Apocalypse?

Welcome back! Before I discuss the scientific studies on potential tipping points, I wish to discuss the use of the term and the public discourse it created (for all you human geographers out there). In this post, I aim to discuss possible implications/pitfalls  of tipping points in science communication. Arguments across the physical and social sciences have argued against the portrayal of climate change using overly apocalyptic language and questions have been raised to whether it is scientific probable for tipping points to be global in scale and non-climatic. 

'Discourse of catastrophe' (Hulme, 2006)

The often obsession with the idea of potential tipping points and the constant usage of exaggerated rhetoric and language of fear in media is not without controversy. In one of the most public criticism of the current environmental change discourse,  climatologist and former director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Prof. Mike Hulme points out under the current discourse, climate change are often presented as being catastrophic to be worthy of any media and public attention. Claiming that the apocalyptic view of environmental change are merely language of fear rather than the language of science, Hulme argues that it would lead to weakened communication and willingness for behavioural change. Ending on a rather depressing note, Hulme worries that this 'discourse of catastrophe' may lead to inaction and usher society along a negative, reactionary trajectory. While I believe that this portrayal of climate change is not the most effective way to encourage action, I do think that Hulme's claims that the language of catastrophe is not used in science is untrue. Discerning whether the current discourse is one grounded in scientific truth, Risbey (2008) rightly identified that empirical and theoretical science aiming to describe urgency and threat does contain terms and rhetoric which are described as not being the language of science by Hulme. It is also not sensible to disregard genuinely catastrophic consequences as whether or not consequences from critical thresholds are considered catastrophic differs in different locations, to different people and at different times. Impacts of anthropogenic activities on climate change can be therefore be projected and described scientifically as 'alarming' without being automatically equated to 'alarmist'.

Another potential pitfall of constant discussion on abrupt climatic tipping points is the subsequent emphasis on technocratic solutions. The more urgent an issue is presented as being, the more attention is paid on technological and anthropocentric solutions to ensure 'business as usual'. As Crist (2007) identified, instead of changing the means at which the current social organisation operates, the focus on technological fixes may detract importance from other environmental challenges which cannot be tackled via technological means (eg. biodiversity loss/species extinction). This dominant framing of climate change may therefore have led to 'techno-arrogance' and an increasing perception that geoengineering are reasonable and inevitable. There is therefore a need to recognise that non-climatic elements (biosphere integrity, plastics and other planetary boundaries) are fundamentally impacted by anthropogenic activities independently from climate change and would not be tackled under the prevailing discourse of technical solutions (eg. renewable energy, carbon sequestration). 

The Way Forward

I hope this post will highlight the controversy surrounding the issue of tipping points. A semantic debate on the meaning of global tipping points does indeed risk diverting attention away from local/regional policies or mitigation actions. Finally, a shift in language from asserting whether something will happen, which may easily be reduced as alarmist, to when and the time range in which it could happen (Maslin and Austin 2012) would ultimately be a much more effective way to stimulate planning and action to impending thresholds.