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

Chapter-
Comment
SPM-
221
para
Batch
From Page
From Line
To Page
To line
Comments
IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second Order Draft
17 B 13 1 13 3 The maximum savings achievable at net negative cost – 60% in
developing countries and 25% in developed countries – are NOT
CONSISTENT with the numbers shown in Table SPM2 for the
Buildings sector. That Table does not break out the (Scenario B2)
baseline between developed and developing countries, but taking
all countries together, the combined savings at net negative costs
are shown as 3200 (million metric tons?) out of 15.0 GtC02, or
21%. There is no weighted average of 25% and 60% that can yield
this result. Are the earlier percentages based on a different baseline
scenario (A1 rather than B2)? Finally, if the Chapter sections cited
in brackets on p 13 line 5 [6.4, 6.5] are intended as the source of
these numbers, this is not correct – the relevant chapters/sections
and data tables should be cited. U.S. Government
(Government of U.S. Department of State)
Expert Review of Second-Order-Draft
Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote
Response suggested by cochairs
DISCUSS check if there is
consistency with table SPM-2;
is economic potential indeed
supplementary to what is in the
baseline already?
Action
for
chapter
Considerations
by the writing
team
emission
cooking and
lighting, among
others.
Third: the
numbers cited
are for
economic
potential.
(6)
6 They are
consistent. This
sentence
reviews the
potential in
various
developing
countries and
includes the
words “up to”.
A weighted
average,
reported in
Table SPM2, is
laregely
determined by
the potential in
the largest
developing
countries, i.e.
China and India,
which have
lower potentials.
These savings
Page 244 of 348