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

Chapter-
Comment
SPM-
580
SPM-
581
SPM-
582
SPM-
583
SPM-
584
SPM-
585
SPM-
586
SPM-
587
SPM-
123
para
Batch
From Page
From Line
To Page
To line
Comments
IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second Order Draft
7 A 8 5 8 5
(Ronald Hutjes, Alterra)
after "650 ppmv CO2-eq" add: "(4 to 5 W/m² radiative forcing)"
(Aviel VERBRUGGEN, University of Antwerp)
7 A 8 5 8 6 It would be useful to add the average annual GDP reductions in the
main text here as annual GDP growth is the most frequently used
statistic. Whilst footnote 5 makes in clear what the annual GDP is,
a policy maker skimming through the report might overlook the
footnote and wrongly conclude that, for example, stabilisation at
550ppm could cost as much as 5% GDP per annum, whereas the
actual cost is in the range 0.03% to 0.1%. Better to avoid any
possibility of such a mistake.
(Government of UK)
7 A 8 5 8 5 Is this global average loss?
(Government of Environment Canada)
7 A 8 5 8 6 Change "give higher or negative numbers" to "give higher losses or
positive gains".
(Government of Environment Canada)
7 A 8 6 0 0 "higher or negative numbers" needs clarification; reference to fig.
SPM.5 is made, but the x-axis refers to stabilization level in W/m2,
whereas the text refers to stabilization levels in ppmv; the letters A
to E along the x-axis are not clear at all
(Michael Kohlhaas, German Institute for Economic Research)
7 A 8 6 8 6 after "550 ppmv CO2-eq" add: "(3.25 to 4 W/m² radiative forcing)"
(Aviel VERBRUGGEN, University of Antwerp)
7 A 8 6 8 8 Describing GDP loss in terms of proportion can be misleading as it
seems to give the wrong perception that the loss is rather small.
Therefore, we suggest to add the information on NPV of abatement
costs.
(Government of Japan)
7 A 8 6 0 0 The reference to GDP loss can easily be misinterpreted, so we
propose that footnote 5 is included in the main text.
(Government of Norwegian Pollution Control Authority)
7 B 8 6 8 6 Explain that the a GDP loss of 2% is 2% below BAU growth. It is a
minor reduction in GDP increase, which is usually assumed to grow
Expert Review of Second-Order-Draft
Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote
Response suggested by cochairs
REJ; delete W/m2 from figure
ACC
ACC; add “global average”
ACC
See A-583
REJ; W/m2 will be dropped
REJ; too complex and misses
context for large numbers
ACC, see A-581
See B-121; issue about costs
further into the future
Action
for
chapter
Considerations
by the writing
team
3 Accept. Text to
be revised to
Page 151 of 348