logo
‘Positive cascades could help accelerate change': social tipping points expert on fixing climate crisis

‘Positive cascades could help accelerate change': social tipping points expert on fixing climate crisis

The Guardian15 hours ago

Timothy Lenton is a professor of climate change and Earth system science at the University of Exeter. He started working on tipping points in the 1990s, making him one of the first scientists in the world to study this form of planetary risk. In an upcoming book, Positive Tipping Points: How to Fix the Climate Crisis, he argues the Earth has entered an 'unstable period' but humanity can still prevail if we can trigger positive social and economic tipping points to reverse the damage that has already been done. On 30 June, he will host a global conference on tipping points.
How do you define a tipping point?A tipping point is where change becomes self-propelling within a system, meaning it will shift from one state to another. That can happen because the balance of feedback in the system switches from damping feedback to amplifying feedback. The result can look very rapid and irreversible.
How has our understanding of these risks changed?We first published a map of climate tipping elements in 2008, Since then, we have added much more than we have subtracted from that map. And, unfortunately, in the intervening 17 years, the evidence suggests we're much closer to some of these tipping points than we thought.
Which tipping points might we have passed?Things are undoubtedly happening faster than anticipated. The tipping points of greatest concern include the West Antarctic ice sheet, where the loss of a significant chunk of the ice sheet is self-propelling, which could raise the world's sea levels by about 1.2 metres. There is also the Greenland ice sheet, which is losing mass at an accelerating rate. Then we have the permafrost, parts of which are already passing localised tipping points – and that's adding methane and carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Then there's the unprecedented bleaching and dieback of coral reefs, which hundreds of millions of people depend on for their livelihoods.
And which are close?There's a tipping point in the circulation of the north Atlantic Ocean, when deep water stops forming in the middle of the subpolar gyre south-west of Greenland. That system seems quite volatile, and a tipping point there is like a small version of a bigger tipping point of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (Amoc), which studies suggest is at much greater risk than we thought even a few years ago. That in turn could trigger monsoon tipping points in west Africa and India. I'd also note the risk of tipping Amazon rainforest dieback from a mixture of climate change and direct human disruption. Unfortunately, I could reel off quite a few more.
How accurate are the predictions?If anything, we have underestimated the risks. When we did our first assessment in 2008, we thought Greenland was close to a big tipping point. We haven't changed that judgment, but we thought West Antarctica would need at least 3C of warming [above pre-industrial levels]. Unfortunately, everything that's been observed since suggests we were way too optimistic. As a rule, the more we learn, the closer we think the tipping points are – and meanwhile we've been warming the planet up. It's like running faster into a sea that is rising to drown us.
Why has it taken so long for the world to talk about these catastrophic threats?In the climate science community, we have tended to concentrate on assessing what's the most likely thing to happen, but the more important question is: what's the worst thing that could happen? That's the difference between a scientific assessment and a risk assessment. I would argue we've not been treating climate change as a risk assessment.
That is also because a lot of well-funded entities have been systematically undermining the knowledge consensus on climate change, which has forced the scientific community to defend what's in effect 19th-century physics. That hasn't put us in a great position to emphasise tipping point risks, which inherently have more uncertainty around them.
Why do we need to talk about them now?Because tipping point risks are real and potentially existential. If we have a tipping point in the Atlantic Ocean – the so-called Amoc – we could lose more than half the area for growing staple crops worldwide. It would cause water security crises and severely disrupt the monsoons in west Africa and India, which would affect billions of people.
We have to level up to those risks, better understand them and how close they are, and what things we can do in response. Even if we can't stop the events happening, we can do things that reduce the vulnerability of people exposed to the risks. That is why we are drawing attention to tipping points. This is not as a council of despair; on the contrary, it is more like a council of practicality. In terms of the upfront costs to decarbonise the global economy, it is a great investment for the return you get, which is lowering the risk of otherwise catastrophic outcomes.
It would help if the IPCC [the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] took a more in-depth look at tipping points. A large number of countries wanted to see an IPCC special report on tipping points in this assessment cycle, but the IPCC said no. Instead there's due to be a chapter in the next assessment report.
Is there an alternative?Yes. I and more than 200 other researchers have published a global tipping points report, and we're writing another one for Cop30, [the UN climate change summit which takes place in Brazil, in November]. We felt the risk was important to communicate and this is a timely moment. So we are trying to fill in the assessment gap in an accessible way. People are crying out for that.
I understand the global tipping points conference will also look at positive tipping points in technology, economics and politics?Yes. [There are some] more optimistic scenarios; the impacts of wind power and photovoltaic innovation, or the knock-on effects of campaigning by Greta Thunberg and others. There are also policy feedbacks that could create a change in the landscape in a good way, where you start a policy path towards the renewable energy revolution that's very hard to reverse. That is arguably what the architects of the German feed-in tariffs for renewables managed to do. They made it hard for the doubters to change course even after a change of government.
Has renewable energy reached a positive tipping point?Yes, our analysis suggests that solar photovoltaic power is now in a phase of self-propelling global uptake with exponential growth of installed generating capacity, doubling every two years or less. Factoring in the cost of battery storage, solar is already the cheapest source of new power in most of the world, and for every doubling of installed capacity its price drops by nearly a quarter. This is rapidly making solar power the cheapest source of electricity ever, which brings many benefits, including access to electricity for the roughly 700 million people who don't currently have it.
And electric vehicles?Yes, the price of batteries plummeted nearly tenfold in a decade as the range you can get from a given mass of battery increased by nearly a factor of three. This has brought China and several European markets to the tipping point where adoption of EVs is self-propelling: the more EVs that get bought, the better and the cheaper they get, encouraging further adoption. The US is lagging behind, but the global south is starting to reap the benefits of electrifying mobility, as it is much cheaper to run an electric rickshaw in India or an electric motorbike taxi in east Africa than their fossil-fuelled equivalents.
Any other examples of potential positive tipping points?I'm working on regenerative nature. We already see cases where degraded ecosystems have been tipped back into a better state – for example, when wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park and started preying on elk, it triggered abrupt vegetation recovery, or when sea otters returned to north Pacific coastal ecosystems and started feasting on sea urchins it tipped the recovery of kelp forests. We also see social tipping points that are nature-positive, where community conservation initiatives, like locally managed marine protected areas, spread rapidly and widely among and across societies.
Can you explain cascading feedbacks?In all complex systems – such as the climate and the economy – if you can tip one thing, it can have consequences for other bits of the system. If you tip one part of the system it can make tipping another part of the system more likely. For example, if you've suffered a medical shock it can have knock-on effects on other parts of the body. In the climate, these causal connections can be quite significant and strong. In Earth's history, when there were tipping points in the overturning circulation of the Atlantic Ocean, that tipped major shifts in the tropical monsoons of west Africa and India.
In the economy, a cascade can be more positive. For example, an investment in renewable energy can bring forward a tipping point in other sectors. It basically means renewables are making electricity cheaper than it has ever been, and that incentivises electrifying mobility, like cars and trucks and buses, or electrifying heating in homes. At the same time, batteries get cheaper because of economies of scale, which then helps to balance renewable electricity supply and demand. So feedbacks between sectors of the economy can create tipping points that reinforce each other. We've recently mapped out a bunch of positive tipping cascades that could help accelerate change to zero greenhouse gas emissions.
What should the world do at Cop30 in Belém to address tipping points?We need policymakers to implement policies that bring forward the positive tipping points we need to stop greenhouse gas emissions and prevent the bad climate tipping points. If the EU and China were to coordinate, it could be enough to shift the balance towards clean green alternatives. Even with Trump in the United States, the beauty of tipping points is you don't need everybody, you typically only need a fifth to tip to the new alternative and then you get to a situation where everybody else is compelled to follow.
Tipping points – in the Amazon, Antarctic, coral reefs and more – could cause fundamental parts of the Earth system to change dramatically, irreversibly and with devastating effects. Here, we ask the experts about the latest science – and how it makes them feel.
Read more

