurvival of the human race? Write a time within the range 0:01 to 12:00 corresponding to the extent of your concern.”
The time on “The Environmental Doomsday Clock” has moved forward gradually since the inception of the survey
in 1992. In 1996, the time entered the quadrant, “Extremely Concerned,” and with the exception of the year 2000, hasconsistently ranged in the nine o’clock hour. The needle advanced by 22 minutes in 2012 from the previous year,
when time was 9:01, which had represented the third consecutive year that the average time had retreated.

1992

1993

(+30 min.)

12
9

1994

(+28 min.)

12
3

9

1995

(+2 min.)

12
3

9

1996

(+24 min.)

12
3

9

1997

(-9 min.)

3

9

1998

(+1 min.)

12

12
9

3

3

9

3

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

7:49

8:19

8:47

8:49

9:13

9:04

9:05

1999

2000

(-12 min.)

12
9

2001

(+12 min.)

12
3

9

2002

(-3 min.)

12
3

9

2003

(+10 min.)

12
3

9

2004

(-7min.)

12
3

9

2005

(-3 min.)

9

3

3

9

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

9:08

8:56

9:08

9:05

9:15

9:08

9:05

2006

2007

(+14 min.)

12
9

2008

(+2 min.)

12
3

9

2009

(-11 min.)

12
3

9

2010

(-3 min.)

12
3

9

2011

(-18 min.)

12
3

9

2012

(+22 min.)

12
3

9

12
3

9

3

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

9:17

9:31

9:33

9:22

9:19

9:01

9:23

Figure 2.1.1 Changes in Time from Year to Year342(+12 min.)

12

12
3

(+3 min.)

12

The Average Time by Region
The following chart and graph indicates the time on “The Environmental Doomsday Clock” from 1992 to 2012 byregion. The lowest sense of crisis in the 21 years of the survey came in 1993 from respondents in Eastern Europe andformer Soviet Union, who gave an average time of 7:02. In contrast, the highest sense of crisis came from Middle
East in 2010, at 10:47. Two regions have never entered the 10 o’clock hour: Asia including Japan and Western Europe.
Regions in the report are categorized as follows: A regions: The United States and Canada, Western Europe, Japan, Asian Four (South Korea, Hong Kong,
Taiwan, and Singapore). B regions: Rest of Asia, Latin America, Africa, C regions : Oceania, Eastern Europe and former Soviet Union, Middle East

Table 2.1.1 Changes in “The Environmental Doomsday Clock” (1992-2012)
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Japan

7:38

7:33

8:01

8:08

8:51

8:42

9:01

9:07

8:56

9:04

9:18

9:20

9:06

9:07

9:15

9:34

9:42

9:08

9:09

8:46

9:14

United States &8:35 8:58 9:07 8:52 9:30 9:09 8:40 9:03 8:49 9:54 8:23 9:03 9:14 8:54 9:18 9:40 10:13 10:01 10:13 9:35 9:54
CanadaWestern Europe 8:54 9:02 9:35 9:02 9:46 9:53 9:37 8:46 8:46 8:58 8:44 8:52 8:56 8:43 9:08 9:23 9:44 9:55 9:45 9:28 9:55
Asia (except
Japan)

8:10

8:19

9:16

9:41

9:41

9:25

8:59

9:47

9:16

9:04

8:36

9:41

9:32

9:41

9:17

9:10

8:52

9:04

9:01

8:51

Latin America

8:57

8:37

9:37

9:23

9:28

9:26

9:04

9:14

8:52

9:00

9:22

9:19

9:12

9:08

9:31

9:38

9:49

9:28

9:48

9:18 10:00

Africa

8:10

8:43

9:14

9:33

9:25

9:15

9:08

9:13

9:17

9:37

9:29

9:22

9:04

9:03

9:32 10:02 10:31 10:15 10:24 9:09 10:04

Oceania

9:58

8:23

8:53

9:44

9:43

8:52

9:34

8:52

8:31

8:58

9:22

9:37

9:08

9:18

9:18 10:27 10:34 10:10 10:29 10:06 10:14

9:03

Eastern Europe& former Soviet 9:27 7:02 8:10 9:29 9:12 9:37 9:44 9:21 8:21 8:17 9:28 9:02 8:30 8:26 9:07 9:20 9:37 10:00 9:47 9:13 9:12
Union
Middle East

8:10

8:12

—

9:09

8:30

9:33

8:47

9:32

9:38

9:01

8:02

8:52

8:41

9:18 10:05 9:41

9:24

9:42 10:47 10:24 9:38

Total

7:49

8:19

8:47

8:49

9:13

9:04

9:05

9:08

8:56

9:08

9:05

9:15

9:08

9:05

9:33

9:22

9:17

9:31

9:19

9:01

9:23

(The time marked in blue represents the lowest sense of crisis since the inception of the survey in 1992; the red marks the highest.)

The graph below shows the time over 21 years across all regions. In all regions, the time moved from the 8 o’clockhour to the 9 o’clock hour in the 12 years from 1994 to 2005. As of 2006, Middle East, Africa, Oceania, and theUnited States and Canada moved from the 9 o’clock hour to the 10 o’clock hour, indicating a heightened sense ofcrisis in these four regions. However, the average overall time has been showing a gradual reversal since 2008.

11:00

Asia
United States& Canada

10:00

Extremely
concerned
9:00

Fairlyconcerned
8:00

7:00

Latin America
Western Europe
Eastern Europe& former Soviet Union
Middle East
AfricaOceaniaJapan

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Total

Figure 2.1.2 Changes in “The Environmental Doomsday Clock” (1992-2012)

343

The following diagram shows the movement of time on “The Environmental Doomsday Clock” in 11-year increments, by region, on a world map. Of 9 regions, the time has consistently moved forward in 7 regions with no reversal, which are Western Europe (8:54 to 8:58 to 9:55), Middle East (8:10 to 9:01 to 9:38), Africa (8:10 to9:37 to 10:04),
Japan (7:38 to 9:04 to 9:14), United States & Canada (8:35 to 9:54 to 9:54), and Latin America (8:57 to 9:00 to
10:00).

