30.01.2013 Views

SODBatch A&B SPM Comments co-chair response final ... - ipcc-wg3

SODBatch A&B SPM Comments co-chair response final ... - ipcc-wg3

SODBatch A&B SPM Comments co-chair response final ... - ipcc-wg3

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Chapter-<br />

Comment<br />

<strong>SPM</strong>-<br />

472<br />

<strong>SPM</strong>-<br />

473<br />

<strong>SPM</strong>-<br />

474<br />

para<br />

Batch<br />

From Page<br />

From Line<br />

To Page<br />

To line<br />

<strong>Comments</strong><br />

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Se<strong>co</strong>nd Order Draft<br />

efficiency. Should the reference here be to "expansion and supply<br />

and renewal of low-carbon energy supply and energy efficient<br />

technologies" Rather than just "energy supply"? If energy<br />

efficiency is not included in the 16 trillion estimate we suggest a<br />

new additional sentence about this: "Improved energy efficiency<br />

will have to play a key role for all regions and timescales."<br />

Rationale: Figure <strong>SPM</strong>4 shows that energy <strong>co</strong>nservation and<br />

efficiency has a key role.<br />

(Government of Norwegian Pollution Control Authority)<br />

6 A 7 2 7 4 How is this investment figure derived. It is not obvious if this is<br />

total investment required to meet new demand and replace depleted<br />

stock. Is this a global figure?<br />

(Government of Australia)<br />

6 A 7 2 7 5 As currently drafted this sentence is <strong>co</strong>nfusing suggest redrafting to<br />

make the point clearer.<br />

(Government of Australia)<br />

6 A 7 2 7 4 "Therefore the use of the projected investment……low carbon<br />

technologies (high <strong>co</strong>nfidence)". This statement is unclear. Firstly,<br />

the term “the use of” is not clear. Se<strong>co</strong>ndly, is this the projection of<br />

investment in the global energy system till 2030 or is it the<br />

minimum investment needed (i.e. critical) for the low carbon<br />

technologies have to penetrate. If it is the former, there is no<br />

mention of what climate stabilization level is assumed. In case if<br />

this statement is retained with any modification, clarification of the<br />

above as well as the following is needed: i) how much of this<br />

penetration is expected in developing <strong>co</strong>untries? ii) what policies<br />

and measures are assumed for transfer of the technology and the<br />

payment of full incremental <strong>co</strong>st to developing <strong>co</strong>untries?<br />

(Government of India)<br />

Expert Review of Se<strong>co</strong>nd-Order-Draft<br />

Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote<br />

Response suggested by <strong>co</strong><strong>chair</strong>s<br />

REJ; It is form IEA (actually 17<br />

trillion), see chapter 4<br />

Action<br />

for<br />

chapter<br />

Considerations<br />

by the writing<br />

team<br />

there is no<br />

guarantee that it<br />

would be used<br />

for low-carbon<br />

technologies.<br />

Nevertheless,<br />

we refer to this<br />

issue in other<br />

part of<br />

paragraph 6.<br />

(4)<br />

Noted. Try to<br />

add the word<br />

“global” before<br />

“energy<br />

supply”.<br />

TIA in reformulating Accepted. . See<br />

<strong>co</strong>mment <strong>SPM</strong><br />

467A<br />

TIA in reformulating Noted. Try to<br />

add the word<br />

“global” before<br />

“energy<br />

supply”.<br />

(4)<br />

(4)<br />

(4)<br />

Page 120 of 348

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!