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

== 5.4.1 Synergies and Trade-Offs between Mitigation Options and Sustainable Development ==

<div id="section-5-4-1-block-1"></div>

Adopting stringent climate mitigation options can generate multiple positive non-climate benefits that have the potential to reduce the costs of achieving sustainable development (IPCC, 2014b; Ürge-Vorsatz et al., 2014, 2016; Schaeffer et al., 2015; von Stechow et al., 2015) <sup>[[#fn:r164|164]]</sup> . Understanding the positive impacts (synergies) but also the negative impacts (trade-offs) is key for selecting mitigation options and policy choices that maximize the synergies between mitigation and developmental actions (Hildingsson and Johansson, 2015; Nilsson et al., 2016; Delponte et al., 2017; van Vuuren et al., 2017b; McCollum et al., 2018b) <sup>[[#fn:r165|165]]</sup> . Aligning mitigation response options to sustainable development objectives can ensure public acceptance (IPCC, 2014a) <sup>[[#fn:r166|166]]</sup> , encourage faster action (Lechtenboehmer and Knoop, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r167|167]]</sup> and support the design of equitable mitigation (Holz et al., 2018; Winkler et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r168|168]]</sup> that protect human rights (MRFCJ, 2015b) <sup>[[#fn:r169|169]]</sup> (Section 5.5.3).

This sub-section assesses available literature on the interactions of individual mitigation options (see Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1.2, Chapter 4, Sections 4.2 and 4.3) with sustainable development and the SDGs and underlying targets. Table 5.2 presents an assessment of these synergies and trade-offs and the strength of the interaction using an SDG-interaction score (see Glossary) (McCollum et al., 2018b) <sup>[[#fn:r170|170]]</sup> , with evidence and agreements levels. Figure 5.2 presents the information of Table 5.2, showing gross (not net) interactions with the SDGs. This detailed assessment of synergies and trade-offs of individual mitigation options with the SDGs (Table 5.2 a–d and Figure 5.2) reveals that the number of synergies exceeds that of trade-offs. Mitigation response options in the energy demand sector, AFOLU and oceans have more positive interactions with a larger number of SDGs compared to those on the energy supply side ( ''robust evidence, high agreement'' ).

<div id="section-5-4-1-1"></div>

<span id="energy-demand-mitigation-options-to-accelerate-reduction-in-energy-use-and-fuel-switch"></span>