Editing IPCC:AR6/SR15/TS (section)

=== System Transitions ===

'''The energy system transition that would be required to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial conditions is underway in many sectors and regions around the world (''medium evidence, high agreement'').''' The political, economic, social and technical feasibility of solar energy, wind energy and electricity storage technologies has improved dramatically over the past few years, while that of nuclear energy and carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) in the electricity sector have not shown similar improvements. {4.3.1}

'''Electrification, hydrogen, bio-based feedstocks and substitution, and, in several cases, carbon dioxide capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) would lead to the deep emissions reductions required in energy-intensive industries to limit warming to
1.5°C.''' However, those options are limited by institutional, economic and technical constraints, which increase financial risks to many incumbent firms (''medium evidence, high agreement''). Energy efficiency in industry is more economically feasible and helps enable industrial system transitions but would have to be complemented with greenhouse gas (GHG)-neutral processes or carbon dioxide removal (CDR) to make energy-intensive industries consistent with 1.5°C (''high confidence'').
{4.3.1, 4.3.4}

'''Global and regional land-use and ecosystems transitions and associated changes in behaviour that would be required to limit warming to 1.5°C can enhance future adaptation and land-based agricultural and forestry mitigation potential. Such transitions could, however, carry consequences for livelihoods that depend on agriculture and natural resources {4.3.2, Cross-Chapter Box 6 in Chapter 3}.''' Alterations of agriculture and forest systems to achieve mitigation goals could affect current ecosystems and their services and potentially threaten food, water and livelihood security. While this could limit the social and environmental feasibility of land-based mitigation options, careful design and implementation could enhance their acceptability and support sustainable development objectives (''medium evidence, medium agreement''). {4.3.2, 4.5.3}

'''Changing agricultural practices can be an effective climate adaptation strategy.''' A diversity of adaptation options exists, including mixed crop-livestock production systems which can be a cost-effective adaptation strategy in many global agriculture systems (''robust evidence, medium agreement''). Improving irrigation efficiency could effectively deal with changing global water endowments, especially if achieved via farmers adopting new behaviours and water-efficient practices rather than through large-scale infrastructural interventions (''medium evidence, medium agreement''). Well-designed adaptation processes such as community-based adaptation can be effective depending upon context and levels of vulnerability. {4.3.2, 4.5.3}

'''Improving the efficiency of food production and closing yield gaps have the potential to reduce emissions from agriculture, reduce pressure on land, and enhance food security and future mitigation potential (''high confidence'').''' Improving productivity of
existing agricultural systems generally reduces the emissions intensity of food production and offers strong synergies with rural development, poverty reduction and food security objectives, but options to reduce absolute emissions are limited unless paired with demand-side measures. Technological innovation including biotechnology, with adequate safeguards, could contribute to resolving current feasibility constraints and expand the future mitigation potential of agriculture.
{4.3.2, 4.4.4}

'''Shifts in dietary choices towards foods with lower emissions and requirements for land, along with reduced food loss and waste, could reduce emissions and increase adaptation options (''high confidence'').''' Decreasing food loss and waste and changing dietary behaviour could result in mitigation and adaptation (high confidence) by reducing both emissions and pressure on land, with significant co-benefits for food security, human health and sustainable development {4.3.2, 4.4.5, 4.5.2, 4.5.3, 5.4.2}, but evidence of successful policies to modify dietary choices remains limited.