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

Chapter-
Comment
SPM-
674
SPM-
675
SPM-
676
SPM-
677
SPM-
678
para
Batch
From Page
From Line
To Page
To line
Comments
IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second Order Draft
stabilisation between 450 and 550 ppmv CO2-eq" will be
inconsistent with Table TS.8. Some model results show the
marginal costs of over 100 US$/tCO2-eq for stabilizing at 450-550
ppmv CO2-eq.
(Keigo Akimoto, Research Institute of Innovative Technology for
the Earth (RITE))
9 A 9 8 9 15 The statement that potentials in 2030 (AR4) with are in line with
potentials in 2020 (AR3) is confusing and suggests that the target is
receding faster than time is advancing (since the AR3 was in 2001
and AR4 will appear in 2007).
9
T
2
(Michael Raupach, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research)
A 9 8 9 15 Table SPM2 has the B2 baseline, are the mitigation potential
numbers in this paragraph only true for comparison with the B2
baseline or are they baseline independent? If not what are the
numbers of relative to A1?
(Rachel Warren, University of East Anglia)
9 A 9 8 9 15 May be worth pointing out that therefore the lower stabilisation
levels require all sectors in the table to apply their mitigation
potential, if this can be said with confidence.
(Rachel Warren, University of East Anglia)
9 A 9 8 9 0 In section Number 9, overall economic reduction potential seems to
include only the reduction potential of mitigation technologies. If
so, reduction potential must be made accordingly. By including
economic reduction potential for other non-technological mitigation
options, such as policies and measures aimed at changing lifestyles
and improving resources, it is assumed that the total economic
reduction potential increases.
(Government of Japan)
9 A 9 8 9 8 Suggest changing the phrase "economic reduction potential" to
"cost-effective greenhouse gas reduction potential" as it more
accurately reflects what you are trying to say.
(Government of Environment Canada)
Expert Review of Second-Order-Draft
Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote
Response suggested by cochairs
ACC; modify text
ACC; add footnote to table
REJ; not needed
ACC; add this notion
REJ; “economic potential” is
defined “cost-effective” not
Action
for
chapter
Considerations
by the writing
team
Life style
options not
included. Be
clear on this.
We still need to
find a good way
to talk about
non-technical
measures in the
SPM.
Page 175 of 348