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

Chapter-
Comment
SPM-
810
SPM-
811
SPM-
812
SPM-
813
para
Batch
From Page
From Line
To Page
To line
Comments
IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second Order Draft
Expert Review of Second-Order-Draft
Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote
Response suggested by cochairs
Action
for
chapter
Considerations
by the writing
team
(Eli Turk, Canadian Electricity Association (CEA)) difference ok
(4)
13 A 12 1 12 19 The key component in actually getting mitigation options off the DISCUSS
4,11 Accepted.
ground is financing and investment flows and yet it is not at all Para 26 has some of it
Check the
addressed here or very effectively in the rest of WG 3's report. This
possibility to
is a serious omission and needs to be addressed both in the SPM See ch 4 proposals
say something
and in one of WG 3's chapters.
about
(John Drexhage, International Institute for Sustainable
Development)
(4)
13 A 12 1 12 9 Define time frames (short to medium term). Majority of CCS TIA; see earlier point (A-3) that
Financing and
deployment will occur in the second half of this century (IPCC we should try to include a table
investment
SRCCS 2005, TS, p.44) – how does it fit into the time frame? with options and technological
flows, probably
(Gabriela Von Goerne, Greenpeace)
maturity; add “(some)” before
combined with
CO2 capture
CDM.
(4)
13 A 12 2 12 6 There should be a clear distinction between existing, technically See A-3 See comment
proven, abatement options and promising but still emergining
SPM 3 A.
options. This has important risk and 'speed of deployment'
implications
(Iain MacGill, University of NSW)
(4)
13 A 12 2 19 9 The entire Energy supply section needs to be reviewed to ensure See A-3
4,5,6,7,8, See SPM 3 A. it
that it is consistent with the other sectoral sections of pages 12-14 DISCUSS if we can make a 9,10,11 would be very
of the SPM. Currently the SPM Energy supply section does not distinction between options
difficulty to
distinguish between mature and readily deployable technologies as available now and after 2015 as
analise the
the sections on Industry (SPM page 13 lines 12 to 24) and on Waste the Inustry chapter does
period up to
(SPM page 14 lines 14 to 24) do consistently differentiate
2015. Energy
technology options using the aforementioned parameters (i.e. Maturity needs to be reflected
supply
"mature and readily deployable"). In fact the entire Energy supply
investments
section groups all technology options on the same level field
have long
(misleadingly indicating to readers that all energy technologies
lifetime
mentioned are readily available and mature); this significant
problem needs to be amended both in the aforementioned SPM
section and related chapters.
(Jose Etcheverry, David Suzuki Foundation)
(4)
Page 215 of 348