On the political feasibility of climate change mitigation pathways: Is it too late to keep warming below 1.5°C?

16166 13 88808 2 255527 document 88808 wcc.621.pdf application/pdf 190346028aa1b41feb8baaecb15f8edb MD5 1723480 2019-11-18 07:43:19 https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/16166/1/wcc.621.pdf 16166 1 1 application/pdf text en public cc_by_4

wcc.621.pdf

published 88810 1 255544 document 88810 indexcodes.txt text/x-c++ 328582a1bd838a3e288fb66633985295 MD5 15600 2019-11-18 07:51:35 https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/16166/2/indexcodes.txt 16166 2 2 text/x-c++ other Generate index codes conversion from text to indexcodes en public

indexcodes.txt

lightbox.jpg

preview.jpg

medium.jpg

small.jpg

http://eprints.org/relation/isVersionOf https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/document/88808 http://eprints.org/relation/isVolatileVersionOf https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/document/88808 http://eprints.org/relation/issmallThumbnailVersionOf https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/document/88808 archive 353 disk0/00/01/61/66 2019-11-18 07:45:08 2025-03-31 12:21:00 2019-11-18 07:45:08 article show Jewell J. 8535 0000-0003-2846-9081 Cherp A. On the political feasibility of climate change mitigation pathways: Is it too late to keep warming below 1.5°C? pub prog_risk climate change mitigation; decarbonization pathways; integrated assessment models; political feasibility Keeping global warming below 1.5°C is technically possible but is it politically feasible? Understanding political feasibility requires answering three questions: (a) “Feasibility of what?,” (b) “Feasibility when and where?,” and (c) “Feasibility for whom?.” In relation to the 1.5°C target, these questions translate into (a) identifying specific actions comprising the 1.5°C pathways; (b) assessing the economic and political costs of these actions in different socioeconomic and political contexts; and (c) assessing the economic and institutional capacity of relevant social actors to bear these costs. This view of political feasibility stresses costs and capacities in contrast to the prevailing focus on benefits and motivations which mistakes desirability for feasibility. The evidence on the political feasibility of required climate actions is not systematic, but clearly indicates that the costs of required actions are too high in relation to capacities to bear these costs in relevant contexts. In the future, costs may decline and capacities may increase which would reduce political constraints for at least some solutions. However, this is unlikely to happen in time to avoid a temperature overshoot. Further research should focus on exploring the “dynamic political feasibility space” constrained by costs and capacities in order to find more feasible pathways to climate stabilization. This article is categorized under: The Carbon Economy and Climate Mitigation > Decarbonizing Energy and/or Reducing Demand. 2020-01 published Wiley 10.1002/wcc.621 136 public Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 11 1 e621 TRUE 1757-7780 Exploring National and Global Actions to reduce Greenhouse gas Emissions (ENGAGE, H2020 821471) FALSE yes info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/EC/H2020/821471/EU//ENGAGE info:eu-repo/semantics/article