Editing IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-12 (section)

== Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) ==

<div id="FAQ 12.1 |     How could new technologies to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere contribute to climate change mitigation?" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="faq-12.1-how-could-new-technologies-to-remove-carbon-dioxide-from-the-atmosphere-contribute-to-climate-change-mitigation"></span>
=== FAQ 12.1 | How could new technologies to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere contribute to climate change mitigation? ===

<div id="h2-32-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Limiting the increase in warming to well below 2°C, and achieving net zero CO 2 or GHG emissions, will require anthropogenic CO 2 removal from the atmosphere.

The carbon dioxide removal (CDR) methods studied so far have different removal potentials, costs, co-benefits and side effects. Some biological methods for achieving CDR, like afforestation/reforestation or wetland restoration, have long been practised. If implemented well, these practices can provide a range of co-benefits, but they can also have adverse side effects such as biodiversity loss or food price increases. Other chemical and geochemical approaches to CDR include direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS), enhanced weathering or ocean alkalinity enhancement. They are generally less vulnerable to reversal than biological methods.

DACCS uses chemicals that bind to CO 2 directly from the air; the CO 2 is then removed from the sorbent and stored underground or mineralised. Enhanced weathering involves the mining of rocks containing minerals that naturally absorb CO 2 from the atmosphere over geological timescales, which are crushed to increase the surface area and spread on soils (or elsewhere) where they absorb atmospheric CO 2 . Ocean alkalinity enhancement involves the extraction, processing, and dissolution of minerals and addition to the ocean where they enhance sequestration of CO 2 as bicarbonate and carbonate ions in the ocean.

<div id="FAQ 12.2 |     Why is it important to assess mitigation measures from a systemic perspective, rather than only looking at their potential to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions?" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="faq-12.2-why-is-it-important-to-assess-mitigation-measures-from-a-systemic-perspective-rather-than-only-looking-at-their-potential-to-reduce-greenhouse-gas-ghg-emissions"></span>
=== FAQ 12.2 | Why is it important to assess mitigation measures from a systemic perspective, rather than only looking at their potential to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions? ===

<div id="h2-33-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Mitigation measures do not only reduce GHGs, but have wider impacts. They can result in decreases or increases in GHG emissions in another sector or part of the value chain from where they are applied. They can have wider environmental (e.g., air and water pollution, biodiversity), social (e.g., employment creation, health) and economic (e.g., growth, investment) co-benefits or adverse side effects. Mitigation and adaptation can also be linked. Taking these considerations into account can help to enhance the benefits of mitigation action, and avoid unintended consequences, as well as provide a stronger case for achieving political and societal support and raising the finances required for implementation.

<div id="FAQ 12.3 |     Why do we need a food systems approach for assessing GHG emissions and mitigation opportunities from food systems?" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="faq-12.3-why-do-we-need-a-food-systems-approach-for-assessing-ghg-emissions-and-mitigation-opportunities-from-food-systems"></span>
=== FAQ 12.3 | Why do we need a food systems approach for assessing GHG emissions and mitigation opportunities from food systems? ===

<div id="h2-34-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Activities associated with the food system caused about one-third of total anthropogenic GHG emissions in 2015, distributed across all sectors. Agriculture and fisheries produce crops and animal-source food, which are partly processed in the food industry, packed, distributed, retailed, cooked, and finally eaten. Each step is associated with resource use, waste generation, and GHG emissions.

A food systems approach helps identify critical areas as well as novel and alternative approaches to mitigation on both the supply side and the demand side of the food system. But complex co-impacts need to be considered and mitigation measures tailored to the specific context. International cooperation and governance of global food trade can support both mitigation and adaptation.

There is large scope for emissions reduction in both cropland and grazing production, and also in food processing, storage and distribution. Emerging options such as plant-based alternatives to animal food products and food from cellular agriculture are receiving increasing attention, but their mitigation potential is still uncertain and depends on the GHG intensity of associated energy systems due to relatively high energy needs. Diet changes can reduce GHG emissions and also improve health in groups with excess consumption of calories and animal food products, which is mainly prevalent in developed countries. Reductions in food loss and waste can help reduce GHG emissions further.

Recommendations to buy local food and avoid packaging can contribute to reducing GHG emissions but should not be generalised, as trade-offs exist with food waste, GHG footprint at farm gate, and accessibility to diverse healthy diets.

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