Editing IPCC:AR6/SR15/TS (section)

=== Mitigation and Sustainable Development ===

'''The deployment of mitigation options consistent with 1.5°C pathways leads to multiple synergies across a range of sustainable development dimensions. At the same time, the rapid pace and magnitude of change that would be required to limit warming to 1.5°C, if not carefully managed, would lead to trade-offs with some sustainable development dimensions (''high confidence'').''' The number of synergies between mitigation response options and sustainable development exceeds the number of trade-offs in energy demand and supply sectors; agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU); and for oceans (very high confidence). {Figure 5.2, Table 5.2 available at the end of the chapter} The 1.5°C pathways indicate robust synergies, particularly for the SDGs 3 (health), 7 (energy), 12 (responsible consumption and production) and 14 (oceans) (''very high confidence''). {5.4.2, Figure 5.3} For SDGs 1 (poverty), 2 (hunger), 6 (water) and 7 (energy), there is a risk of trade-offs or negative side effects from stringent mitigation actions compatible with 1.5°C of warming (''medium evidence, high agreement''). {5.4.2}

'''Appropriately designed mitigation actions to reduce energy demand can advance multiple SDGs simultaneously. Pathways compatible with 1.5°C that feature low energy demand show the most pronounced synergies and the lowest number of trade-offs with respect to sustainable development and the SDGs (''very high confidence'').''' Accelerating energy efficiency in all sectors has synergies with SDGs 7 (energy), 9 (industry, innovation and infrastructure), 11 (sustainable cities and communities), 12 (responsible consumption and production), 16 (peace, justice and strong institutions), and 17 (partnerships for the goals) (''robust evidence, high agreement''). {5.4.1, Figure 5.2, Table 5.2} Low-demand pathways, which would reduce or completely avoid the reliance on bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) in 1.5°C pathways, would result in significantly reduced pressure on food security, lower food prices and fewer people at risk of hunger (''medium evidence, high agreement''). {5.4.2, Figure 5.3}

'''The impacts of carbon dioxide removal options on SDGs depend on the type of options and the scale of deployment (''high confidence'').''' If poorly implemented, carbon dioxide removal (CDR) options such as bioenergy, BECCS and AFOLU would lead to trade-offs. Appropriate design and implementation requires considering local people’s needs, biodiversity and other sustainable development dimensions (''very high confidence''). {5.4.1.3, Cross-Chapter Box 7 in Chapter 3}

'''The design of the mitigation portfolios and policy instruments to limit warming to 1.5°C will largely determine the overall synergies and trade-offs between mitigation and sustainable development (''very high confidence''). Redistributive policies that shield the poor and vulnerable can resolve trade-offs for a range of SDGs (''medium evidence, high agreement'').''' Individual mitigation options are associated with both positive and negative interactions with the SDGs (''very high confidence''). {5.4.1} However, appropriate choices across the mitigation portfolio can help to maximize positive side effects while minimizing negative side effects (''high confidence''). {5.4.2, 5.5.2} Investment needs for complementary policies resolving trade-offs with a range of SDGs are only a small fraction of the overall mitigation investments in 1.5°C pathways (''medium evidence, high agreement''). {5.4.2, Figure 5.4} Integration of mitigation with adaptation and sustainable development compatible with 1.5°C warming requires a systems perspective (''high confidence''). {5.4.2, 5.5.2}

'''Mitigation consistent with 1.5°C of warming create high risks for sustainable development in countries with high dependency on fossil fuels for revenue and employment generation (''high confidence'').''' These risks are caused by the reduction of global demand affecting mining activity and export revenues and challenges to rapidly decrease high carbon intensity of the domestic economy (''robust evidence, high agreement''). {5.4.1.2, Box 5.2} Targeted policies that promote diversification of the economy and the energy sector could ease this transition (''medium evidence, high agreement''). {5.4.1.2, Box 5.2}