In this article, I discuss the limitations of tipping points as a framework for communicating risks and vulnerabilities created by climate change. In doing so, I expand on the genealogical account of Anders Hansson, Jonas Anshelm, and Simon Haikola and their claims about the salience of apocalypse and doom in climate communication. I suggest that the communication of vulnerabilities to climate change, including catastrophic risks, should not seek to manage public emotion or invite billionaires to prescribe policy and governance frameworks for climate change.
Chris Russill (Mon,) studied this question.