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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Chapter-<br />

Comment<br />

para<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 />

685 (Yuan Guo, Energy Research Institute, National Development and<br />

Reform Commission)<br />

<strong>SPM</strong>- 9 A 9 11 9 12 The authors need to define what, in their view is an "adequate<br />

686<br />

government policy".<br />

(Government of Australia)<br />

<strong>SPM</strong>- 9 B 9 12 9 15 These sentences describe the methodologies behind table <strong>SPM</strong>.2<br />

162<br />

and the statement at the beginning of this paragraph. This is less<br />

relevant for an <strong>SPM</strong>. Suggest to change table <strong>SPM</strong>.2 into a graph,<br />

shortly describe ranking of key sectors and/or regions.<br />

(Government of European Community / European Commission)<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Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote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 />

ACC; refer to section D;<br />

DISCUSS possibility of turning<br />

table 2 in a graph for the <strong>SPM</strong><br />

(leaving the table in the TS);<br />

methodological issues are seen<br />

by others as very relevant;<br />

maybe move them to the figure<br />

caption then<br />

TIA; drop “intermediate”<br />

<strong>SPM</strong>- 9 A 9 14 9 14 would "medium range" be clearer than "intermediate"?<br />

687<br />

(Rachel Warren, University of East Anglia)<br />

<strong>SPM</strong>- 9 A 9 15 0 0 "in line with" is not clear; one may understand that the AR4 2030 ACC; modify sentence<br />

688<br />

potentials are similar to the TAR 2020 potentials OR that the AR4<br />

2030 potentials are <strong>co</strong>nsistent with a 10 year extrapolation of the<br />

2020 TAR numbers.<br />

(Rob Swart, MNP)<br />

<strong>SPM</strong>- 9 A 9 15 9 0 add: "These estimates do not include, however, potential emission DISCUSS 11,5<br />

689<br />

reductions resulting from changes in production and <strong>co</strong>nsumption<br />

patterns. For example switching from car transport to public<br />

transport (and freight from road to rail), energy management<br />

approaches in industry and a decrease in suburbanisation trends<br />

would <strong>co</strong>ntribute to significant further reductions in emissions."<br />

(,)<br />

<strong>SPM</strong>- 9 A 9 15 9 15 What is the significance of similarity between TAR estimates to See A-688<br />

690<br />

2020 and AR4 estimates to 2030?<br />

(Government of Environment Canada)<br />

<strong>SPM</strong>- 9 B 9 15 9 15 … TAR estimates for 2020: yes, but here 2030 is discussed. Any See A-674<br />

163<br />

<strong>co</strong>mment on the 10-yr difference?<br />

(Jean-Pascal van YPERSELE, Université catholique de Louvain<br />

(Belgium))<br />

<strong>SPM</strong>- 9 A 9 16 9 16 It is suggested to add the following important information: A TIA when merging section C<br />

Action<br />

for<br />

chapter<br />

11<br />

Considerations<br />

by the writing<br />

team<br />

Page 180 of 348

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!