Editing IPCC:AR6/SR15/Chapter-1 (section)

====== Lead Authors ======

* William Solecki (United States)
* Anton Cartwright (South Africa)
* Wolfgang Cramer (France, Germany)
* James Ford (United Kingdom, Canada)
* Kejun Jiang (China)
* Joana Portugal Pereira (United Kingdom, Portugal)
* Joeri Rogelj (Austria, Belgium)
* Linda Steg (Netherlands)
* Henri Waisman (France)

<div id="section-1-4-2-block-1"></div>

This Cross-Chapter Box describes the concept of feasibility in relation to efforts to limit global warming to 1.5°C in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty and draws from the understanding of feasibility emerging within the IPCC (IPCC, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r258|258]]</sup> . Feasibility can be assessed in different ways, and no single answer exists as to the question of whether it is feasible to limit warming to 1.5°C. This implies that an assessment of feasibility would go beyond a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’. Rather, feasibility provides a frame to understand the different conditions and potential responses for implementing adaptation and mitigation pathways, and options compatible with a 1.5°C warmer world. This report assesses the overall feasibility of limiting warming to 1.5°C, and the feasibility of adaptation and mitigation options compatible with a 1.5°C warmer world, in six dimensions:

'''Geophysical''' : What global emission pathways could be consistent with conditions of a 1.5°C warmer world? What are the physical potentials for adaptation?

'''Environmental-ecological''' : What are the ecosystem services and resources, including geological storage capacity and related rate of needed land-use change, available to promote transformations, and to what extent are they compatible with enhanced resilience?

'''Technological''' : What technologies are available to support transformation?

'''Economic''' : What economic conditions could support transformation?

'''Socio-cultural''' : What conditions could support transformations in behaviour and lifestyles? To what extent are the transformations socially acceptable and consistent with equity?

'''Institutional''' : What institutional conditions are in place to support transformations, including multi-level governance, institutional capacity, and political support?

Assessment of feasibility in this report starts by evaluating the unavoidable warming from past emissions (Section 1.2.4) and identifying mitigation pathways that would lead to a 1.5°C world, which indicates that rapid and deep deviations from current emission pathways are necessary (Chapter 2). In the case of adaptation, an assessment of feasibility starts from an evaluation of the risks and impacts of climate change (Chapter 3). To mitigate and adapt to climate risks, system-wide technical, institutional and socio-economic transitions would be required, as well as the implementation of a range of specific mitigation and adaptation options. Chapter 4 applies various indicators categorised in these six dimensions to assess the feasibility of illustrative examples of relevant mitigation and adaptation options (Section 4.5.1). Such options and pathways have different effects on sustainable development, poverty eradication and adaptation capacity (Chapter 5).

The six feasibility dimensions interact in complex and place-specific ways. Synergies and trade-offs may occur between the feasibility dimensions, and between specific mitigation and adaptation options (Section 4.5.4). The presence or absence of enabling conditions would affect the options that comprise feasibility pathways (Section 4.4), and can reduce trade-offs and amplify synergies between options.

Sustainable development, eradicating poverty and reducing inequalities are not only preconditions for feasible transformations, but the interplay between climate action (both mitigation and adaptation options) and the development patterns to which they apply may actually enhance the feasibility of particular options (see Chapter 5).

The connections between the feasibility dimensions can be specified across three types of effects (discussed below). Each of these dimensions presents challenges and opportunities in realizing conditions consistent with a 1.5°C warmer world.

'''Systemic effects:''' Conditions that have embedded within them system-level functions that could include linear and non-linear connections and feedbacks. For example, the deployment of technology and large installations (e.g., renewable or low carbon energy mega-projects) depends upon economic conditions (costs, capacity to mobilize investments for R&amp;D), social or cultural conditions (acceptability), and institutional conditions (political support; e.g., Sovacool et al., 2015) <sup>[[#fn:r259|259]]</sup> . Case studies can demonstrate system-level interactions and positive or negative feedback effects between the different conditions (Jacobson et al., 2015; Loftus et al., 2015) <sup>[[#fn:r260|260]]</sup> . This suggests that each set of conditions and their interactions need to be considered to understand synergies, inequities and unintended consequences.

'''Dynamic effects:''' Conditions that are highly dynamic and vary over time, especially under potential conditions of overshoot or no overshoot. Some dimensions might be more time sensitive or sequential than others (i.e., if conditions are such that it is no longer geophysically feasible to avoid overshooting 1.5°C, the social and institutional feasibility of avoiding overshoot will be no longer relevant). Path dependencies, risks of legacy lock-ins related to existing infrastructures, and possibilities of acceleration permitted by cumulative effects (e.g., dramatic cost decreases driven by learning-by-doing) are all key features to be captured. The effects can play out over various time scales and thus require understanding the connections between near-term (meaning within the next several years to two decades) and long-term implications (meaning over the next several decades) when assessing feasibility conditions.

'''Spatial effects''' : Conditions that are spatially variable and scale dependent, according to context-specific factors such as regional-scale environmental resource limits and endowment; economic wealth of local populations; social organisation, cultural beliefs, values and worldviews; spatial organisation, including conditions of urbanisation; and financial and institutional and governance capacity. This means that the conditions for achieving the global transformation required for a 1.5°C world will be heterogeneous and vary according to the specific context. On the other hand, the satisfaction of these conditions may depend upon global-scale drivers, such as international flows of finance, technologies or capacities. This points to the need for understanding feasibility to capture the interplay between the conditions at different scales.

With each effect, the interplay between different conditions influences the feasibility of both pathways (Chapter 2) and options (Chapter 4), which in turn affect the likelihood of limiting warming to 1.5°C. The complexity of these interplays triggers unavoidable uncertainties, requiring transformations that remain robust under a range of possible futures that limit warming to 1.5°C.

<span id="transformation-transformation-pathways-and-transition-evaluating-trade-offs-and-synergies-between-mitigation-adaptation-and-sustainable-development-goals"></span>