In Table 5 on page 9, “Environmental issues to be taken into account” are shown. Keeping in mind the problems that the environment faces at a global level, please select the three most pressing issues for the country or the region where you reside. Then, please rank them in order of importance. Lastly, for each item, select a time using hours and minutes between 0:10 to 12:00, to indicate the level of crisis for that issue. For the purpose of calculating results, please select your times in units no smaller than 10 minutes.
Regarding the calculation of the time on the Environmental Doomsday Clock
The time on the Environmental Doomsday Clock will be determined by taking the weighted average of the data. The issue ranked in first place will be weighted at 50%, second place at 30%, and third place at 20%.
If a respondent selected only two issues, the first-ranked issue is weighted at 62.5% and second place at 37.5%. If the respondent selected only one issue, the selected issue is weighted at 100%.
| Fig. 1 The Time on the Environmental Doomsday Clock |
|---|
 |
Ⅲ-1-1. The Time on the Environmental Doomsday Clock
| Table 2 Change in The Time on the Environmental Doomsday Clock (World) since 1992 |
|---|
 |
| Fig.2 Change in the Time on the Environmental Doomsday Clock (World) since 1992 |
|---|
 |
- The time on the Clock had had a tendency to get closer to midnight since 2011, but this year the Clock has once again gone back for the fourth consecutive year.
| Fig.3-1 Regional Times on the Environmental Doomsday Clock |
|---|
 |
| Table 3 Change in the Time on the Environmental Doomsday Clock Since 2015 |
|---|
 |
- As shown in Table 3, the time on the Environmental Doomsday Clock (the “time on the Clock”) for the world is 9:27, which is four minutes earlier than last year.
- Notably, the time on the Clock went back by 35 minutes in Mexico, Central America & the Caribbean, and by 44 minutes in the Middle East. These changes may be attributed to a decrease in natural disasters in Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean in 2023 compared to the previous year, as well as the successful hosting of COP28 in the United Arab Emirates in November 2023.
- In contrast to other regions of the world, in Western Europe, the time on the Clock moved forward by 19 minutes. This difference might be attributed to factors such as the extreme heat waves, droughts, and floods that plagued Western Europe in 2023, as well as heightened concerns about energy security due to the prolonged Russia-Ukraine war.
Figure 3-2 shows the change in the time on the Environmental Doomsday Clock over the past ten years from the regions and countries with the highest number of respondents selected from Asia.
| Fig. 3-2 Change in the Time on the Environmental Doomsday Clock Since 2015 |
|---|
 |
Table 4 and Fig. 4 show change in the time on the Clock by generation over the last 10 years (2015 – 2024).
| Table 4 Change in the Time on the Environmental Doomsday Clock by Generation |
|---|
 |
| Fig.4 Change in the Time on the Clock by Generation |
|---|
 |
- The survey respondents aged 60 and over tended to report more advanced times on the Clock than other age groups.
- This year, the time on the Clock moved backward for respondents aged 20 to 50, while it moved forward for those aged 60 and above. This highlights a growing divide in the perception of the current state of environmental issues between younger and older generations.
- Looking back over the past decade, the time on the Clock set by respondents in their 20s and 30s showed a tendency to move forward until 2018, but thereafter, it shows a tendency to go back.
Ⅲ-1-2. Environmental Issues to be Taken into Account
| Table 5 Environmental Issues to be Taken into Account |
|---|
 |
| Fig. 5 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) |
|---|
 |
Ⅲ-1-2-1. Distribution of the Environmental Issues to be Taken into Account,
Showing Selection Percentage of Respondent’s 3 Most Pressing Issues and the Time on the Clock
Fig. 6-1 2024 Distribution of the Environmental Issues to be Taken into Account,
Showing Selection Percentage of Respondent’s 3 Most Pressing Issues and the Time on the Clock |
|---|
 |
- As in the last year, “Climate Change” (30%) was the most often selected category among the “environmental issues to be taken into account,” which are used to calculate the time on the worldwide Environmental Doomsday Clock. This was followed by “Biosphere Integrity (Biodiversity)” (13%), “Society, Economy and Environment, Policies, Measures” (12%), “Water Resources” (9%), “Lifestyle (Consumption Habits)” (8%), “Population” (7%), “Biochemical Flows (Pollution/ Contamination)” (7%), “Food” (7%), “Land-System Change (Land Use)” (6%). The percentage of each issue has changed little from last year.
- When arranging the “environmental issues to be taken into account” for the entire world in descending order of time on the Environmental Doomsday Clock, “Biosphere Integrity (Biodiversity)” (9:46) and “Climate Change” (9:33), and “Society, Economy and Environment, Policies, Measures” (9:33) were all closer to midnight than the world’s average time of 9:27. Below the average time were “, “Lifestyle (Consumption Habits)” (9:20), “Population” (9:18), “Biochemical Flows (Pollution/ Contamination)” (9:13), “Land-System Change (Land Use)” (9:12), “Water Resources” (9:07), and “Food” (8:59).