Eastern Europe &former Soviet Union
1992 9:27
2001 8:17
2012 9:12
Asia(except Japan)

Western Europe
1992 8:54
2001 8:58
2012 9:55

Africa1992 8:10
2001 9:37
2012 10:04

1992 8:10
2001 9:04
2012 9:03

Japan
1992 7:38
2001 9:04
2012 9:14

Middle East
1992 8:10
2001 9:01
2012 9:38
Oceania
1992 9:58
2001 8:58
2012 10:04

Figure 2.1.3 Regional Times (1992, 2001, 2012)344

United States& Canada
1992 8:35
2001 9:54
2012 9:54

Latin America
1992 8:57
2001 9:00
2011 10:00

2.1.2 The Environmental Conditions of Concern
Since 2003, the questionnaire has probed respondents about the environmental conditions of concern that influenced
their selection of the time on “The Environmental Doomsday Clock.” The following chart shows the results from2005, when respondents from all regions except Asia and Eastern Europe & former Soviet Union cited global warming either as the highest or the second highest environmental conditions of great concern.
Table 2.1.2 Environmental Conditions of Concern in Determining “The Environmental Doomsday Clock” Time (2005)
A region

C regionJapan

United States &CanadaWestern Europe

Asian FourRest of Asia

Latin America

AfricaOceania

Eastern Europe &former Soviet Union

Middle East

Overseas Total

A Regions

B RegionsC RegionsTotal

B region

General environmental problems 30

18

16

37

31

13

15

31

29

30

23

27

22

29

26

Global warming 73

51

54

29

60

52

69

44

41

61

55

69

60

40

44

Air pollution, water contamination, 21
river/ocean pollution

32

31

67

52

44

46

27

45

30

41

27

48

37

32

42

43

48

33

32

34

41

38

26

50

39

43

35

33

40

Deforestation, desertification, loss of 41
biodiversity
People’s lifestyles, waste-related 25
problems
Environmental problems and 16
economics/trade-related activities

35

36

47

53

69

64

50

33

40

46

40

60

40

44

22

24

27

29

41

18

15

50

10

27

25

29

33

26

15

16

7

8

16

15

23

43

0

17

16

12

31

17

Population, poverty, status of women 16

51

33

0

37

25

36

35

29

50

34

23

34

33

26

Others

6

11

10

10

2

0

3

12

7

0

7

8

2

8

6

No response

2

3

2

0

5

3

0

4

0

10

3

2

3

3

2

Water shortage, food problems■ :Answer with the highest number of replies ■ :Answer with the second highest number of replies
Notes: The % refers to the total number of valid responses while excluding any unknowns. The total is to be 100%.

However, in 2000, respondents from all regions except Latin America and Africa indicated that the greatest causes ofenvironmental degradation were “1. Explosive population growth” and “2. Economic development that disregards theenvironment.” As a result the sense of crisis caused by global warming was low in all regions except in Japan.
Table 2.1.3 Causes of Global Environmental Degradation (2000)

57

42

34

77

Eastern Europe& former
Soviet Union
37

55

51

46

47

51

54

54

66

71

68

55

55

11
0
18
41
5
4
8
24
9
9

3
7
23
20
10
3
3
13
5
12

5
1
18
36
5
1
2
19
10
6

11
3
21
28
12
21
19
52
16
19

4
0
27
12
12
4
4
50
8
27

4
9
26
30
6
6
11
55
11
9

12
12
6
18
12
6
12
29
6
29

0
11
5
32
11
5
16
32
11
5

18
0
9
18
0
9
0
46
9
18

6
5
20
27
9
7
8
33
10
13

Japan
1. Explosive population growth
2. Economic development that disregards
the environment
Human
3. Nuclear threats
Activities
4. Epidemics
5. Water and food shortages
6. Global warming
7. Abnormal climate
Atmospheric
8. Air pollution and acid rain
9. Destruction of the ozone layer
10. Destruction of forests and desertification
Ecological
11. Reduction of genetic diversity
12. Pollution of oceans and rivers

43

UnitedStates & Western
Canada Europe
59
49

Asia

Latin
America

AfricaOceania

MiddleEast

Overseas
Total■ :Answer with the highest number of replies ■ :Answer with the second highest number of replies

345

(%)

2.1.3 The Environmental Doomsday Clock – New Approach1) Determination Method of The Environmental Doomsday Clock
Starting from 2012, the determination method of “The Environmental Doomsday Clock” has been revised and a calculation system has been introduced to shed further light on the intention behind the respondents’ decisions. The time
was determined by first ranking the top three environmental conditions of concern in order of importance. Respondents were then asked to provide a time for each issue, and finally, “The Environmental Doomsday Clock” was calculated by taking the weighted average of the data. The issue ranked in first place was weighted at 50%, second placeat 30%, and third place at 20%.
The following two graphs show the results of the Environmental conditions of concern based on the new approach.

Weighted Average of The Environmental Doomsday Clock Time by Category

9：50
Environment and economy
9：44，6%

9：43
Biodiversity
9：37，9%

9：36

Population
9：35，9%Climate change
9：22，21%

9：28
Environment and society
9：26，3%overall average

9：23
9：21
Lifestyle
9：19，6%

Global warming
measures9：16，3%

9：14

Pollution/Contamination
9：14，11%Land use
9：11，7%Food
9：12，5%

9：07

Water resources
9：07，12%
9：00
0

5

10

15

20

25

Selection Percentage

Figure 2.1.4 Overall Analysis of the Environmental Conditions of Concern (Categories Ranked 1 -3)• Overall, “climate change” (21%) was the most often cited environmental condition of concern when classifying the items
ranked 1 through 3 by how frequently they were selected. This was followed by “water resources” (12%), “pollution/contamination” (11%), and “biodiversity” as well as “population” (9%).
• Likewise, when listing the weighted averages of “The Environmental Doomsday Clock” of each category concerned startingwith the most advanced time, respondents expressed the greatest sense of crisis with “environment and economy” (9:44). Thiswas followed by “biodiversity” (9:37), “population” (9:35), “environment and society” (9:26), and “climate change” (9:22).

