Search the archive.

[Jean, “The proteomics contribution to the counter- bioterrorism toolbox in the post-COVID-19 era”, Expert Review of Proteomics, VOL. 17, published 2020, 507-511, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14789450.2020.1822745?scroll=top&needAccess=true]

The CBRNE acronym – for Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and high-yield Explosive weapons [1] – was proposed to designate the different types of threats counter-terrorism respon- ders could be faced with. These unconventional weapons have the capacity to create devastating casualties among soldiers and civi- lians, and significant disruption of societal services, while also destroying the very cohesion of States. Rapid and efficient detec- tion, and appropriate counter-measures, are essential if we are to mitigate these threats. Indeed, the consequences of an attack can only be significantly reduced by mounting an immediate and optimal response, which must be planned in advance. Unfortunately, the current world context of local and international conflicts, but also the trends in evolution of societies and human behavior, represent fertile ground for the development of higher- level risks. Among the C threats, priorities include biological toxins such as ricin and abrin, alongside chemical nerve agents and cyanide derivatives. The B threat corresponds to bacteria and viruses, living agents that can cause high mortality, are easily propagated, and are relatively resistant to classical antimicrobials or antivirals. The spore-forming bacterium Bacillus anthracis, responsible for acute infectious anthrax; the variola virus from the Orthopoxvirus genus, causing smallpox; and the Ebola Filovirus, which induces hemorrhagic fever, are just some exam- ples of the most awkward known biological agents (see https:// emergency.cdc.gov/agent/agentlist-category.asp for an updated list of high-priority agents by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). The Black Swan Theory formalized by Taleb [2] in the statistics field considers a rare, hard-to-predict event with such a disproportionate impact that it could significantly re-route human history. Compared to CRNE threats, the B threat could be considered to fall within the Black Swan Theory because of the potential for extensive amplification of some living agents and the disastrous consequences that a wide release scenario with a more infectious, pernicious variant would entail.

[Kavita, Associate Director of the Center for Science, Technology, and Security Policy at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, "Emerging and Enabling Technologies in Biodefense", National Library of Medicine, 3/31/19, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7123622/, accessed 7/8/22, GDI-cc]

Biotechnologies provide critical capabilities in the defense against natural and man-made threats. In health, new scientific discoveries and platforms contribute to the development of vaccines and medicines against pathogens, such as influenza A virus or Bacillus anthracis. Researchers’ ability to understand the relationship between pathogens and their hosts provide the information needed to create targeted vaccines and medicines. Similarly, scientists have begun applying synthetic biology tools and concepts to vaccine development, hoping to reduce the time involved in creating a vaccine against an emerging infectious disease and enabling rapid response efforts. More recently, investments in additive bio-manufacturing have provided new opportunities to print human tissues and organs, which in some laboratories, are being used to study the effects of pharmaceutical candidates before testing in animals or people. In addition, advances in knowledge gained from neuroscience and behavioral sciences provides new opportunities to understand and identify clinical interventions to prevent or treat various psychological disorders, such as post-traumatic stress disorder after return from military conflict.

[Kavita, Associate Director of the Center for Science, Technology, and Security Policy at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, "Emerging and Enabling Technologies in Biodefense", National Library of Medicine, 3/31/19, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7123622/, accessed 7/8/22, GDI-cc]

*MCM = medical countermeasures

[Brenda M. "Preserving the Fruits of Labor: Impediments to University Inventor Mobility," Tennessee Law Review 89, no. 1 (Fall 2021): 1-66 heinonline gdi-tm]

While not all technology licensees require the transmission of tacit knowledge for commercialization to be successful, the benefits of inventor involvement have been shown across a variety of technological fields, especially in the context of developing nascent research. 128 For example, Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer's discovery of recombinant DNA in 1973 was a fundamental breakthrough in biotechnology. 129 Any scientist who sought to understand the invention that would eventually launch the biotechnology industry would need to acquire significant experience with it. 130 Not surprisingly, both scientists were instrumental in translating the invention into practice, participating in the founding of two leading biotechnology firms.131 In the biotechnology realm, academic scientists helped contribute to the success of many firms through close, ongoing relationships that allowed for the transfer of their tacit knowledge.132 University inventors often conduct basic research and work on technology in its embryonic state, so a patent disclosure by itself is unlikely to adequately transfer the tacit knowledge necessary to facilitate development. 133 The groundbreaking discoveries from universities often allow for "natural excludability," meaning that any entity wanting to use these technologies will need to gain familiarity with the inventor's tacit knowledge related to them.134Much of the information about these paradigm-shifting inventions is never documented-it is within the mind of the inventor.135To facilitate the transfer of tacit knowledge, university inventors often form startups to commercialize their inventions. 136 After an academic scientist invents the technology, the university obtains a patent and then often licenses the technology to the startup for commercialization.137 By engaging the inventor directly, startups ensure that the tacit knowledge necessary for development can be conveyed in an ongoing relationship. 138 Both universities and the firms they work with recognize that ongoing inventor involvement is essential to commercialize technology evolving from basic university research.139

