18 COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT(2020)4/REV2 How the recovery is designed in countries, and worldwide, will therefore determine the type of transition the world will go through in the next decades and the risks associated with it.
Figure 2. Different illustrative GHG emission pathways to limit warming to 1.5°C by 2100
Note: AFOLU and BECCS stand for Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land-Use and Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage respectively. P1 is a scenario with low energy demand (LED) (Grubler et al., 2018[16]) and reflects recent literature with a stronger focus on demand-side measures; P2 is a sustainability oriented scenario (based on SSP1) developed with the AIM model (Fujimori et al., 2017[17]); P3 is a middle-ofthe-road scenario (based on SSP2) developed with the MESSAGEGLOBIOM model (Fricko et al., 2017[18]) and P4 is a fossil-fuel intensive and high energy demand scenario (based on SSP5) developed with the REMIND-MAgPIE model (Kriegler et al., 2017[19]). In short, the three SSPs referred to here include scenarios following a sustainability path (SSP1), a middle-of-the-road development pattern (SSP2), further and a fossilfuel based economic development (SSP5). A description of the different SSP scenario narratives can be found in (O’Neill et al., 2017[20]). Source: IPCC Special report on 1.5°C (IPCC, 2018[14]).
Three stylised recovery pathways out of the COVID-19 crisis: Rebound, Decoupling and Wider Well-Being This paper develops three stylised recovery pathways to help better understand the extent to which different types of individual measures may contribute to economic recovery, emissions reductions in line with internationally agreed climate goals and broader societal goals. The three stylised pathways are the Rebound, Decoupling and Wider Well-Being pathways. They have been conceptualised as narratives based on a number of considerations around the ability and likelihood to meet international global climate goals and the relationship between and relative priorities across economic growth, climate mitigation and wider well-being outcomes. Figure 3 summarises some of the key features of these pathways and the remainder of the section explores in detail how these different pathways can lead to different futures, where they overlap and where they differ at the macro level. The narrative behind the three stylised pathways serves as a basis for sections 3 and 4, which analyse how different types of recovery measures currently considered and implemented in the surface transport and the residential sectors relate to these different pathways. Needless to say, recovery packages will need to go beyond the sectors here analysed and integrate actions across the whole economy. The sectoral analysis can illustrate how a given measure could impact the speed and scale of emission reductions in a given sector as well as the implications for other well-being goals. It is important to note that the implementation of an individual measure in isolation would not necessarily address all the key features of a pathway. Rather, it is the implementation of a coherent combination of measures, which would put the whole of a country’s recovery strategy within one of the pathways. In this sense, while the entirety of a country’s recovery package may not fit into a single pathway, individual measures for different sectors (and potentially even within sectors) may still be consistent with the narrative of a given pathway.
Unclassified
