Advertisement

Natural Hazards

, Volume 94, Issue 2, pp 759–775 | Cite as

Uncertain human consequences in asteroid risk analysis and the global catastrophe threshold

  • Seth D. Baum
Original Paper

Abstract

This paper studies the risk of collision between asteroids and Earth. It focuses on uncertainty in the human consequences of asteroid collisions, with emphasis on the possibility of global catastrophe to human civilization. A detailed survey of the asteroid risk literature shows that while human consequences are recognized as a major point of uncertainty, the studies focus mainly on physical and environmental dimensions of the risk. Some potential human consequences are omitted entirely, such as the possibility of asteroid explosions inadvertently causing nuclear war. Other human consequences are modeled with varying degrees of detail. Direct medical effects are relatively well-characterized, while human consequences of global environmental effects are more uncertain. The latter are evaluated mainly in terms of a global catastrophe threshold, but such a threshold is deeply uncertain and may not even exist. To handle threshold uncertainty in asteroid policy, this paper adapts the concept of policy boundaries from literature on anthropogenic global environmental change (i.e., planetary boundaries). The paper proposes policy boundaries of 100 m asteroid diameter for global environmental effects and 1 m for inadvertent nuclear war. Other policy implications include a more aggressive asteroid risk mitigation policy and measures to avoid inadvertent nuclear war. The paper argues that for rare events like large asteroid collisions, the absence of robust data means that a wide range of possible human consequences should be considered. This implies humility for risk analysis and erring on the side of caution in policy.

Keywords

Asteroid Risk analysis Uncertainty Global catastrophe Planetary boundaries 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Clark Chapman provided helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. Any remaining errors are the author’s alone.

