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).
Climate policymakers and other influential actors tend to focus on the more technological, less politically risky or contentious aspects of climate governance (Patterson et al., 2018). Justice and ethical implications of policies and other actions also tend to be ignored, leading to blind spots in who loses and in the assumptions made when labelling change as ‘positive’.
Whether in their eagerness to accelerate technological fixes, or a desire to maintain unanimity, momentum and political will, negotiators have sometimes been tempted to ignore or dismiss normative dimensions of climate policy and the possibility of unintended social consequences (Klinsky et al., 2017). However, all actors in the process – from scientists to world leaders – need to be careful to avoid today’s solutions becoming tomorrow’s harms. This is especially true when considering interventions designed to trigger exponential rates of positive social change or quick ‘techno-fixes’ (Sovacool, 2021). Solar radiation management is one such intervention that has already clearly been stated as not a feasible or just option for PTPs in this report, but there are other techno-fixes that could result in an equally exponential increase in unintended negative consequences. It is thus imperative that all actors take responsibility to include a justice framing, acknowledging potential risks, when referencing positive social tipping points as solutions to the ongoing climate and other social-ecological crises.
Some ‘positive’ interventions for climate impact mitigation and adaptation can also have unintended consequences and pose ethical challenges. In particular, they require careful consideration about what is ‘positive’ and about any attempt to intervene in systems that can never be fully understood.