Scientists Name Top 25 Environmental Threats of the Future
by Jeremy Elton Jacquot, Los Angeles 
on 03.30.08
Image courtesy of Clinton Steeds via flickr
More forecasting and critical evaluation, less dawdling on existing, well studied issues: that, in a nutshell, is the main recommendation made by a broad coalition of 35 scientists, environmentalists, journalists and policymakers, who were asked to put their collective brainpower together to draw up a list of the 25 future environmental threats that might arise in the U.K. up to 2050 (but could just as well apply to most countries around the world). The overriding message of their report, published in the latest issue of the Journal of Applied Ecology (sub. required), is that policymakers and researchers need to rely more on horizon scanning (i.e. forecasting) to identify the gaps in knowledge and policy that could predispose the country's biodiversity to future risks.
They criticize the short-sightedness of research administration and funding, which, they claim, often pushes scientists into competing for short-term interests at the cost of exploring new questions and which cripples communication between researchers and policymakers. This report, which helped foster the type of interdisciplinary communication the authors recommend, cites many of the same villains we've come to learn about over the last few years, including nanotechnology, geo-engineering and genetic engineering. Here's a partial list:
1. Nanotechnologies
2. Invasive potential and possible ecosystem impacts of artificial life and biomimetic robots
3. Unintended consequences of pathogens developed by modern biotechnology methods
4. Facilitation of non-native, invasive species through climate change and ‘invasional meltdown’
5. Frequency of extreme weather events
6. Geo-engineering the planet to mitigate the effects of climate change
7. Step change in demand for food and hence pressure on land for agriculture
8. Reduction of coldwater continental shelf marine habitats
9. Nature conservation policy and practice may not keep pace with environmental change
10. Adoption of monetary value as the key criterion in conservation decision-making
As they themselves recognize, many of these "threats" may turn out to be little more than hype (or, at best, minor issues); forecasting, by definition (especially in scientific circles), is a tricky game as there will always be missing pieces and because our scientific understanding will never be fully up to snuff. While many of these threats are likely to come to the fore over the coming decades (if not earlier), they might still constitute only a small fraction of the problems we will likely be dealing with in 2050.
Via ::New Scientist: Named: 25 environmental threats of the future (news website), ::Roland Piquepaille's Technology Trends: 25 environmental threats in our future (blog)
See also: ::Top 10 Threats to Oceans and Coasts in South America, ::Wind Turbines as Terrorist Threat: Yeah, Right
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Green Glossary: Intellectual Property
- Forget Going Green Because It's the Right Thing to Do—Go Green to Make Your Neighbors Jealous
- Build a Greenhouse without Going Broke
- Focus Earth: June 13, 2009: Everglades Nevermore and Snake Invaders
- Pearl Jam Offsets Their Tour: Rock Out Guilt-Free
- 5 Ways Climate Change Will Affect Your Health, Plus How to Cope
Interesting. I would put nanotechnologies on my list of greatest hopes when it comes to solving environmental issues.
Nanotechnologies are a danger because...
1) There are no laws or monitors of the science. Nobody is researching their effects longterm.
2) Creating something that is not naturally created from the environment means that there is nothing in nature to counteract it.
3) Nano...very small. And, easily ingestable. Does anyone think about what these things could do if they are breathed in?
So are they dangerous...or hypothetically dangerous?
Unbelievable! How come they missed the biggest threat that's been around for decades?...
POPULATION, you dummies!
Any efforts to preserve the environment and slow global warming are a waste of time unless we control and reduce human population.
I think it's not about nano-tech is inherently dangerous, but that the risks are underestimated by governments, people, etc. and overlooked.
Which is true, at least for me. I have a friend working in the field of nano-tech, with some sort of nano-powders (I'm not very good at this, so I didn't go into specifics). Surprise, but he is against nano-technologies, at least for now. Says we are unprepared to tackle consequences and don't have a safeguard mechanism tuned up specifically for nano-tech.
As an example, he cites some powders he works with as very penetrative as to human body. They enter your body and never leave it. How do they get there? With water, for example. Or you inhale it somewhere. How do these powders get into environment? Well, all the garbage, fuel floating in rivers, mercury and lead in Antarctic were not intended to end up there either.
Unbelievable! How come they missed the biggest threat that's been around for decades?...
POPULATION, you dummies!
Any efforts to preserve the environment and slow global warming are a waste of time unless we control and reduce human population.
This is depressing. I mean, what good has this article done other than make everyone who reads it depressed for the day and worried about impending doom? I mean, the last paragraph even says that much of what is on that list may never cause any harm whatsoever. So what's the point in telling us?
I have to agree with Williams on the population problem. Above all, most problems we encounter in today's world have population at it's roots.
I am glad they placed:
10. Adoption of monetary value as the key criterion in conservation decision-making
As a threat thought. It is a current existing one and the worst one of them all, since no other facets are seen when addressing an issue then the present costs, which in my opinion are much lower then the future costs of not acting.
If you look at some of them, some are pointing towards man made catastrophes. Maybe we can be on the lookout for people as well who will surely play a vital role in these environmental threats.