A second Trump presidency makes my 'wobbly' scenario look more likely

In my forthcoming book, I develop a range of scenarios, measured by the asset stewardship shortfall (a concept introduced in my previous book, "Unbalanced World - the Asset Stewardship Shortfall"). 

​In brief, the asset stewardship shortfall is the difference between the assets and liabilities in the World Balance Sheet.  It represents the extent to which the assets (including Natural Capital) fall short of what is required for flourishing of humanity in balance with the rest of nature.  It indicates we are drawing down Natural Capital to meet current needs, compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs in balance with the rest of nature.   

The diagram below is figure 16 from my new book, tracking the asset stewardship shortfall through to the year 2500.   

​With Trump about to enter the White House for a second term, it's inevitable that there will be some rowing back on the USA's existing climate commitments.  This will mean that there will be more planetary overshoot, including on the climate change dimension.  This, and other impacts of his presidency, will make my "wobbly" scenario (the blue line) more likely than it would otherwise have been.  With climate tipping points having greater probability, it might even tip us into my "collapse" scenario (the yellow line).​

Going forward, there’s more reason to think that the future will be uneven and wobbly than to think that it will be smooth, even if we follow a managed transition pathway to a sustainable future.  What we can’t possibly predict with precision is when the wobbles will occur, how large they will be and even in which direction they will be - up or down.

This blue line represents just one such wobbly path, with several ups and downs along the way.  As an example, this could represent success in the early decades in tackling (say) AGW through initiatives such as Global Net Zero, but not until after the current target timescale of 2050.  Then, through to 2200 there is good progress based on flourishing because the AGW crisis has been dealt with, and perhaps also through progress on one or more of the other planetary boundaries.  But then, through to 2250 there is either some regression or a new global crisis, perhaps this time relating to one of the other planetary boundaries (maybe even one that previously seemed to have been solved).  And so on.  Or, there are random global shocks such as major military conflicts, or major changes in political dynamics, or in trading relationships, or in social upheaval, or in global health emergencies or in environmental disasters, or from meteor strike, or from problems with Artificial Intelligence.  Notice that, as each crisis generates a “mini-collapse”, the asset stewardship surplus takes a hit, only rising again once the crisis has been resolved, then rising further until the next mini-crisis emerges.  

Any one of main planetary boundaries analysed by the Stockholm Resilience Institute could prompt mini-collapses and multiple cascades of them could cause larger collapses.

As we move through these various crises and recoveries, it will become more difficult to see the bigger picture and underlying planned trajectory.  It's taken several decades for AGW to be taken seriously at a global level.  The evidence became so overwhelming that it could no longer be ignored.  Actions had to be identified, negotiated and agreed at the international level.   Each new crisis will lead to similar campaigning, evidence-building and international negotiations.  That’s to be expected and embraced and dealt with.  Realistic optimism, rather than unreasonable doomism, will be part of the toolkit for successfully passing through that bottleneck.

​Below is the wobbly scenario drawn out separately.  It's figure 41 from my book.

Putting this into a wider context and a longer timeframe, and using metrics that might be more resonant with most people, below is figure 50 from my book.  The figure shows a personal projection of how such wobbles might feed into volatility in global population size (left scale, solid line) and environmental footprint (right scale, dotted line) through to the year 3000, with some potential critical impact events or eras signposted.  It envisages at least three civilizational collapse or major readjustment events brought on by global scale catastrophes.  One or more of them could even threaten extinction of the human species.