Invasive species cost trillions in damages, say researchers
Since 1960, damage from non-native plants and animals expanding into new territory has cost society more than $2.2 trillion, 17 times higher than previous estimates, they reported in the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution.
The accelerating spread of invasive species -- from mosquitoes to wild boar to tough-to-eradicate plants -- blights agriculture, spreads disease and drives the growing pace of species extinction.
Earlier calculations based on highly incomplete data were already known to fall far short of reality.
To piece together a more accurate picture, an international team of researchers led by Ismael Soto, a scientist at the University of South Bohemia in the Czech Republic, compiled data on 162 invasive species whose costs have been well documented in at least a handful of countries.
They then modelled the economic impact for 78 other countries such as Bangladesh and Costa Rica, for which no data was previously available.
"We expected an underestimation of invasion costs, but the magnitude was striking," Soto told AFP.
Due mainly to high volumes of trade and travel, tens of thousands of animal and plant species have taken root, sometimes literally, far from their places of origin.
Europe is by far the continent most affected by the phenomenon, followed by North America and Asia.
"Plants were the most economically damaging group, both for damage and management," Soto said. "Cost hotspots include urban coastal areas, notably in Europe, eastern China, and the US."
Animals can cause devastating damage too.
Wild boar, for example, destroy crops, cornfields and vineyards, while mosquitoes -- with expanding ranges due to global warming -- impose direct costs to human health by spreading diseases such as dengue and malaria.
Another example is Japanese knotweed, an invasive plant that is very common in Europe and requires costly eradication programmes.
"Our study is based on only 162 species," Soto noted. "Our figure is probably still an underestimate of a wider problem, and therefore the real economic costs could be even higher."
Using a broader definition -- including indirect costs such as lost income -- the UN's biodiversity expert group, IPBES, has calculated the total cost to society of invasive species at about $400 billion annually.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Zawya
9 hours ago
- Zawya
AI will replace most humans, but then what?: Jen
(The opinions expressed here are those of the author, the CEO and co-CIO of Eurizon SLJ asset management.) LONDON - Is technology more job augmenting or job replacing? This has been a long-standing debate. But recent academic work suggests that technology has been a net destroyer of jobs for decades. Artificial intelligence and robotics could rapidly accelerate this trend, with significant implications for inflation, the size of government and U.S.-China relations. Over the long arc of history, technological advances have enabled industries to emerge, as workers, released from "older" jobs by machines, have been able to transition into newer ones. Indeed, 60% of workers today are employed in occupations that did not exist in 1940, or 74 percent if we consider just the professional category, which added the most workers during the past eight decades. However, recent academic research suggests we may have reached an inflection point in the U.S., whereby technology is now destroying more jobs than it is creating. David Autor, an economist at MIT and winner of the 2005 John Clark Bates Medal, argues that since 1980, the jobs replaced by automation have not been fully offset by new jobs created. This reflects the pace of technological change and the fact that advancements are now increasingly focused on 'professional, technical, and managerial occupations,' Autor notes, rather than lower-skilled work. He finds that machines that are more powerful than an average human (e.g., a tractor) are typically labour-augmenting and productivity-enhancing, while machines that are also smarter than the average human tend to be labour-substituting. And AI is on pace to be a lot smarter than most humans. While forms of AI have been around since the 1940s, the immense computing power resulting from advances in semiconductor technologies has now allowed machines to attain multidimensional intelligence. It is therefore reasonable to assume that many workers are going to be replaced by automation in the coming decades, even if the best AI is never as creative or imaginative as the smartest humans. In fact, a 2019 OECE report and a 2018 paper by PriceWaterhouseCoopers argue that some 15-30% of all jobs in developed markets are at risk of being automated. IMPLICATIONS If AI does turn out to be a net job destroyer, what are some of the biggest implications? First, it's likely to be deflationary. High and rising unemployment resulting from ever cheaper and more capable machines should, in theory, lead to structural deflation, as technologies that can rapidly augment the supply of goods and services should reduce demand if they cause massive job losses. Next, the U.S government will probably get even bigger. In