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

=== 1.8.1 Building on the SR1.5 Assessment Framework: Feasibility and Enabling Conditions ===

<div id="h2-24-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

While previous ARs dealt with the definition of alternative mitigation pathways mostly exploring the technological potentials, the latest research focused on what kind of mitigation pathways are feasible in a broader sense, underlining the multi-dimensional nature of the mitigation challenge. Building on frameworks introduced by [[#Majone--1975|Majone (1975)]] and [[#Gilabert--2012|Gilabert and Lawford-Smith (2012)]] , SR1.5 introduced multi-dimensional approaches to analysing ‘feasibility’ and ‘enabling conditions’, which AR6 develops and applies broadly in relation to six ‘dimensions of feasibility assessment’ (Figure 1.8). Two reflect the physical environment:

• ''Geophysical'' , not only the global risks from climate change but also, for technology assessment, the global availability of critical resources.

• ''Environmental and ecological'' , including local environmental constraints and co-benefits of different technologies and pathways.

The other four dimensions correspond broadly to the four analytic frameworks outlined in [[#1.7|Section 1.7]] :

• ''Economic'' , particularly aggregate economic and financial indicators, and SDGs reflecting different stages and goals of economic development.

'''•''' ''Socio-cultural'' , including particularly ethical and justice dimensions, and social and cultural norms.

'''•''' ''Technological,'' including innovation needs and transitional dynamics associated with new and emergent technologies and associated systems.

• ''Institutional and political,'' including political acceptability, legal and administrative feasibility, and the capacity and governance requirements at different levels to deliver sustained mitigation in the wider context of sustainable development.

The AR6 emphasises that all pathways involve different challenges and require choices to be made. Continuing ‘business as usual’ is still a choice, which in addition to the obvious geophysical risks, involves not making the best use of new technologies, risks of future stranded assets, greater local pollution, and multiple other environmental threats.

The dimensions as listed provide a basis for this assessment both in the sectoral chapters (6–11), providing a common framework for cross-sectoral assessment detailed further in Chapter 12, and in the evaluation of global pathways ( [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-3#3.2|Section 3.2]] ). More specific indicators under each of these dimensions offer consistency in assessing the challenges, choices, and enabling requirements facing different aspects of mitigating climate change.

also illustrates variants on these dimensions appropriate for evaluating domestic and international policies (Chapters 13 and 14). The SR1.5 ( [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-4#4.4|Section 4.4]] ) also introduced a framework of ‘Enabling Conditions for systemic change’, which as illustrated also has key dimensions in common with those of our feasibility assessment. In AR6 these enabling conditions are applied particularly in the context of shifting development pathways (Chapter 4.4).

Some fundamental criteria may span across several dimensions. Most obviously, issues of ethics and equity are intrinsic to the economic, socio-cultural (values, including intergenerational justice) and institutional (e.g., procedural justice) dimensions. Geopolitical issues could also clearly involve several dimensions, for example, concerning the politics of international trade, finance and resource distribution (economic dimension); international versus nationalistic identity (socio-cultural); and multilateral governance (institutional).

In this report, chapters with a strong demand-side dimension also suggest a simple policy hierarchy, reflecting that avoiding wastage – demands superfluous to human needs and wants – can carry benefits across multiple indicators. Consequently, Chapters 5 and 10 organise key actions in a hierarchy of '''Avoid''' (unnecessary demand) – '''Shift''' (to less resource-intensive modes) – '''Improve''' (technologies for existing modes), with a closely-related policy hierarchy in [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-9|Chapter 9]] (buildings).

<div id="1.8.2" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="illustrations-of-multi-dimensional-assessment-lock-in-policies-and-just-transition"></span>