In 1947, members of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists created the notorious “Doomsday Clock,” a symbolic representation of humanity’s impending doom. The clock inches forward when climate change accelerates and turns back when wars end; midnight represents catastrophe. The clock is not an empirical tool, but rather a measurement of societal urgency — how desperately a change of course is needed. Perceptions of how urgent societal ills are differ greatly, exemplified by the competing temporal frameworks adopted by the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the World Social Forum (WSF) in their attempts to address pressing social issues — namely, the climate crisis. The forums’ ability to alter perceptions of urgency on the global stage represents a form of temporal power that enables them to negotiate the pacing of political change. In the 21st century, power continues to operate through the geopolitical coordination of military strength, material extraction, and territorial gain. The institutions that dictate the pace of this coordination control what global issues require urgency, who must take action, and how swift the change must be. The WEF maintains that change must be gradual, long-term, and negotiated, whereas the WSF deems gradualism reductive and irresponsible to those suffering without intervention. The WSF was designed as an alternative to the hierarchical neoliberal order upheld by the WEF, which works to “improve the state of the world through public-private cooperation.” In Davos, Switzerland, where the WEF meets annually, heads of state, CEOs, and technocrats convene to discuss technological innovations, smart cities, and the transformation of the global workforce. The WSF, on the other hand, brings together grassroots organizers, human-rights activists, and marginalized voices who engage in global politics outside of elite-centric discussion spaces. The 2026 edition, which will be hosted in Cotonou, Benin, is organized around themes like resource governance, the