Global scientists urge immediate deployment of microbial solutions to combat climate change, calling for a task force to facilitate widespread implementation.
In a crucial step leading up to COP29, Applied Microbiology International (AMI) has joined forces with prominent global scientific organizations to issue a unified call to action, emphasizing microbial solutions as key to addressing climate change.
In a strategic publication, released in multiple high-impact scientific journals at once, the joint paper advocates for the establishment of a global science-driven climate task force. This initiative aims to expedite the deployment of microbiome technologies, providing stakeholders worldwide with access to effective and immediate solutions.
Signatories of the paper, ‘Microbial solutions must be deployed against the climate catastrophe’ are led by AMI president Professor Jack Gilbert and ISME president Dr Raquel Peixoto who won AMI’s inaugural Rachel Carson Prize in 2023.
The paper is published in AMI journal Sustainable Microbiology alongside journals published by the Federation of European Microbiology Societies (FEMS), the International Society for Microbial Ecology (ISME), the American Society for Microbiology (ASM), and Springer-Nature.
Urgent Call for Practical Measures
“By publishing simultaneously across journals like an emergency bulletin, we are not merely making a plea for awareness about climate change. Instead, we are demanding immediate, tangible steps that harness the power of microbiology and the expertise of researchers and policymakers to safeguard the planet for future generations,” the authors stated.
Gilbert said: “Our planet’s climate crisis demands bold, immediate action. Microbial solutions offer us a transformative approach—harnessing nature’s own processes to capture carbon, reduce greenhouse gases, and restore ecosystems. We have the tools, we just need the will and the funding to start deploying these microbial technologies at a scale that can safeguard our future. We are calling on global leaders, industries, and policymakers to join us in mobilizing these scientific solutions, moving swiftly from promise to practice.”
The authors warned that while a multitude of promising microbe-based solutions to the climate crisis have been proposed, these solutions have not been deployed effectively at scale.
Overcoming Obstacles to Microbial Deployment
To counteract this inaction, the authors emphasize the necessity for a collaborative effort involving industry, funders, and policymakers. They advocate for coordinated action to ensure the widespread implementation of these microbial solutions, aiming to avert a climate catastrophe. This collective plea from academics, scientific societies, institutions, editors, and publishers urges the global community and governments to take immediate and decisive emergency action. Additionally, they propose a clear and effective framework for deploying these solutions at scale, highlighting the urgent need for a united response to the climate crisis.
“The multifaceted impacts of climate change on the environment, health, and global economy demand a similar, if not more urgent and broader, mobilization of technologies as observed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
“To facilitate the use of microbiome-based approaches and drawing from lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic, we advocate for a decentralized yet globally coordinated strategy that cuts through bureaucratic red tape and considers local cultural and societal regulations, culture, expertise, and needs. We are ready to work across sectors to deploy microbiome technologies at scale in the field.”
Reference: “Microbial solutions must be deployed against climate catastrophe” by Raquel Peixoto, Christian R Voolstra, Lisa Y Stein, Philip Hugenholtz, Joana Falcao Salles, Shady A Amin, Max Häggblom, Ann Gregory, Thulani P Makhalanyane, Fengping Wang, Nadège Adoukè Agbodjato, Yinzhao Wang, Nianzhi Jiao, Jay T Lennon, Antonio Ventosa, Patrik M Bavoil, Virginia Miller and Jack A Gilbert, 11 November 2024, Sustainable Microbiology.
DOI: 10.1093/sumbio/qvae029
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
Follow us on Google and Google News.
17 Comments
I don’t remember any microbial climate change solutions, and the article didn’t mention one, so I think it missed a step.
Just a reminder, anyone releasing pathogens into the biosphere has total liability for any damage they cause or are deemed to have caused, not to mention the likelihood of facing angry pitchfork-wielding people like farmers. Just because you have a tool doesn’t mean you should use it. It may not do what you think it will, or it may do things you don’t think it will (especially live organisms), or it might be the wrong tool for the job, and even the job itself might be wrong. For example, instead of microbial, why not use virus climate change solutions?
