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

Chapter-
Comment
SPM-
983
SPM-
984
para
Batch
From Page
From Line
To Page
To line
Comments
IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second Order Draft
21 A 13 27 13 33 A totally off the wall remark. Is there any emission advantage in
encouraging vegetarian diets in terms of more efficient use of
agricultural lands and reduction of the digestive emissions of
agricultural animals? Vegetarian and vegan diets are increasingly
popular among university youth in North America mainly for health
and animal ethics reasons. A strong GHG emission reduction
argument, if valid, would further encourage this lifestyle change.
(David Jackson, McMaster University)
23 A 14 6 14 11 Is it sound to quote here, highlighted in bold, a statement that is
supported by "limited evidence" and is the matter of "low level of
agreement"? Of course not. This sentence must read something like
"There is limited evidence that dedicated bio energy crops and
forest products could... The scientific community offers widely
diverging views... etc". Thenext sentence "The potential is based
on the demand.. because the literature indicates that supply (...) is
not a limiting factor." makes no sense: if there was no limit on
supply the potential would be equal to the overall demand for fossil
fuels ie the mitigation potential would equal our global energyrelated
CO2 emissions.
(Cédric PHILIBERT, International Energy Agency)
Expert Review of Second-Order-Draft
Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote
Response suggested by cochairs
Action
for
chapter
Considerations
by the writing
team
DISCUSS 8
in ch 11.
-
See A-982
REJ; On issues of high policy
relevance even LL statements
are ok
TIA when reformulating a range
rather than a number (2.2) could
be used
REJ criticism that the statement
is ludicrous, because supply and
demand are relative notions; one
of the two is limiting, in this
case it is the demand (as chapter
4,5 and 7 say)
Accepted. I
think this is a
fair statement.
We should
revise this
paragraph –
topic for the
bioenergy
breakout group
discussion in
NZ?
(8)
Rejected. Even
if the evidence
is low we
should refer to
that since it is
calling attention
in many
countries
nowadays. This
option is always
considered as
one of the
wedges to
Page 263 of 348