Editing IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-11 (section)

=== 11.5.3 Co-benefits of Mitigation Strategies and Sustainable Development Goals ===

<div id="h2-21-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

The deployment of climate change mitigation strategies is primarily influenced by its costs and potential, but also by other broader sustainable development factors such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Mitigation actions therefore are to be considered through the prism of impacts on achieving other economic, social and environmental goals. Those impacts are classified as co-benefits when they are positive or as risk when they are negative. Co-benefits can serve as additional drivers, while risks can inhibit the deployment of available mitigation options. Actions taken to mitigate climate change have direct and indirect interactions with SDGs, both positive (synergies) or negative (trade-offs) ( [[#Fuso%20Nerini--2019|Fuso Nerini et al. 2019]] ).

Given the wide range of stakeholders involved in climate actions and their (often contradictory) interests and priorities, the nature of co-benefits and risk can affect decision-making processes and the behaviour of stakeholders ( [[#Labella--2020|Labella et al. 2020]] ). Co-benefits form an important driver supporting the adoption of mitigation strategies, yet are commonly overlooked in policymaking. [[#Karlsson--2020|Karlsson et al. (2020)]] , based on a review of 239 peer-reviewed articles concluded that diverse co-benefit categories, including air, soil and water quality, diet, physical activity, biodiversity, economic performance, and energy security, are prevalent in the literature.

<div id="11.5.3.1" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="sustainable-development-goals-co-benefits-through-material-efficiency-and-demand-reduction"></span>
==== 11.5.3.1 Sustainable Development Goals Co-benefits Through Material Efficiency and Demand Reduction ====

<div id="h3-10-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Material efficiency, an important mitigation option (SDG 13, climate action) for heavy industries, is yet to be fully acknowledged and leveraged ( [[#Gonzalez%20Hernandez--2018a|Gonzalez Hernandez et al. 2018a]] ; [[#Sudmant--2018|Sudmant et al. 2018]] ; [[#Dawkins--2019|Dawkins et al. 2019]] ). Material efficiency directly addresses SDG 12 (responsible production and consumption) but also provides opportunities to reduce the pressures and impacts on environmental systems (SDG 6, clean water and sanitation) ( [[#Olivetti--2018|Olivetti and Cullen 2018]] ). Exploiting material efficiency usually requires new business models and provides potential co-benefits of increased employment and economic opportunities (SDG 8, decent work and economic growth).

Material efficiency also provides co-benefits through infrastructural development (SDG 9, industry, innovation and infrastructure) ( [[#Mathews--2018|Mathews et al. 2018]] ) to support the wide range of potential material efficiency strategies including light-weighting, reusing, remanufacturing, recycling, diverting scrap, extending product lives, using products more intensely, improving process yields, and substituting materials ( [[#Allwood--2011|Allwood et al. 2011]] ). [[#Worrell--2016|Worrell et al. (2016)]] also emphasises how material efficiency improvements, in addition to limiting the impacts of climate change help deliver sustainable production and consumption co-benefits through environmental stewardship. [[#Binder--2017|Binder and Blankenberg (2017)]] and [[#Dhandra--2019|Dhandra (2019)]] show that sustainable consumption is positively related to life satisfaction and subjective well-being (SDG 3), and [[#Guillen-Royo--2019|Guillen-Royo (2019)]] adds positive associations with happiness and life satisfaction.

The reduction in excessive consumption and demand for products and services generates a reduction in post-consumption waste and so enhances clear water and sanitation (SDG 6) ( [[#Govindan--2018|Govindan 2018]] ; [[#Minelgaitė--2019|Minelgaitė and Liobikienė 2019]] ), and reduces waste along product supply chains and lifecycles (SDG 12) ( [[#Genovese--2017|Genovese et al. 2017]] ; UNSD 2020). At the risk side there are possible reductions of employment, incomes, sales taxes from the material extraction and processing activities, considered as excessive for sustainable consumption ( [[#Thomas--2003|Thomas 2003]] ).