References

  1. Alvarez LW, Alvarez W, Asaro F, Michel HV (1980) Extraterrestrial cause for the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction. Science 208(4448):1095–1108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey NJ, Swinerd GG, Lewis HG, Crowther R (2010) Global vulnerability to near-Earth object impact. Risk Manag 12(1):31–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrett AM, Baum SD, Hostetler K (2013) Analyzing and reducing the risks of inadvertent nuclear war between the United States and Russia. Sci Glob Secur 21(2):106–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baum SD (2015) Winter-safe deterrence: the risk of nuclear winter and its challenge to deterrence. Contemp Secur Policy 36(1):123–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baum SD, Barrett AM (2018) A model for the impacts of nuclear war. Global Catastrophic Risk Institute Working Paper 18-2. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3155983. Accessed 28 July 2018
  6. Baum SD, Handoh IC (2014) Integrating the planetary boundaries and global catastrophic risk paradigms. Ecol Econ 107:13–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baum SD, Denkenberger DC, Pearce JM, Robock A, Winkler R (2015) Resilience to global food supply catastrophes. Environ Syst Decis 35(2):301–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baum SD, de Neufville R, Barrett AM (2018) A model for the probability of nuclear war. Global Catastrophic Risk Institute Working Paper 18-1. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3137081. Accessed 28 July 2018
  9. BBC (2016) Kenya nationwide blackout caused by rogue monkey. BBC, 7 June. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-36475667. Accessed 11 May 2018
  10. Berryman K (2005) Review of tsunami hazard and risk in New Zealand. Gracefield Research Centre, Lower HuttGoogle Scholar
  11. Bluth GJ, Doiron SD, Schnetzler CC, Krueger AJ, Walter LS (1992) Global tracking of the SO2 clouds from the June, 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruptions. Geophys Res Lett 19(2):151–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bostrom N (2013) Existential risk prevention as global priority. Glob Policy 4(1):15–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brumfiel G (2009) Astronomers lose access to military data. Nature 459:896–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Buldyrev SV, Parshani R, Paul G, Stanley HE, Havlin S (2010) Catastrophic cascade of failures in interdependent networks. Nature 464(7291):1025–1028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Butzer KW, Endfield GH (2012) Critical perspectives on historical collapse. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109(10):3628–3631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Canavan G (1993) Value of space defenses. In: Canavan GH, Solem JC, Rather JDG (eds) Proceedings of the near-Earth object interception workshop. Los Alamos National Lab, Los Alamos, pp 261–274Google Scholar
  17. Canavan GH (1994) Cost and benefit of near-Earth object detection and interception. In: Gehrels T (ed) Hazards due to comets and asteroids. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp 1157–1190Google Scholar
  18. Centeno MA, Nag M, Patterson TS, Shaver A, Windawi AJ (2015) The emergence of global systemic risk. Ann Rev Sociol 41:65–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chapman CR (2004) The hazard of near-Earth asteroid impacts on earth. Earth Planet Sci Lett 222:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chapman CR, Morrison D (1994) Impacts on the Earth by asteroids and comets: assessing the hazard. Nature 367(6458):33–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chesley SR, Ward SN (2006) A quantitative assessment of the human and economic hazard from impact-generated tsunami. Nat Hazards 38(3):355–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Collins GS, Melosh HJ, Marcus RA (2005) Earth impact effects program: a web-based computer program for calculating the regional environmental consequences of a meteoroid impact on Earth. Meteorit Planet Sci 40(6):817–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cowen T, Parfit D (1992) Against the social discount rate. In: Laslett P, Fishkin J (eds) Justice between age groups and generations. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp 144–161Google Scholar
  24. CSS (Catalina Sky Survey) (2018) CSS observer Kowalski strikes again…As does another of his recently discovered Earth-impacting asteroids! Catalina Sky Survey, University of Arizona, Tuscon. https://catalina.lpl.arizona.edu/news/css-observer-kowalski-strikes-again%E2%80%A6-does-another-his-recently-discovered-earth-impacting. Accessed 28 July 2018
  25. Farnocchia D, Chesley SR, Brown PG, Chodas PW (2016) The trajectory and atmospheric impact of asteroid 2014 AA. Icarus 274:327–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fiksel J, Polyviou M, Croxton KL, Pettit TJ (2015) From risk to resilience: learning to deal with disruption. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 56(2):79–86Google Scholar
  27. Garrick JB (2008) Quantifying and controlling catastrophic risks. Academic Press, BurlingtonGoogle Scholar
  28. Garshnek V, Morrison D, Burkle FM Jr (2000) The mitigation, management, and survivability of asteroid/comet impact with Earth. Space Policy 16:213–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Glasstone S (1962) The effects of nuclear weapons. United States Atomic Energy Commission, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  30. Glasstone S, Dolan PJ (1977) The effects of nuclear weapons, 3rd edn. United States Department of Defense and Department of Energy, WashingtonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Harris A (2008) What spaceguard did. Nature 453(7199):1178–1179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Harris AW (2010) Estimating the NEO population and impact risk: past, present and future. In Finkelstein AM, Huebner WF, Short VA (eds) Protecting the Earth against Collisions with Asteroids and Comet Nuclei: proceedings of the international conference “Asteroid-Comet Hazard-2009”. Nauka, Saint Petersburg, pp 312–326Google Scholar
  33. Harris AW, Boslough M, Chapman CR, Drube L, Michel P, Harris AW (2015) Asteroid impacts and modern civilization: can we prevent a catastrophe? In: Michel P et al (eds) Asteroids IV. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp 835–854Google Scholar
  34. Helbing D (2013) Globally networked risks and how to respond. Nature 497(7447):51–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Helfand I (2013) Nuclear famine: two billion people at risk. International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. http://www.ippnw.org/pdf/nuclear-famine-two-billion-at-risk-2013.pdf. Accessed 11 May 2018
