Past assessment has evaluated representative mitigation strategies in terms of economic, technological, institutional, socio-cultural, environmental/ecological and geophysical viability, as well as relationships to SDGs . The strategies assessment analysis has been updated for AR6 . These assessments identify types of barriers that could affect an option's feasibility. Among other things, this work finds that, other than public transport and non-motorised transport, every other mitigation option evaluated had at least one feasibility dimension that represented a barrier or obstacle. The barriers also imply that there are trade-offs in these feasibility dimensions to consider. The assessment of mitigation option-sustainable development relationships identifies related literature and derives aggregate characterisations. Concerns about the potential sustainable development implications of some mitigation technologies may be motivation for precluding the use of some mitigation options. For instance, the potential food security and environmental quality implications of bioenergy have received significant attention in the literature . However, constraining or precluding the use of bioenergy without or with CCS could have significant implications for the cost of pursuing ambitious climate goals, and potentially the attainability of those goals . Bioenergy is not unique in this regard. Social, environmental, and sustainability concerns have also been raised about the large- scale deployment of many low-carbon technologies, for example, REDD+, wind, solar, nuclear, fossil with CCS and batteries. See WGIII Chapter 3  for examples of the potential implications of limiting or precluding different low-carbon technologies.
IPCC
Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
IPCC Report