The assessment literature on climate change solutions to date has emphasized technologies and options based on cost-effectiveness analysis. However, many solutions to climate change mitigation misalign with such analytical frameworks. Here, we examine demand-side solutions, a crucial class of mitigation options that go beyond technological specification and cost-benefit analysis. To do so, we synthesize demand-side mitigation options in the urban, building, transport, and agricultural sectors. We also highlight the specific nature of demand-side solutions in the context of development.

Background: The transformation of the global energy sector from fossil-based fuels to low/non-carbon fuels will reduce environmental pollutant load, which in turn will benefit human health. However, with upscaling of emerging renewable technologies and energy sources, it is important to identify the potential for unintended health impacts, and to understand where the knowledge gaps lie with respect to health. We aimed to identify these gaps by conducting a scoping review. Methods: We conducted a systematic search of Medline, Web of Science, PubMed and EMBASE.

Co-benefits rarely enter quantitative decision-support frameworks, often because the methodologies for their integration are lacking or not known. This review fills in this gap by providing comprehensive methodological guidance on the quantification of co-impacts and their integration into climate-related decision making based on the literature. The article first clarifies the confusion in the literature about related terms and makes a proposal for a more consistent terminological framework, then emphasizes the importance of working in a multiple-objective–multiple-impact framework.