a mass unemployment scenario, the government would likely be compelled to step in to facilitate income and wealth transfers from the owners of robots and tech businesses to the unemployed workers. And which countries will come out on top? The economic winners and losers in the years ahead will likely be determined by who can best create and utilize technology. The U.S. and China, both dominant in cerebral technologies, therefore appear well positioned to thrive in this environment. These economic and technology superpowers have adopted muscular industrial policies, while Europe – the other big regional power – has not yet done so. What this also suggests is that, even if the trade war between the U.S. and China is short, the tech war between these two countries could be protracted – and ultimately much more consequential. The tech war, unlike the trade war, is dynamic, meaning it's not about challenging the static comparative advantages of nations, but rather continually evolving and advancing. Investors would be wise to keep this distinction in mind, as the dynamic aspect of the tech war is apt to become much more important than, say, whether Vietnam is allowed to sell cheap running shoes in the U.S. EXPONENTIAL CHANGE My views here are admittedly speculative. But the arguments for why AI and robotics could ultimately be labour-creating are as well. Furthermore, these arguments are often obscured by sloppy references to labour productivity, which is a simple ratio between output and labour input. When calculating this, there is often little explanation of what part of the output should be attributed to the labour input. For example, should subway train drivers account for the value of the entire subway system? Projections based on such questionable assumptions should be viewed cautiously. Finally, it's also true that populations in many developed markets are aging, so the heavy use of automation could simply offset the shrinkage in the labour force, something we're already seeing in Japan and South Korea. But aging, like natural evolution in general, is gradual, while computational and technological evolution accelerates at an exponential pace. Because of the convexity in technological advances, it's hard not to bet on technology rather than workers. (The views expressed here are those of Stephen Jen, the CEO and co-CIO of Eurizon SLJ asset management). Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI), your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis of everything from swap rates to soybeans. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI, can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn, and X. (Writing by Stephen Jen; Editing by Anna Szymanski and Michael Perry)
The National
3 days ago
- The National
Scientists comb through research for milestone cure for male baldness
Benjamin Franklin, one of the founding fathers of the US, famously joked that two things in life were certain: death and taxes. For many men, however, a third inevitability looms – baldness. In June, Pelage Pharmaceuticals announced 'positive results' from Phase 2a clinical trials of PP405, a drug which aims to combat male-pattern baldness and the thinning of hair in women. The drug is designed to 'reactivate dormant hair follicle stem cells' and could become a 'first-in-class' treatment for men and women, Pelage Pharmaceuticals said in a statement. The treatment could 'go beyond slowing the hair loss process and directly drive hair follicle regeneration,' said Dr Christina Weng, the company's chief medical officer. 'This is a milestone that expands the possibilities of regenerative medicine,' she added. 'As we advance into the next stage of clinical development, our focus remains on delivering a science-driven solution that works for everyone.' Trial results show encouraging signs The phase 2a trials involved 78 participants - men and women – with each person applying the drug or a placebo to their scalp once a day for four weeks. According to the results published by the company, four weeks after the treatment finished, an increase in hair density of 20 per cent or more was seen in almost one third of men who had a greater degree of hair loss. No improvement was observed in the placebo group. Pelage Pharmaceuticals says what is particularly significant is the drug's apparent ability to kick-start hair growth in follicles where no hair was previously present. A new approach to hair regeneration PP405 has been developed by researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and targets a series of chemical reactions in cells. Male-pattern baldness is largely caused by genes, although environmental factors also play a role. In some men, it begins in their late teens, with rates increasing with age. A US study found that 16 per cent of men aged 18 to 29 had 'moderate to extensive' hair loss, while among 40-somethings the figure was 53 per cent. Over their lifetime, 80 per cent of men will experience hair loss. Also, about 40 per cent of women will be affected by a thinning of their hair cover. Dr Bharat Pankhania, a senior clinical lecturer at the University of Exeter Medical School, said that with respect to medication, 'some progress' had been made with male-pattern baldness. 