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

==== 3.7.1.1 Policies Combining Mitigation and Sustainable Development ====

<div id="h3-17-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

These findings indicate that holistic policymaking integrating sustainability objectives alongside mitigation will be important in attaining Sustainable Development Goals ( [[#van%20Vuuren--2015|van Vuuren et al. 2015]] , 2018; [[#Bertram--2018|Bertram et al. 2018]] ; [[#Fujimori--2018|Fujimori et al. 2018]] ; [[#Hasegawa--2018|Hasegawa et al. 2018]] ; [[#Liu--2020a|Liu et al. 2020a]] ; [[#Honegger--2021|Honegger et al. 2021]] ; [[#Soergel--2021a|Soergel et al. 2021a]] ). Mitigation policies which target direct sector-level regulation, early mitigation action, and lifestyle changes have beneficial sustainable development outcomes across air pollution, food, energy and water ( [[#Bertram--2018|Bertram et al. 2018]] ).

These policies include ones around stringent air quality ( [[#Kinney--2018|Kinney 2018]] ; [[#Rafaj--2018|Rafaj et al. 2018]] ; [[#Soergel--2021a|Soergel et al. 2021a]] ); efficient and safe demand-side technologies, especially cook stoves ( [[#Cameron--2016|Cameron et al. 2016]] ); lifestyle changes ( [[#Bertram--2018|Bertram et al. 2018]] ; [[#Grubler--2018|Grubler et al. 2018]] ; [[#Soergel--2021a|Soergel et al. 2021a]] ); industrial and sectoral policy ( [[#Bertram--2018|Bertram et al. 2018]] ); agricultural and food policies (including food waste) ( [[#van%20Vuuren--2019|van Vuuren et al. 2019]] ; [[#Soergel--2021a|Soergel et al. 2021a]] ); international cooperation ( [[#Soergel--2021a|Soergel et al. 2021a]] ); as well as economic policies described in [[#3.6|Section 3.6]] . Recent research shows that mitigation is compatible with reductions in inequality and poverty (Box 3.6).

Lower demand – for example, for energy and land-intensive consumption such as meat – represents a synergistic strategy for achieving ambitious climate mitigation without compromising Sustainable Development Goals ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Bertram--2018|Bertram et al. 2018]] ; [[#Grubler--2018|Grubler et al. 2018]] ; [[#van%20Vuuren--2018|van Vuuren et al. 2018]] ; [[#Kikstra--2021b|Kikstra et al. 2021b]] ; [[#Soergel--2021a|Soergel et al. 2021a]] ). This is especially true for reliance on BECCS ( [[#Hickel--2021|Hickel et al. 2021]] ; [[#Keyßer--2021|Keyßer and Lenzen 2021]] ). Options that reduce agricultural demand (e.g., dietary change, reduced food waste) can have co-benefits for adaptation through reductions in demand for land and water ( [[#Bertram--2018|Bertram et al. 2018]] ; [[#Grubler--2018|Grubler et al. 2018]] ; [[#IPCC--2019a|IPCC 2019a]] ; [[#Soergel--2021a|Soergel et al. 2021a]] ).

While the impacts of climate change on agricultural output are expected to increase the population at risk of hunger, there is evidence suggesting population growth will be the dominant driver of hunger and undernourishment in Africa in 2050 ( [[#Hall--2017|Hall et al. 2017]] ). Meeting SDG 5, relating to gender equality and reproductive rights, could substantially lower population growth, leading to a global population lower than the 95% prediction range of the UN projections (Abel et al. 2016). Meeting SDG 5 (gender equality, including via voluntary family planning ( [[#O’Sullivan--2018|O’Sullivan 2018]] )) could thus minimise the risks to SDG 2 (zero hunger) that are posed by meeting SDG 13 (climate action).

<div id="box-3.6" class="h2-container box-container"></div>

<span id="box-3.6-poverty-and-inequality"></span>