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).
Human agency is the capacity of individuals or groups to change an outcome or course of events (Alsop et al., 2006; O’Brien, 2015). Agents (as policymakers, politicians, business leaders, activists, campaigners, artists, academics, investors, consumers or voters) can act, either intentionally or accidentally, individually or collectively, in ways that either assist or hinder social change (Newell et al., 2022; Gaupp, forthcoming). Individual and collective efficacy, or the belief that one’s agency can avert threats or influence events, increases the motivation to act and enhances emotional wellbeing (Bandura, 1997; Feldman and Hart, 2016; Stern, 2018; Bostrom et al., 2019). Even small individual acts can lead to widespread collective effects – for example, the refusal of Rosa Parks to move bus seats in 1955, or the school strike initiated by Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg in 2018. Numerous studies and the history of social movements show that a committed and well-organised minority (between less than 3.5 per cent to 10 per cent of a population) can mobilise around a common aim long enough to exceed a critical threshold and transform a prevailing social structure – for example a social norm, law, institution or government (Chenoweth and Stephan, 2011; Xie et al., 2011; Rogers, 2010; Han, 2014; Marshall et al., 2018; Centola et al., 2018; Bolderdijk and Jans 2021; Constantino et al., 2022). Such social movements typically gestate in and benefit from ‘free social spaces’ (Törnberg, 2018) that protect them from the prevailing hegemony and actively cultivate and empower minority groups to challenge dominant agendas and narratives (Laybourn-Langton et al., 2021).