'It's inducing the hair follicles to be stimulated to wake up and start doing things they used to do once upon a time,' he said. A true cure, however, remains elusive. Indeed, a 2023 paper in Trends in Biotechnology said that the most effective treatment remained a hair transplant. This paper noted that 'the needs and expectations of patients' were typically not met by current drug treatments, which were often expensive and had limited effectiveness. According to the study, only two drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration have been marketed as treatments following four decades of research – and these were branded as being only 'marginally effective'. A lucrative market driving innovation According to figures quoted in the Trends in Biotechnology paper, the global alopecia market was worth $7.6 billion in 2020, and by 2028 is likely to reach $13 billion. Some estimates have put the sector's value as being even higher. 'Because it's a huge market there's a lot of research to find a solution,' Dr Pankhania said. 'I remain optimistic, just as I remain optimistic with the management of [other conditions including] sickle cell anaemia. There's a demand.' While PP405 has sparked many headlines, there are many other strands of research aimed at gaining a better understanding of male-pattern baldness in the hope of finding a cure. Much of this centres on the genetic basis for the condition. Research by the University of Bonn and other institutions in Germany, published in 2023, found a link between rare variants of five genes and male-pattern baldness. The results, the university said when its findings were released, could lead to improved treatments. So for those whose hair is thinning or has almost completely gone, there are causes for optimism – assuming, of course, that they feel that their baldness needs to be cured.
The National
6 days ago
- The National
Trump executive order cuts red tape for space rocket launches
US President Donald Trump has signed an executive order to ease regulations for space companies launching rockets and carrying out missions. The directive, called Enabling Competition in the Commercial Space Industry, asks federal agencies including the US Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to speed up the review process for space flight licences and remove outdated regulations. It also asks the Secretary of Transportation, Sean Duffy, to 'eliminate or expedite' environmental reviews for launch and re-entry licences and permits. Such regulations have proven to be a challenge for billionaire Elon Musk and his SpaceX company. The Trump administration said the goal of the executive order, signed on Wednesday, was to make the US a more competitive player in the global space industry. 'By slashing red tape tying up spaceport construction, streamlining launch licences so they can occur at scale and creating high-level space positions in government, we can unleash the next wave of innovation,' said Mr Duffy, who also serves as acting Nasa administrator. 'At Nasa, this means continuing to work with commercial space companies and improving our spaceports' ability to launch." Fast track to launch The Trump administration has historically advocated reducing regulatory barriers and expediting approval processes, especially for industries it considers critical to the country, including as aerospace and defence. Last year, Mr Musk threatened to sue the FAA after it proposed issuing $633,009 worth of penalties to SpaceX for failing to follow licence requirements during two of its launches in 2023. Despite the row between Mr Trump and Mr Musk, SpaceX could benefit most from the executive order, with plans to test its deep-space rocket Starship more frequently. Earlier this year, SpaceX was awarded permission by the FAA to increase launches of the powerful rocket to 25 each year. The directive would also benefit start-ups developing launch technology. Environmental concerns The order also led to opposition from environmental groups, who warned it could weaken protection for wildlife near launch sites. Jared Margolis, of the Centre for Biological Diversity, said the directive 'paves the way for the massive destruction of protected plants and animals". It called the move reckless and said it "puts people and wildlife at risk from private companies launching giant rockets that often explode and wreak devastation on surrounding areas". Race with China Mr Trump's efforts to boost the private space industry would also help the country in the race to the return to the Moon, amid competition form countries including China. Nasa relies on space companies to achieve the goals of its Artemis Moon programme and broader ambitions in the sector. The agency's plan to send astronauts to the lunar language for the first time since the Apollo era will only be possible when SpaceX completes its Starship human landing system. The mission is scheduled to take place on 2027. China also has plans for a human landing mission on the Moon before 2030. Last week, its space agency completed a critical landing and take-off test of its crewed lunar lander.