<div id="11.5.3.2" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="sustainable-development-goals-co-benefits-from-circular-economy-and-industrial-waste"></span>
==== 11.5.3.2 Sustainable Development Goals Co-benefits From Circular Economy and Industrial Waste ====

<div id="h3-11-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

While the circular economy concept first emerged in the context of waste avoidance, resource depletion, closed-loop recycling, etc., it has now evolved as a tool for a broader systemic national policy due to its potential wider benefits ( [[#Geng--2013|Geng et al. 2013]] ). It represents new circular business models that encourage design for reuse and to improve material recovery and recycling, and so represents a departure from the traditional linear production and consumption systems (with landfilling at the end), with a wide range of potential co-benefits to a wide range of SDGs ( [[#Guo--2016|Guo et al. 2016]] ; [[#Genovese--2017|Genovese et al. 2017]] ; [[#Schroeder--2019|Schroeder et al. 2019]] ; UNSD 2020).

[[#Genovese--2017|Genovese et al. (2017)]] articulates the advantages from an environmental and responsible consumption and production point of view (SDG 12). Many studies have outlined new business models based on the circular economy that foster sustainable economic growth and the generation of new jobs (SDG 8) ( [[#Antikainen--2016|Antikainen and Valkokari 2016]] ), as well as global competitiveness and innovation in business and the industrial sector ( [[#Pieroni--2019|Pieroni et al. 2019]] ), such as its potential synergies with industry 4.0 ( [[#Garcia-Muiña--2018|Garcia-Muiña et al. 2018]] ).

Following a review of the literature, [[#Schroeder--2019|Schroeder et al. (2019)]] identified linkages between circular economy practices and SDGs based on a relationship scoring system, and highlighted that such SDGs as SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation), SDG 7 (affordable and clean energy), SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth), SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production), and SDG 15 (life on land) all strongly benefit from circular economy practices. With the potential to impact on all stages of the value chain (micro, meso and macro level of the economy), circular economy has also been identified as a key industrial strategy to managing waste across sectors.

[[#Chatziaras--2016|Chatziaras et al. (2016)]] highlights the co-benefit to SDG 7 (affordable and clean energy) resulting from waste-derived fuel for the cement industry. Through the management of industrial waste using circular economy practices, studies such as [[#Geng--2012|Geng et al. (2012)]] and [[#Bonato--2017|Bonato and Orsini (2017)]] have pointed out co-benefits to SDGs beyond clear environmental and economic benefits, highlighting how it also benefits SDG 3 and 11 through improved social relations between industrial sectors and local societies, and improved public environmental awareness and public health levels.

<div id="11.5.3.3" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="sustainable-development-goals-co-benefits-from-energy-efficiency"></span>
==== 11.5.3.3 Sustainable Development Goals Co-benefits From Energy Efficiency ====

<div id="h3-12-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Beyond the very direct links between energy and climate change, reliable, clean, and affordable energy (SDG 7) presents a cross-cutting issue, central to all SDGs and fundamental to development, and energy efficiency enables its provision by reducing the direct supply and necessary infrastructure required. Energy efficiency improvements can be delivered through multiple technical options and tested policies, delivering energy and resource savings simultaneously with other socio-economic and environmental co-benefits. At the macro level, this includes enhancement of energy security (SDG 16, peace, justice and strong institutions) delivered through clean low-carbon energy systems ( [[#Fankhauser--2018|Fankhauser and Jotzo 2018]] ). Much of the literature, including [[#Sari--2016|Sari and Akkaya (2016)]] , [[#Allan--2017|Allan et al. (2017)]] and [[#Garrett-Peltier--2017|Garrett-Peltier (2017)]] , points out that energy efficiency improvements deliver superior employment opportunities (SDG 8 – decent work and economic growth), while a limited number of studies have reported that it can negatively impact employment in fuel supply sectors ( [[#Costantini--2018|Costantini et al. 2018]] ).

