the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 25 Oct 2023
ESD Ideas: Positive Tipping points towards global regenerative systems
Abstract. Coping with the threats posed by multiple negative Earth tipping points calls for large coordinated actions conducive to creating long-lasting positive synergies between human and biophysical systems. Boundary concepts, engaging narratives and aspirational visions play a crucial role in coordinating the kinds of deliberate transformations needed to address global existential challenges. The regenerative sustainability paradigm offers an enabling cognitive and discursive capacity to integrate the insights from social and natural sciences so net-positive tipping points towards a safe and just space for humanity can better be operationalised, coordinated and enacted within and across multiple kinds of social-ecological systems.
- Preprint
(569 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
J. David Tàbara
Status: open (until 06 Dec 2023)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2423', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 Oct 2023
reply
I like the ideas presented in the paper, but unfortunately I feel like I need to reject this paper, because the ideas presented here are not original, the paper is largely a shorter version of a paper the author published only in July of this year in Environmental Sociology (a paper he cites in this manuscript). Given this, I don't see a rationale for re-publishing the ideas in this venue.
One could argue there is some originality for instance in the figure presented here, which is a figure, merging figure 2 and 3 from the original paper. But, I must say this figure is also the least convincing contribution of this manuscript, as I find it very confusing. In particular, one could interpret it in the way that it suggest increasing world population is part of the solution as the green arrow goes in the same direction as the world population arrow and I guess this interpretation was not intended by the author. On the other hand the figure seems to suggest
that a world population of 6 billion is intrinsically bad? I don’t think the dimension of world population is necessary or helpful in the graphic, but without it the figure is basically identical to the figure 2 in the original paper.Another more substantive criticism is that this framework is maybe too ambitious, trying to solve all world problems at once. While I think the framework is good as an aspirational guide, it can also risk to overwhelm people and hence lead to disengagement, hence i think it is important to communicate the aspirational nature of this framework, but also to provide some guidelines for how to set priorities when goals conflict.
Finally, while I agree that identifying "who is part of the solution" is important, I would caution that it could lead to exclusionary practices. How should we engage with those who are not/don't want to be part of the solution? At least acknowledging the conflict potential here is important.
I wonder whether the author should maybe try and develop the ideas presented in this manuscript and originally in the paper in Environmental Sociology further, maybe as a proposed framework for what should follow after the SDGs in 2030?
A note to editors:
I don't see the answer options (just the circles to be clicked) in the field "Were a revised manuscript to be sent for another round of reviews:" So my click is completely random, as I need to choose one of the answer options to be able to submit the review.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2423-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', J David Tabara, 06 Nov 2023
reply
Thank you for your comment so my ESD Idea submission. Below my reactions to your comments.
COMMENT: “the ideas presented here are not original, the paper is largely a shorter version of a paper the author published only in July of this year in Environmental Sociology (a paper he cites in this manuscript). Given this, I don't see a rationale for re-publishing the ideas in this venue”
RESPONSE: There are two dimensions that are worth noting relating the criticism on the lack of originality of this paper, which I disagree for the following reasons:
CONCEPTUAL ORIGINALITY:
- The paper introduces for the first time the distinction between relative and absolute tipping points. This distinction was not mentioned either in the paper published in Environmental Sociology (Tàbara 2023). The paper argues that the former refer to those tipping points which are sectorial and/or limited in scope -but may eventually create rebound effects or increase resource scarcities and inequalities in a given system of reference- whilst the later refer to those that contribute to improving both social and biophysical conditions in a self-propelling synergistic way in a give system of reference. I would like to know if anyone working on positive tipping points research has ever made such distinction before the time I submitted this paper -otherwise, I would say that such distinction is an original contribution.
- The paper also introduces the idea of global regenerative systems, which is also a novel concept that was not mentioned either in the paper published in Environmental Sociology. Based on the research and on Global Systems Science (see Jaeger et al., 2013), this idea is based that global systems can be interlinked and constituted in regenerative ways. Again, I would appreciate if anyone working in global systems science knows of anybody who that has ever introduced this concept before, and if not, I would argue that this is also an original conceptual innovation of this ESD idea.