346

Average of The Environmental Doomsday Clock Time by Category

11:00

Environment
and economy
10：24, 4%Population
10：09, 10%

Climate change
9：51, 42%

10:00
Biodiversity
9：58, 6%
Global warming
measures9：41, 2%

Pollution/Contamination
9：44, 12%

Lifestyle
9：41, 4%

Environmentand society
9：36, 1%

Land use
9：35, 4%
Water resources
9：29, 8%Food
9：29, 2%

9:00

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Selection Percentage

Figure 2.1.5 Distribution of the Environmental Conditions of Concern (Categories Ranked 1)• The environmental issue that respondents overall most frequently selected as being the greatest concern (rank 1) in choosing
the time on “The Environmental Doomsday Clock” was “climate change,” at 42%. This was followed by “pollution/contamination” at 12%, “population” at 10%, “water resources” at 8%, and “biodiversity” at 6%.
• Likewise, when listing the categories by their times on “The Environmental Doomsday Clock” of each category concerned indescending order, respondents indicated the greatest sense of crisis with “environment and economy,” at 10:24. This was followed by “population” at 10:09, “biodiversity” at 9:58, “climate change” at 9:51, and “pollution/contamination” at 9:44.

347

2) Categories of Environmental Conditions of Concern in Selecting the Time
Starting from 2011, in order to observe the changing global environment from the clearest possible perspective, wehave reorganized and rebuilt the “environmental conditions of concern,” using a new basis as described below. Thisnew basis, which includes additional societal considerations, was created by referencing the paper “Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity” by Carl Folke, Johan Rockstrom, Jonathan Foley, James
Hansen, and others: 2009 Ecology and Society, 14(2):32.

Table 2.1.4 New Basis for Environmental Conditions of Concern

Item

Main Elements

1. Climate Change

Atmospheric concentration of CO2; global warming; ocean acidification; climaticaberrations (droughts, torrential rains and flooding, severe storms, heavy snow,
abnormal temperatures, drying of rivers and lakes, desertification, etc.)

2. Biodiversity

Acceleration of species extinction; effects of contamination, climate change, landuse

3. Land Use

Expansion of cultivated land mass; destruction of forests due to erratic development;
desertification caused by overgrazing; agriculture and land use without regard for theenvironment; urbanization

4. Pollution /Contamination

River and ocean pollution: eutrophication caused by excessive nitrogen andphosphorus and contamination by chemical substances; atmospheric pollution:
particulates suspended in the atmosphere, soot and chemical substances

5. Water Resources

Diminution of usable fresh water resources (depletion, contamination)

6. Population

Population growth beyond what the Earth can support; aging of the population

7. Food

Diminution of food supply from land and oceans

8. Lifestyles

Transformation of lifestyles away from excessive consumption of resources likeenergy9. Global Warming
Measures

Progress of measures for mitigation and adaption

10. Environment andEconomyProgress towards implementing an economic system to reflect environmental costs,
the bearing of social costs: imposition of taxes for fossil fuels that emit CO2, whichcause global warming-related damages; TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems andBiodiversity), etc.
The operation of an environmentally conscious economy:
the realization of a green economy, sustainable economic development, etc.

11. Environment andSociety

Environmental awareness at the individual and societal levels, progress ofenvironmental education; poverty; the status of women

12. Other

（

348

）

Table 2.1.5 shows the result of environmental conditions of concern in determining “The Environmental Doomsday
Clock” in 2011 based on the new categories of Environmental Conditions of Concern.

Table 2.1.5 Environmental Conditions of Concern in Determining “The Environmental Doomsday Clock” Time for 2011
India

Korea

China

Rest of Asia

Asian Four

Middle East

OthersEastern Europe &former Soviet Union

Developing Regions

Oceania

Developed Regions

AfricaOverseas Tota

Latin America

Asia

Western Europe

United States &Canada

Japan

Total

area

[2812] [1307] [360] [222] [653] [78]

[63]

[44]

[72]

[10] [1505] [2168] [515] [126] [279] [374] [258] [177] [41]Climate Change

23

23

25

21

25

23

30

23

14

30

24

24

23

18

29

22

20

29

17

Biodiversity

10

8

13

15

9

14

14

14

14

0

11

10

10

13

9

9

8

10

15

Land Use

7

6

6

9

7

13

11

14

15

0

8

6

10

13

4

9

8

2

12

Pollution/
Contamination

12

11

8

9

19

5

2

5

13

20

13

11

18

10

14

23

27

12

15

Water Resources

9

7

12

11

10

10

14

7

11

10

11

8

13

10

5

13

13

2

10

Population

12

15

15

14

6

10

5

16

4

10

10

14

7

9

6

6

5

6

10

Food

7

9

4

6

5

3

10

2

1

10

5

8

4

2

7

3

3

7

0

Lifestyle

7

8

4

5

6

5

2

9

6

0

5

7

5

6

8

5

5

9

12

Global Warming
Measures

3

3

1

2

6

1

2

2

6

10

4

3

2

5

10

3

2

15

2

Environment andEconomy

4

4

6

4

4

8

3

9

8

0

5

4

5

8

4

4

5

2

0

Environment andSociety

3

3

4

4

3

5

5

0

7

10

3

3

3

5

2

3

3

2

7

Other

2

3

2

1

1

3

3

0

1

0

1

3

1

1

2

0

0

3

0

(%)

■ :Answer with the highest number of replies ■ :Answer with the second highest number of replies

Notes: The % refers to the total number of valid responses while excluding any unknowns. The total is to be 100%.

• In determining the time on “The Environmental Doomsday Clock”, “climate change” was most frequently cited as
the main environmental condition of concern by respondents overall. “Climate change” was the most common selection among respondents from both developed and developing regions.
• This was followed by “pollution/contamination” and “population.” “Population” was the second most frequently
cited condition of concern among respondents in developed regions, whereas respondents in developing regions
cited “pollution/contamination.”• “Biodiversity” was the third most frequently cited condition of concern.

