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

Chapter-
Comment
SPM-
569
SPM-
570
SPM-
571
SPM-
572
para
Batch
From Page
From Line
To Page
To line
Comments
IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second Order Draft
7 A 8 3 8 10 It is vital to state first the situation for the stabilization at levels of
450 ppm CO2eq. or below which are necessary in order to limit the
worst consequences of climate change. Here, as elsewhere, the 650
ppm CO2 eq. is the point of departure, as if assuming that would
be sufficient solution to avoid dangerous climate change. I also
urge to give some estimates of the GDP costs of the necessary low
stabilization levels, properly qualified as need be due to the small
number of studies.
(Donald Pols, Friends of the Earth Netherlands/Milieudefensie)
7 A 8 3 8 12 It would be interesting to have a bit more detail in this section not
just about economic issues, but about structural issues. At what
stabilisation level are we beginning to talk about premature
retirement of infrastructure? Where do we move from simply
spending more money on the latest and best technology to having to
make structural adjustements? The way the information is currently
presented leaves a very diffuse picture, as if stabilisation at any
level is almost equally possible, which does not really gel with the
perspective one gets from a regional and sectoral bottom-up
perspective, and things would seem to get quite significantly
progressively harder as we move to lower stabilisation levels. It
would also be helpful if the TS brought out more information on
this.
(Andy Reisinger, TSU IPCC Synthesis Report)
7 A 8 3 8 6 The cost estimates should be expressed in the same way, for
example, "below x %" or "from x% to y %). Otherwise Para 7
could imply that the costs for 650ppmv can be higher than
550ppmv.
(Koji Kadono, Global Industrial and Social Progress Research
Institute(GISPRI))
7 A 8 3 8 12 The GDP losses here (to 2050) do not seem consistent with those
cited on page 11, paragraph 10 (to 2030). Why not give a look at
the projected costs for a range of stabilization levels. What affects
the different costs in different regions?
(Government of Environment Canada)
Expert Review of Second-Order-Draft
Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote
Response suggested by cochairs
REJ; there is no ranking in the
current text
DISCUSS if the issue of
premature retirement of capital
stock can be clarified;
UNCLEAR what is meant with
structural adjustments and the
point about stabilisation at any
level looking equally easy.
REJ; cost ranges do overlap,
unfortunaytely
DISCUSS; these results are for
2050; in para 10 it is 2030;
however the analysis underlying
para 10 is not the same as that
for para 7 (different scrutiny of
Action
for
chapter
Considerations
by the writing
team
1. models deal
with that
differently,
explain in
TS.
2. check text
on
unclarity.
3 Noted. Time
periods differ
and consultation
occurring with
ch11.
Page 147 of 348