- As shown in Fig. 6-3, in 2022, the time for “Society, Economy and Environment, Policies, Measures” was exceptionally close to midnight (9:49), but in most years, the time of “Biosphere Integrity (Biodiversity)” shows the highest sense of crisis.
Fig. 6-2 2023 Distribution of the Environmental Issues,
Showing Selection Percentage of Respondent’s 3 Most Pressing Issues and the Time on the Clock |
|---|
 |
Fig. 6-3 2022 Distribution of the Environmental Issues to be Taken into Account,
Showing Selection Percentage of Respondent’s 3 Most Pressing Issues and the Time on the Clock |
|---|
 |
Ⅲ-1-2-2. Annual Change in the Time on the Clock and Selection Percentage of Environmental Issues
| Fig. 7 Annual Change in the Distribution of the Times on the Clock and Selection Percentage (FY2015-2024) |
|---|
 |
- Over the past 10 years, the selection percentage of “Climate Change” had been increasing, but in recent years, it has remained at around 30%, and its time on the Clock has moved backward. For other environmental issues, the change in selection percentage is not large, but fluctuates between nine and ten o’clock.
Ⅲ-1-2-3. Selection Percentage for “Environmental Issues” by Region
| Table 6 Selection Percentage for “Environmental Issues” by Region |
|---|
 |
- In 2024, “Climate Change” (30%) was selected as the most pressing environmental issue to be taken into account in all regions. People around the world are feeling climate change is an urgent issue. Next, “Biosphere Integrity (Biodiversity)” (13% on world average) was selected as the second most pressing issue in many regions.
- Last year, in the Middle East, “Water Resources” was the top-ranked concern, while in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, “Society, Economy and Environment, Policies, Measures” held the top spot. However, in 2024, “Climate Change” took over as the number one concern in both regions.
- Focusing on Asia, the environmental issues this year following “Climate Change” were “Water Resources” in China, “Biochemical Flows (Pollution/Contamination)” in Taiwan, “Biosphere Integrity (Biodiversity)” and “Land-System Changes (Land Use)” in India, “ Biosphere Integrity (Biodiversity)” in Korea, and “Society, Economy and Environment, Policies, Measures” in Japan, highlighting the diversity of concerns within the region.
Ⅲ-1-2-4. Times on the Clock for Environmental Issues by Region
| Table 7 Times on the Clock for Environmental Issues by Region |
|---|
 |
- The world’s average time on the Clock is 9:27. As for the environmental issues, the time on the Clock for “Biosphere Integrity (Biodiversity)” (9:46) is far ahead of that for “Climate Change” and “Society, Economy and Environment, Policies, Measures” (9:33). The time on the Clock for “Food” is 8:59, the only issue to fall into the 8 o’clock range.
- By region, a relatively heightened sense of crisis (later than 10:30) is shown for “Biosphere Integrity (Biodiversity)” (10:42) and “Society, Economy and Environment, Policies, Measures” (10:37) in Oceania, as it is for “Population” in North America (10:58), and for “Society, Economy and Environment, Policies, Measures” in Western Europe (10:32).
- By region, the sense of crisis is relatively low (earlier than 9:00) for “Population” (8:58) in Oceania, “Water Resources” (8:59) and “Population” (8:51) in Mexico, Central America & the Caribbean. In Africa, respondents registered at 9 o’clock or earlier for all environmental issues except for “Population” (10:23).
Among the various environmental issues, climate change and biodiversity loss are garnering significant attention. From the
three perspectives of “public awareness,” “policies and legal system,” and “social infrastructure,” we asked respondents about
the progress of the “transition to a decarbonized society” for the mitigation of global warming and the “conservation and restoration
of wildlife habitats” in their respective countries.
Question 2-1: The Paris Agreement and SDGs were adopted in 2015 to promote efforts against global warming. Compared to before 2015, please answer the following question from three perspectives shown below. Do you think any progress is being made in a transition to a decarbonized society in your country/region?
We calculated the average score by quantifying the answers and giving a score of “-2” for the answer “Not improved at all,” “-1” for the answer “Somewhat not improved,” “0” for the answer “Neither improved or not improved,” “+1” for the answer “Somewhat improved,” and “+2” for the answer “Definitely improved.” We used 30 or more responses to calculate the average score for each region or country.
The average score for the entire world and the average score for each region and country are shown in Table 8.
The world’s average scores are as follows:
- Public Awareness:+0.73
- Policies and Legal System:+0.56
- Social Infrastructure+0.36
- Overall, with regard to transitioning to a decarbonized society, the results show considerably lower scores for three years running in “Policies and Legal System” and “Social Infrastructure (Funds, Human Resources, Technologies, and Facilities)” compared to “Public Awareness.”
