The latest policy, research and news on global catastrophic risk (GCR).
When it comes to worst-case scenarios, four big threats tend to dominate the discussion: nuclear war, climate change, pandemics and artificial intelligence. Once in a while, someone in the back raises their hand to call out threats from above, like asteroids. Other times, volcanologists like to remind us of the threats that arise from deep in the Earth’s crust. And don’t forget about ‘the big one’ – the risk of a massive earthquake and tsunami in the US Pacific Northwest.
Take a recent Economist article, which plays with ten scenarios for 2025 that sound implausible to most people. Of the ten, five had global catastrophic risk written all over them: a new global pandemic, a nuke in space, a shifting of ocean currents in the North Atlantic, a major volcanic eruption, and a solar storm. (If you’re less enamoured with science, the New York Post’s analysis of Nostradamus’s predictions for 2025 won’t provide much comfort either.) It is difficult to not be guided by what we’ve seen before or know exists today.
But a good risk manager is kept up at night not by what they know about, but what they don’t. Military analysts call them strategic surprises. Statisticians call them tail events. Nassim Taleb called them black swans. Donald Rumsfeld called them unknown unknowns. Whichever term takes your fancy, the reality is the same: we are wading into a misty future with blindfolds on. The only way we’ll make it through is a bit of luck, a lot of pluck and plenty of imagination of what could be around the corner.
Reflecting on the mirror organism

A diverse group of scientists have conducted an assessment of the technical feasibility of creating mirror bacteria along with the potential risk it creates (see also accompanying Science paper). Where organisms on Earth are based on “right-handed” DNA and RNA to carry genetic information and “left-handed” proteins as the building blocks of the cells, mirror organisms flip this system. It is a function of evolution, so mirror organisms could not evolve from existing life. But it could become technically feasible in about a decade given scientific advancements.
The concern is how mirror organisms could interact with life on Earth. Mirror viruses are not an issue because they could not fit our biochemistry – the human body would not recognize them. However, this new study shows that mirror bacteria might be able to evade defensive mechanisms. It would be, in effect, an invasive species.
According to the report, it “appears plausible, even likely, that sufficiently robust mirror bacteria could spread through the environment unchecked by natural biological controls and act as dangerous opportunistic pathogens in an unprecedentedly wide range of other multicellular organisms, including humans.”
Policy comment: Given that the benefits or opportunities from mirror bacteria are very limited, the risk-reward equation is heavily tilted towards preventing mirror bacteria altogether. Governments should develop a clear policy position, including restrictions on research and development, international engagement and governance, systems for monitoring and oversight, and updating of biosecurity policies and processes. The scientists are unequivocal; they believe that no mirror bacteria and other mirror organisms be created and that research with the goal of creating mirror bacteria not be permitted. Policymakers should consider directing their scientific research organizations to conduct their own risk assessment and analysis of future trends of mirror organisms.
Avoiding a toxic lifestyle

Evidence continues to accumulate that chemical toxicity is harming human, animal, insect and environmental health to potentially catastrophic long-term effect. Meanwhile, countries failed to finalize negotiations on a global plastic treaty, and major hurdles remain. The OECD has found that only a comprehensive and stringent approach in all countries could effectively end plastic leakage by 2040.
A new scientific article reviews the various impacts of microplastic particles on humans from before birth to accumulation throughout life and even to re-entry into different ecosystems after death. Harms from microplastic particles include early human development, male and female fertility, cardiovascular health and cancer.
A number of just-released studies look at the impact of plastic and chemical pollution in the food supply chain. A recent Nature study found 3601 food contact chemicals – those arising from storing, packaging, processing or serving food – were found in human samples. This equates to 25% of the 14,402 known food contact chemicals, many of which presented hazards of concern and some that have never been tested for toxicity. Another study finds that the effect of nano and micro-plastics on pollination and biocontrol services might further exacerbate food insecurity caused by climate change and environmental harm. A review of the impact of chemical pesticides finds the accumulation of chemicals amplifies the potential for adverse health outcomes, including acute poisoning, cancer and neurological disorders. A fourth article reviews the state of the research on the impact of pesticide on pollinators.
Policy comment: Toxicity rarely appears in discussions around global catastrophic risk. This is probably due to toxicity not presenting a singular catastrophic event; it is more of a boring apocalypse. However, toxicity’s direct and indirect harm could lead to or exacerbate catastrophic risk due its impact on human health, fertility rates, pollinator and insect numbers, food and water quantity and quality, climate change, and broader ecological damage. Given the state of global and regional approaches, countries might need to take their own measures. Policymakers will need to deal with data limitations, intellectual property protections, access to corporate research and information, and the lack of legal or institutional frameworks to mandate testing or enforce restrictions. A starting point for policymakers: safety evaluations of high-use chemicals, a precautionary principle for new chemicals, phasing out of plastics and harmful substances, and investments into alternatives.
Also see:
The numbers around chemical production. There are around 350,000 chemicals registered, though around 40,000-60,000 are currently on the global market. About 6,000 chemicals account for more than 99 percent of the total volume, and global chemical production is expected to double by 2030 compared to 2017 levels. Fewer than 30 per cent of all chemicals have undergone significant safety evaluation. Thousands of new chemicals are registered every year.
Protecting the coop
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) – an independent agency of the US Congress that examines government efficiency and effectiveness – will review federal Continuity of Operations (COOP) in the context of global catastrophic risk. COOP is the planning, programs and policies to ensure that critical functions and services continue to operate during a catastrophic national emergency. See the letter that initiated this review from Mark Green, Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, and Dina Titus, Ranking Member of Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Policy comment: COOP is important for a range of catastrophic scenarios, and is one of the government’s last lines of defense for the unexpected or uncertain. In the US, COOP was designed during the Cold War for the threat of nuclear conflict. So it will need upgrading for 21st century threats. Still, the US is already a world-leader in its COOP arrangements, and this review will position the US even better for global catastrophic risk. Countries around the world must follow the US’s lead by reviewing their own COOP arrangements, including maintaining essential functions, ensuring leadership and decision-making, surging and deploying personnel, developing and maintaining facilities and supplies, ensuring governmental and national communications, and testing and training of the COOP program.
Also see:
The newly released 2050 Strategic Foresight report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Hiring for Global Shield – this time in Australia
Another new exciting opportunity has opened up at Global Shield! Just as we close the round of applications for a US director, we are hiring for a director of our Australia office. Reporting to the Executive Director, this person will be responsible for advancing our mission with Australian policy, engaging with governmental agencies, fostering relationships with strategic partners, and building Global Shield’s credibility and reach. See more information and the application link here.
This briefing is a product of Global Shield, the world’s first and only advocacy organization dedicated to reducing global catastrophic risk of all hazards. With each briefing, we aim to build the most knowledgeable audience in the world when it comes to reducing global catastrophic risk. We want to show that action is not only needed, it’s possible. Help us build this community of motivated individuals, researchers, advocates and policymakers by sharing this briefing with your networks.