349

2.2 Progress towards Agenda 21
2.2.1 Progress in 20 Categories of Agenda 21
For 19 years since 1992, the questionnaire has probed respondents about the progress of Agenda 21 in their respective
countries, asking them to evaluate the status of the action plans countries and international organizations must implement to realize sustainable development. The following chart shows 1996 results combining “significant progress”
and “some progress.” In each region, respondents favorably evaluated the progress in “NGO activities” and “environmental education,” whereas “Poverty and overpopulation” and “Lifestyles and consumption patterns” were seen as
having made little progress.

Table 2.2.1 Progress towards Agenda 21 (1996)(%)[N=282]

[51]

[77]

[63]

[35]

[32]

[21]

EasternEurope &former Soviet
Union
[16]

1. International cooperative efforts

43

55

40

57

46

63

62

50

46

2. Poverty and overpopulation

14

22

8

43

37

44

19

13

18

3. Lifestyles and consumption patterns

16

29

26

21

20

13

43

19

27

4. Local government and citizens’ group activities

52

77

79

65

74

75

86

69

55

5. NGO activities

67

86

82

83

83

88

86

81

73

6. Industrial sector policies

53

57

55

48

43

47

71

44

64

7. Global warming

19

31

26

32

23

47

38

25

18

8. Ozone layer protection

52

65

69

41

34

53

43

38

36

9. Acid rain reduction

22

51

46

18

26

13

19

38

27

10. Forest conservation

14

35

38

56

51

81

86

44

36

11. Desertification

4

12

8

33

23

88

33

0

46

12. Agricultural and rural development

8

37

21

57

43

69

62

25

55

13. Biodiversity

16

49

42

46

51

75

67

56

64

14. Protection of oceans

13

43

26

30

40

44

48

31

55

15. Protection of fresh water

12

43

34

33

37

66

52

63

73

16. Hazardous waste disposal

38

45

49

38

31

34

48

50

36

17. Recycling systems

48

94

70

37

23

34

57

31

46

18. Scientific and technological advancement

50

71

61

52

46

50

71

50

82

19. Environmental education

49

88

66

71

77

88

91

94

91

20. Environment assessment system

21

43

39

48

37

63

62

75

64

21. Integration of economic and environmental policies

11

14

22

25

29

38

33

44

9

Japan

U.S.A. &CanadaWesternEuropeAsia

Latin
America

AfricaOceania

MiddleEast[11]■ :Answer with the highest number of replies ■ :Answer with the second highest number of replies350

2.2.2 Progress in 10 Categories of Agenda 21
After 2001, the questionnaire probed respondents about the progress made in their countries in the 10 categories ofAgenda 21 considered particularly important. The following graph shows the results from 2006. Respondents whoreported progress (combined total of “significant progress” and “some progress”) surpassed 50% in the categories of“promotion of environmental education,” “activities by local governments and citizens’ groups,” “environmental
measures by industry,” “scientific and technological contributions,” and “formation of recycling systems.” On theother hand, respondents reporting no progress (combined total of “almost no progress” and “no progress”) exceeded
those who stated progress had been made in the five categories of “conservation of forest resources,” “greenhouse gas
prevention measures,” “conservation of biodiversity,” “population and poverty problems,” and “lifestyle alteration.”

Significant progress(%) 0

Some progress
20

Promotion of environmental education
Activities by local governments andcitizens' groups
Environmental measures by industry

40

13

55

Scientific and technological contributions

1052

Formation of recycling systems

10

51

5

Greenhouse gas prevention measures
Conservation of biodiversity
Population and poverty problems
Lifestyle alteration

1

100

4
10

1
13

4
8

31
33

【No Progress】

22
2

12

1
14

27

3

100
12

1

25

3

No progress

80

63

7

Conservation of forest resources

60

61【Progress】

6

Alomost no progress

12
8

34

16

34

15

14

36

80

60

40

18

20

0 (%)

Figure 2.2.1 Progress towards Agenda 21(2006)

The graph below shows the results on the progress made in the respondents’ countries in the 10 categories of Agenda
21 over 18 years from 1993 to 2010. The top five categories, in which more than 50% of respondents indicated progress, have always remained in the top five, whereas the bottom five have also consistently remained in the bottom five.
Further, the discrepancy between the top five categories where progress has been seen and the bottom five categories
where progress is lacking has continued to grow since the late 1990s.

(Percentage of respondents who indicated progress)(%)
90

Promotion ofenvironmental education

80
70

Activities by local governments
and citizens' groups

60

Environmental measuresby industry

50

Scientific and technologicalcontributions

40

Formation of recycling systems

30

Conservation of forest resources

20

Greenhouse gas
prevention measures

10

Conservation of biodiversity

0

Population and poverty problems

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
(Surveyed year)

Lifestyle alteration

Figure 2.2.2 Progress towards Agenda 21(1993-2010)351

2.3 Impediments to Addressing Environmental Problems
In 2012, on the 20th anniversary of the 1992 Rio Summit, the questionnaire was designed to probe the reasons why
solutions and responses to address environmental problems have shown little signs of progress, and to shed as muchlight as possible onto the reasons behind the stagnation.

2.3.1 Impediments to Addressing Environmental Problems
What do you think are the impediments to addressing environmental problems? Please circle three items from the list
below that you think represent the most significant impediments. Please proceed to additional questions only for thethree you have selected.

(Accumulated percentage of three selected items)

（%）
100

Overall

82％
80

61％
60
48％

47％

40

24％
21％
20
6％
2％
0

Pursuit of proﬁt(human desires)

Globaleconomic
systemProblems in
Governance Communication
decision-making
problems
problems
systems

Lack oftechnical
resources

Other

No response

Figure 2.3.1 Impediments to Addressing Environmental Problems• Overall, respondents most frequently selected “pursuit of profit (human desires)” as the impediment to addressing
environmental problems.

352

2.3.2 “Pursuit of Profit” as Impediment to Addressing Environmental Problems
We asked those respondents who selected the “pursuit of profit (human desires)” as an impediment to addressing
environmental problems whether they agreed or disagreed with the following six items.

