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

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.