“7. The cumulative escalation in pollution causes a dramatic increase in cancer, which overwhelms the ill-prepared health system.”
That’s the one that stands out as an unambiguous miss. The rest of the predictions were either spot-on (Russia), or predicted too large of a change or effect (COVID, by about an order of magnitude).
I don't think this was specified as happening by 2022?
(1) seems pretty close to cold though - if Russia hadn't acted up it might be.
(3) sure, but it does seem to me that every now and then new things to siphon off get found.
(4) there have been a few issues that have been dangerous, remember these are potential scenario spoilers, so not supposed to happen but could happen and thus stop the scenario of ongoing progress.
I give them credit for 3 and 9. I also think 1, 5, and 8 are possibly on the horizon but it could go either way. So I don't think it's far off at all, although not on the money either.
I agree 3 was in place in 1997 but the extent or permanence wasn't known. I think "that threatens Europe" is key. In 1997 I'd say it wasn't clear how long the corruption would last, and I don't think most people saw it as threatening Europe (or the US really).
9 is debatable but I think it's clear that we had a worldwide pandemic with significant economic, public health, and political implications. I think they were basically correct in this, even if the details aren't right.
1 hasn't occurred but I think there has been a sharp turn in Chinese-Western political relations in the last couple of years, accompanied by a change in Chinese internal politics. Where it goes is uncertain I think; I think they could end up being right.
5 will always be ambiguous because of "attribution to climate change", so even if it did happen there would be controversy about it. However, we are having inflation, and people are predicting a major food crisis this year; part of this is due to geopolitics and war, but some of it (my understanding) is lack of yield due to climate issues. I wouldn't say 5 is "yes" but it's somewhat debatable and clearly still a possibility.
8 isn't so far off. We have had energy crises in some places, and in many ways, are having one. You're right that alternative energy is in a strong place right now but it's not actually enough to nullify petrocrises at the moment. Given that people are predicting grid failures in the US, and most of the Western world still relies heavily on petrol, I think this is still very possible.
But a world that struggles to acknowledge the death toll from covid or climate change unsurprisingly may also simply ignore the death toll from pollution as well, until the system collapses due to failing to address any issues at all.
While I'm worried about PFAS and microplastics in general, I'm not sure that the "ill-prepared" part will happen as a) it was stressed-tested by COVID and b) there are now research that tracks what's happening now and c) bacteria and fungi has evolved to break down plastics (whether this is a good or bad thing is up to debate). I'm more worried with anti-microbial resistance, considering the still-unfettered access to powerful antibiotics in developing countries (usually for veterinary and agricultural use but some as OTC) to be honest.
Cancer statistics may be pretty flat, but go spend a week breathing the air pollution in new delhi, lahore, dhaka, Beijing, etc and tell me that a huge number of people aren't suffering from it.
The prediction was "a dramatic increase in cancer, which overwhelms the ill-prepared health system". The fact that pollution hasn't gone away is obviously bad for those impacted by it, but doesn't make the prediction any more accurate.
That’s the one that stands out as an unambiguous miss. The rest of the predictions were either spot-on (Russia), or predicted too large of a change or effect (COVID, by about an order of magnitude).
But cancer? Pretty flat.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-population-with-...
And the death rate has decreased.
https://ourworldindata.org/cancer#is-the-world-making-progre...