Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-16 (section)

=== 16.1.2 Risk Framing ===

<div id="h2-2-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

In the IPCC AR6, ‘risk’ is defined as the potential for adverse consequences for human or ecological systems, recognising the diversity of values and objectives associated with such systems. Relevant adverse consequences include those on lives, livelihoods, health and well-being, economic, social and cultural assets and investments, infrastructure, services (including ecosystem services), ecosystems and species ( [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-1|Chapter 1]] this volume, SR15 ( [[#IPCC--2018a|IPCC, 2018a]] )). The AR6 definition explicitly notes that ‘risks can arise from potential impacts of climate change as well as human responses to climate change.’

The main risks assessed here relate to the potential ''impacts'' of climate change. In recent years, the growing visibility of current climate impacts has resulted in a stronger focus on understanding and managing such risk across time scales, rather than just for the longer-term future. Examples include the rapid growth in attribution of specific extreme weather events, the use of scientific evidence of climate change impacts in legal cases, and the context of the Paris Agreement’s Article 8 on ‘averting, minimising and addressing loss and damage’ associated with climate change, but also the stronger links between adaptation and disaster risk reduction, including early-warning systems, wider discussions on how to build resilience in the face of a more volatile climate, and attention for limits to adaptation that are already being reached.

Of course, the scale of these risks is also determined by the ''responses'' to climate change, mainly in how they reduce risk, but also how they may create risks (sometimes inadvertently, and sometimes to others than those who implement the response, in other places, or later in time). Our focus is on adaptation responses, given that mitigation is covered in Working Group III (WGIII) AR6, but we acknowledge certain important interactions, such as biomass production as an alternative to fossil fuels which can compete with food production and thus aggravate adaptation challenges. Given that SRM could also be considered a response with significant implications for climate risks across scales, this chapter also includes Cross-Working Group Box SRM.

This assessment focuses primarily on ''adverse'' consequences of climate change. However, climate change also has ''positive'' implications (benefits and opportunities) for certain people and systems, although there are gaps in the literature on these positive effects. Some risks assessed in this chapter are actually about a balance between positive and negative effects of climate change (and of response options, especially adaptation). In those contexts, we assess the combined effect of both, aiming to identify not only the aggregate impacts (the balance between positive and negative effects) but also the distributional aspects (winners and losers). A more comprehensive discussion of the decision-making related to such trade-offs in relation to adaptation is provided in Chapter 17.

This chapter’s assessment takes a global perspective, although many risks and responses materialise at the local or national scale. We use case studies to illustrate the ways these risks aggregate across scales, again with particular concern for distributional aspects.

<div id="16.1.3" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="storyline-of-the-chapter-and-whats-new-compared-with-previous-assessments"></span>