1) National interests are necessarily prioritized.
Margin (D+E)-(A+B)
Agree→← Disagree-100
No response

B. Somewhat disagree

2％ 5％
8％

C. Neither agree
nor disagree(I don't know)

7％

-50

0

E. Strongly agree
48％
D. Somewhat agree30％Overall50100（%）
65
69
69
72
61

OverallJapan
United States & Canada
Western Europe
Asia
Latin America
AfricaOceania
Former Soviet Union & Eastern Europe
Middle East
A Regions
B RegionsC Regions
Asian Four
Other Asia
China
Korea
TaiwanIndia
National Government
Local Government
University & Research Institution
NGO
Corporation
Media
Other

A. Strongly disagree

42
79
64
50
60
70
58
56
73
57
57
71
76
67
45
66
60
67
74
68
73

Regional

Figure 2.3.2• Overall, the combined number of respondents who selected “somewhat agree” and “strongly agree” (D+E) comprised a large majority at 78%. Of those, respondents selecting “strongly agree” nearly reached the majority at 48%.
On the other hand, respondents who disagreed (A+B) were limited, at 13%. Respondents who are affiliated withnational governments had the lowest margin between those who agreed and those who disagreed, at 45 %.

2) Individuals make decisions based on short-term cost-benefit analyses.
Margin (D+E)-(A+B)
Agree→← Disagree-100
A. Strongly disagree

No response2％

B. Somewhat disagree
7％
8％
6％

E. Strongly agree
39％

D. Somewhat agree
38％

OverallC. Neither agree
nor disagree(I don't know)-500OverallJapan
United States & Canada
Western Europe
Asia
Latin America
AfricaOceania
Former Soviet Union & Eastern Europe
Middle East
A Regions
B RegionsC Regions
Asian Four
Other Asia
China
Korea
TaiwanIndia
National Government
Local Government
University & Research Institution
NGO
Corporation
Media
Other

50

100（%）
62
55
81
75
56
77
88
73
83
60
65
55
76
78

49
47
78
79
67
50
59
60
66
63
68
68

Regional

Figure 2.3.3• Overall, respondents who agreed comprised a large majority at 77%, while those who disagreed comprised 15%.

353

3) The economic profits of a corporation, organization, or a region are prioritized so much that environmental considerations are not taken into account.
Margin (D+E)-(A+B)
Agree→← Disagree-100

1％B. Somewhat disagree
9％11％
E. Strongly agree
39％

C. Neither agree
nor disagree(I don't know)

8％

0

50

OverallJapan
United States & Canada
Western Europe
Asia30
Latin America
AfricaOceania
Former Soviet Union & Eastern Europe
Middle East
A Regions
B Regions32
C Regions
Asian Four
Other Asia
18
China
9
Korea
TaiwanIndia
National Government
Local Government
27
University & Research Institution
NGO
Corporation
36
Media
Other 0

A. Strongly disagree

No response-50

D. Somewhat agree
32％

Overall100（%）

51
51
74
79
90
92
82
78
60
61
76
67
57
83
83
64
53
66
75

Regional

Figure 2.3.4• Overall, respondents who agreed (D+E) comprised a large majority at 71%, whereas those who disagreed (A+B)
comprised 20%.

4) The world economy has not been able to depart from its adherence to the GDP as a measurement,
and the exclusive devotion to growth is not directed towards a sustainable and stable recycling
economy.
Margin (D+E)-(A+B)
Agree→← Disagree-100
A. Strongly disagree
B. Somewhat disagree

No response

2％
4％ 4％
6％

E. Strongly agree
50％

C. Neither agree
nor disagree(I don't know)

D. Somewhat agree
34％

Overall-500OverallJapan
United States & Canada
Western Europe
Asia
Latin America
AfricaOceania
Former Soviet Union & Eastern Europe
Middle East
A Regions
B RegionsC Regions
Asian Four
Other Asia
China
Korea
TaiwanIndia
National Government
Local Government
University & Research Institution
NGO
Corporation
Media
Other

50

100（%）
76
70
79
85
73
92
92
100
72
100
76
74
86
83
69
71
87
77
71
53
64
77
82
75
72
88

Regional

Figure 2.3.5• Overall, respondents who agreed (D+E) comprised an overwhelming majority at 84%, of which those selecting“strongly agree” reached 50%. On the other hand, those who disagreed (A+B) comprised 8%.

3545) Economic systems like The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), which reflect societal costs, have not been pursued.
Margin (D+E)-(A+B)
Agree→← Disagree-100
No response
2％
3％
5％

E. Strongly agree
35％

-50

0

OverallJapan
United States & Canada
Western Europe
Asia
Latin America
AfricaOceania
Former Soviet Union & Eastern Europe
Middle East
A Regions
B RegionsC Regions
Asian Four
Other Asia
China
Korea
TaiwanIndia
National Government
Local Government
University & Research Institution
NGO
Corporation
Media
Other

A. Strongly disagree
B. Somewhat disagree

C. Neither agree
nor disagree(I don't know)
18％

D. Somewhat agree
37％

Overall50100（%）
64
68
75
63
54
73
69
85
56
100
69
52
71
73

46
42
87
50
100
50
56
65
68
55
72
76

Regional

Figure 2.3.6• Overall, respondents who agreed (D+E) comprised the majority at 72%, while those who disagreed comprised 8%.
Those who selected “Neither Agree Nor Disagree” reached 18%, representing the possibility that economic systems
like The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) are not necessarily widely known or understood.

6) Current lifestyles based on large consumption of energy cannot be abandoned.
Margin (D+E)-(A+B)
Agree→← Disagree-100No
response A. Strongly
disagree
6％9％
B. Somewhat
disagree17％

E. Strongly agree
22％

C. Neither agree
nor disagree(I don't know)
12％
D. Somewhat agree
34％

Overall

-50

0

50

Overall
29
Japan
44
United States & Canada 0Western Europe 5
Asia
35
Latin America
19
Africa16
Oceania-50
Former Soviet Union & Eastern Europe
38
Middle East
A Regions32
B Regions
26
C Regions24
Asian Four56
Other Asia
29
China
38
Korea
36
TaiwanIndia 0National Government 3
Local Government
33
University & Research Institution
28
NGO
10
Corporation
34
Media
36
Other
56

100（%）

100

82

Regional

Figure 2.3.7• Overall, respondents who agreed (D+E) comprised the majority at 56%. However, those who disagreed (A+B) alsoreached 26%, while “Neither Agree Nor Disagree” comprised 12%. A large number of respondents in Asia, including Japan, stated they agreed, but in North America, Western Europe, and India, the number of respondents who
agreed was comparable to those who disagreed.

