Editing IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-3 (section)

==== 3.2.1.2 Mitigation Scenarios ====

<div id="h3-2-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Mitigation scenarios explore different strategies to meet climate goals and are typically derived from reference scenarios by adding climate or other policies. Mitigation pathways are often developed to meet a predefined level of climate change, often referred to as a backcast. There are relatively few IAMs that include an endogenous climate model or emulator due to the added computational complexity, though exceptions do exist. In practice, models implement climate constraints by either iterating carbon-price assumptions ( [[#Strefler--2021b|Strefler et al. 2021b]] ) or by adopting an associated carbon budget ( [[#Riahi--2021|Riahi et al. 2021]] ). In both cases, other GHGs are typically controlled by CO 2 -equivalent pricing. A large part of the AR5 literature has focused on forcing pathways towards a target at the end of the century ( [[#van%20Vuuren--2007|van Vuuren et al. 2007]] , 2011; [[#Clarke--2009|Clarke et al. 2009]] ; [[#Blanford--2014|Blanford et al. 2014]] ; [[#Riahi--2017|Riahi et al. 2017]] ), featuring a temporary overshoot of the warming and forcing levels ( [[#Geden--2017|Geden and Löschel 2017]] ). In comparison, many recent studies explore mitigation strategies that limit overshoot ( [[#Johansson--2020|Johansson et al. 2020]] ; [[#Riahi--2021|Riahi et al. 2021]] ). An increasing number of IAM studies also explore climate pathways that limit adverse side effects with respect to other societal objectives, such as food security ( [[#van%20Vuuren--2019|van Vuuren et al. 2019]] ; [[#Riahi--2021|Riahi et al. 2021]] ) or larger sets of sustainability objectives ( [[#Soergel--2021a|Soergel et al. 2021a]] ).

<div id="3.2.2" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="the-utility-of-integrated-assessment-models"></span>