Editing IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-3 (section)

==== 3.6.4.2 Distributional Implications of Long-term Mitigation Pathways ====

<div id="h3-16-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

Mitigation policies can have important distributive effects between and within countries, either reducing or increasing economic inequality and poverty, depending on policy instruments’ design and implementation (see [[#3.6.1|Section 3.6.1]] .2 for an assessment of the distribution of mitigation costs across regions in mitigation pathways; Sections 3.7 and 4.2.2.6, and Box 3.6 for an assessment of the fairness and ambition of NDCs; and [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-4#4.5|Section 4.5]] for an assessment of national mitigation pathways along the criteria of equity, including Just Transition, as well as [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-17#17.4.5|Section 17.4.5]] for equity in a Just Transition). For instance, emissions taxation has important distributive effects, both between and within income groups ( [[#Cronin--2018b|Cronin et al. 2018b]] ; [[#Klenert--2018|Klenert et al. 2018]] ; [[#Pizer--2019|Pizer and Sexton 2019]] ; [[#Douenne--2020|Douenne 2020]] ; [[#Steckel--2021|Steckel et al. 2021]] ). These effects are more significant in some sectors, such as transport, and depend on country-specific consumption structures ( [[#Dorband--2019|Dorband et al. 2019]] ; [[#Fullerton--2019|Fullerton and Muehlegger 2019]] ; [[#Ohlendorf--2021|Ohlendorf et al. 2021]] ). However, revenues from emissions taxation can be used to lessen their regressive distributional impacts or even turn the policy into a progressive policy reducing inequality and/or leading to gains for lower-income households ( [[#Cameron--2016|Cameron et al. 2016]] ; [[#Jakob--2016|Jakob and Steckel 2016]] ; [[#Fremstad--2019|Fremstad and Paul 2019]] ; [[#Fujimori--2020b|Fujimori et al. 2020b]] ; [[#Böhringer--2021|Böhringer et al. 2021]] ; [[#Budolfson--2021|Budolfson et al. 2021]] ; [[#Soergel--2021b|Soergel et al. 2021b]] ; [[#Steckel--2021|Steckel et al. 2021]] ). Mitigation policies may affect the poorest through effects on energy and food prices ( [[#Hasegawa--2015|Hasegawa et al. 2015]] ; [[#Fujimori--2019|Fujimori et al. 2019]] ). [[#Markkanen--2019|Markkanen and Anger-Kraavi (2019)]] and [[#Lamb--2020|Lamb et al. (2020)]] synthesize evidence from the existing literature on social co-impacts of climate change mitigation policy and their implications for inequality. They show that most policies can compound or lessen inequalities depending on contextual factors, policy design and policy implementation, but that negative inequality impacts of climate policies can be mitigated (and possibly even prevented), when distributive and procedural justice are taken into consideration in all stages of policymaking, including policy planning, development and implementation, and when focusing on the carbon intensity of lifestyles, sufficiency and equity, well-being and decent living standards for all ( [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-13#13.6|Section 13.6]] ).

Mitigation pathways also affect economic inequalities between and within countries, and poverty, through the reduction of climate change impacts that fall more heavily on low-income countries, communities and households, and exacerbate poverty (AR6 WGII Chapters 8 and 16). Higher levels of warming are projected to generate higher inequality between countries as well as within them (AR6 WGII Chapter 16). Through avoiding impacts, mitigation thus reduces economic inequalities and poverty ( ''hig'' ''h confidence'' ).

A few studies consider both mitigation policies’ distributional impacts and avoided climate change impacts on inequalities along mitigation pathways. [[#Rezai--2018|Rezai et al. (2018)]] find that unmitigated climate change impacts increase inequality, whereas mitigation has the potential to reverse this effect. Considering uncertainty in socio-economic assumptions, emission pathways, mitigation costs, temperature response, and climate damage, [[#Taconet--2020|Taconet et al. (2020)]] show that the uncertainties associated with socio-economic assumptions and damage estimates are the main drivers of future inequalities between countries and that in most cases mitigation policies reduce future inequalities between countries. [[#Gazzotti--2021|Gazzotti et al. (2021)]] show that inequality persists in 2°C-consistent pathways due to regressivity of residual climate damages. However, the evidence on mitigation pathways’ implications for global inequality and poverty remains limited, and the modelling frameworks used have limited ability to fully represent the different dimensions of inequality and poverty and all the mechanisms by which mitigation affects inequality and poverty ( [[#Rao--2017a|Rao et al. 2017a]] ; [[#Emmerling--2021|Emmerling and Tavoni 2021]] ; [[#Jafino--2021|Jafino et al. 2021]] ).

<div id="3.7" class="h1-container"></div>

<span id="enable-development-mitigation-and-avoided-impacts"></span>