Harmful tipping points in the natural world pose some of the gravest threats faced by humanity. Their triggering will severely damage our planet’s life-support systems and threaten the stability of our societies.
In the Summary Report:
• Narrative summary
• Global tipping points infographic
• Key messages
• Key Recommendations
Executive summary
• Section 1
• Section 2
• Section 3
• Section 4
This report is for all those concerned with tackling escalating Earth system change and mobilising transformative social change to alter that trajectory, achieve sustainability and promote social justice.
In this section:
• Foreword
• Introduction
• Key Concepts
• Approach
• References
Considers Earth system tipping points. These are reviewed and assessed across the three major domains of the cryosphere, biosphere and circulation of the oceans and atmosphere. We then consider the interactions and potential cascades of Earth system tipping points, followed by an assessment of early warning signals for Earth system tipping points.
Considers tipping point impacts. First we look at the human impacts of Earth system tipping points, then the potential couplings to negative tipping points in human systems. Next we assess the potential for cascading and compounding systemic risk, before considering the potential for early warning of impact tipping points.
Considers how to govern Earth system tipping points and their associated risks. We look at governance of mitigation, prevention and stabilisation then we focus on governance of impacts, including adaptation, vulnerability and loss and damage. Finally, we assess the need for knowledge generation at the science-policy interface.
Focuses on positive tipping points in technology, the economy and society. It provides a framework for understanding and acting on positive tipping points. We highlight illustrative case studies across energy, food and transport and mobility systems, with a focus on demand-side solutions (which have previously received limited attention).
Radicalisation of certain social groups or whole societies can be a reaction to perceived external threats, including ecological threats. Research suggests that people can respond to climate change and other ecological threats by becoming more authoritarian and derogative against outgroups (Uenal et al., 2021; Russo et al., 2020; Jackson et al., 2019; Taylor, 2019; Fritsche et al.; 2012). This effect can be further exacerbated by the well-documented effect of heat on aggressive behaviours, including online hate speech (Stechemesser et al., 2022).
Though the evidence is not yet conclusive or available for a wide range of countries, the available results suggest that at least at this stage of climate change it is mostly individuals who already show authoritarian or social dominance predispositions that become even more reactionary in response to the threat of climate change. This tendency can produce or sharpen polarisation as conservative and liberal social groups move further apart in their attitudes and outlook (Spaiser et al., forthcoming; Uenal et al., 2021; Hetherington & Weiler, 2009). Polarisation can also be driven by attempts to mitigate climate change, where climate change policies, rather than the Earth system destabilisation itself, are perceived as a threat to, for example, status or identity (Ehret et al., 2022; Dagett, 2018; Dunlap et al., 2016; Hoffarth and Hodson, 2016). Polarisation can be further exacerbated by inequality and general economic decline (Stewart et al., 2020; Winkler, 2019), particularly where perceived growing status insecurity can be exploited by polarising elites (Banda and Cluverius, 2018; Smith and Hanley, 2018).
However, as climate change progresses and becomes a more concrete existential threat throughout the world, individuals with more social liberal predispositions could develop increasingly authoritarian and reactionary views, prioritising security over liberty and human rights. This trend may be further reinforced by other social processes, which may further increase the sense of threat, such as rising inequality, political instability, etc. Research shows that exposure to existential threats (such as terrorism or natural disasters) can make even socially liberal minded people more authoritarian (Rahman et al., 2022; Russo et al., 2020; Hetherington and Suhay, 2011; Huddy and Feldmann, 2011; Gadarian, 2010). Such a development would decrease polarisation, but authoritarianism could become predominant in the population.
In another potential path to radicalisation, a violent flank could emerge at the margins of the climate movement. There is some evidence to suggest that, in the face of political non-response to the climate crisis and climate injustice, climate activists could become increasingly desperate and turn their peaceful campaigning into more violent and even armed means of resistance (Sovacool and Dunlap, 2022; Malm, 2021).