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).
In the absence of appropriate governance mechanisms and protocols for how to address the complex dynamics surrounding climate-induced human mobility – for example, how and where to relocate displaced communities, how preparedness measures and early warning signals can be used to prevent mass displacement, and when and how to consider managed retreat of populations, feedback consequences for the Earth system are possible. For example, host communities may face strains on their natural resources and/or sinks to meet the additional needs of the displaced, and conflicts may emerge between displaced and host communities without adequate measures to resolve conflicts and ensure the wellbeing of both populations (Watson et al., 2023); Tafere (2018) identified environmental degradation resulting from the influx of displaced populations in East Africa, often in environmentally sensitive (e.g. protected forests) or already strained regions (e.g. arid or semi-arid areas). Poorly managed displacement and resettlement efforts can thus contribute to deforestation and erosion and water shortages, feeding back onto the Earth system and reinforcing vulnerabilities (Stal et al., 2009).
Case
Study
In cases where an acute, rapid-onset disaster occurs, human mobility responses will vary at the household and individual level. For example, Hurricane Katrina destroyed around 300,000 homes, and forced the displacement of approximately 1.5 million people from across the Gulf Coast of the US. However, despite the evacuation order, an estimated 110,000 people remained in New Orleans. The majority of those remaining within the city were African American, poor, elderly, and/or living with a disability – an example of how climate disasters can compound existing social inequalities and create trapped populations (Weber and Peek, 2012). Post-disaster, many of those who remained were then forced to evacuate. They had little agency over their destinations; while the majority of the displaced population, especially those who had pre-emptively moved, remained in the region, those who were forcibly evacuated were scattered across all 50 states (Fussell, Curtis and DeWaard, 2014; Peek and Weber, 2012).
After the initial post-disaster ‘pulse’ of outmigration from New Orleans and the surrounding area, displaced populations had to choose whether to return or resettle elsewhere. The rate at which people returned to the city was influenced, at least in part, by racial dynamics. Even when controlling for socioeconomic status and demographic characteristics, Black residents returned to the city at a much slower rate than white residents (Fussell, Sastry and VanLandingham, 2010) due to a higher rate of housing damage sustained by Black communities, and these disparities increased with time. The least-impacted communities – often those with significant prior social advantage – were able to rebound more quickly, reducing the length and permanence of displacement.
As of 2019, New Orleans still had 100,000 fewer occupants than it had prior to Hurricane Katrina. This gap is almost the same as the number of Black residents who have not returned – a 6 per cent drop in the share of the city’s population (Babb, 2021). As a result, New Orleans is now both whiter and wealthier than it was pre-disaster, with implications for social cohesion and post-event inequality retrenchment. According to Go, (2018), the stronger the civic structure, i.e. local organisational resources, the more likely spatial inequality will be deepened in the rebuilding effort. This is especially true along racial lines; white residents concentrate in geographically safer areas, while Black residents are left with lower-lying, flood-prone areas (Babb, 2021; Go, 2018).