355

2.4 About Nuclear Energy and the Environment
In 2012, the questionnaire probed how the accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant in Japan has affected the opinions of environmental experts on nuclear power.

2.4.1 Public Sentiment towards Nuclear Power after the Fukushima Nuclear Accident
Have there been any changes in public sentiment towards nuclear power in your country as a result of the Fukushima
nuclear accident?
No response2％

I don't know
15％

No change
16％More citizens oppose
nuclear power
67％

Figure 2.4.1 Public Sentiment towards Nuclear Power after Fukushima Accident (Overall)Table 2.4.1 Public Sentiment towards Nuclear Power after Fukushima Accident (Regional)More citizens oppose
nuclear power

No change

I don't know(%)
No response

Overall

67

16

15

Japan

97

1

2

2
1

United States & Canada
Western Europe
Asia*1
Asian Four
Other Asia*1
Latin America
AfricaOceania
Eastern Europe & Former Soviet Union
Middle East
Overseas Total
United States & Canada, Western Europe, theAsian Four and Japan
Latin America, Africa and Rest of Asias
Oceania, Eastern Europe & former Soviet Union,
and Middle East
China
Korea
Taiwan
India

58
68
50
78
42
40
30
35
42
67
52

25
20
18
15
19
48
48
35
38
22
23

14
11
28
8
34
12
18
24
15
11
21

3
1
4
0
5
0
3
6
4
0
3

83

10

6

1

41

25

30

5

44

35

17

4

39
78
76
58

16
16
14
37

38
6
11
0

6
0
0
5

• A large number of respondents across the world selected “More citizens oppose nuclear power” at 67%. This selection reached 97% among respondents in Japan, whereas 52% of overseas respondents chose this item.

356

On the other hand, the survey results from 1998 and 2008 show that respondents felt more favorably towards nuclear
power compared to today.
1998 Survey Results
2% E

13%
A
30%
D

21%
B

34%
C

Figure 2.4.2 Opinions about Nuclear Power (Overall)

Japan

14

24

U.S.A. & Canada

16

18

Western Europe

12

12

Asia

11

17

Latin America

921

Africa6

Oceania5

Eastern Europe &former Soviet Union

33

2

57
50

22

26

24

13

39

31

48

43

28

0

39
33
20

3

37

20

5

7

Middle East

26

27

17

17

33
40

27
60

80

A

Newclear power as we know it today is acceptable.

B

Current nuclear technologies shoud be improved and adopted
when they become more safe.

C

Current nuclear technologies shoud be completely rethought, and research and development
should be carried out with the aim of providing enhanced safety and economic feasiblility.

D

Improvements in the safety of nuclear power look extremely difficult to achieve,
so nuclear power shoud not be adopted.

E

Cannot comment

100 (%)

Figure 2.4.3 Opinions about Nuclear Power (Regional)

The pie chart above shows the overall results to a question in the 1998 survey about nuclear power generation as analternative form of energy to replace fossil fuels. Nearly 70% (A+B+C) of respondents felt positively about nuclear
power generation as long as technological development advanced and safety could be secured, whereas only 30% (C)stated that nuclear power should not be implemented. By region, respondents from Western Europe were most negative about the implementation of nuclear power (57%), followed by Oceania (43%), and USA & Canada (37%). In
contrast, respondents from Latin America, Eastern Europe & former Soviet Union, and Asia were most positive about
nuclear power.

357

2008 Survey Results
2% G
1% H

3%
F
13%
E

31%
A

18%
D
7%
B
25%
C

Figure 2.4.4 Opinions about Nuclear Power (Overall)Rest of Asia

36

Japan

14

37

United States &Canada32

6Africa33

4

Eastern Europe &former Soviet Union

18
7

Oceania
Latin America

6
4

26

9

8

29

4 11
0 3 0

22

2 3 0
0 4

4
4 11

29

21

0

21

34

40

7
28

25

33
20

2 12

28

25

20

7

17

19

24

0

12

16

29

4

Middle East 0 7

13

19

14
12

33
0

Asian Four

19

26

6

41

Western Europe

12

12
20

60

0

7
2

6

0

6

13

80

0
100 (%)

A

Safety concerns remain, but nuclear power should be promoted for global warming prevention

B

It should very much be utilized as the current state of nuclear power is extremely trustworthy

C

Because of problems related to waste by-product and safety, the situation should be maintained

D

Nuclear power will become acceptable with further technical and safety improvements

E

Nuclear power is unacceptable from the standpoints of waste by-products and safety

and energy balance

but gradually reduced in the future

F

Other

G

UnkownH

I don't know

Figure 2.4.5 Opinions about Nuclear Power (Regional)

The graph above shows the results to a question in the 2008 survey asking respondents about their opinions on nuclear power. Overall, respondents who selected “Safety concerns remain, but nuclear power should be promoted for
global warming prevention and energy balance” (A, 31%), and “It should very much be utilized as the current stateof nuclear power is extremely trustworthy” (B, 7%) totaled 38%; in other words, approximately one-third of the respondents supported or accepted the dependence on nuclear power generation.
By region, respondents from the Rest of Asia had the highest percentage (50%) of those who actively supported theuse of nuclear power by stating that “it should be utilized” (“nuclear power should be promoted” + “nuclear power isextremely trustworthy”). This was followed by Japan (43%), and USA & Canada (41%). Moreover, adding those
respondents who selected “the situation should be maintained” and “nuclear power will become acceptable with358

further technical and safety improvements” to the active supporters resulted in a 88% rate in Japan and the Rest of
Asia of respondents who thought that nuclear power generation was necessary for the prevention of global warming.
Safety concerns remain, but nuclear power should be promoted for global warming prevention and energy balance
It should very much be utilized as the current state of nuclear power is extremely trustworthy
Nuclear power will become acceptable with further technical and safety improvements
36%