The text of the Paris Agreement says that warming should be constrained to well below two degrees Celsius. 1.5 degrees is an aspiration. It’s good to understand where that demand comes from; it has been a standing call from the folks in climate-vulnerable countries in the Global South, for whom the difference between 1.5 and 2 degrees is huge. The folks talking about 1.5 degrees have been marching through the halls of UN climate talks, chanting “1.5 to survive,” because for low-lying island states, warming of 1.5 degrees represents an existential threat. Currently we are on track for about 1.1 degrees Celsius of warming. That gives us a punishingly short window in which to meet even two degrees, which is a bit of a fabrication; there’s some debate about where the two-degree target came from. Some people credit that to the economist William Nordhaus, who is not the most reliable source on a lot of these things. But there’s something comforting about a target. There’s something comforting about saying that this thing that is happening is far-off, and that we can potentially avoid it. We have a bit of time, and two degrees gives us more time than 1.5 degrees. Reaching targets has been the popular goal. That’s what you see in the fossil fuel industry assessments. But the conversation about targets can sometimes obscure what’s actually happening. It’s not as if somebody who is living through a hurricane or a natural disaster will say, “Oh no, we’ve hit two degrees Celsius.” The climate crisis is playing out all around us. There’s not a point at which we cross the boundary toward a disastrous future. Every tenth of a degree of warming that we avoid makes an enormous amount of difference, saving on the order of tens of thousands of lives. If we cross 1.5 or even two degrees of warming, it’s not that we should all pack up, go home, and wait to die. There are still millions of lives that can be saved by preventing each additional tenth of a degree of warming.

A final consideration around feasibility is that the thresholds are not immutable laws—indeed, some historical cases prove that the chosen thresholds can be overcome. Two examples are the surge of gas-fired power in the Netherlands and nuclear power in France, which respectively surged from 5% to 80% and 25% to 75% of the power mix in one decade, surpassing the applied feasibility threshold in this study over tenfold. Since such historical examples of fast transitions are typically driven by public policy and support48, the feasibility analysis can also be interpreted as a mapping exercise of where policy support is strongly needed to overcome existing constraints, which is crucial for achieving stated climate targets as all models and scenarios in this study surpass several feasibility thresholds. Nevertheless, as the results show, this mapping strongly depends on the applied model: deep structural differences between models lead to a wide variety of pathways reaching the same climate targets and, hence, different policy interventions are necessary from different modelling perspectives to make these pathways feasible.

Discussion

What is the state of global food security today, and what is the role of climate change? The number of people suffering acute food insecurity increased from 135 million in 2019 to 345 million in 82 countries by June 2022, as the war in Ukraine, supply chain disruptions, and the continued economic fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic pushed food prices to all-time highs. Global food insecurity had already been rising, due in large part to climate phenomena. Global warming is influencing weather patterns, causing heat waves, heavy rainfall, and droughts. Rising food commodity prices in 2021 were a major factor in pushing approximately 30 million additional people in low-income countries toward food insecurity. At the same time, the way that food is often produced today is a big part of the problem. It’s recently been estimated that the global food system is responsible for about a third of greenhouse gas emissions—second only to the energy sector; it is the number one source of methane and biodiversity loss. Who is most affected by climate impacts on food security? About 80% of the global population most at risk from crop failures and hunger from climate change are in Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Southeast Asia, where farming families are disproportionally poor and vulnerable. A severe drought caused by an El Nino weather pattern or climate change can push millions more people into poverty. This is true even in places like the Philippines and Vietnam, which have relatively high incomes, but where farmers often live at the edge of poverty and food price increases have an outsized impact on poor urban consumers. How might climate change affect farming and food security in the future? Up to a certain point, rising temperatures and CO2 can be beneficial for crops. But rising temperatures also accelerate evapotranspiration from plants and soils, and there must also be enough water for crops to thrive. For areas of the world that are already water-constrained, climate change will increasingly cause adverse impacts on agricultural production through diminishing water supplies, increases in extreme events like floods and severe storms, heat stress, and increased prevalence of pests and diseases. Above a certain point of warming -- and particularly above an increase of 2 degrees Celsius in average global temperatures – it becomes increasingly more difficult to adapt and increasingly more expensive. In countries where temperatures are already extremely high, such as the Sahel belt of Africa or South Asia, rising temperatures could have a more immediate effect on crops such as wheat that are less heat tolerant. Without solutions, falling crop yields, especially in the world's most food-insecure regions, will push more people into poverty – an estimated 43 million people in Africa alone could fall below the poverty line by 2030 as a result.

