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 />

<strong>SPM</strong>-<br />

817<br />

<strong>SPM</strong>-<br />

818<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 />

13 A 12 3 12 3<br />

(Government of U.S. Department of State)<br />

Use of "will"? rather than "<strong>co</strong>uld" Probably better to get across that<br />

there is no "magic bullet" and that because energy supply is such a<br />

huge driver of CO2 emissions, to deliver stabilisatisation at lower<br />

levels effort will have to be placed across a portfolio of<br />

technologies in this sector, for example ....(list). Why is the<br />

potential for biomass particularly high? Suggest add "on existing<br />

agricultural land" if this is so and point out that not if not. Should<br />

<strong>co</strong>mment on whether low stabilisation options can be achieved (a)<br />

without nuclear or (b) without CCS. Certainly not possible without<br />

either I would think.<br />

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

13 A 12 3 12 0 Regarding, "implementation will be in the form of a portfolio of<br />

options", revising to "implementation will need to be in the form of<br />

a portfolio of options in order to achieve a truly sustainable energy<br />

future in a decarbonised world" is suggested. Rationale: In<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Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote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 />

See A-818 on “will vs <strong>co</strong>uld<br />

REJ; biomass point because<br />

biomass is biggest of<br />

renewables<br />

REJ point about land for<br />

bioenergy, because this will be<br />

in a dedicated para (23 will be<br />

moved here)<br />

Point about low level<br />

stabilisation and nuclear vs CCS<br />

is for para 6 (DISCUSS there)<br />

ACC<br />

See ch 4 proposals<br />

Action<br />

for<br />

chapter<br />

3<br />

Considerations<br />

by the writing<br />

team<br />

Rejected.<br />

Paragraph<br />

makes<br />

appropriate<br />

points well.<br />

(3)<br />

See A-818 on<br />

“will vs <strong>co</strong>uld<br />

REJ; biomass<br />

point because<br />

biomass is<br />

biggest of<br />

renewables<br />

REJ point about<br />

land for<br />

bioenergy,<br />

because this will<br />

be in a<br />

dedicated para<br />

(23 will be<br />

moved here)<br />

Point about low<br />

level<br />

stabilisation and<br />

nuclear vs CCS<br />

is for para 6<br />

(DISCUSS<br />

there)<br />

(4)<br />

Rejected. Policy<br />

prescriptive.<br />

(4) is dealt with<br />

in the material<br />

Page 217 of 348

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!