Abstract

The perceived inability of climate change mitigation goals alone to mobilize sufficient climate change mitigation efforts has, among other factors, led to growing research on the co-benefits of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This study conducts a systematic review (SR) of the literature on the co-benefits of mitigating GHG emissions resulting in 1554 papers. We analyze these papers using bibliometric analysis, including a keyword co-occurrence analysis. We then iteratively develop and present a typology of co-benefits, mitigation sectors, geographic scope, and methods based on the manual double coding of the papers resulting from the SR. We find that the co-benefits from GHG mitigation that have received the largest attention of researchers are impacts on ecosystems, economic activity, health, air pollution, and resource efficiency. The co-benefits that have received the least attention include the impacts on conflict and disaster resilience, poverty alleviation (or exacerbation), energy security, technological spillovers and innovation, and food security. Most research has investigated co-benefits from GHG mitigation in the agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU), electricity, transport, and residential sectors, with the industrial sector being the subject of significantly less research. The largest number of co-benefits publications provide analysis at a global level, with relatively few studies providing local (city) level analysis or studying co-benefits in Oceanian or African contexts. Finally, science and engineering methods, in contrast to economic or social science methods, are the methods most commonly employed in co-benefits papers. We conclude that given the potential mobilizing power of understudied co-benefits (e.g. poverty alleviation) and local impacts, the magnitude of GHG emissions from the industrial sector, and the fact that Africa and South America are likely to be severely affected by climate change, there is an opportunity for the research community to fill these gaps.

Highlights

  • The parties to the Paris Agreement have submitted 165 pledges detailing their plans to reduce emissions— these pledges are known as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) (UNFCCC 2017)

  • Some papers covered more than one type of co-benefits or sectors, and all types are counted in this study

  • This study uses a systematic review, bibliometric analysis, network analysis, and a newly developed and implemented typology of co-benefits papers to improve our understanding of what we know about the cobenefits of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Hong-Mei Deng et al Research has shown that there are many reasons why pledges to reduce GHG emissions and actions to date have been insufficient including politics, concerns about costs and fairness, and the fact that (in most places) the public does not rank climate change mitigation at the top of the list of important issues facing their country (Greenblatt and Wei 2016, Meinshausen et al 2015). This low prominence of concerns about climate change in the public sphere is largely explained by the fact that mitigation efforts (and costs) today are expected to largely result in avoided harms in the future and to ‘other people’ (Hansen et al 2013). People tend to prioritize economic growth and the improvement of their living standards—i.e. they want energy that is first ‘cheap’ and clean—which means that protecting the benefits of people far away in the future is not high on the priority list (Ansolabehere and Konisky 2014)

Methods
Findings
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call