Direct threats Infrastructure Sea-level rise and extreme weather are affecting both the military’s infrastructure and its supply chains. Installations and facilities near coasts are eroding and flooding. Damage to Fort Irwin after flooding Photo: LA District USACE In 2013, Fort Irwin in California experienced flash flooding that cost over $65 million in damages. In Virginia, the Norfolk Naval Station, the world’s largest naval base, experiences routine flooding during rainstorms and high tides. This impacts the Navy’s ability to conduct operations in the Atlantic Ocean, and hampers its work on ships and submarines in the shipyard. U.S. military bases on Guam and the Marshall Islands are also vulnerable to sea-level rise. Damage from 2018’s Hurricane Michael shut down Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida for months; rebuilding it was estimated to cost $3.6 billion. Rising temperatures and extreme precipitation at Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri can prevent stealth nuclear bombers from taking off. Airmen assessing damage at Tyndall after Hurricane Michael Photo: 621st Contingency Response Wing Global supply chains are also disrupted by extreme weather, which may hinder the military’s ability to access critical supplies. Technology sectors such as artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, and semiconductors are essential to U.S. national security. But in 2021, severe flooding in Malaysia, a major hub for semiconductor assembly and packaging, disrupted the supply chain, contributing to a global semiconductor shortage. Extreme weather makes outdoor training and military exercises difficult and can affect the maintenance and effectiveness of weapons systems and other equipment. This means existing and new equipment will need to be redesigned to enable it to operate in all climate conditions. Weather conditions can also limit the amount of land available for training and reduce water supplies. Heat waves and other extreme weather can decrease personnel productivity and impact military members’ health. Demand for military resources The physical impacts of climate change increase the frequency, scale, and complexity of defense operations and make them more costly. Because natural disasters are increasing, the military is being called on more frequently as first responders for disaster and humanitarian relief and must respond to situations beyond their usual scope. For example, between 2016 and 2021, the number of National Guard personnel days spent fighting wildfires increased by 162,000 as droughts have lengthened fire seasons. During Hurricane Sandy, the DOD helped distribute 6.2 million meals, 7.8 million gallons of fuel, medical supplies, and other staples.

July marked the initial deadline for the Pentagon and other federal agencies to draw up plans for potential climate risks, under an executive order by President Biden. Such plans are an essential first step, but the greater challenge for national security agencies is to continue to redirect their focus to changing climate conditions that pose a complex, two-pronged threat: social and political instability overseas and damage to U.S. infrastructure. Climate change is accelerating geopolitical tensions in many regions of core strategic interest to the United States. Increasingly destructive storms, rising seas and the melting Arctic are fueling global tensions, with nations bracing for mass migrations of displaced people and vying to take advantage of newly accessible natural resources. Changing climate patterns have become a catalyst for internal conflicts and international unrest, with severe droughts playing a role in setting the stage for the Syrian civil war and shrinking lake levels in Lake Chad contributing to widespread violence across the four African nations of the lake’s basin. Even in places where climate change has not sparked conflicts directly, it looms as a threat multiplier, exacerbating competition for food and water and worsening ethnic tensions. The Defense Department highlighted these risks earlier this year in its first climate and environmental security tabletop exercise, known as Elliptic Thunder. Set in East Africa and based on climate, economic and population forecasts, the multiagency exercise highlighted the extent to which climate change can worsen natural disasters and trigger regional instability, opening the door for strategic rivals and extremist groups to gain power. Closer to home, altered weather patterns and warming temperatures are battering military installations across the nation. From the devastating impacts of Hurricane Michael on Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida to the thawing and erosion in Alaska that is undermining the foundations of vital radar facilities, climate change is costing billions of dollars while degrading U.S. military readiness. More broadly, coastal surges, floods, heat waves and wildfires are exacting a toll on U.S. transportation networks and energy systems, threatening supply disruptions and increasing the cost and complexity of potential defense operations. As climate change becomes a central focus for national security policymakers, scientists are gaining new insights into the complex interconnections of Earth’s climate system. By collaborating with a range of stakeholders, they also are helping to develop actionable projections of climate impacts in specific regions. In one notable breakthrough, for example, a research team drew on the complex interactions of the ocean and atmosphere to demonstrate that changes in Arctic sea ice coverage can be predicted several years in advance. This is critical for U.S. security interests at a time when changing ocean circulation patterns and salinity are affecting how submarines maintain their stealthy features and track Russian and other activity in the warming Arctic. Russia is taking advantage of a warming climate to rearm in the Arctic, conducting high-profile military exercises in the region earlier this year and launching increasingly powerful icebreakers while President Vladimir Putin pledges to reinforce his nation’s presence in the region. Also looming are growing international tensions over trillions of dollars of natural resources that are becoming more accessible because of retreating sea ice. Looking further into the future, scientists are studying how storms are likely to shift later this century in ways that may lead to widespread flooding or lightning-induced wildfires in parts of North America and overseas regions. This type of research is critical for designing more resilient infrastructure and anticipating shifts in weather patterns that can displace vulnerable populations. To enhance understanding of how the climate is likely to change and the extent to which reductions in greenhouse gas emissions could lessen future impacts, the government must boost funding for science in ways that can support decision-makers. The research and analysis community needs more powerful supercomputers, next-generation observing tools such as advanced satellites and enhanced models of regional climate conditions, along with improvements to such cutting-edge techniques as artificial intelligence. Investments in climate research and analytics will more than pay for themselves by producing increasingly detailed and reliable projections of the climate threats the U.S. faces at the regional scale at which decisions are made and conflict arises. This will produce economic benefits as well, with private firms already generating jobs that provide climate risk services to many sectors of the economy, from real estate to banking.