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Parents warned to limit their children's screen time, as research finds youngsters glued to smartphones and tablets have smaller brains and lower IQs
Parents warned to limit their children's screen time, as research finds youngsters glued to smartphones and tablets have smaller brains and lower IQs

Daily Mail​

timean hour ago

  • Daily Mail​

Parents warned to limit their children's screen time, as research finds youngsters glued to smartphones and tablets have smaller brains and lower IQs

Parents are being warned to limit children's screen time after a study found it could lead to them having smaller brains and lower intelligence. Scientists found children who watched television and used smartphones, tablets and computers had, on average, lower IQs and less intracranial volume (ICV) – a marker for brain size. In contrast, children who exercised in their spare time were likely to be more intelligent and had a larger brain volume, according to the research. The study used databases from across Europe that contained information from thousands of children on IQ, screen use and physical exercise. This was analysed to establish whether there was any link between leisure time habits, intelligence and ICV – the total space within the skull which is used as a proxy for the maximum size of the brain. Larger ICV has been linked to superior intelligence. The researchers, based in China, say their results provide further evidence that excessive screen time has a lifelong impact on children's brain development. 'These findings highlight the critical need to manage and regulate children's media use while also promoting increased physical activity,' they wrote in the journal Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience. The study comes as children's screen time use has rocketed in recent years. The average amount of time British children aged five to 15 spend on screens rose from nine hours a week in 2009 to 15 hours a week in 2018, according to a House of Commons education committee report from last year. While there can be benefits, including building friendships and improving learning, negative effects include online bullying, exposure to violence and pornography, lower levels of physical activity and eye strain. Sir Cary Cooper, a psychology professor at the University of Manchester, said: 'Children are using these devices and they are not learning social and non-verbal skills that we pick up from interacting, face-to-face, with other people.'