ORIGINALITY REGARDING COMMUNICATIVE AND SYNTHESIS POWER OF FIGURE 1:
- Figure 1 is original not only because it constitutes a conceptual synthesis of a large number of theoretical and empirical arguments (sociologically-grounded ones; and yes, expressed in the paper already published in Env. Soc.) but also because it is also intended to provide one-single communication tool that can be used in stakeholder dialogues, engagement and consultations. It is therefore original because it merges in only one image the ideas of regenerative development pathways, relative/absolute tipping points, and the implications of these in achieving or failing to realise a safe and just corridor for humanity following the related Earth Commission arguments. The originality of this image lies onto the extent that it constitutes a step further in applying the Occum’s razon principle of scientific (and communicative) parsimony of explaining the largest complexity of social-ecological phenomena relevant for achieving global sustainability with the smallest number possible of explanatory elements. And such synthesis, bringing both social and natural scientists’ arguments has not been depicted before.
- Furthermore, and similar to the idea that ‘all models are wrong but some are more useful than others’ such a synthetic image is not – and cannot be, as it is not intended to be- a truthful depiction of reality (nor it is either the MLP one on transitions or any other on safe and just corridor for humanity; we must avoid the naturalist fallacy of confusing models from reality or deriving normative precepts from them, only reflexive ones). In making critical visualisations aimed to help reflexivity and prompt urgent actions to avoid the worse outcomes of current existential risks, we can only hope that such images -and intend to express in plain language the very complex ideas behind them- which are will be useful ones.
- But last and not least the crucial aspect regarding the originality of that figure has to do with underlying the critical role to equity and justice in achieving positive tipping points across different levels of action, and ultimately at global systems levels. In my view, no synthetic single figure has been provided thus far underlying such critical role of equity and justice in yielding positive tipping points in global systems dynamics (or negative one in the case of inequalities and justice; even in a recent report on ‘super leverage points’ the issues of equity and justice were not addressed either).
- Thus, and for those researchers or anyone interested to further learn about its conceptual background - and perhaps use it for their own stakeholder engagement and dialogues on safe and just corridors for humanity or also at local level with thinking about tipping points-, people can freely use it and download it here:
Tàbara, J. D., Kovacs, E., Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S., and Ryan, S. (2023). Conceptual Framework: Transformative pathways for synergising just biodiversity and climate actions. Deliverable D.1.1. EU Horizon Europe TRANSPATH Project. (October 31st 2023). Available here : https://transpath.eu/library?type=1&sort=title+asc&search=#
(This report is mostly based on transformations research, but that it also contains an introductory discussion of both leverage and tipping points, with a focus on net-positive biodiversity-climate tipping points)
COMMENT ON POPULATION in Figure1: “This figure is also the least convincing contribution of this manuscript, as I find it very confusing. In particular, one could interpret it in the way that it suggest increasing world population is part of the solution as the green arrow goes in the same direction as the world population arrow and I guess this interpretation was not intended by the author. On the other hand the figure seems to suggest that a world population of 6 billion is intrinsically bad? I don’t think the dimension of world population is necessary or helpful in the graphic, but without it the figure is basically identical to the figure 2 in the original paper”.
RESPONSE:
- According to the UN World Population prospects 2022 (UN 2023) world population will possibly reach 10 billion people by 2050, could still continue to grow for few decades and then could level off or start to decline by the end of the century (and it could actually reach 6 billion by 2200). Among other reasons, including the populations numbers in the figure is to underline that things will inevitably change and that current strategies thinking about global systems and sustainability need to take into account such structural factors, as positive / negative tipping dynamics are also dependent on social-ecological systems’ scale.
- However, the number of people that there will be in the world is not an indication at all about how much Ecospace (Gupta et al. 2023) there will be available to secure dignified life conditions for the generations living then. The only thing that we can know is that the available Ecospace in the future will be dependent onto the extent we are able to create the fair and synergistic necessary institutional arrangements and policies to share and expand such Ecospace in a fair way, e.g., following principles of transformative and Earth Systems’ justice. In my view, regenerative sustainability strategies and pathways can contribute to this (aspirational) global positive tipping point represented in the figure.