8%

15%

27%

10%

Nuclear Power Has Not Been
Adopted in My Country

Nuclear Power Has Been Adopted in My Country

75%

15%

4%

19%

21%

3%

6% Unknown

29%

26%
Other

Because of problems related to waste by-product and safety, the situation should be maintained but
gradually reduced in the future

I don't know

Nuclear power is unacceptable from the standpoints of waste by-products and safety

Figure 2.4.6 Opinions about Nuclear Power – Comparison between Countries With/Without Nuclear PowerThe graph above shows the results of a question soliciting respondents’ opinions on nuclear power organized by regions where nuclear power had already been implemented and those who hadn’t yet adopted it. In regions where
nuclear power had already been adopted, 44% of respondents state that “nuclear power is extremely trustworthy” and“nuclear power should be promoted.” This figure represents more than twice the 19% who made the same selections
in regions that had yet to adopt nuclear power. There, 26% of respondents stated “nuclear power is unacceptable fromthe standpoints of waste by-products and safety,” representing more than double the number of those who made thisselection in regions that had adopted nuclear power.

2.4.2 Nuclear Energy Policy in Respondents’ Countries
How do you feel about the nuclear energy policy in your country after the Fukushima accident?
G. No response

F. OtherE. Nuclear powershould be increased
D. No objections to
nuclear energy
policy to date

3％
5％
4％
8％

A. Nuclear energy
policy should
be reviewed
32％

C. Nuclear energyplans should be
discontinued andall plants should
B. Nuclear energy
be abolishedshould continue
23％
but reliance should
be decreased
25％

Figure 2.4.7 Nuclear Power Policy in Respondents’ Countries (Overall)• Overall, 80% (A+B+C) of respondents indicated a preference for some sort of review of nuclear energy policy. Specifically, 32% of respondents selected “Nuclear energy policy should be reviewed,” while 25% selected “Nuclear
energy should continue but reliance on this form of power should be decreased” and 23% selected “Nuclear energyplans should be discontinued and all plants should be abolished.” On the other hand, respondents who selected “No
objections to nuclear energy policy to date” and “nuclear power generation should be increased” were limited to 8%
and 4% respectively.

359

2.4.2.1 You have selected “No objections to the nuclear energy policy to date.” Please circle two items
from the following list that best reflects your rationale.
(Accumulated percentage of three selected items)（%）
60

Overall
55％

53％

50

40
31％
30

20

15％

13％
9％

10

8％

7％

Nuclearpower iseconomical

Nuclear plants(in my country)
are moreadvanced thanthe Fukushima
plant

0％
0

Fukushima was Nuclear poweris used incaused bymany
natural disastercountries;
and is a questionof responding to nuclear energy
itself does not
the crisis; itshould not be pose problems
generalizedWhengenerating
electricity,
nuclear power
does not emit
CO2, a causeof global
warming

Nuclear plants
have risk
management systems
to minimize
eﬀects in an
accident

Nuclear power
provides astable supplyof energy

Other

No response

Figure 2.4.8 Reasons for Not Opposing Nuclear Energy Policy to Date

• Respondents who chose “No objections to the nuclear energy policy to date” most frequently selected as their reasons “Fukushima was caused by a natural disaster and is a question of managing and responding to the crisis,” and“Nuclear power is in use in many countries and nuclear energy itself does not pose problems.”

2.4.2.2 Please circle one item from the following list that you think is the most important factor inreviewing nuclear energy policy.
Other

No response

Cost of energy
1％Stable supply of energy

4％

4％

9％

Consideration for
the environment
20％

Health and safetyof citizens
39％

Consideration for
future generations
23％

OverallFigure 2.4.9 Important Factors in Reviewing Nuclear Energy Policy• Respondents who selected “Health and safety of citizens”(39%), “Consideration for future generations”(23%), “Consideration for the environment”(20%), comprised a large majority, for a combined total of 82%. Opinions that placed anemphasis on “Stable supply of energy”(9%) and “Cost of energy”(4%) comprised a minority, at 13%.

360

2.4.2.3 You have selected “Nuclear energy plans should be discontinued and all plants should be
abolished.” Please circle two items from below that you think are the most important reasonsfor discontinuing and abolishing nuclear power.

(Accumulated percentage of three selected items)（%）
70

Overall
60％

60
51％
50

40
29％

30

28％
21％

20

10
4％

2％
0

Massive costs
Problems with Price of nuclear It is highly
Human
Accidents
threaten health judgment and ﬁnal disposal of power does not poisonous and for constructing
nuclear power
and life through management nuclear waste reﬂect accidents produces
facilities
or implementing nuclear waste,contamination, are ﬂawed．We
strict safety which consist compared toshould not use
and havecoal power
standards; in of radioactive
negative eﬀects a power source
plantssubstances
actuality it iswhich doesn't
on global
expensive
environment allow for errors

1％

0％
Publicopposition

Other

No
response

Figure 2.4.10 Reasons for Discontinuing and Abolishing Nuclear Energy Plans• The majority of respondents who chose “Nuclear energy plans should be discontinued and all plants should be
abolished” resoundingly gave as their reason, “Major accidents threaten health and life through radioactive contamination, and have negative effects on the environment on a global scale.”

