Hi Brian,
thanks for point out this talk (and connecting it back to the
introductory book "Earth System Science", which I agree is great).
Applying 'systems thinking' around 'tipping points' to social dynamics
raises very interesting issues about how radical change comes about.
The classic revolutionary/anti-capitalist perspective maintains that we
need to change the fundamentals of the system in order to bring about
radically different dynamic. Following the model of the great modern
(American, French, Russian, Chinese, Cuban etc) revolutions, systemic
change comes first, from which then new social dynamic emerge. This is
an appealing model, because it sounds like you know what you do, but
also a paralyzing one, because you need to the big things first, before
the small things can be done.
The tipping point view would maintain that we can move towards tipping
points within the existing dynamics in order to bring about radically
different ones once the threshold has been passed. This is, in a way, a
scary model, because tipping points are, almost by definition,
unpredictable, because of the many interacting cascades they can set of.
Given that some of these cascades can provide negative feedback, meaning
dampening change, it's also hard to predict where exactly the tipping
points lies and what exactly will be tipped. On the other hand, it's an
appealing vision, because it suggest that even smaller changes, if
applied strategically, can result in large-scale transformations.
Lenton makes a decent point about the tipping points towards renewable
energies that might be passed soon. On the technical side, we might have
passed it, all the necessary elements are here already [1]. I think the
fossil fuel sector knows this hence it's lobbying hard to delay that
point has long as possible. The question is, is that enough of a tipping
point, or will it simply displace the resource hungry growth imperative
of capitalism?
The tension between these two points of view is visible in a fascinating
recent discussion "How to Save the Planet: Degrowth vs Green Growth?"
[2]. While they never mention the contrast between revolution and
tipping points, it's clearly operative. Green Growth argues for using
the existing system dynamics to affect its direction (de-carbonization),
where as de-growth see as an approach that has not worked out in the
last 30 years and connects it to the capitalism need for growth.
On an analytic level, I lean towards the latter, on a level of political
strategy, towards the former. But that's a rather in-congruent position,
I'm afraid.
[1]
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/23/no-miracles-needed-prof-mark-jacobson-on-how-wind-sun-and-water-can-power-the-world
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxJrBR0lg6s
On 20.01.23 21:37, Brian Holmes wrote:
Among the small but highly influential group of scientists building on
the Gaia theory of Lovelock and Margulis, Tim Lenton might have been the
most unobtrusive - until now. At 49 he's quite young for the impressive
quantity and quality of the work he has produced. For instance, he's the
author of a very short but fundamental book on biogeochemical cycles,
tracing the vast and intricate process whereby specific elements such as
carbon circulate through the atmosphere, the oceans and the earth's
crust - with important detours through living beings (1). He was also
the lead author, with Rockstrom, Schellnhuber and others, of the
inaugural 2008 paper on tipping elements capable of provoking phase
changes in the earth system (2). You could further check out a recent
article in The Anthropocene Review, co-authored with Bruno Latour, on
the role of Life in the production and maintenance of habitable
conditions on our planet (3). Lenton appears for Zoom talks in a spare,
book-lined bedroom, as though he forgot he's no longer a graduate
student and didn't notice whatever cascade of honors has ensued since
then. He's concerned with other cascades.
Last summer Lenton was a co-author of a paper entitled "Climate Endgame:
Exploring catastrophic climate change scenarios," which examines the
existential risk to humanity posed by runaway global warming (4). The
key concept is that of so-called "tipping cascades," which are likely to
begin in earnest at only 1.5 degrees centigrade of global warming (we're
currently around 1.2 degrees). In such cascades, one fundamental change
in earth system dynamics sets off another, leading to consequences far
beyond those outlined in the increasingly dire IPCC reports. The main
difference between the IPCC consensus and Lenton's view concerns the
rates of possible change, which are essentially linear for the former
(more CO2, more warming), while for the latter, they necessarily pass
accelerative thresholds affecting not only temperature, but also, the
intricate dynamics of biogeochemical cycles.
A couple weeks ago I started watching a talk that Lenton gave a year ago
to a group - or really, a movement - called Scientist Rebellion. It's
got the most ungainly title: "Positive tipping points to avoid climate
tipping points" (5). After recapping the various cascade scenarios of
the current climate emergency, he goes on to discuss reinforcing
feedbacks that could push global society out of the current
business-as-usual trajectory. Basically he's talking about cheap power
from renewables and rising sales of electric cars as the drivers for
major transformations in the sectors of battery storage, hydrogen
fuel-cell production and "green fertiliser" (nitrogen produced without
the use of methane feedstocks). The video is extraordinary because of
the intense questions asked by the rebellious young scientists,
including how does he deal emotionally with his own knowledge and
whether it would be important to examine negative social tipping
cascades, like the effects of European colonization of the Americas.
I returned to the video last night, and finished watching it in parallel
with my partner Claire. At some point near the end Lenton begins talking
about coalitions between scientists, civil society, the financial sector
and the media - in short, a concerted intervention in global political
ecology, although he doesn't use the term. It was obvious that this was
not a traditional egghead paper but an activist blueprint for global
system change. According to Lenton it represents a possibly feasible
pathway - a "fifty-fifty chance" - for avoiding the above-mentioned
existential risk to the human species (and presumably, many many others).
As soon as she had finished the video, Claire began googling around and
found an article in the Guardian, only hours old, about a proposal that
had just been pitched to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
It's an operationalized plan produced by the Systemiq consultancy in
collaboration with the Global Systems Institute directed by Lenton at
the University of Exeter, under the title "The Breakthrough Effect: How
to Trigger a Cascade of Tipping Effects to Accelerate the Net-Zero
Transition" (6). This is not about a revolution, and concerning the
Scientist Rebellion question about negative social tipping cascades,
it's clear Lenton does not want to go there. This is about a consensual
transformation of the material basis underpinning the current form of
the corporate state, whose representatives gather every year at this
time, on top of a Swiss mountain.
Do you think it can be done? Will Davos Man finally answer the
ecological question? Will you sign on too? Can a nudge in time save nine
degrees of global warming?
Or maybe the initial prophecy holds...
cheers, Brian
***
1. Lenton, *Earth System Science: A Very Short Introduction*, Oxford
University Press, 2016.
2. Lenton et al., "Tipping elements in the Earth's climate system," PNAS
105(6), 2008, https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0705414105
<https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0705414105>
3. Lenton, Dutreuil and Latour, "Life on Earth is Hard to Spot,"
Anthropocene Review 7(3), 2020,
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2053019620918939
<https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2053019620918939>
4. Luke Kemp et al., "Climate Endgame: Exploring catastrophic climate
change scenarios," PNAS 119(34), 2022,
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2108146119
<https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2108146119>
5. Scientist Rebellion Talk Series #1,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqpmE_FQwpI
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqpmE_FQwpI>
6. Meldrum, Pinnell, Brennan, Romani, Sharpe and Lenton, "The
Breakthrough Effect: How to Trigger a Cascade of Tipping Effects to
Accelerate the Net-Zero Transition," report by Sytemiq and the Global
Systems Institute, 2023,
https://www.systemiq.earth/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/The-Breakthrough-Effect.pdf <https://www.systemiq.earth/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/The-Breakthrough-Effect.pdf>
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
# @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
--
| |||||||||||||||| http://felix.openflows.com |
| for secure communication, please use signal |
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org
# @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