- Among Asian countries, Japan and Korea have the lowest scores in all three areas: “Public Awareness,” “Policies and Legal System,” and “Social Infrastructure.”
- The scores for “Public Awareness” and “Policies and Legal System” varied by country and region. In China and Taiwan, the gap between the two was small, with the score for “Policies and Legal System” being slightly higher than that for “Public Awareness.” In contrast, by region, in Oceania, North America, and Western Europe, the difference between the two was large, with progress in “Policies and Legal System” lagging significantly behind “Public Awareness.” This trend has remained unchanged for the past three years.
- China has maintained the world’s highest scores in “Policies and Legal System” and “Social Infrastructure” for three consecutive years. It seems that many respondents believe that the government is taking a leading role in the transition to a decarbonized society.
- By organization, respondents working for corporations have consistently held a stronger belief than those in other organizations that the transition to a decarbonized society is progressing in terms of “Policies and Legal System” and “Social Infrastructure.” Central government officials, on the other hand, believe that “Public Awareness” has been maintaining a positive stance year after year.
- By generation, younger generations in their 20s and 30s hold a stronger belief than older generations that the transition to a decarbonized society is progressing in terms of “Policies and Legal System” and “Social Infrastructure.”.
Table 8 Progress in a Transition to a Decarbonized Society:
World Average and Table 8 Progress in a Transition tAov ae Draecgaer bSocnoizereds S obcyie Rtye: gion, Organization, and Age Range |
|---|
 |
Question 2-2: In 2022, the “Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework” was adopted as a successor to the Aichi Targets, aiming to curb biodiversity loss. Compared to before 2022, please answer the following question from three perspectives shown below.
Do you think any progress is being made in the conservation and restoration of wildlife habitats in your country/region?
Table 9 shows the results analyzed for Question 2-2 from the three perspectives, “Public Awareness,” “Policies and Legal
Systems,” and “Social Infrastructure,” in the same manner as in Question 2-1.
Table 9 Progress in the Conservation and Restoration of Wildlife Habitats:
World Average and Average Scores by Region, Organization, and Age Range |
|---|
 |
- Globally, the scores for “Progress in the Conservation and Restoration of Wildlife Habitats” are consistently below 0.5 from all perspectives, indicating that many respondents believe that progress in this issue is lagging behind that of action on “Climate Change.”
- Among the three perspectives, many respondents believe that “Social Infrastructure” are lagging behind “Public Awareness” and “Policies and Legal System.”
- Chinese respondents expressed a stronger belief than respondents from other regions that the conservation and restoration of wildlife habitats is progressing positively in China from all perspectives.
- In Japan, the scores are negative for all three perspectives, indicating that many respondents believe that the conservation and restoration of wildlife habitats is not progressing.
- Respondents in Oceania gave low scores across all three perspectives, with the lowest scores in “Policies and Legal System” and “Social Infrastructure.”
- Central government officials hold a more positive view of progress in “Public Awareness” for the conservation and restoration of wildlife habitats, while respondents working for corporations perceive gradual progress in “Policies and Legal System” and “Social Infrastructure.”
- Respondents in their 20s and 30s expressed a more positive view of progress in the conservation and restoration of wildlife habitats across all perspectives compared to other age groups.
Question 3-1. Out of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), please select three goals that will have the highest level of realization in 2030. Then, rank them from highest (1st) to lowest (3rd) level of realization, while writing in the Goal numbers.
Three goals that will have the highest level of realization in 2030 were analyzed. Table 10 shows the percentage distribution of responses for each option in a multiple-answer question, based on the total number of respondents.
Table 10 (Respondents’ Own Country/Region) Three Goals (out of 17 SDGs) That Will Have the Highest
Level of Realization in 2030 (multiple answers) |
|---|
 |
- In many countries and regions, “9. Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure,” “4. Quality Education,” and “13. Climate Action” were selected, on average, as goals that will have the highest level of realization in 2030. Though on the downside, a notable number of respondents selected “There are no goals with any material level of realization in 2030” (23%).
- “4. Quality Education” was selected in Asia and the Middle East as a goal that will have the highest level of realization in 2030. However, in North America; Mexico, Central America & the Caribbean; and South America, much fewer people selected this goal.
- In India, Mexico, Central America & the Caribbean; Africa, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet
Union, people frequently selected “13. Climate Action” as a goal that will have the highest level of realization in 2030.
- “5. Gender Equality” is expected to be achieved at a high level in Oceania, North America, Mexico, Central America & the Caribbean by 2030, but it is not expected to be achieved at a high level in the Middle East and China.
Question 3-2: Out of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), please select three goals that will have the lowest level of realization in 2030. Then, rank them from lowest (1st) to highest (3rd) level of realization, while writing in the Goal numbers.