  36. Hills J, Goda MP (1993) The fragmentation of small asteroids in the atmosphere. Astron J 105(3):1114–1144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jenniskens P (2013) Recent documented meteorite falls, a review of meteorite–asteroid links. In Jopek TJ, Rietmeijer FJM, Watanabe J, Williams IP (eds) Meteoroids 2013: proceedings of the astronomical conference held at AM University, Poznan, pp 57–68Google Scholar
  38. Jenniskens P, Shaddad MH, Numan D, Elsir S, Kudoda AM, Zolensky ME et al (2009) The impact and recovery of asteroid 2008 TC 3. Nature 458(7237):485–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kristensen HM, Norris RS (2015a) Russian nuclear forces, 2015. Bull At Sci 71(3):84–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kristensen HM, Norris RS (2015b) US nuclear forces, 2015. Bull At Sci 71(2):107–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lewis P, Williams H, Pelopidas B, Aghlani S (2014) Too close for comfort: cases of near nuclear use and options for policy. Chatham House, LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. Maher TM Jr, Baum SD (2013) Adaptation to and recovery from global catastrophe. Sustainability 5(4):1461–1479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mathias DL, Wheeler LF, Dotson JL (2017) A probabilistic asteroid impact risk model: assessment of sub-300 m impacts. Icarus 289:106–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mellor F (2010) Negotiating uncertainty: asteroids, risk and the media. Public Underst Sci 19(1):16–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mignan A, Grossi P, Muir-Wood R (2011) Risk assessment of Tunguska-type airbursts. Nat Hazards 56(3):869–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Miller CR (2005) Electromagnetic pulse threats in 2010. Center for Strategy and Technology, United States Air War College, Maxwell Air Force Base. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA463475. Accessed 11 May 2018
  47. Morrison D (1992) The Spaceguard survey: report of the NASA international near-Earth-Object detection workshop. NASA, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  48. Ng Y-K (1991) Should we be very cautious or extremely cautious on measures that may involve our destruction? Soc Choice Welf 8(1):79–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. NRC (National Research Council) (2010) Defending planet earth: near-Earth object surveys and hazard mitigation strategies. National Academies Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  50. O’Malley-James JT, Cockell CS, Greaves JS, Raven JA (2014) Swansong biospheres II: the final signs of life on terrestrial planets near the end of their habitable lifetimes. Int J Astrobiol 13(3):229–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Parker DE, Wilson H, Jones PD, Christy JR, Folland CK (1996) The impact of Mount Pinatubo on world-wide temperatures. Int J Climatol 16(5):487–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Popova OP, Jenniskens P, Emel’yanenko V, Kartashova A, Biryukov E, Khaibrakhmanov S et al (2013) Chelyabinsk airburst, damage assessment, meteorite recovery, and characterization. Science 342(6162):1069–1073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Posner R (2004) Catastrophe: risk and response. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  54. Reinhardt JC, Chen X, Liu W, Manchev P, Paté-Cornell ME (2016) Asteroid risk assessment: a probabilistic approach. Risk Anal 36(2):244–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Reisner J, D’Angelo G, Koo E, Even W, Hecht M, Hunke E et al (2018) Climate impact of a regional nuclear weapons exchange: an improved assessment based on detailed source calculations. J Geophys Res Atmos 123:2752–2772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Robock A (2010) Nuclear winter. WIREs Clim Change 1(3):418–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin FS III, Lambin E et al (2009a) Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol Soc 14(2):32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin FS III, Lambin E et al (2009b) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461:472–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rumpf C, Lewis HG, Atkinson PM (2016) On the influence of impact effect modelling for global asteroid impact risk distribution. Acta Astronaut 123:165–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rumpf CM, Lewis HG, Atkinson PM (2017) Population vulnerability models for asteroid impact risk assessment. Meteorit Planet Sci 52(6):1082–1102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sagan C (1983) Nuclear war and climatic catastrophe: some policy implications. Foreign Aff 62:257–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schweickart RL, Jones TD, von der Dunk F, Camacho-Lara S, Association of space explorers international panel on asteroid threat mitigation (2008) Asteroid threats: a call for global response. Association of Space Explorers, HoustonGoogle Scholar
  63. Stokes GH, Yeomans DK, Bottke WF, Jewitt D, Chesley SR, Kelso TS et al (2003) Study to determine the feasibility of extending the search for near-earth objects to smaller limiting diameters. Report of the Near-Earth Object Science Definition Team, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, LexingtonGoogle Scholar
  64. Stokes GH, Barbee BW, Bottke WF Jr, Buie MW, Chesley SR, Chodas PW et al (2017) Update to determine the feasibility of enhancing the search and characterization of NEOs. Report of the Near-Earth Object Science Definition Team, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, LexingtonGoogle Scholar
  65. Tertrais B (2017) “On the brink”—really? Revisiting nuclear close calls since 1945. Wash Q 40(2):51–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tonn BE (2002) Distant futures and the environment. Futures 34(2):117–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tonn BE (2009) Obligations to future generations and acceptable risks of human extinction. Futures 41(7):427–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tonry JL (2011) An early warning system for asteroid impact. Publ Astron Soc Pac 123(899):58–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Toon OB, Zahnle K, Morrison D, Turco RP, Covey C (1997) Environmental perturbations caused by the impacts of asteroids and comets. Rev Geophys 35(1):41–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Toon OB, Bardeen C, Garcia R (2016) Designing global climate and atmospheric chemistry simulations for 1 and 10 km diameter asteroid impacts using the properties of ejecta from the K-Pg impact. Atmos Chem Phys 16(20):13185–13212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Weinberg R (2008) Identifying and dissolving the non-identity problem. Philos Stud 137(1):3–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wolf ET, Toon OB (2015) The evolution of habitable climates under the brightening Sun. J Geophys Res Atmos 120(12):5775–5794CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Global Catastrophic Risk InstituteWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations