Editing IPCC:AR6/SYR/SPM (section)

=== The Benefits of Near-Term Action ===

<div id="h2-13-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

'''C.2 Deep, rapid and sustained mitigation and accelerated implementation of adaptation actions in this decade would reduce projected losses and damages for humans and ecosystems ''(very high confidence)'' , and deliver many co-benefits, especially for air quality and health ''(high confidence)'' . Delayed mitigation and adaptation action would lock-in high-emissions infrastructure, raise risks of stranded assets and cost-escalation, reduce feasibility, and increase losses and damages ''(high confidence)'' . Near-term actions involve high up-front investments and potentially disruptive changes that can be lessened by a range of enabling policies ''(high confidence)'' . ''Links to longer report 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8'''''
<div id="spmbulletcont-c2" class="spmbulletcont"></div>

C.2.1 Deep, rapid, and sustained mitigation and accelerated implementation of adaptation actions in this decade would reduce future losses and damages related to climate change for humans and ecosystems ''(very high confidence)'' . As adaptation options often have long implementation times, accelerated implementation of adaptation in this decade is important to close adaptation gaps ''(high confidence)'' . Comprehensive, effective, and innovative responses integrating adaptation and mitigation can harness synergies and reduce trade-offs between adaptation and mitigation ''(high confidence)'' . Links to longer report 4.1, 4.2, 4.3

C.2.2 Delayed mitigation action will further increase global warming and losses and damages will rise and additional human and natural systems will reach adaptation limits ''(high confidence)'' . Challenges from delayed adaptation and mitigation actions include the risk of cost escalation, lock-in of infrastructure, stranded assets, and reduced feasibility and effectiveness of adaptation and mitigation options ''(high confidence)'' . Without rapid, deep and sustained mitigation and accelerated adaptation actions, losses and damages will continue to increase, including projected adverse impacts in Africa, LDCs, SIDS, Central and South America [[#footnote-008|49]] , Asia and the Arctic, and will disproportionately affect the most vulnerable populations ''(high confidence)'' . ''[[#figure-spm-3|Figure SPM.3]] [[#figure-spm-4|Figure SPM.4]] Links to longer report 2.1.2, 3.1.2, 3.2, 3.3.1, 3.3.3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3''

C.2.3 Accelerated climate action can also provide co-benefits (see also C.4). Many mitigation actions would have benefits for health through lower air pollution, active mobility (e.g., walking, cycling), and shifts to sustainable healthy diets. Strong, rapid and sustained reductions in methane emissions can limit near-term warming and improve air quality by reducing global surface ozone. ''(high confidence)'' Adaptation can generate multiple additional benefits such as improving agricultural productivity, innovation, health and wellbeing, food security, livelihood, and biodiversity conservation ''(very high confidence)'' . Links to longer report 4.2, 4.5.4, 4.5.5, 4.6

C.2.4 Cost-benefit analysis remains limited in its ability to represent all avoided damages from climate change ''(high confidence)'' . The economic benefits for human health from air quality improvement arising from mitigation action can be of the same order of magnitude as mitigation costs, and potentially even larger ''(medium confidence)'' . Even without accounting for all the benefits of avoiding potential damages the global economic and social benefit of limiting global warming to 2°C exceeds the cost of mitigation in most of the assessed literature ''(medium confidence)'' [[#footnote-007|50]] . More rapid climate change mitigation, with emissions peaking earlier, increases co-benefits and reduces feasibility risks and costs in the long-term, but requires higher up-front investments ''(high confidence)'' . Links to longer report 3.4.1, 4.2

C.2.5 Ambitious mitigation pathways imply large and sometimes disruptive changes in existing economic structures, with significant distributional consequences within and between countries. To accelerate climate action, the adverse consequences of these changes can be moderated by fiscal, financial, institutional and regulatory reforms and by integrating climate actions with macroeconomic policies through (i) economy-wide packages, consistent with national circumstances, supporting sustainable low-emission growth paths; (ii) climate resilient safety nets and social protection; and (iii) improved access to finance for low-emissions infrastructure and technologies, especially in developing countries. ''(high confidence)'' Links to longer report 4.2, 4.4, 4.7, 4.8.1

<div id="figure-spm-7" class="_idGenObjectLayout-1 figure-cont"></div>

[[File:46289006a6f87471b9c0f7b8dafcff1c IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM_Figure7.png]]
'''Figure SPM.7: Multiple Opportunities for scaling up climate action. Panel (a)''' presents selected mitigation and adaptation options across different systems. The left-hand side of panel a shows climate responses and adaptation options assessed for their multidimensional feasibility at global scale, in the near term and up to 1.5°C global warming. As literature above 1.5°C is limited, feasibility at higher levels of warming may change, which is currently not possible to assess robustly. The term response is used here in addition to adaptation because some responses, such as migration, relocation and resettlement may or may not be considered to be adaptation. Forest based adaptation includes sustainable forest management, forest conservation and restoration, reforestation and afforestation. WASH refers to water, sanitation and hygiene. Six feasibility dimensions (economic, technological, institutional, social, environmental and geophysical) were used to calculate the potential feasibility of climate responses and adaptation options, along with their synergies with mitigation. For potential feasibility and feasibility dimensions, the figure shows high, medium, or low feasibility. Synergies with mitigation are identified as high, medium, and low. The right-hand side of Panel a provides an overview of selected mitigation options and their estimated costs and potentials in 2030. Costs are net lifetime discounted monetary costs of avoided GHG emissions calculated relative to a reference technology. Relative potentials and costs will vary by place, context and time and in the longer term compared to 2030. The potential (horizontal axis) is the net GHG emission reduction (sum of reduced emissions and/or enhanced sinks) broken down into cost categories (coloured bar segments) relative to an emission baseline consisting of current policy (around 2019) reference scenarios from the AR6 scenarios database. The potentials are assessed independently for each option and are not additive. Health system mitigation options are included mostly in settlement and infrastructure (e.g., efficient healthcare buildings) and cannot be identified separately. Fuel switching in industry refers to switching to electricity, hydrogen, bioenergy and natural gas. Gradual colour transitions indicate uncertain breakdown into cost categories due to uncertainty or heavy context dependency. The uncertainty in the total potential is typically 25–50%. '''Panel (b)''' displays the indicative potential of demand-side mitigation options for 2050. Potentials are estimated based on approximately 500 bottom-up studies representing all global regions. The baseline (white bar) is provided by the sectoral mean GHG emissions in 2050 of the two scenarios (IEA-STEPS and IP_ModAct) consistent with policies announced by national governments until 2020. The green arrow represents the demand-side emissions reductions potentials. The range in potential is shown by a line connecting dots displaying the highest and the lowest potentials reported in the literature. Food shows demand-side potential of socio-cultural factors and infrastructure use, and changes in land-use patterns enabled by change in food demand. Demand-side measures and new ways of end-use service provision can reduce global GHG emissions in end-use sectors (buildings, land transport, food) by 40–70% by 2050 compared to baseline scenarios, while some regions and socioeconomic groups require additional energy and resources. The last row shows how demand-side mitigation options in other sectors can influence overall electricity demand. The dark grey bar shows the projected increase in electricity demand above the 2050 baseline due to increasing electrification in the other sectors. Based on a bottom-up assessment, this projected increase in electricity demand can be avoided through demand-side mitigation options in the domains of infrastructure use and socio-cultural factors that influence electricity usage in industry, land transport, and buildings (green arrow). ''Links to longer report Figure 4.4''

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

<span id="mitigati-on-and-adaptation-options-across-systems"></span>