Editing IPCC:AR6/SR15/Chapter-5 (section)

==== Stylized reduced risk levels due to avoided impacts between 2°C and 1.5°C warming (in solid red-orange), additional avoided impacts with adaptation under 2°C (striped orange) and under 1.5°C (striped yellow), and unavoidable impacts (losses) with no or very limited potential for adaptation (grey), extracted from the AR5 WGII risk tables (Field et al., 2014) <sup>[[#fn:r63|63]]</sup> , and underlying chapters by Adger et al. (2014) <sup>[[#fn:r64|64]]</sup> and Olsson et al. (2014) <sup>[[#fn:r65|65]]</sup> . ====

[[File:b27089f5610553e4c6c69e83732ac4ec Cross-Chapter-Box-12-Figure-1-1024x348.jpg|thumb|400x300px]]

For some systems and sectors (A), achieving 1.5°C could reduce risks to low (with adaptation) from very high (without adaptation) and high (with adaptation) under 2°C. For other areas (C), no or very limited adaptation potential is anticipated, suggesting limits, with the same risks for 1.5°C and 2°C. Other risks are projected to be medium under 2°C with further potential for reduction, especially with adaptation, to very low levels (B).

<div id="section-5-2-3-block-3"></div>

'''Limits to adaptation, residual risks, and losses in a 1.5°C warmer world'''

The literature on risks at 1.5°C (versus 2°C and more) and potentials for adaptation remains limited, particularly for specific regions, sectors, and vulnerable and disadvantaged populations. Adaptation potential at 1.5°C and 2°C is rarely assessed explicitly, making an assessment of residual risk challenging. Substantial progress has been made since the AR5 to assess which climate change impacts on natural and human systems can be attributed to anthropogenic emissions (Hansen and Stone, 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r66|66]]</sup> and to examine the influence of anthropogenic emissions on extreme weather events (NASEM, 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r67|67]]</sup> , and on consequent impacts on human life (Mitchell et al., 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r68|68]]</sup> , but less so on monetary losses and risks (Schaller et al., 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r69|69]]</sup> . There has also been some limited research to examine local-level limits to adaptation (Warner and Geest, 2013; Filho and Nalau, 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r70|70]]</sup> . What constitutes losses and damages is context-dependent and often requires place-based research into what people value and consider worth protecting (Barnett et al., 2016; Tschakert et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r71|71]]</sup> . Yet assessments of non-material and intangible losses are particularly challenging, such as loss of sense of place, belonging, identity, and damage to emotional and mental well-being (Serdeczny et al., 2017; Wewerinke-Singh, 2018a) <sup>[[#fn:r72|72]]</sup> . Warming of 1.5°C is not considered ‘safe’ for most nations, communities, ecosystems and sectors, and poses significant risks to natural and human systems as compared to the current warming of 1°C ( ''high confidence'' ) (see Chapter 3, Section 3.4, Box 3.4, Box 3.5, Table 3.5, Cross-Chapter Box 6 in Chapter 3). Table 5.2, drawing on findings from Chapters 3, 4 and 5, presents examples of soft and hard limits in natural and human systems in the context of 1.5°C and 2°C of warming.

<div id="section-5-2-3-block-4"></div>

<span id="cross-chapter-box-12-table-1"></span>
====== Cross-Chapter Box 12, Table 1 ======

<span id="soft-and-hard-adaptation-limits-in-the-context-of-1.5c-and-2c-of-global-warming"></span>