If you’ve read the work of brave journalists in Mariupol this week, you know that the people of that city are trying to survive not just shelling by Russian forces. They are also trying to survive without water. This is, unfortunately, a recurrent feature of war. We witnessed it in Syria in 2016, for instance, when the residents of Aleppo, the northern city besieged by government forces, were deprived of running water. We saw it again the following year, when residents of the capital, Damascus, had their taps run dry as both sides in the war accused each other of damaging water infrastructure. In 2018, clashes between rival groups destroyed water tanks at a hospital near the city of Hodeidah, in Yemen. In 2019, Al Shabab, an extremist group, blew up a water tank in Somalia. These are documented in a logbook of human cruelty, published this week by an Oakland-based research group called the Pacific Institute. It’s called the Water Conflict Chronology, and it enumerates episodes throughout human history where access to water has triggered unrest or become a weapon of war. Sometimes water resources become what the report calls a “casualty” of conflict: Tankers are blown up, wells are poisoned. Climate change can intensify the risks. A hotter planet often makes dry places drier and hotter, supercharging competition over an already-scarce resource. How much of a role climate change plays in each conflict is hard to know, and, most certainly, poor management and rising demand for water play a role equally if not more important. But, said Peter Gleick, president emeritus of the Pacific Institute, who has studied water conflicts for decades, “climate change is unambiguously worsening the very conditions that contribute to water conflicts: drought, scarcity and inequities.” Water conflicts have gone up sharply in the last 20 years, the study found. My colleagues have written about many of them. Farmers and herders have clashed in parts of Africa over access to water, conflicts all the more acute in a region that has suffered from abnormally bad droughts. Antigovernment protests have erupted in Iran over scarce water. Water-sharing has riven several former Soviet states of Central Asia that straddle the Amu Darya River. Since 2000, Gleick pointed out, a fourth of the conflicts triggered by access to water have been in three water-scarce areas pummeled by global warming: the Middle East, South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Separately, the United Nations University estimated that 19 countries in Africa with a total population of 500 million people face water insecurity. At the top of that list are three countries that are no strangers to conflict: Chad, Niger and Somalia. Most nations on the continent face higher levels of risk to extreme weather events, that study adds, as climate change makes them more frequent and more severe, outpacing the countries’ ability to adapt. In wealthy countries, few places are feeling the impacts of climate change on the water supply as acutely as Gleick’s home state of California. The long-running drought affecting the Western United States is likely to go on through this spring, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Thursday. As my colleague Maggie Astor reported, most of California is returning to “severe” or “extreme” drought after a brief respite over the winter. In Central California, the fruit and nut basket of the country, the three-year precipitation total is “likely to be the lowest since modern record-keeping began in 1922,” Maggie reported.

