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
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 />
<strong>SPM</strong>-<br />
749<br />
<strong>SPM</strong>-<br />
750<br />
<strong>SPM</strong>-<br />
751<br />
<strong>SPM</strong>-<br />
752<br />
<strong>SPM</strong>-<br />
753<br />
<strong>SPM</strong>-<br />
754<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 />
10 A 11 19 11 23<br />
Institute(GISPRI))<br />
Having talked about 450ppmv on page 5, it may be seen as odd not<br />
to have <strong>co</strong>mmented on GDP impacts of achieving that stabilisation<br />
level. It would be helpful to say in qualitative terms how the<br />
benefits of action to achieve stabilisation levels which carry less<br />
risk will help offset the GDP <strong>co</strong>sts. Even if this is an area with<br />
insufficient fact base to draw quantitative <strong>co</strong>nclusions, it is at least<br />
suggesting this as an area for further study.<br />
(Government of UK)<br />
10 A 11 19 11 28 <strong>co</strong>st estimates are explained only for 650ppmv CO2EQ and 550<br />
ppmv CO2EQ : it would be crucial also to give estimates for lower<br />
stabilisation levels like 450 ppmv CO2EQ or if available even 400<br />
CO2EQ<br />
(Government of European Community / European Commission)<br />
10 A 11 19 11 23 Describing GDP loss in terms of proportion can be misleading as it<br />
seems to give the wrong perception that the loss is rather small.<br />
Therefore we suggest to add the information on NPV of abatement<br />
<strong>co</strong>sts.<br />
(Government of Japan)<br />
10 A 11 19 11 27 Again, check <strong>co</strong>nsistency and clarity with page 8 lines 3-12.<br />
(Government of Environment Canada)<br />
10 A 11 19 11 27 <strong>co</strong>mment: <strong>co</strong>nclusion 10 is strongly related to <strong>co</strong>nclusion 7; it<br />
would be more clear if they were grouped together<br />
(Government of The Netherlands)<br />
10 A 11 19 11 27 This para does not report mitigation <strong>co</strong>st in 2030 for stabilisation<br />
scenarios below 550ppm-eq (Categories A and partly B). This<br />
information is missing from Chapter 11.6.2 as well and should be<br />
added there, in the TS and <strong>SPM</strong>. An example for such a scenario<br />
analysis can be found in "den Elzen, M.G.J and Meinshausen, M.,<br />
2005. Meeting the EU 2 C climate target: global and regional<br />
emission implications. MNP-report 728001031 (www.mnp.nl/en),<br />
Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP), Bilthoven,<br />
the Netherlands." in figure 8, where <strong>co</strong>sts of up to 1% of GDP are<br />
reported for 450 ppm eq. and up to 1.5% for 400 ppm eq. around<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 />
Action<br />
for<br />
chapter<br />
Considerations<br />
by the writing<br />
team<br />
See A-744 See A-744<br />
(11)<br />
See A-749 See A-744<br />
(11)<br />
REJ; absolute numbers miss the<br />
<strong>co</strong>ntext and are misleading<br />
REJ.<br />
(11)<br />
See A-748 To be discussed<br />
(11)<br />
See A-748 To be discussed<br />
(11)<br />
See A-744 To be discussed<br />
(11)<br />
Page 198 of 348
Change language