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

Chapter-
Comment
SPM-
475
SPM-
476
SPM-
477
para
Batch
From Page
From Line
To Page
To line
Comments
IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second Order Draft
6 A 7 2 7 6 This sentence is unclear. Are the authors saying: “It is critical to
achieve a high penetration rate for low-carbon technologies in the
$16 trillion in energy intrastructure investment [note: now $17 tr
according to IEA 2005] projected through 2030?” If this is the case,
then use of the term “it is critical” implies a specific stabilization
pathway, implicitly not policy-neutral. U.S. Government
(Government of U.S. Department of State)
6 A 7 2 7 4 Sentence could be clearer. U.S. Government
(Government of U.S. Department of State)
6 A 7 2 7 4 “Therefore, the use of the projected investment in the expansion
and renewal of energy supply till 2030 of at least US$ 16 trillion is
critical for the penetration of low carbon technologies (high
confidence).” Such a large cost number is difficult to understand
without some points of reference. Suggest that $16 trillion also be
expressed either as a cost per person figure, and/or as a percent of
world economic output. U.S. Government
(Government of U.S. Department of State)
SPM-93 6 B 7 2 7 2 Please add "appropriate" before "use of" …
(Jean-Pascal van YPERSELE, Université catholique de Louvain
(Belgium))
SPM-94 6 B 7 2 7 6 This sentence is unclear. Are the authors saying: “It is critical to
achieve a high penetration rate for low-carbon technologies in the
$16 trillion in energy intrastructure investment [note: now $17 tr
according to IEA 2005] projected through 2030?” If this is the case,
then use of the term “it is critical” implies a specific stabilization
pathway, implicitly not policy-neutral. U.S. Government
(Government of U.S. Department of State)
Expert Review of Second-Order-Draft
Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote
Response suggested by cochairs
REJ; it just says that how you
spend the 17 trillion will
influence the penetration of low
carbon technology
Action
for
chapter
Considerations
by the writing
team
Noted. Try to
write in a less
policy
prescriptive
way, e.g.,
replace “will”
by “may be”.
TIA in reformulating Accepted. The
sentence will be
modified.
DISCUSS; what is an
appropriate comparison? (% of
all investment?; % of
cumulative World GDP?)
(4)
(4)
4 Accepted.
Should read as
“”of at least
US$16 trillions
(equivalent to
an annual
disbursement of
1% of global
GDP”.
TIA in reformulating Accepted and
sentence will be
redrafted.
Identical A-475 The same as
SPM 475A.
(4)
SPM-95 6 B 7 2 7 4 “Therefore the use of the projected investment in the expansion and REJ; not needed here The same as
(4)
(4)
Page 121 of 348