Indirect threats Displacement and civil unrest Climate change also affects food and water security, degrades the environment, increases the spread of diseases, and disrupts essential services like electricity production. These impacts can drive migration. One study found that if we continue our fossil fuel use trajectory, the probability of multiple simultaneous droughts could increase from the late 20th century average by 40 percent by 2050 and 60 percent by late century. These droughts could potentially affect 120 million people around the world, triggering crop failures, threatening water supplies, and forcing people to migrate. The World Bank has warned that 143 million people particularly in South Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America could end up migrating due to climate impacts. Migrants detained after crossing the US southern border Photo: Thomas Cizauskas As migrants enter countries or regions unprepared to deal with them, tensions rise. As we already see on the U.S. southern border, migrants from Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, Venezuela, and other nations fleeing poverty, violence, and extreme weather are causing enormous political turmoil. Climate impacts contribute to poverty, social inequality, political instability, and violence. Weak governments have trouble meeting their people’s basic needs, so civil unrest increases. These conditions can lead to shifts in the regional balance of power or result in the failure of states. In some of these cases, the U.S. military may be called upon to come to the aid of its partners to restore stability Joshua Fisher, director of the Advanced Consortium on Cooperation, Conflict, and Complexity at Columbia Climate School, said that most of the conflicts he sees in the world are not directly driven by climate change. “What climate change is doing is impacting already vulnerable societies,” he said. “So if there are tensions, if there are large sectors of the population who are marginalized, by and large those same sectors of society are going to be impacted disproportionately by climate change. This opens up a mechanism where climate change can further marginalize and harm already vulnerable people. And that can be the mechanism that leads to increased conflict.”

[Luke, “Climate Endgame: Exploring catastrophic climate change scenarios,” PNAS, March 25, 2022, https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.2108146119]

There are four key reasons to be concerned over the potential of a global climate catastrophe. First, there are warnings from history. Climate change (either regional or global) has played a role in the collapse or transformation of numerous previous societies (37) and in each of the five mass extinction events in Phanerozoic Earth history (38). The current carbon pulse is occurring at an unprecedented geological speed and, by the end of the century, may surpass thresholds that triggered previous mass extinctions (39, 40). The worst-case scenarios in the IPCC report project temperatures by the 22nd century that last prevailed in the Early Eocene, reversing 50 million years of cooler climates in the space of two centuries (41).

