Caroline Zimm

This paper is motivated by growing concern about tipping dynamics and processes that can cause abrupt, self-amplifying, and irreversible changes across the Earth system and societies. It assesses current scientific understanding of the most severe climate outcomes, and proposes ways to address the deep uncertainty surrounding them. We find substantial, though difficult-to-quantify, probabilities of major disruptions to large-scale ocean circulation, including the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation and the Southern Ocean Abyssal Circulation, with the potential to cause global climate shifts. The probability of ice sheet instability in vulnerable sectors, particularly Antarctica's marine-based sectors, is already high and could accelerate sea level rise over centennial to multi-centennial timescales. Permafrost thaw is underway, with the potential for accelerated greenhouse gas release. Tropical forests face increasing risks of widespread tree mortality, with major consequences for biodiversity, regional climate, and water availability. Coral reef dieback and mountain glacier loss are also underway, while severe compound marine events may trigger irreversible ecosystem changes. Even gradual climate change can produce nonlinear, abrupt impacts when hazards breach physiological or socioecological thresholds, disrupting health, food, or economic systems. It is essential to determine how the probability of such outcomes depends on the level and rate of warming. Current modelling systems challenge our ability to reliably quantify these risks. Sustained investment in observations, process understanding and next-generation earth system modelling is critical to identify precursors and improve early warning. Decision frameworks are needed to support proactive, flexible, anticipatory adaptation. Effective mitigation reduces risks of these highly disruptive outcomes.

Energy security is a major concern for Austria. Austria is an energy importer, with a notable and historically grown reliance on fossil fuel imports, mainly Russian gas for industry and heating and oil for transport. The related vulnerability of the Austrian economy following the Ukraine and now Iran war and the related energy crises necessitate action to bolster the system’s resilience. The Austrian government and other stakeholders have prioritised to enhance energy security. Some demand-side interventions and actions by users have shown notable potential. However, prevailing policy approaches predominantly emphasise energy supply, especially diversifying gas imports to reduce the dependence on Russia and reactive emergency measures targeted at affordability. Focusing on security of supply comes with the danger of novel lock-ins and overlooking the transformational potential of demand-side interventions and their many co-benefits for societal resilience, including health, trade balance, employment, and climate. To this end, we investigate how different supply- and demand-side interventions perform across diverse indicators of energy security for Austria using an accounting model. These interventions cover sectors such as buildings, transport, and industry. We show that demand-side actions demonstrate superior efficacy and provide an untapped readily available potential compared to conventional focus on import diversification in bolstering resilience and fortifying Austria against energy-related challenges, contributing to other policy goals such as climate change mitigation. We end with a call for action to Austrian policymakers to support demand-side actions to harness these resource potentials and diverse co-benefits instead of locking the energy system into expensive supply side infrastructure hampering transformational change opportunities.

Recent energy supply disruptions have prompted some governments to deploy demand-side measures as emergency responses. These crises reveal that systems built on high and inflexible energy and material demand are structurally exposed to shocks. This vulnerability is rooted in earlier political, infrastructural, and economic choices that locked societies into resource-intensive mobility, housing, and production. Crises are not only moments requiring rapid response; they are junctures where structural weaknesses become available for reform. We argue that demand-side measures are essential for reducing the immediate pain of crises and for reconfiguring provisioning systems toward lasting resilience. Drawing on examples spanning oil, electricity, buildings, and transport across multiple geographies, we document a consistent pattern: demand adjusts under crisis pressure, but only structural embedding produces lasting gains in energy security, affordability, health, and wellbeing. Japan’s post-Fukushima Setsuden campaign achieved approximately 15% electricity savings sustained over several years; India’s UJALA programme replaced 360 million lightbulbs nationwide. Persistence depended on structural policy follow-through, not crisis urgency alone. Without institutionalizing demand-side approaches in crisis preparedness frameworks, each successive shock will be met with the same supply-side reflexes, missing the opportunity for the structural change that would make societies genuinely less vulnerable to the next one.

