As human-caused climate change continues threatening the way of life for virtually every species on Earth, what if one group of organisms right under (and inside of) our noses could help reverse climate change? That’s what a recent report from the American Society of Microbiology (ASM) and the International Union of Microbiological Societies (IUMS) argues.
The report, authored by a global advisory group of scientists, suggests utilizing microbes to revolutionize the fight against climate change. By developing and scaling up microbial-based solutions, we could mold a non-fossil fuel economy, provide a massive boost to ecosystem and crop resilience and remove enormous amounts of methane from the atmosphere, it says.
However, the researchers argue, the notion of using microbes to combat climate change is significantly overlooked, and despite lying in something of a public-eye, academic and policy blindspot, these solutions could provide safe, effective, scalable and economically sustainable climate solutions within five to 15 years.
[embedded content]
“This is a turning point of the history of mankind,” Rino Rappuoli, president of the IUMS, told EcoWatch on a video call.
In the 1800s, Rappuoli explained, the Industrial Revolution led to humans altering Earth’s climate through carbon emissions. “And now, I think we are in the position, technically, where we were at that time for that revolution. Now the revolution has to be a biological revolution.”
“I would say that we are on the verge of a biological revolution that probably should allow this planet to be much [more] sustainable than the last few hundred years.”
As Nguyen K. Nguyen, the lead author of the paper and director of the American Academy of Microbiology — a think tank within ASM — told EcoWatch, we need to rapidly move from the fossil fuel-based economy we rely on to a greener one, with which microbes can help.
“[Fossil fuels] play an important role in starting from the industrial revolution into the world that we have today. So as we are moving forward, we’re asking ourselves what will be the alternative solution that we can use to help offset the dependence on the fossil fuels,” he said. “We began to start thinking: How can we actually utilize microbes as biofuel and make a way that this can be sustainable and affordable for the typical consumer to use? And we think there’s all the opportunity for that,” he said.
Specific, tailored species of microbes can feed on organic matter to produce clean bioenergy while also capturing and sequestering carbon. If scaled properly, the report says, microbes could produce up to 245 exajoules of energy annually by 2050 for industry and transportation. By comparison, coal produced roughly 180 exajoules of energy in 2023.
Bioenergy from microbes could also provide a clean way for mass manufacturing by replacing traditional methods that use petrochemicals and fossil fuels that heavily pollute the atmosphere.
As the planet continues to warm, food insecurity will only increase. This, too, could be at least partially remedied by using microbes, according to the researchers. Microbes could boost soil health and crop yields, capture and sequester carbon and create sustainable fertilizer.
Today, most fertilizer uses ammonia made from the Haber-Bosch process — a method of creating ammonia that produces an enormous amount of greenhouse gases as a byproduct.
“[The Haber-Bosch] process basically produces 1.5% of the total CO2 emissions today,” Rappuoli said. “Now, microbes, they basically fix the nitrogen at room temperature, without polluting, without energy, without everything, but we don’t use them because the other one is much more convenient… if we invest in microbial solutions, you could probably get rid of chemical fertilizers, stop polluting the planet and still feed the people.”
Microbial-based fertilizers are becoming more popular throughout the world, according to the report, and by increasing nutrient absorption efficiency, cutting costs compared to more expensive and energy-intensive alternatives.
Nguyen said the idea of implementing large-scale microbial biofertilizer practices is largely overlooked, but is cheaper and is forecast to have a higher growth rate than traditional fertilizers.
Finally, the authors argue that microbes can help mitigate the emission of methane, a greenhouse gas that’s up to 80 times as potent as CO2 in warming the planet, although its lifetime is significantly shorter. Nguyen explained that methane emissions are a “low-hanging fruit” to tackle to buy time to reduce carbon dioxide, which stays in the atmosphere much longer.
The solution, as the report points out, is to manage microbiomes over different ecosystems. Inserting microbial species that consume methane, or changing environmental conditions to favor them while hindering species that produce methane, would “prevent biodiversity loss and enhance ecosystem services,” the report says.
But actually implementing these strategies would require further research and plenty of logistics to sort out.
Jay Lennon, one of the authors and a biology professor at Indiana University Bloomington, told EcoWatch, “An economist or an engineer is going to start asking the tough questions and saying, well, how do you make this work? These are small organisms. How do we make sure that they can actually do something that’s going to mitigate climate change and be relevant compared to other nonliving industrial solutions, [such as] putting up solar panels or erecting new nuclear power plants?”
“You have to start thinking about the processes that operate, maybe in a bioreactor in a laboratory when you’re culturing microbes in one-liter batch reactors, and ask the question: Can we scale this up?” he said.
In addition to the logistical obstacles, there are bioethical questions to consider. While some solutions, such as “fungi-based materials” and “bio-based plastics” that the report identifies are low risk, others require more monitoring, like bioremediation or local carbon sequestration where implemented.
“[These are] living organism(s) that can mutate, can change and adapt to whatever environment. So we take considerations about safety issues very seriously,” Nguyen said.
“No solution is zero risk… for example, with the fossil fuel industry, the risk of leakage, spill and the damage that they have to an environment and the community that is there… we need to test it, monitor it and have a clear procedure to monitor, respond and mitigate risk,” he said.
“I don’t see a difference from how we mitigate risk for safety if we are starting a new pipeline. We need to start small, see how the microbe responds in the local community, do thorough testing to be sure that this works, then we scale it up in the area and have a risk mitigation plan… the principle is how to be mindful about the impact they have for the community that we try to serve.”
[embedded content]