While most of the impacts of climate change so far have fallen within the range of what was experienced during the Holocene, the rate of change is faster than in the Holocene and we are now beginning to see climate change push beyond these boundaries. In the latest edition of the planetary boundaries’ framework, climate change is placed in the zone of increasing risk, implying that while this boundary has been breached, there remains some potential for normal functioning and recovery (Steffen et al., 2015). It thus lies between what the authors identify as the ‘safe zone’ and other ‘high risk’ transgressions, such as disruption to the biochemical flows of nitrogen and phosphorus and loss of biosphere integrity. As part of their discussion of BRIHN Baum and Handoh (2014) note that climate change is the planetary boundary for which the risk to humanity has received most meaningful consideration and they suggest that this attention is deserved. Yet little research attention has been paid to climate change’s extreme or catastrophic effects. Kareiva and Carranza (2018) argue that, despite currently falling outside of the area of high risk, climate change has the clear potential to push humanity across a threshold of irreversible loss by “changing major ocean circulation patterns, causing massive sea-level rise, and increasing the frequency and severity of extreme events… that displace people, and ruin economies.” Even if humanity was resilient to each of these individual impacts, a global catastrophe could occur if these impacts were to occur rapidly and simultaneously. One scenario that has received comparatively more attention is that of the global climate crossing a tipping point that would trigger environmental feedback loops (such as declining albedo from melting ice or the release of methane from clathrates) and cascading effects (such as shifting rainfall patterns that trigger desertification and soil erosion). After this point, anthropogenic activity may cease to be the main driver of climate change, making it accelerate and become harder to stop (King et al., 2015). Other scenarios can be discerned from the numerous historical cases in which the modest, usually regional, climatic changes experienced during the Holocene have been implicated in the collapse of previous societies, including the Anasazi, the Tiwanaku, the Akkadians, the Western Roman Empire, the lowland Maya, and dozens of others (Diamond, 2005, Fagan, 2008). These provide a precedent for how a changing climate can trigger or contribute to societal breakdown. At present, our understanding of this phenomena is limited, and the IPCC has labelled its findings as “low confidence” due to a lack of understanding of cause and effect and restrictions in historical data (Klein et al., 2014). Further study and cooperation between archaeologists, historians, climate scientists and global catastrophic risk scholars could overcome some of these limitations by identifying how the impacts of climate change translate into social transformation and collapse, and hence what the impacts of more rapid and extreme climatic changes might be. There is also the potential for larger studies into how global climate variations have coincided with collapse and violence at the regional level (Zhang, Chiyung, Chusheng, Yuanqing, & Fung, 2005; Zhang et al., 2006). However, these need to be interpreted and generalized with care given the differences between pre-industrial and modern societies. Societies also have a long history of adapting to, and recovering from, climate change induced collapses (McAnany and Yoffee, 2009). However, there are two reasons to be sceptical that such resilience can be easily extrapolated into the future. First, the relatively stable context of the Holocene, with well-functioning, resilient ecosystems, has greatly assisted recovery, while anthropogenic climate change is more rapid, pervasive, global, and severe. Large-scale states did not emerge until the onset of the Holocene (Richerson, Boyd, & Bettinger, 2001), and societies have since remained in a surprisingly narrow climatic niche of roughly 15 mean annual average temperature (Xu, Kohler, Lenton, Svenning, & Scheffer, 2020). A return to agrarian or hunter-gatherer lifestyles could thus have more devastating and long-lasting effects in a world of rapid climate change and ecological disruption (Gowdy, 2020).7 Second, modern human societies may have developed hidden fragilities that amplify the shocks posed by climate change (Mannheim 2020) and the complex, tightly-coupled and interdependent nature of our socio-economic systems makes it more likely that the failure of a few key states or industries due to climate change could cascade into a global collapse (Kemp, 2019). A third set of plausible scenarios stem from climate change’s broader environmental impacts. Apart from being a planetary boundary of its own, Steffen et al. (2015) point out that climate change is intimately connected with other planetary boundaries (see Table 1). Climate change is thus identified by the authors as one of two ‘core’ boundaries with the potential “to drive the Earth system into a new state should they be substantially and persistently transgressed.” This transformative potential was elaborated on in subsequent work exploring how the world could be pushed towards a ‘Hothouse Earth’ state, even with anthropogenic temperature rises as low as 2 ◦C (Steffen et al., 2018). The connection between climate change and biosphere integrity (the survival of complex adaptive ecosystems supporting diverse forms of life) is particularly strong. The IPCC is highly confident that climate change is adversely impacting terrestrial ecosystems, contributing to desertification and land degradation in many areas and changing the range, abundance and seasonality of many plant and animal species (Arneth et al., 2019). Similarly, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) has reported that climate change is restricting the range of nearly half the world’s threatened mammal species and a quarter of threatened birds, with marine, coastal, and arctic ecosystems worst affected (Diaz et al., 2019). According to one estimate, climate change could cause 15–37 % of all species to become ‘committed to extinction’ by mid-century (Thomas et al., 2004). Disruption to biosphere integrity can have profound economic and social repercussions, ranging from loss of ecosystem services and natural resources to the destruction of traditional knowledge and livelihoods. For instance, desertification, which threatens a quarter of Earth’s land area and a fifth of the population, is already estimated to cost developing nations 4–8 % of their GDP (United Nations, 2011). Many other rapid regime shifts involving loss of biosphere integrity have been observed, including shifts in arid vegetation, freshwater eutrophication, and the collapse of fish populations (Amano et al. 2020). There is a theoretical possibility of still more profound regime shifts at the global level (Rocha, Peterson, Bodin, & Levin, 2018). However, the contribution of loss of biosphere integrity to GCR is yet to be assessed. Kareiva and Carranza (2018) argue that it is unlikely to threaten human civilization, due both to a lack of plausible mechanisms for this threat and the fact that “local and regional biodiversity is often staying the same because species from elsewhere replace local losses.” However, in their classification of GCRs, Avin et al. (2018) suggest the potential for ecological collapse to threaten the safety boundaries of multiple critical systems with diverse spread mechanisms at a range of scales, from the biogeochemical and anatomical to the ecological and sociotechnological. Note that both these studies were conducted for largely conceptual purposes and should not be taken as rigorous analyses of this risk, this topic warrants further investigation.

[Kerstin and Su Jung, “Knowledge for a warmer world: A patent analysis of climate change adaptation technologies”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change Volume 183, October 2022, Elsevier, 7/18/2024 GDI ACN] 

Climate change poses an existential threat to human livelihoods (Bellprat et al., 2019, Ornes, 2018). Recent extreme weather events have demonstrated the immediate need for significant adaptations driven by technological innovation to help communities adjust to these new climatic conditions (IPCC, 2018). For instance, technological innovation plays an important role in addressing this challenge (Ferreira et al., 2020, Dechezlepretre et al., 2020): climate-smart agriculture could help communities to adapt to droughts, floods, and increasing threats of pest infestation (Kuhl, 2020, Adenle et al., 2015); new types of hazard defense and weather prediction tools help protect infrastructure and human lives from storms, floods, and heatwaves (UNFCCC, 2006); water conservation and catchment technologies help address water scarcity (Conway et al., 2015); vaccines, new drugs, and preventive public health inventions strengthen people’s resistance against infectious diseases and heatwave-induced risks that become more prevalent under climate change (Guo et al., 2018, Caminade et al., 2019). Alongside nature-based solutions and behavioral changes, adaptation technologies are needed to cope with current and future climate risks (UNFCCC, 2006, UNEP, 2021).