- In this sense, in the figure provided,the population numbers do not say anything about whether they increase or reduction will be good or bad. The paper explicitly rejects Malthusian arguments of any variety as population change is not considered a direct driver that can lead to either a positive or negative trajectory towards positive tipping point; but only a structural parameter that needs to be taken into account when thinking about the future. Because inevitably, and following systems’ thinking perspective, always in complex systems ‘more is different’.
- Therefore, this figure only intends to trigger discussions on how different we want the future the world to be then (e.g., how positive or negative) in contrast to the present conditions. In other words, the figure only wants to underline that: (1) equity issues cannot be omitted in the discussion on tipping points (2) population trends cannot be omitted either when thinking about global tipping points (as the future will be inevitably be different by the time the world reaches 10 billion people, and also later) and (3) that moving towards and safe a just development corridor for humanity depends on transforming social-ecological interactions currently leading to negative tipping points and relative positive tipping points in absolute, net-positive tipping points.
COMMENT: “Another more substantive criticism is that this framework is maybe too ambitious, trying to solve all world problems at once. While I think the framework is good as an aspirational guide, it can also risk to overwhelm people and hence lead to disengagement, hence i think it is important to communicate the aspirational nature of this framework, but also to provide some guidelines for how to set priorities when goals conflict.”
RESPONSE: Thanks for letting me aware of this possible interpretation of the figure. However, this figure does not aim to solve any problem. It is only intended to be a reflexive tool that, in a single snapshot, can help people to trigger a discussion and be aware of some of the basic changing conditions and the requirements that need to be considered if we wish to contribute to net-positive sustainable development trajectories across personal, local and global levels. How these net-positive outcomes will be achieved, e.g., by implementing win-win solutions at local levels, will always be different and unique in different places (Tàbara et al. 2019), although the challenge for transdisciplinary research is to map out how positive synergies across social-ecological scales can be enacted.
Regarding the second comment, it is true that this image has an inspirational motive and its aspirational nature could indeed be further emphasised -so this can be easily done. It is also true that it could be possible to provide further guidelines for how to set priorities when goals conflict. Regarding the later, this is implicit in the figure and overall argumentation on regenerative sustainability and Earth System Justice: when goals conflict, those that can most contribute to long-term regenerative and just outcomes should be chosen. However, as argued in the paper, further research is needed to further operationalise all this in particular contexts of action to just begin to provide such guidelines.
COMMENT: while I agree that identifying "who is part of the solution" is important, I would caution that it could lead to exclusionary practices. How should we engage with those who are not/don't want to be part of the solution? At least acknowledging the conflict potential here is important.
RESPONSE: Thank you for this comment. Indeed, one of the origins of the positive tipping points narrative as originally presented in Tàbara et al. (2018) was already developed in a series of previous research efforts over a decade ago that led, among other things, to recognise the need to turn the dominant climate policy discourses then dominated win-lose game or burden-sharing narrative into win-win ones. We acknowledged that ‘those who not/don’t want to be part of the solution’, however may be interested in being part of the benefits of strategies capable to synergise environmental and economic gains. As argued in a book edited together with Nobel Prize and Climate scientist Klaus Hasselman (Jaeger et al., 2012;), as positive tipping point can also be understood as the moment in which, within a game, a needed defective win-lose strategy turns into a collaborative, win-win one, so the system can then be move to a better-off system attractor (Tàbara et al., 2013). So one way to engage ‘those who not/don’t want to be part of the solution’ can be by trying to develop engaging transformative narratives (Hinkel et al. 2018) in which these non-collaborative agent can find opportunities to be part of short-term, individual gains; all that which is also implicit in the framing on regenerative sustainability.
COMMENT: I wonder whether the author should maybe try and develop the ideas presented in this manuscript and originally in the paper in Environmental Sociology further, maybe as a proposed framework for what should follow after the SDGs in 2030?
