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

Chapter-
Comment
SPM-
645
SPM-
646
SPM-
647
para
9h
ea
di
ng
9h
ea
di
ng
9h
ea
di
ng
Batch
From Page
From Line
To Page
To line
Comments
IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second Order Draft
that the low costs options of statement 9".
(Rob Swart, MNP)
A 9 1 9 5 the statement that there is “a large low-cost mitigation potential”
needs to be qualified in light of the potentially large doublecounting
problem that I have raised in my “General Comments”
above. Furthermore, why, if cost is so “low”, is it difficult to get
governments to implement policies that would achieve mitigation
potential? Indeed, why, if cost is so low, is government policy
needed at all? Perhaps the answer is that cost is not low, once
limited scalability of current technologies or lack of enabling
technologies (e.g., storage for intermittent solar and wind) are
considered.
(Christopher Green, McGill University)
A 9 1 9 5 The paragraph begins talking about the "large low-cost mitigation
potential between now and 2030 in the various sectors"; then refers
to "more costly measures" needed "to be on a trajectory towards
stabilisation at 450 to 550 ppmvCO2-eq", although their impact on
"annual GDPgrowth rates is limited". And finishes referring to the
need of "appropriate additional government policies" for achieving
"this potential"; but which potential refers to? The low-cost
measures, or the more costly ones? At least for me, it is not very
clear, or isn't clear at all.
(JULIO TORRES-MARTINEZ, Cuban Observatory for Science
and Technology)
A 9 1 5 5 Again, this paragraph seems to be recommending a stabilization
level around 450 and 550 ppmv CO2 emissions, while the literature
on stablization of GHGs concentrations indicate the possibility of
reaching levels as low as 375 ppmv CO2. We recommend to
replace the current text at line two with the following text: 'To be
on a trajectory towards stabilization at 375 and 400 ppmv
requires...'
Expert Review of Second-Order-Draft
Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote
Response suggested by cochairs
TIA when merging section C
header with para 9
Avoid “low”
Argument that low cost
measures do not need policy
intervention is not correct: there
are strong barriers; this needs to
be said explicitly, where
negative costs are mentioned
TIA when merging section C
header with para 9
REJ; that is not what the text
says
Action
for
chapter
Considerations
by the writing
team
Check price
range statement
26 with text
ch11.
(11)
TIA in above
comment.
(11)
TIA.
(11)
Agree
(11)
Page 166 of 348