There is more that scientists don’t know about the earth’s climate than what they do know. Letting people mess around with nature, especially something that could kill all life on the planet because they think they can is dangerous and foolish.
Unfortunately, climate change will be considered a hoax and treated as such for the next four years.
Probably for good reason. I consistently post issues with papers and press releases that are published here. I have yet to have anyone demonstrate I have said anything that can be disproven, or even offer a cogent alternative hypothesis to seriously question my conclusions.
It seems that your opinion is based entirely on your politics, rather than science.
I don’t like Trump one bit and I still think climate change is a hoax. In fact, I know so.
WE have ever more severe storms plus constantly expanding deserts which prove Climate Change DOES EXIST!
Yet this does NOT PROVE this proposed solution will work as advertised. There needs to be much better public data released BEFORE we approve it to proceed.
“We have the tools, we just need the will and the funding to start deploying these microbial technologies at a scale that can safeguard our future.”
They left out the ‘hubris’ to think that some unspecified microbial technology is affordable, without risk, and more effective than anything that has been tried.
When a commercial organization makes a plea for funding, it makes me suspicious that they are more interested in their first public stock offering than they are in actually saving the world. On the other hand, they may well be dealing with a group Messiah Complex, and actually think that their unspecified ‘solutions’ will actually work, if … Basically, this sounds more like an investment prospectus than a scientific assessment.
“and more effective than anything that has been tried.”
Has anything been tried on a scale that would resolve the problem, assuming that the problem is a problem?
Not really. The latest effort is to reduce anthropogenic methane emissions by 30%, rationalized by the ‘fact’ that methane has a shorter life span than CO2. However, the official position is clouded with a lot of misinformation.
See this:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/06/the-misguided-crusade-to-reduce-anthropogenic-methane-emissions/
“J.A.G. is a Scientific Advisory Board Member for Oath Inc. The other authors declare no competing interests.”
No competing interests? Should their editorial result in the effect they desire, the value of the ‘Sustainable Microbiology’ journal will increase and grants would become more readily available for researchers in the microbiology field. This is NOT an example of “the disinterested observer” engaging in fundamental, objective research. It is, rather, the opinions of advocates for a particular approach to ‘solve’ a contentious issue that many see as a problem.
For a scientist, that is a tad naive.
Writing papers in different formats about the same topic is an art-form. The more papers one writes, the more one’s publication list grows and the more amenable are grant-giving bodies to one’s next project to write yet more papers to get another grant. That, too, is a vested interest in self-promotion so as to be paid an income.
Interestingly, these ‘experts’ make no mention of how ubiquitous man-made antibiotics have become in the environment, and the role antibiotics may play in cloud formation and precipitation. This leads me to further question their objectivity.
Four on this one? It’s healthy to diversify one’s hobbies.
I do wish I had more time for my actual hobbies! However, when the Vandals are at the city gates and climbing the walls, it is not prudent to kick back and take a break. We live in a society that is generally more concerned about what or who Taylor Swift is doing, or how well the athletic team for their home town is doing, than they are with the science and technology that provides them with their unprecedented standard of living. Without someone pushing back against what passes for science in climatology, society is at risk of making serious mistakes. Thus, I might find that I no longer have the luxury of criticizing poor research and grifters trying to take advantage of alarm raised by people who don’t actually understand science, because I will be too busy trying to find food.
If someone, such as yourself, can either provide a similar service to society, or definitively prove that I’ve become senile, then I don’t think that I can ignore obvious errors in the published science.
There’s nothing to change. The planet is just returning to normal after the flood and coinciding ice age. Regardless, it has been preordained that this planet, and the universe, will perish.
“More technology” won’t solve any problem caused by technology without creating more problems down the line.
Leave the climate alone. Whatever is causing it to act a bit weirdly these days, it will sort itself out on its own.
Spencer’s Third Law: For every societal action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, commonly called “unintended consequences.”