EXCLUSIVE Think you're hilarious but your siblings don't find you funny? Scientists discover that humour doesn't run in the family
EXCLUSIVE Think you're hilarious but your siblings don't find you funny? Scientists discover that humour doesn't run in the family

Daily Mail​

timean hour ago

  • Daily Mail​

EXCLUSIVE Think you're hilarious but your siblings don't find you funny? Scientists discover that humour doesn't run in the family

They are the groanworthy one-liners and corny puns that make your toes curl, with 'Dad jokes' becoming a byword for the most cringe-making of them all. But if you are worried about following in your Dad's footsteps, don't panic as it's unlikely you'll inherit his humour. Experts have found that, unlike intelligence or eye colour, humour doesn't run in the family. In the first ever study to look at the influence of genes and the environment on comedic abilities, scientists asked a thousand twins to create funny captions for cartoons. By comparing a mix of both identical twins, who share 100 per cent of their DNA, and non-identical twins, who are like any biological siblings and share about 50 per cent of their DNA, their findings revealed there was no evidence that they inherited their humorous talents. If comedic ability was inherited, then the researchers would have expected to see stronger humour similarities between the identical twins compared to the non-identical twins. However, they discovered that across all twin pairs, individuals shared the same level of comedic ability, indicating humour is shaped by the environment rather than genetics. It could also help explain the rarity of comedy duos from the same family - such as the Chuckle Brothers or the Marx Brothers - compared to actors, musicians or writers. Dr Gil Greengross, from the Psychology Department at Aberystwyth University, led the study, published in the journal Twin Research and Human Genetics. He said: 'Despite humour's importance, relatively little is known about how we develop our sense of humour or why one sibling can be funny and another cannot. 'Our study's finding that these talents are not inherited is surprising, as it contradicts most research on the heritability of cognitive abilities such as creativity and mathematical skills. So, it is really fascinating.' He explained that while telling a joke may seem simple, having a good sense of humour is a complex and unique trait that is influenced by a range of psychological attributes and personality characteristics. 'It varies across different social contexts, like when going on a date or entertaining,' he said. 'This may explain why, Chuckle and Marx Brothers aside, there are few successful comedians from the same immediate family. 'What is exciting about this research is it begs the question: if our sense of humour is not handed down from our parents but comes from our environment, what is it precisely that makes us funny?' The findings also have implications for how scientists think about humour's role in evolution and even dating. Dr Greengross added: 'These early findings also challenge the widely accepted evolutionary basis of humour. 'A great sense of humour can help ease tension in dangerous situations, foster cooperation, break down interpersonal barriers, and attract mates—all of which enhance survival and reproduction. 'There are also intriguing dating and mating aspects to this. Previous research has shown that women prioritise comedic talents in a partner more than do men, whereas men value a women's ability to appreciate their humour. 'Men experience stronger selection pressure to be funny to impress women, leading to men having slightly higher humour ability, on average — a finding supported by our study.'

The Genius Myth by Helen Lewis: In search of genius? Don't look in East Anglia
The Genius Myth by Helen Lewis: In search of genius? Don't look in East Anglia

Daily Mail​

time3 hours ago

  • Daily Mail​

The Genius Myth by Helen Lewis: In search of genius? Don't look in East Anglia

The Genius Myth by Helen Lewis (Jonathan Cape £22, 352pp) What does it mean to be a genius? It takes more than extraordinary accomplishments or a high IQ. Being a genius, Helen Lewis argues in her lively book, is as much about the society that has given the label as it is about the person themselves. Tim Berners-Lee, for instance, is too self-effacing to play the role – but his invention of the World Wide Web underpins all the accomplishments of today's tech bro 'geniuses'. The concept of genius has evolved. In Roman times, you could be possessed by a poetic muse, or 'furor poeticus'. In the Renaissance, the idea of 'great men' took hold; the Romantics developed the notion of the genius as a garret-dwelling oddball who coughed up blood as he composed works of towering genius. These days, our geniuses are mavericks who move fast and break things; they are still nearly always male. If every society has their own categorisation for genius, does the concept even exist? Lewis has particular fun describing the lengths some have gone to crack the question. In 1904, the scientist Havelock Ellis came up with a list of just over 1,000 British geniuses. People in East Anglia, he concluded, have 'no aptitude for abstract thinking', while those in south-west England are 'sailors rather than scholars'. Dublin had produced 15 geniuses and poor Sligo none at all. Later, the psychologist Catharine Cox Miles embarked on an eccentric project to estimate the intelligence of past geniuses, doling out an IQ based on the length of their entry in a biographical dictionary. This was bad news for Cervantes and Copernicus, who were given an IQ of just 105; Goethe, meanwhile, scored 210. Shakespeare didn't qualify. In the 1990s, the psychologist Hans Eysenck decided there was enough data for a 'rough portrait' of genius. He (and it should 'clearly' be a he) should have a Jewish background, be born in February and lose a parent by the age of ten. He should die either at 30 or at 90, 'but on no account at 60'. He should have gout. Lewis is such a well-read guide to intelligence that at points you wish she'd been bolder. However, she is insightful on the loneliness of the very intelligent. In the 1980s, high-IQ societies were asked for a name for their members. The most appropriate term they had was 'outsider'.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store