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).
This chapter has addressed knowledge production challenges related to ESTPs and their implications for effective science-policy interactions. Tipping processes are features of complex systems that present profound learning challenges that can undermine the development of actionable knowledge among decision makers and slow down urgently needed governance efforts. Attention to tipping points has grown in recent IPCC assessment reports, with the assessed risks of tipping point transgression increasing at lower levels of global warming. However, so far this has had limited effect on policy making processes. There are also significant knowledge gaps regarding ESTPs in the social sciences and humanities, which are most relevant to support governance. This context calls for concerted efforts to expand knowledge production related to ESTPs and corresponding science-policy interactions to foster learning and capacity building.
For it to be useful for governance, knowledge about tipping points needs to be solutions-oriented, actionable, context-specific and actor-relevant. Importantly, the multiple time horizons of tipping processes – from years to millennia – require anticipatory forms of knowing and meaning-making. In a polycentric governance framework, it is important to understand where, by whom, and at what scale relevant knowledge is produced, how knowledge producers and users can be connected, and how different kinds of knowledge can empower governance actors to devise, implement and upscale solutions.
Identifying significant limits to the way knowledge is currently developed at the science-policy interface, we have put forward suggestions for improving future knowledge co-production related to ESTPs with a focus on the international scale. Scientific and non-scientific actors should actively participate in knowledge co-production in distributed networks that enable effective multi-scale information sharing. Novel designs of knowledge-production approaches such as participatory scenario development and roleplay simulations are needed, as well as incentives for developing anticipatory and transformative capacities. These approaches tend to combine qualitative and quantitative information, diverse expertise, and even immersive and game-based processes that leverage art and storytelling to provide multi-modal and multi-sensorial learning.
This type of capacity building at the science-policy interface requires more time investment, openness to active learning (rather than reading or listening), and more frequent (iterative) engagement by decision makers than current approaches. Finally, we outlined the importance of grappling with political contestation around the production and mobilisation of knowledge at the science-policy interface.