2.4.3 Information Dissemination in Respondents’ Countries
What do you think is the level of dissemination of nuclear information conducted by your national or local government?
←Dissemination-100

No Dissemination→

-50

0

50

Overall

No response

A. Suﬃcient information
dissemination

11％

Japan

5％

18
United States & Canada-21

Western Europe

-23
Asia

E. Other
6％

19

Latin America
B. Someinformation
dissemination
32％

D. No
information
dissemination
12％

Overall57

Africa50
Oceania-35

Eastern Europe & Former Soviet Union
Middle East 0-46

A Regions
C. Almost no information
dissemination
34％

100（%）

10

6

B Regions-35

24
C Regions

Asian Four

28

Other Asia

17

China

19

Korea
Taiwan

31
24

India

42

Regional

Figure 2.4.11 Information Dissemination in Respondents’ Countries• The majority of respondents in the United States & Canada, Western Europe, Oceania and Eastern Europe & former
Soviet Union indicated that there was either “sufficient” or “some level of” information dissemination about nuclear power in their countries. In contrast, a large number of respondents from Asia including Japan, Latin Americaand Africa stated that either there was “almost no” or “no” information dissemination in their countries.

361

3. Collaboration Activities Overseas
The Environmental Doomsday Clock Invites Activities from the World
Regular distributions of the Annual Survey report “Questionnaire on Environmental Problems and the Survival of
Humankind” to people who are concerned about the future of planet Earth have enhanced awareness of the environmental situation that we all face and also sparked several collaborative actions from our readers.

Montenegro
In April 2010 the Economic Development Minister Branimir Gvozdenovic presented the “Excellence prize” of the
16th Ecology Fair in Budva to Montenegro Climate Change AGF, an environmental NPO in Montenegro. Mr. Miroslav Raicevic, representing the NPO, participated in the Fair, and gave a splendid presentation of their activities inconnection with “The Environmental Doomsday Clock.”

Excellence prize certificate

Mr. Raicevic

Environmental Minister Gvozdenovic in the fair

TaiwanAnother example of collaboration was The Good Neighbor Foundation Taiwan, supported by Taiwan 7-eleven. The
foundation created “The Environmental Doomsday Clock” composed of flowers and grass in the small Swiss Gardenof Cingjing Farm (Natou County, Taiwan). A notice board was installed next to the clock to alert the Taiwanesepeople to the importance of environmental issues.

362

4. In Closing
The fact that we have been able to conduct this survey so successfully over two decades is owed to the firm dedicationof our respondents, environmental experts from around the world, who have given us helpful and informed responses
every year. We would also like to express our gratitude to Professor Akio Morishima, Special Research Advisor of theInstitute for Global Environmental Strategies, for providing us with his invaluable advice.
As we seek to create a more informative and contemporary environmental survey, the categories of environmental
concerns have changed from the agenda 21 set to the current set, as defined by the concept of Planetary Boundaries
by Dr. Johan Rockström et al. of the Stockholm Environmental Institute. Accompanying this change in the categories,
is a revision in the method of calculating “The Environmental Doomsday Clock” time, showing a clearer connection
between the environmental issues the respondents found most pressing and the time that they chose. We hope thesechanges help make the survey more meaningful for its readers.
Our aspiration is to continue to publish this survey in the hope that it will help maintain and perhaps even increaseinterest in environmental issues. We therefore renew our pledge to join with our respondents and contribute to theresolution of the world’s environmental concerns.

363

Attachment-1 List of 175 Countries Responded to the Survey since 1992

Japan
Asian Four (4)HONG KONG
KOREA
SINGAPORE
TAIWAN
Other Asia (Exceptt Japan & Asian Four
19)
AFGHANISTANBANGLADESH
BHUTANBRUNEICAMBODIA
CHINA
INDIA
INDONESIALAOS
MALAYSIAMALDIVESMONGOLIAMYANMARNEPAL
PAKISTANPHILIPPINESSRI LANKATHAILANDVIETNAM
Western Europe (22)
AUSTRIABELGIUM
DENMARKFINLANDFRANCEGERMANYGIBRALTAR
GREECEICELANDIRELANDITALY
LIECHTENSTEINLUXEMBOURG
MALTA
MONACONETHERLANDNORWAYPORTUGALSPAIN
SWEDENSWITZERLAND
UK
Oceania (8)AUSTRALIAFIJIKIRIBATINEW CALEDONIANEW ZEALANDPAPUA NEW GUINEASAMOATUVALU
Central America (21)ANTIGUA AND BARBUDABAHAMAS
BARBADOSBELIZEBERMUDACOMMONWEALTH OF DOMINICA
COSTA RICACUBA
CURACAODOMINICAN REPUBLICEL SALVADOR
GRENADAGUATEMALAHONDURAS
JAMAICAMEXICONICARAGUAPANAMA
PUERTO RICOSAINT LUCIA
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGOSouth America (12)ARGENTINA
BOLIVIA
BRAZILCHILE
COLOMBIAECUADORGUYANAPARAGUAYPERU
SURINAME
URUGUAYVENEZUELA

Middle East (12)BAHRAINCYPRUSIRAN
ISRAELKUWAITLEBANONOMAN
QATAR
SAUDI ARABIASYRIATURKEY
YEMEN
Eastern Europe & former Soviet Union(24)
ALBANIAAZERBAIDJAN
BELARUSBULGARIA
CROATIACZECHESTONIAGEORGIAHUNGARYKAZAKHSTANKYRGYZLATVIA
LITHUANIA
MACEDONIA
MOLDOVAPOLANDROMANIARUSSIA(SERVIA and MONTENEGRO)SLOVAKIASLOVENIATURKMENISTANUKRAINEUZBEKISTAN

United States & Canada (2)
CANADAUSA
Africa (50)
ALGERIAANGOLA
BENIN
BOTSWANABURKINA FASO
BURUNDICAMEROONCAPE VERDECENTRAL AFRICA
CHAD
COMOROSCOTE D’IVOIREEGYPTEQUATORIAL GUINEAERITREAETHIOPIAGABONGAMBIAGHANA
GUINEAGUINEA-BISSAUKENYALESOTHO
LIBERIALIBYAMADAGASCARMALAWIMALI
MAURITANIA
MAURITIUS
MOROCCOMOZAMBIQUE
NAMIBIANIGER
NIGERIA
REPUBLIC OF CONGORWANDASAO TOME AND PRINCIPE
SENEGAL
SEYCHELLESIERRA LEONE
SOUTH AFRICASUDAN
SWAZILANDTANZANIATOGOTUNISIAUGANDAZAMBIA
ZIMBABWE

365