Many studies report that energy efficiency improvements are essential for supporting overall economic growth, contributing to positive changes in multi-factor productivity (SDGs 8 and 9 – decent work and economic growth and industry, innovation, and infrastructure) ( [[#Lambert--2014|Lambert et al. 2014]] ; [[#Bataille--2017|Bataille and Melton 2017]] ; [[#Rajbhandari--2018|Rajbhandari and Zhang 2018]] ; [[#Bashmakov--2019|Bashmakov 2019]] ; [[#Stern--2019|Stern 2019]] ) through industrial innovation (SDG 9) ( [[#Kang--2016|Kang and Lee 2016]] ), with some dissent (e.g., [[#Mahmood--2018|Mahmood and Ahmad 2018]] ). Improved energy efficiency against a background of growing energy prices helps industrial plants stay competitive ( [[#Bashmakov--2018|Bashmakov and Myshak 2018]] ). Energy efficiency allows continued economic growth under strong environmental regulation. Given that energy efficiency measures reduce the combustion of fossil fuels it leads to reduced air pollution at industrial sites ( [[#Williams--2012|Williams et al. 2012]] ) and better indoor comfort at working places.

Since less energy supply infrastructure is needed in cities and less energy is needed to produce materials such as cement and concrete, and metals, energy efficiency indirectly supports ‘sustainable cities and communities’ (SDG 11) ( [[#Di%20Foggia--2018|Di Foggia 2018]] ). In addition, energy efficiency in industry reflects achievements in meeting SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production).

<div id="11.5.3.4" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="sustainable-development-goals-co-benefits-from-electrification-and-fuel-switching"></span>
==== 11.5.3.4 Sustainable Development Goals Co-benefits From Electrification and Fuel Switching ====

<div id="h3-13-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

A key, generally underappreciated SDG benefit of electrification is improved urban and indoor air quality (at working places as well) and associated health benefits (SDG 3) from clean electrification (SDG 7) of industrial facilities ( [[#IEA--2016|IEA 2016]] ). With energy being such an important cross-cutting issue to sustainable development, some SDGs, such as SDGs 1, 3, 4 and 5 ( [[#Harmelink--2018|Harmelink et al. 2018]] ) are co-beneficiaries to using electrification and fuel switching as a climate action mitigation option.

<div id="11.5.3.5" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="sustainable-development-goals-co-benefits-from-carbon-capture-and-utilisation-and-carbon-capture-and-storage"></span>
==== 11.5.3.5 Sustainable Development Goals Co-benefits from Carbon Capture and Utilisation, and Carbon Capture and Storage ====

<div id="h3-14-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

CCU and CCS have been identified as playing key roles in the transition of industry to net zero. Advancements in the development and deployment of both CCS and CCU foster climate action (SDG 13). Other co-benefits for CCS include control of non-CO 2 pollutants (SDG 3), direct foreign investment and know-how (SDG 9), enhanced oil recovery from existing resources, and diversified employment prospects and skills (SDG 8) ( [[#Bonner--2017|Bonner 2017]] ). For CCU, the main co-benefit related contributions are expected within the context of energy transition processes, and in societal advancements that are linked to technological progress ( [[#Olfe-Kräutlein--2020|Olfe-Kräutlein 2020]] ). Therefore, the expectations are that the deployment of CCU technologies would have least potential for meeting the SDG targets relating to society/people, compared with the anticipated contributions to the pillars of ecology and economy.

These mitigation options carry a large number of risks as well. The high cost of the capture and storage process not only limit the technology penetration, but also make energy and products more expensive (risk to SDG 7), potential leaks from undersea or underground CO 2 storages carries risks for achieving SDGs 6, 14 and 15. While there are economic costs involved with the deployment of CCS and CCU ( [[#Bataille--2018a|Bataille et al. 2018a]] ), there are also significant economic and developmental costs associated with taking no action, because of the potential negative impact of climate change. CCS and CCU have been argued as providing public good ( [[#Bergstrom--2017|Bergstrom and Ty 2017]] ) and co-benefits to key SDGs ( [[#Schipper--2011|Schipper et al. 2011]] ). On the other hand, [[#Fan--2018|Fan et al. (2018)]] among others have noted the potential lock-in of existing energy structures due to CCS. Refer to Table 17.1 for CCS and CCU co-benefits with respect to other sector chapters.

<div id="11.6" class="h1-container"></div>

<span id="policy-approaches-and-strategies"></span>