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

Chapter-
Comment
SPM-
566
SPM-
567
SPM-
568
para
Batch
From Page
From Line
To Page
To line
Comments
IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second Order Draft
7 A 8 3 8 21 All those paragraphs and the Figure SPM.5 are only descriptive and
"neutral" approaches to the very important issue of reductions to
GDP caused by global mitigation measures. I think that, if the
problem is to be approached, it needs much more clarification
regarding the differences between positive and negative impacts,
and also between global and local or regional outcomes, because as
it is now presented at SPM, I believe that policy makers would
receive very little help, or maybe would be more confused with the
information here described.
(JULIO TORRES-MARTINEZ, Cuban Observatory for Science
and Technology)
7 A 8 3 8 12 It is important to comment on important assumptions made and
their consequences to the results, especially assumptions about
capital mobility, use of credits from Joint Implementation and
Clean Development Mechanism and oil prices. Depending on these
assumptions the GDP impact can vary greatly. This can be seen,
for instance, from the study made by the EU Commission research
unit IPTS (Analysis of Post-2012 Climate Policy Scenarios with
Limited Participation, June 2005. Study is included) and the study
made by COWI for UNICE (Competitiveness and EU Climate
Change Policy, October 2004).
(Jean-Yves CANEILL, EDF)
7 A 8 3 8 12 point 7:Costs should be put into a clear perspective (as argued in
Azar & Schneider, "Are the economic costs of stabilising the
atmosphere prohibitive?" Ecological economics, 2002 ), by adding:
Though estimates vary, the costs of even very low stabilization
levels are comfortably compatible with continued economic
growth. And, specifying: Stabilization at lower levels would cost a
few per cent of GDP in 2050 [fig. SPM.5) compared to an expected
economic growth of 100-200 % [?] over the same period. Now it is
somewhat cryptically explained in a footnote, but it should be made
more explicit.Setting it off against the total GDP growth over the
period makes the figures more easy to grasp.
(Donald Pols, Friends of the Earth Netherlands/Milieudefensie)
Expert Review of Second-Order-Draft
Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote
Response suggested by cochairs
REJ; no space to present
regional data and too dependent
on distributional assumptions
Identical A-563
ACC; add annual GDP growth
impact between brackets
Action
for
chapter
Considerations
by the writing
team
Page 146 of 348