On the political feasibility of climate change mitigation pathways : Is it too late to keep warming below 1.5°C?
(2020) In Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 11(1).- 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... (More)
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.
(Less)
- author
- Jewell, Jessica and Cherp, Aleh LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 2020
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- climate change mitigation, decarbonization pathways, integrated assessment models, political feasibility
- in
- Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change
- volume
- 11
- issue
- 1
- article number
- e621
- publisher
- John Wiley & Sons Inc.
- external identifiers
-
- scopus:85074585801
- ISSN
- 1757-7780
- DOI
- 10.1002/wcc.621
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- 2ab77493-7e42-4658-bb30-58cffecdd250
- date added to LUP
- 2019-11-26 13:03:48
- date last changed
- 2024-02-02 14:59:03
@article{2ab77493-7e42-4658-bb30-58cffecdd250,
abstract = {{<p>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.</p>}},
author = {{Jewell, Jessica and Cherp, Aleh}},
issn = {{1757-7780}},
keywords = {{climate change mitigation; decarbonization pathways; integrated assessment models; political feasibility}},
language = {{eng}},
number = {{1}},
publisher = {{John Wiley & Sons Inc.}},
series = {{Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change}},
title = {{On the political feasibility of climate change mitigation pathways : Is it too late to keep warming below 1.5°C?}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wcc.621}},
doi = {{10.1002/wcc.621}},
volume = {{11}},
year = {{2020}},
}