Humans are now operating well outside the planetary conditions under which social and economic development has been possible. A precondition for securing equitable access to this prosperity is to safeguard the stability of the Earth system. The situation is urgent—we need a swift and profound shift in direction—a collective transformation. In response, the Earth Commission has developed a science‐based framework that integrates biophysical limits with justice considerations, aiming to enable human wellbeing for all. The Earth Commission's first assessment showed that multiple safe and just Earth system boundaries have already been transgressed, threatening the resilience of the planet and the well‐being of billions. This paper outlines the vision and scientific strategy for the Earth Commission's second phase (2024–2027), which focuses on advancing this framework and translating it into actionable budgets and exploring transformation pathways toward a safe and just future. Key components include expanding the safe and just boundary assessment to currently under‐assessed Earth system processes (e.g., novel entities and ocean change), integrating justice more deeply into the framework, modeling interactions between boundaries and tipping points, and developing practical approaches to cross‐scale translation and transformation. Special attention is given to the structural inequalities and power dynamics that shape both environmental degradation and our capacity to act. Through coordinated research, interdisciplinary collaboration, and stakeholder engagement, the Earth Commission seeks to provide knowledge to guide collective efforts toward transforming to a safe and just space for both people and the planet.

The concept of a “tipping point” is widely used to describe abrupt, potentially irreversible changes in complex systems - from climate subsystems to ecosystems and social dynamics. However, concerns have been raised about definitional ambiguity and conceptual overuse that may obscure rather than highlight potential systemic risk. Here, we offer a cross-disciplinary synthesis of the tipping point literature that identifies three essential properties—self-reinforcing feedbacks, threshold behavior, and persistence—as the defining characteristics of tipping dynamics. While different interpretations reflect genuine system-specific differences and offer complementary insights, these three properties help identify underlying patterns and causal mechanisms across diverse systems. This synthesis promotes conceptual clarity in how tipping point terminology is applied across diverse contexts. In doing so, we identify research priorities: moving beyond single-threshold models, developing cross-system early warning indicators, understanding cascading dynamics between interconnected systems, and advancing integrated models capturing climate-ecological-social feedbacks.

Humans are now operating well outside the planetary conditions that enabled stable and equitable development. The situation is urgent — we need a swift and profound shift in direction — a collective transformation. In response, the Earth Commission has developed a science-based framework that integrates biophysical limits with justice considerations, aiming to secure a liveable and dignified future for all. The Earth Commission’s first assessment showed that multiple safe and just Earth system boundaries have already been transgressed, threatening the resilience of the planet and the well-being of billions. This paper outlines the vision and scientific strategy for the Earth Commission’s second phase (2024–2027), which focuses on advancing this framework and translating it into actionable budgets and exploring transformation pathways to a safe and just space. Key components include expanding the safe and just boundary assessment to currently under-assessed Earth system processes (e.g., novel entities and ocean change), integrating justice more deeply into the framework, modelling interactions between boundaries and tipping points, and developing practical approaches to cross-scale translation and transformation. Special attention is given to the structural inequalities and power dynamics that shape both environmental degradation and our capacity to act. Through coordinated research, interdisciplinary collaboration, and stakeholder engagement, the Earth Commission seeks to provide knowledge to guide collective efforts toward transforming to a safe and just space for both people and the planet.

Many households worldwide face substantial gaps in decent living standards (DLS), universal and essential material preconditions for achieving well-being and inclusive development. Here, we use subnational Demographic and Health Survey data from 75 low and middle-income countries (1990–2021) to explore the distribution and trends of ten living standards. We estimate that 94.9% of households in our dataset lack the material prerequisites for at least one of the ten standards, and 63.6% for one-third of them. Stark inequalities persist both within and between countries, with regions in sub-Saharan Africa experiencing the most severe deprivations. Despite some improvements, progress remains limited in critical areas such as health care, sanitation, housing, and education. Within countries, rural, agrarian households with low levels of educational attainment are particularly disadvantaged. These granular findings at the subnational level can help direct policy efforts and resources towards those populations most in need.