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

==== Investment into mitigation up until 2030 and implications for investments for four sustainable development dimensions. ====

[[File:b89a9e2508483d361f915d41fb6626fa figure-5.4-1024x700.jpg|thumb|400x300px]]

Cross-hatched bars show the median investment in 1.5°C pathways across results from different models, and solid bars for 2°C pathways, respectively. Whiskers on bars represent minima and maxima across estimates from six models. Clean water and air pollution investments are available only from one model. Mitigation investments show the change in investments across mitigation options compared to the baseline. Negative mitigation investments (grey bars) denote disinvestment (reduced investment needs) into fossil fuel sectors compared to the baseline. Investments for different sustainable development dimensions denote the investment needs for complementary measures in order to avoid trade-offs (negative impacts) of mitigation. Negative sustainable development investments for air pollution indicate cost savings, and thus synergies of mitigation for air pollution control costs. The values compare to about 2 trillion USD2010 (range of 1.4 to 3 trillion) of total energy-related investments in the 1.5°C pathways. Source: Estimates from CD-LINKS scenarios summarised by McCollum et al. (2018b) <sup>[[#fn:r261|261]]</sup> .

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

In summary, the assessment of mitigation pathways shows that to meet the 1.5°C target, a wide range of mitigation options would need to be deployed (see Chapter 2, Sections 2.3 and 2.4). While pathways aiming at 1.5°C are associated with high synergies for some sustainable development dimensions (such as human health and air pollution, forest preservation), the rapid pace and magnitude of the required changes would also lead to increased risks for trade-offs for other sustainable development dimensions (particularly food security) (Figures 5.4 and 5.5). Synergies and trade-offs are expected to be unevenly distributed between regions and nations (Box 5.2), though little literature has formally examined such distributions under 1.5°C-consistent mitigation scenarios. Reducing these risks requires smart policy designs and mechanisms that shield the poor and redistribute the burden so that the most vulnerable are not disproportionately affected. Recent scenario analyses show that associated investments for reducing the trade-offs for, for example, food, water and energy access to be significantly lower than the required mitigation investments (McCollum et al., 2018b) <sup>[[#fn:r262|262]]</sup> . Fundamental transformation of demand, including efficiency and behavioural changes, can help to significantly reduce the reliance on risky technologies, such as BECCS, and thus reduce the risk of potential trade-offs between mitigation and other sustainable development dimensions (von Stechow et al., 2015; Grubler et al., 2018; van Vuuren et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r263|263]]</sup> . Reliance on demand-side measures only, however, would not be sufficient for meeting stringent targets, such as 1.5°C and 2°C (Clarke et al., 2014) <sup>[[#fn:r264|264]]</sup> .

<span id="sustainable-development-pathways-to-1.5c-1"></span>