The opportunities presented by green technologies are vast. Economically, they open new markets and create jobs, as highlighted by Apptension. These technologies also foster business innovation, enabling companies to develop new products and services that meet growing consumer demand for sustainability. Environmentally, green technologies significantly reduce carbon emissions and resource consumption, contributing to the fight against climate change and environmental degradation. Socially, they improve the quality of life by providing access to cleaner air and water. Additionally, they offer a path to achieving global sustainability goals at the national level. These opportunities can bring economic growth and serve as a step towards a more sustainable and equitable world.

[Nabila, Muhammad Salman Shabbir – department of management, Huaming Song – school of economics and management, Muhammad Umar Farrukh – department of economics, Shahid Iqbal – College of economics and management, Kashif Abbass – School of economics and management, “A step towards environmental mitigation: do green technological innovation and institutional quality make a difference”, TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE Elsevier, V. 190, May 2023, Acc. 7/18/24] GDI-AG]

Climate change and environmental sustainability have led to very critical economic problems in recent years. The primary factor causing global warming and climate change is greenhouse gas emissions. In environmental literature, carbon emissions have been observed as the major part of greenhouse gases (Adams and Nsiah, 2019). International Energy Agency (IEA) claims the increasing fuel consumption of fossil has increased CO2 emission, necessitating a quick transition in order to decrease this emission and meet sustainable targets (IEA, 2021). In order to address the effects of Climate change, 26 Conferences of the Parties (COP) have taken place internationally since the founding of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The Paris Agreement (COP21) is one of them, and it aims to bring together collective global initiatives led by world leaders to limit global temperature increases to below 2 °C during the pre-industrial era and to promote further steps not to exceed 1.5 °C in order to combat increasing climate attrition (Abbasi et al., 2022). To preserve the survival of humanity and the planet, the vow to prevent global warming calls for intense focus and a prompt reaction. The adaptation and mitigation strategies were just reaffirmed at COP 26 in Glasgow. The specific attention was focused on reducing fossil fuel consumption since world leaders recognized that it is a major contributor to global warming (COP26, 2021). As a result, many nations have made reducing carbon emissions a top priority, and the development of green technology innovation is performing an inexorably important role in the transformation of the financial system (Abbasi et al., 2022). A new technology breakthrough that can lower energy consumption, reduce emissions of pollutants, better the environmental standard, and help the building of a greener future is referred to as a green technological innovation (Acheampong et al., 2022). The use of technical methods to create environmentally friendly products that use less energy and diminish environmental pollution is referred to as green technological innovation. Green technology innovation can be seen in clean energy production, the consumptions of alternative energy resources, and technological advancements that are not very harmful to the environment as fossil fuels (Wen et al., 2022). Additionally, green innovation helps governments to maximize their utilization of renewable resources and advances renewable energy (Usman and Hammar, 2021). Environmental emissions are said to be reduced and long-term sustainable development is said to be accomplished through the development of green technology and sources of renewable energy in developing nations (Ulucak, 2021). Contributions towards the development of green technology can therefore increase the sustainability of production and economic activity and offer a viable remedy for the reduction of carbon emissions in developing nations.

Green technologies broadly encompass innovations focused on environmental enhancement and resource efficiency. They range from renewable energy solutions, like solar and wind power, to advanced waste management solutions and eco-friendly materials. Central to their design is a commitment to sustainability, aiming to minimise ecological footprints, conserve resources, and promote energy efficiency. These technologies are crucial in addressing global environmental challenges such as climate change and resource scarcity, marking a significant shift from traditional practices to sustainable alternatives. Green technologies also embody a transformative approach to business and economics. They offer new opportunities for growth and development, challenging traditional business models and promoting sustainable business operations. This shift is evident in the rise of green tech startups and investments in sustainable innovations. However, the journey of green technologies is not without challenges. Issues such as high initial costs, technological limitations, and regulatory hurdles continue to pose significant barriers to their advancement and application. Despite these challenges, the relentless advancement and adoption of green technology signals a promising direction for a sustainable future. Green technologies in 2024 will be diverse, catering to various aspects of sustainability. Renewable energy technologies for energy production, such as solar and wind power, are at the forefront, offering alternatives to fossil fuels. Greenly highlights the increasing importance of these energy sources. Energy efficiency technologies, focusing on reducing energy consumption in buildings and industries, are also critical. Green transportation technologies, including electric vehicles and sustainable public transit systems, are gaining momentum. Furthermore, waste management technologies are revolutionising the way we handle waste, turning it into sustainable resources or energy. In addition, green fuels which are fuels extracted from animal and plant materials. Lastly, sustainable materials are replacing traditional, non-renewable materials in the construction industry. These varied types of technologies underscore the comprehensive scope they can have in addressing environmental challenges.

