Are we near a tipping point? I think this question has to be asked because so much of what is going on in the world right now feels so incredibly fragile that the sense that something must break, and soon, is very strong.
Let me be clear about what I mean by tipping point. In the context in which I'm using the term, tipping points are critical, often irreversible thresholds where small, incremental changes cause a system to reorganise abruptly, triggering self-perpetuating, rapid shifts to a new state. These phenomena, which are often characterised by positive feedback loops, can occur in climate, ecological, and social systems. The last is my concern here.
So what is so fragile in the world at present that the tipping point feels as though it must happen?
The US government
The US government is one system where it seems that change must happen. Trump is intent upon destroying even the pretence of democracy in the USA, with a regime of violence that is horrific in its actions. The scale of reaction in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and now elsewhere, has been so strong that it feels as if this reign of terror cannot last: a reaction that will overthrow the tyranny does feel as though it is inevitable. The only question comes down to timing, and what cost must be paid to effect the necessary change.
NATO
Also, because of Trump's actions, the realignment of world power now feels inevitable. The tipping point at which NATO, including US membership, ceases to be relevant would appear to have been reached. What is now clear is that a new defence alliance of the “middle states” of Europe and elsewhere must be created to challenge the power of the USA, Russia, and China, all of which are inherently divisive societies, as I discuss in today's video. The question, once again, is the cost: it is going to be big.
The UN
This then suggests another potential tipping point. With the three powers mentioned in the previous section holding a majority of the permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council, the prospect of that organisation retaining any real relevance appears remote. If the world is to line up against their power, as seems likely, then either the rest of the world will demand reform of the United Nations, or an alternative organisation, dedicated to a continuing form of international justice around which countries can coalesce, seems much more likely. This would, at the same time, provide an alternative to the so-called “Board of Peace” that Trump is promoting, which is very obviously the exact opposite of what it claims to be. Again, a tipping point seems not just on the horizon, but fairly close in this case.
The Labour Party
There are also tipping points in the domestic political scene. Starmer's actions in ensuring that Andy Burnham has been blocked as a candidate to contest the forthcoming by-election in Manchester guarantees that very large numbers of people in the Parliamentary Labour Party, and the broader Labour Party, will now feel alienated from his decision-making processes, and from what they mean for democratic representation within that party, and for that party's relationship with the broader democratic process which is, no doubt, why many joined the Labour Party in the first place.
If Labour's management of its engagement with democracy is to be solely about the preservation of the power of a deeply unpopular leader, then either that leader or the party has reached a tipping point. Either Starmer goes, giving the party a chance to redeem itself, or the party fails. The risk of one or both now appears to create tipping points.
Reform
There are other issues that might create tipping points within the domestic political scene. In particular, I know it is popular to say that Farage will be the next Prime Minister of the UK, but I think that is incredibly unlikely. I rule nothing out, but I think he has reached peak popularity now, a long time before having any chance of securing that office. His associations with Trump, and people's revulsion at the advance of right-wing politics within the UK, including the threats to well-being implicit in Farage's programme, will, I think, all lead to a fundamental shift in politics away from the far right. His actions will, over the next two or three years, alienate a great many people. Again, what I am suggesting is that the tipping point is likely.
Summary
Of course, I may be wrong about all these things, but what is undeniable is that we are living in a period of intense volatility. If that is the case, the chance that momentum towards change will gather to the point of becoming unstoppable is very real. That momentum could deliver tyranny, or it could enhance democratic freedoms and deliver a politics of care.
I do, of course, live in hope of the latter. But what I am sure about is that things are going to change very rapidly over the next few years, and the period of chaos through which we are living will, as a consequence, continue, but might also provide the chance of something very much better.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Climate change is now irreversible and appears to be accelerating and the real danger is crossing a tipping point for non-anthropogenic warming: the melting of ice in the polar regions is decreasing the planet’s albedo, which causes more of the sun’s rays to be absorbed rather than reflected, which causes further melting and reduction in albedo, leading to a vicious cycle. If the subsea permafrost starts to melt that can release methane, which is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide and increases warming further. This “clathrate gun” is just a hypothesis and may not happen but if it does it has the potential to wipe out most life on the planet.
Then there is the issue of aerosol masking, which seems to have slowed warming more than we previously thought, and the attempted switch to “renewables” will reduce aerosol emissions and speed up warming even more.
Reference:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365849668_The_largest_elephant_in_the_room_aerosol_masking
Your answer is?
I like sol;ution focus. What is your solution?
There is no “solution” because climate change is a predicament rather than a problem.
Degrowth is the only way. It will happen whether we plan for it or not.
That is not a solution.
I agree with Matthew in that there is no solution to the predicament of climate change. There are things we can do to ameliorate or slow down the rate of change but it cannot be reversed or even stopped in our lifetime, or in the lifetimes of those who follow.
