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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Chapter-<br />

Comment<br />

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

594<br />

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

595<br />

para<br />

7<br />

F<br />

5<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 />

either use only IPCC scenarios or run IMCP models in the IPCC<br />

mode.<br />

(Claudia Kemfert, German Institute for E<strong>co</strong>nomic Research)<br />

A 8 10 19 15 Figure <strong>SPM</strong>.5 in the summary for policymaker is crucial.<br />

Therefore, one needs to be very careful what kind of numbers and<br />

model results can and should be shown. The graph shows GDP<br />

losses with different stabilisation targets. This figure as it is<br />

<strong>co</strong>nstructed now is as if you would <strong>co</strong>mpare apples and oranges.<br />

The graph is misleading and gives wrong impressions. model<br />

results cannot be <strong>co</strong>mpared because of the following reasons: 1.<br />

different baseline assumptions: IMCP focuses on technological<br />

changes which is relevant also for the baseline (TC in baseline),<br />

IPCC not. 2. different model parameter assumptions: not only for<br />

the baseline, but also for substitution elasticities etc.; 3. different<br />

model types: top down models and bottom up models usually show<br />

very different results, especially because they differ in type,<br />

assumptions and TC; 4.different regional scale of models: in IMCP<br />

there are some one region -models (Demeter, Mind) which can<br />

hardly <strong>co</strong>mpared with the other multi regional models;. as this slide<br />

with be used as policy re<strong>co</strong>mmendation, it is dangerous to present<br />

such kind of overview. As the IMCP study focuses primarily on<br />

TC, "benefits" of emissions mitigation as presented by the E3ME<br />

model, can only be explained by TCs. It is however, difficult to<br />

explain decision maker, why emissions mitigation improves GDP.<br />

This is not in line with any IPCC study before; furthermore, it is<br />

very <strong>co</strong>nfusing to have two AIM studies- AIM A1 PS and AIM-<br />

IMCP show very different results: this can be explained, as before,<br />

through the treatment of TC in IMCP. It is however very difficult to<br />

explain outsiders why this is the case. I would strongly re<strong>co</strong>mmend<br />

either use only IPCC scenarios or run IMCP models in the IPCC<br />

mode.<br />

(Government of Germany)<br />

7 A 8 10 8 12 Besides baseline assumptions and mitigation options, assumptions<br />

on technological change present a driving factor of mitigation <strong>co</strong>sts.<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 />

See A-593<br />

ACC; add “technological<br />

change”<br />

Action<br />

for<br />

chapter<br />

Considerations<br />

by the writing<br />

team<br />

3 Noted. Figure to<br />

be revised<br />

Page 154 of 348

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!