[Jesse, “Dismantling Roadblocks to a Sustainable Transition,” Environmental Law Reporter 54.1, GDI-JCR]

Our future depends on a full of transition to a sustainable economy. Entrepreneurs of sustainable startup businesses (green startups) help lead this transition,3 daring us to reimagine every aspect of the current economic order. Entrepreneurship, however, is no easy task, with approximately 75% of new U.S. businesses in the past couple of decades failing within 15 years of their founding.' Sustainable entrepreneurship is even more daunting-much has already been written, for instance, about the significantly greater market challenges and longer pathways to commercial viability for climate technology startups5 than for more traditional software startups, including an investor landscape ill-suited to support their growth.7 Yet relatively little has been written about the legal and policy challenges facing green startups that can underlie the market challenges. This Article aims to fill an important gap in the literature by seeking both to identify some of the most critical legal and policy challenges facing green startups in the United States and to propose potential solutions to these challenges. In particular, it focuses on legal and policy challenges that are either distinct to green startups or more relevant to green startups than to non-green startups. It begins with a discussion of why such a gap needs to be filled in the first place, including a brief literature survey highlighting the dearth of coverage of the topic and why a targeted focus is warranted. Part II continues by describing the results and significance of original primary research9 on the topic that includes interviews, surveys, and focus groups with chief executive officers (CEOs) of early-stage green startups, along with senior law firm partners with significant experience advising green startups, law firm pro bono counsel, law firm pro bono staff, and senior directors at nonprofit legal aid groups. Part III offers recommendations, based in significant part on the results of the focus group sessions, for addressing some of the legal and policy challenges for green startups identified in the primary research Part IV concludes. Whereas there is at least a small pool of literature covering the legal and policy challenges facing U.S. startups generally," there is a relative dearth of coverage specific to the challenges facing U.S. green startups." Aside from Lisa LeSage's analysis of state and local regulatory obstacles facing small and emerging sustainable businesses, much of which primarily focuses on businesses in Oregon,12 the existing literature covers only tangential topics, such as substantial discussion of law and policy issues related to green technology,13 including clean energy innovation14 and energy storage technology15 in particular, as well as law and policy issues related to clean energy development.16 What relevant coverage otherwise exists primarily focuses on green startups globally and in other countries, and offers a more limited examination of legal and policy issues related to the barriers facing green startups. 17 Yet, in interviews and surveys with 20 law firm partners18 and green startup CEOs with experience advising and working at, respectively, both green and non-green startups, over 70% agreed that there was a distinction between the most critical legal challenges facing green startups versus those faced by non-green startups, warranting a closer look into this topic.19 The importance of green startups for addressing the existential threat of the climate crisis and related ecological crises also further justifies a focused analysis on what may be most helpful for addressing these challenges in the green startup context.

[“Green technology transfer: Unlocking the Potential: Green Technology Transfer for Startups,” 6/4/24, https://fastercapital.com/content/Green-technology-transfer--Unlocking-the-Potential--Green-Technology-Transfer-for-Startups.html, GDI-JCR]

In the realm of startups, the transfer of green technologies is not merely a transaction but a transformative process that can redefine market landscapes. This transfer involves a multifaceted exchange of knowledge, rights to use patented technologies, and the actual handover of environmentally friendly technologies. It's a pathway that enables emerging companies to leapfrog to the forefront of sustainable innovation, often necessitating strategic alliances with established entities possessing the requisite technological prowess.

An efficient intellectual property market provides the basis for the national economy's scientific and technological progress and sustainable development. Moreover, the formation of the intellectual property market precedes the transformation of intellectual capital into a strategic asset of enterprises. Thus, it becomes a key prerequisite for the implementation of an innovative model of economic development. Adopting intellectual activity results in a commercial turnover. Their further effective application in the real sector of the economy guarantees the competitiveness of both individual economic entities in the domestic market and the national economy on a global scale. The diverse experience of various developed countries convincingly demonstrates that commercialization of intellectual property plays a crucial role in ensuring economic turnover of intellectual assets, accumulation of intellectual capital, innovative modernization of social production, and full realization of national scientific and technological potential under the post-industrial transformation of the global economy.