Three goals that will have the lowest level of realization in 2030 were analyzed. Table 11 shows the percentage distribution of responses for each option in a multiple-answer question, based on the total number of respondents.
Table 11 (Respondents’ Own Country/Region) Three Goals (out of 17 SDGs) That Will Have the Lowest
Level of Realization in 2030 (multiple answers) |
|---|
 |
- In the respondents’ own country or region, “1. No Poverty,” (36%) “10. Reduced Inequalities,” (27%) and “13. Climate Action” (25%) were most commonly selected as goals that will have the lowest level of realization in 2030. These were followed by “16. Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions” (24%).
- The number of respondents who think it is difficult to achieve “5. Gender Equality” in their own countries by 2030 is particularly high in Japan, Korea, and the Middle East.
- The number of respondents who think that “12. Responsible Consumption and Production” will be difficult to achieve in their own countries by 2030 is high in Oceania, North America, and Western Europe.
- Respondents in the countries and regions such as Japan, Taiwan, Canada, Africa, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe & former Soviet Union believe that “16. Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions” is less achievable than those in other regions.
Question 4: As of 2024, based on your understanding, how much progress do you think has been made towards achieving the 17 SDGs overall? With 100% representing complete achievement of all goals, please provide a number from 1 to 100 in increment of 5.
Figure 17 shows the distribution of the average perceived level of all SDGs achievement as of 2024 among 2,093 respondents. Approximately 15% of respondents indicated a perceived level of all SDGs achievement of 0%, 9.5% responded that “No particular progress has been made in achieving the goals,” and the average was 31.0%.
| Fig. 17 Distribution of the average perceived level of all SDGs achievement (%) as 2024 |
|---|
Average perceived level of all SDGs achievement (%) as of 2024 |
Figure 18 presents the average perceived level of all SDGs achievement as of 2024 by age group. It reveals a significant difference in the perceived level of SDG achievement across generations. Respondents in their 20s and 30s perceive the level of SDG achievement in 2024 to be over 35%, while those aged 50 and over perceive it to be less than 30%.
| Fig. 18 Average perceived level of all SDGs achievement (%) by generation |
|---|
Average perceived level of all SDGs achievement (%) as of 2024 |
Ⅳ. Closing Comment
The time on the Environmental Doomsday Clock has moved back consecutively 20 minutes in total from 9:47 in 2020, to 9:27 in 2024. While the time on the Clock went back in most regions of the world, it moved forward by 19 minutes in Western Europe. This is the time closest to midnight in Western Europe in the past 10 years. It is possible that the respondents were influenced by the extremely severe heatwaves and wildfires that hit Europe in 2023.
With regard to “Environmental Issues to be Taken into Account,” which are used to decide the time on the Clock, “Climate Change” was overwhelmingly selected by 30% of respondents in all regions, far exceeding the other options. This is the first time since the survey began, indicating that climate change is recognized as an urgent issue worldwide.
In 2024, we conducted a survey, from the three perspectives of “public awareness,” “policies and legal system,” and “social infrastructure,” on the issues of “Climate Change” and “Biodiversity Loss,” which are receiving high levels of attention among the global environmental issues.
Regarding the “transition to a decarbonized society” in Question 2-1, on a global scale, there is a tendency for the values indicating signs of improvement to be higher for “public awareness” compared to “policies and legal system” and “social infrastructure.”
As for the “progress in conservation and restoration of wildlife habitats” in Question 2-2, in all regions except China, many respondents believe that it is lagging in all aspects compared to “climate change.” The time on the Environmental Doomsday Clock for “Biosphere integrity (Biodiversity)” is 13 minutes ahead of that for “Climate Change,” indicating a higher sense of crisis for the issue of “biodiversity.” While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 and has been actively working on climate change, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) was not established until 2012, 24 years later. With IPBES receiving the Blue Planet Prize in 2024, there are high expectations for its future contributions.
We also asked questions on the level of realization of SDGs by 2030 in the respondents’ countries and regions. Although there were some regional differences regarding goals that will have the highest level of realization, most countries selected both “1. No Poverty” and “10. Reduced Inequalities” as goals that will have the lowest level of realization. A survey on the average perceived level of all SDG achievement as of 2024 towards the 2030 goals revealed that the average for people in their 50s and 60s was 26%, while the average for people in their 20s and 30s was 39%. This difference could be attributed to the fact that younger generations have access to more information and educational opportunities about the SDGs, and are actively working towards achieving them; they are more sensitive to changes in the world.
In conclusion, we have once again compiled a table summarizing the major environmental events that occurred around the world in the year preceding the survey response period. We hope you will find this table helpful as you interpret the results in this report.
We will continue using this current set of questions for some time. We appreciate your cooperation in participating in the survey again next year.