RESPONSE: Thanks for the suggestion. Indeed, this framework is intended to be further elaborated at least on two fronts in the https://transpath.eu/ project. First, by providing specific quantitative indicators showing both actual and potential synergies between social and biophysical improvements in particular social-ecological systems and across levels of action, e.g., to support net-positive biodiversity-climate tipping points (Tàbara et al. 2023); and second, by exploring the possibilities to translate such figure into a participatory tool or role game to support stakeholders’ engagement and deliberative processes. As always, I’ll be happy to engage enthusiastic and transformation-oriented researchers on this endeavour and can easily contact me to further explore potential collaborations. Because this is only the beginning of an (in my view, original) idea.
QUERY TO JOURNAL EDITORS:
As a personal query, I wonder if final decisions to publish on this journal can depend or are final depending on one single opinion, or else additional reviewers are needed; and in particular, with regard to contributions coming from the social sciences, whether additional assessments from social scientists are needed to take final decisions on publishing in Earth System Dynamics.
POSTSCRIPT:
Thank you for letting further reflect on the significance of the submitted paper. This discussion reinforces even more my life-long standing view that are all in a common journey to find not only scientific facts about how the compound effects of global environmental risks will lead to the demise of our civilisations; but most critically, in a race find and create simple, engaging and deliberative tools and methods to support transformative narratives of hope able to enact fast sustainability learning and action. Scientists -neither natural or social- cannot do that alone, so collaborative, win-win visions and images are urgently needed. Time will say if this original image can be useful and eventually be used for these transformative purposes in particular contexts of action and decision-making.
REFERENCES:
Gupta J., Prodani K., Bai X., Gifford L., Lenton T., Otto I., Pereira L. Rammelt C., Scholtens J., Tàbara J.D., 2023. Earth system boundaries and Earth system justice: Sharing our ecospace. Environmental Politics. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2023.2234794
Hinkel, J., Mangalagiu, D., Bisaro, A. and Tàbara J. D. 2020. Transformative narratives for climate action. Climatic Change. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02761-y
Jaeger, C. C., Hasselmann, K., Leipold, G., Mangalagiu, D., and Tàbara, J. D. 2012. Reframing the Problem of Climate Change: From Zero Sum Game to Win-Win Solutions. Oxon, UK, New York, USA & Canada: Earthscan and Taylor and Francis.
Jaeger, C., Jansson, P., Van der Leeuw, S., Resch, M., Tàbara, J. D. and R. Dum (Eds.). 2013. Global Systems Science Orientation paper. Background Material and Synthesis. http://global-systems-science.org/gss-research-programe/
Tàbara, J.D., Frantzeskaki, N., Hölscher, K., Pedde, S. Lamperti, F. Kok, K., Christensen, J.H., Jäger, J., and Berry, P. 2018. Positive tipping points in a rapidly warming world.Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. Special Issue on Sustainability Governance and Transformation, 31: 120-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.01.012
Tàbara, J.D., Takama T., Mishra, M., Hermanus L., Andrew S.K., Diaz P., Ziervogel G. and Lemkow L. 2019. Micro-solutions to global problems. Understanding social processes to eradicate energy poverty and build climate resilient livelihoods. Climatic Change, 1-15 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02448-z
Tàbara, J. D., Mangalagiu, D., Kupers, R., Jaeger, C. C., Mandel, A., Paroussos, L. 2013. Transformative targets in sustainability policy-making: the case of the 30% EU mitigation goal. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 56(8): 1180 - 1191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.716365
United Nations World Population prospects 2022. https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/DemographicProfiles/Line/900 ; visited 06 November 2023.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2423-AC1 -
RC2: 'Reply on AC1', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Nov 2023
reply
Many thanks for the extensive response.
Just for clarification, my criticism
"Another more substantive criticism is that this framework is maybe too ambitious, trying to solve all world problems at once. While I think the framework is good as an aspirational guide, it can also risk to overwhelm people and hence lead to disengagement, hence i think it is important to communicate the aspirational nature of this framework, but also to provide some guidelines for how to set priorities when goals conflict.”
was not with respect to the figure, but with respect to the whole contribution.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2423-RC2
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', J David Tabara, 06 Nov 2023
reply
J. David Tàbara
J. David Tàbara
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 154 | 37 | 10 | 201 | 4 | 4 |
- HTML: 154
- PDF: 37
- XML: 10
- Total: 201
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1