Editing IPCC:AR6/SRCCL/Chapter-6 (section)

== Footnotes ==

# <span id="fn:1">Many of the response options considered are sustainable land management options, but several response options are not based on land management – for example, those based on value chain management and governance and risk management options.</span>
# <span id="fn:2">We use the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report Working Group III definitions of co-benefits and adverse side effect – see Glossary. Co-benefits and adverse side effects can be biophysical and/or socio-economic in nature, and all are assessed as far as the literature allows.</span>
# <span id="fn:3">For example, see https://qcat.wocat.net/en/wocat/ ; https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu ; https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/NWPStaging/Pages/Home.aspx .</span>
# <span id="fn:4">Of this, more than half was traditional biomass, predominately used for cooking and heating in developing regions, bioelectricity accounted for about 1.7 EJ, and transport biofuels for 3.19 EJ. (Cross-Chapter Box 12 in Chapter 7).</span>
# <span id="fn:5">The future availability of biomass is usually discussed in terms of a hierarchy of potentials: theoretical&gt;technical&gt;economic. Caution is required, however, as these terms are not always defined consistently and estimates depend on the specific definitions and calculation methodologies.</span>
# <span id="fn:6">http://www.bonnchallenge.org/content/challenge .</span>
# <span id="fn:7">Note: 1) The response options often overlap, so are not additive. For example, increasing food productivity will involve changes to cropland, grazing land and livestock management, which in turn may include increasing soil carbon stocks. Therefore, the response options cannot be summed or regarded as entirely mutually exclusive interventions. 2) The efficacy of a response option for addressing the primary challenge for which it is implemented needs to be weighed against any co-benefits and adverse side effects for the other challenges. For example, if a response option has a major impact in addressing one challenge but results in relatively minor and manageable adverse side effects for another challenge, it may remain a powerful response option despite the adverse side effects, particularly if they can be minimised or managed. 3) Though the impacts of integrated response options have been quantified as far as possible in Section 6.3, there is no equivalence implied in terms of benefits or adverse side effects, either in number or in magnitude of the impact – that is, one benefit does not equal one adverse side effect. As a consequence (i) large benefits for one challenge might outweigh relatively minor adverse side effects in addressing another challenge, and (ii) some response options may deliver mostly benefits with few adverse side effects, but the benefits might be small in magnitude, that is, the response options do no harm, but present only minor co-benefits. A number of benefits and adverse side effects are context specific; the context specificity has been discussed in Section 6.2 and is further examined Section 6.4.5.1.</span>
# <span id="fn:8">The exception is NCP 6, regulation of ocean acidification, which is by itself an indirect impact. Any option that sequesters CO2 would lower the atmospheric CO2 concentration, which then indirectly increases the seawater pH. Therefore, any action that directly increases the amount of sequestered carbon is noted in this column, but not any action that avoids land-use change and, therefore, indirectly avoids CO2 emissions.</span>
# <span id="fn:9">Note that this refers to large areas of bioenergy crops capable of producing large mitigation benefits (&gt;3 GtCO2 yr–1). The effect of bioenergy and BECCS on NCPs is scale and context dependent (see Cross-Chapter Box 7 in Chapter 6 and Section 6.3).</span>
# <span id="fn:10">Note that this refers to large areas of bioenergy crops capable of producing large mitigation benefits (&gt;3 GtCO2 yr–1). The effect of bioenergy and BECCS on SDGs is scale and context dependent (see Cross-Chapter Box 7 in Chapter 6 and Section 6.3).</span>
# <span id="fn:11">Pathways that limit radiative forcing in 2100 to 1.9 W m–2 result in median warming in 2100 to 1.5°C in 2100 (Rogelj et al. 2018b). Pathways limiting radiative forcing in 2100 to 4.5 W m–2 result in median warming in 2100 above 2.5°C (IPCC 2014).</span>

<span id="section-3"></span>

<span id="references"></span>