However, just because the aerosols belched out by container ships and industrial processes has had the effect of slowing down the rate of climate change, it doesn’t therefore follow that we should switch back to using them as some sort of mitigating step. That would be insanity.
There may not be solutions to a predicament but there are always things we can do to soften its impact or to lengthen the period of time before it’s full effects are felt, and give us enough space to make changes that safeguard the future of the biosphere. But we have to recognise that life as we have grown used to it, is going to change, and not necessarily for the better. If we want that change to be as managed and as safe as possible, we need to take personal accountability of our own actions, consumptions and impacts. Be the change you want to see in the world, as a wise man once said.
So, I repeat, what should we do?
Where is the solution?
If objective, incisive, mass communication matters for beneficial change, might the attached article of Media Lens be of interest and/or relevance?
https://www.medialens.org/2026/the-weak-must-suffer-the-eternal-fiction-of-the-international-rules-based-order/
Wnhy? Please explain who you think it would reach and how many people read it? (Yes, I am asking you to do my research!)
I was kind of rooting for Andy Burnham, for the sole reason that he is in favour of PR. The one and only chance that the UK electoral system might be changed to PR in time for the next General Election depended on him becoming PM. So as a consequence of him being blocked the government have not only ensured that the Labour Party remains a busted flush, but that they continue to do their best to facilitate a majority Reform government being elected in 2029. Wierdly, they just don’t seem able to see that coming. I guess one good thing that comes out of it is that the moribund Labour Party has denied itself a chance for resurrection under Burnham’s leadership, leaving the field open for the Green Party to attempt to present a real alternative to failed neoliberalism.
In a 2022 article on interest rates and inflation, https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2023/02/04/do-high-interest-rates-reduce-inflation-a-test-of-monetary-faith/ Blair Fix introduced a graph using historical data, showing considerable fluctuation, but almost perfect correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature. This ties in perfectly with predictions of global warming. But there is another question hiding: In the past, what caused CO2 levels to rise? And what caused them to fall again? I don’t know the answers, but they might be relevant today.
“In the past, what caused CO2 levels to rise? And what caused them to fall again?”
Try this article: https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/
CO2 levels have always fluctuated naturally over time, due to factors that will probably always be beyond our control. What’s different today is the unprecedented speed at which CO2 concentrations are increasing, but the effects still take as long as they ever did to manifest. We’re probably decades away from seeing the consequences even of today’s levels. What are the chances of persuading our shortsighted politicians/rulers to take action now?
With regards to tipping points, on Sunday an American contributor to the World Service ‘Weekend’ programme said that the power needs of AI were so enormous and so pressing that they could only be met in the time frame required by building a very large number of coal and gas-fired power stations to be developed alongside data-centre hubs; and that this was, and would be, the case with regards to China, and pretty much anywhere else, if the Tech Bros get their way.
And all that will/would be required in order to deliver, beyond mass redundancy, disinformation, surveillance, autonomous weapons and slop, what? Some useful applications for scientific R&D?
As currently constituted this represents the most incredibly inefficient and unsustainable use of resources for the benefit of hardly anyone.
Thanks
It feels very much like we are past the point where the solution is “reverse austerity”. No more austerity politics. Yet that doesn’t come close to addressing the amounting the problems. The problems we have are global in nature and are therefore social. They effect every single one of us. Unless there is a politics which can speak of social goods we won’t solve the amounting problems regardless of the cleverness or goodness of the planned solutions.
Nesrine Malik has produced a good analysis of the current political turmoil in a Guardian opinion piece published today
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jan/26/allies-united-states-old-world-order-dying
She does make the point that as Carney detailed the hypocrisies of the old way, there was no acknowledgment of the people who have always suffered them.
And also that
“The solutions proposed so far – more middle-power coordination to create groupings that act as a counterweight to the US, higher investment in defence spending, lowering taxes and trade hurdles to make up for the US’s isolationism – are policies that continue the security and economic supremacy of the old order”
In response to some discussion on her piece Nesrine further comments
I have no insight into what will emerge, and chances are that, like all interregnums, it will be volatile compared to what went before it. But what I am trying to get at is that the reason the order collapsed is that it was always highly vulnerable and incoherent, and that it doesn’t seem that that lesson will be taken into the future…
And
I genuinely thought Carney’s speech was surprising, and he went way further than was expected. My main concern is that we will end up in a situation where we try to emulate the same arrangements but simply excise the US from them, but time will tell.
I think that articles such as this show an increasing acknowledgement of the inadequacies of the “ old order “ and perhaps open some space for us to advocate for a better more inclusive order which Richard consistently argues for.
Thanks
Yes I feel something is different, and much resistance is under reported to control us.