The term “zoonotic spillover” might sound either reassuringly geeky or deceptively innocuous — like a sticky mess involving a melted ice cream cone between the monkey cage and the aquarium. It refers, in reality, to one of the greatest dangers to humanity.
As such, it is neither more nor less menacing than climate change, but a direct consequence of it.
The word zoonosis comes from the Greek for “animal disease.” It applies to pathogens that can jump both between animals, and from them to us.
HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, hopped to humans from chimps, for example. Middle East respiratory syndrome spread to us from dromedary camels. Ebola probably came from apes, monkeys or bats, or all of them.
In similar ways, we have imported hundreds of other ills from the wild kingdom — not least SARS-CoV-2, which we also picked up from bats.
What does this have to do with climate change?
A lot. The more animals mingle — with other fauna or us — the more opportunities the pathogens they are hosting have to travel, mutate and spread, and global warming causes exactly such mingling.
As average temperatures rise, they change habitats. Wet areas become arid, cool or lush zones turn into deserts, and so forth. As a result, animals migrate out of their familiar surroundings and come in contact with many other species, most of which they have never before encountered.
A team working with Colin Carlson, a biologist at Georgetown University in Washington, has now used some very fancy math to model the contacts and cross-species virus transmission we can expect.
They have published the results in the journal Nature.
It makes for frightening reading.
Both the mingling and the transmission are already well underway, but will accelerate dramatically in our lifetime.
Even in the most conservative warming scenario, for example, we can expect another 15,000 viruses to hop among 3,000 species of mammals in the coming decades.
The main melting pots will not be the regions near the polar north or south, as might be expected, but the higher elevations of Asia and Africa.
Mammals play a starring role in this horror movie mainly because they are genetically close enough to us for their bugs to wreak havoc in our bodies.
Bats present a particular threat because they can fly and are thus able to migrate farther and faster. Brazilian free-tailed bats, for example, have spread throughout the southeastern US in recent years.
Global warming also abets pathogens in many other ways. For example, it causes a thaw of the permafrost. That frozen ground in northern latitudes is a vast arsenal of ancient viruses and bacteria. The frost has kept them away from wildlife so long, animals and people no longer have any immunity to them, but now they are coming out of their icy vaults.
There have been outbreaks of anthrax in Siberia after spores wafted out of ancient reindeer carcasses previously sealed in the ice.
We can expect much more of this sort of thing.
Can we do anything about all these threats?
Only up to a point.
We should certainly clamp down on deforestation — especially in the Amazon rainforest — which also forces species into involuntary contact with one another and us, and we should regulate and monitor wildlife markets, farms and other places where species jostle up against one another.
Above all, we should prepare for future epidemics and pandemics now.
For decades before COVID-19 arrived, various Cassandras told us to have a plan and make it global, but we largely ignored them, but the most urgent and important effort to which we must recommit is the struggle against climate change itself.
In the Paris Agreement of 2015, we collectively declared the ambition to keep global warming to a long-term increase of 1.5°C over temperatures in the 19th century. No chance. According to new projections by meteorologists, we are likely to breach that threshold by 2026.
From here on, every additional uptick on the thermometer also raises our risk of disease.
Andreas Kluth is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering European politics. A former editor-in-chief of Handelsblatt Global and a writer for The Economist, he is author of Hannibal and Me. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long been a cornerstone of US foreign policy, advancing not only humanitarian aid but also the US’ strategic interests worldwide. The abrupt dismantling of USAID under US President Donald Trump ‘s administration represents a profound miscalculation with dire consequences for global influence, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. By withdrawing USAID’s presence, Washington is creating a vacuum that China is eager to fill, a shift that will directly weaken Taiwan’s international position while emboldening Beijing’s efforts to isolate Taipei. USAID has been a crucial player in countering China’s global expansion, particularly in regions where
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
With the manipulations of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), it is no surprise that this year’s budget plan would make government operations difficult. The KMT and the TPP passing malicious legislation in the past year has caused public ire to accumulate, with the pressure about to erupt like a volcano. Civic groups have successively backed recall petition drives and public consensus has reached a fever-pitch, with no let up during the long Lunar New Year holiday. The ire has even breached the mindsets of former staunch KMT and TPP supporters. Most Taiwanese have vowed to use
Despite the steady modernization of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA), the international community is skeptical of its warfare capabilities. Late last month, US think tank RAND Corp published two reports revealing the PLA’s two greatest hurdles: personnel challenges and structural difficulties. The first RAND report, by Jennie W. Wenger, titled Factors Shaping the Future of China’s Military, analyzes the PLA’s obstacles with recruitment, stating that China has long been committed to attracting young talent from top universities to augment the PLA’s modernization needs. However, the plan has two major constraints: demographic changes and the adaptability of the PLA’s military culture.
RSS