This Title All WIREs
How to cite this WIREs title:
WIREs Clim Change
Impact Factor: 7.385

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

Full article on Wiley Online Library:   HTML PDF

Can't access this content? Tell your librarian.

Abstract 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
A framework for evaluating political feasibility of decarbonization pathways. The framework addresses the three key questions of political feasibility: Feasibility of what? Feasible when and where? and Feasible for whom? by systematically identifying the required decarbonization actions in 1.5°C pathways, their context, the relevant actors, the political and economic costs that the actors would face and the actors' capacities to bear these costs
[ Normal View | Magnified View ]
Dynamic political feasibility space. The figure shows how capacity and costs of decarbonization actions can be used to map dynamic political feasibility spaces with a feasibility frontier based on empirically observed phenomenon. The feasibility frontier will evolve over time as technologies, infrastructures and institutions evolve. The example space and feasibility frontier is generalized from Jewell et al. ()
[ Normal View | Magnified View ]

Related Articles

Is it too late (to stop dangerous climate change)?

Browse by Topic

The Carbon Economy and Climate Mitigation > Decarbonizing Energy and/or Reducing Demand

Access to this WIREs title is by subscription only.

Recommend to Your
Librarian Now!

The latest WIREs articles in your inbox

Sign Up for Article Alerts