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.

中文翻译：

---

关于缓解气候变化途径的政治可行性：将温度控制在1.5°C以下是否为时已晚？

将全球变暖控制在1.5°C以下是可行的，但在政治上可行吗？了解政治可行性需要回答三个问题：（a）“什么是可行性？”（b）“何时何地可行？，”和（c）“对谁适用？。”关于1.5°C的目标，这些问题转化为（a）确定包括1.5°C途径的具体行动；（b）在不同的社会经济和政治背景下评估这些行动的经济和政治代价；（c）评估有关社会行为者承担这些费用的经济和体制能力。政治上的可行性观点强调成本和能力，而对利益和动机的普遍关注则将成本和能力误认为可行性的可取性。关于采取必要的气候行动的政治可行性的证据不是系统的，但清楚地表明，与在相关情况下承担这些费用的能力相比，采取必要行动的成本过高。在将来，成本可能下降，能力可能增加，这将减少至少某些解决方案的政治限制。但是，这不太可能及时发生以避免温度过冲。进一步的研究应集中于探索受成本和能力约束的“动态政治可行性空间”，以便找到实现气候稳定的更多可行途径。