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
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Chapter-<br />
Comment<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 />
1122 better since the TAR, or the SRTT? Who has the better<br />
understanding - scientists, industry, policy-makers? Please clarify.<br />
<strong>SPM</strong>-<br />
1123<br />
<strong>SPM</strong>-<br />
1124<br />
<strong>SPM</strong>-<br />
1125<br />
<strong>SPM</strong>-<br />
1126<br />
<strong>SPM</strong>-<br />
1127<br />
<strong>SPM</strong>-<br />
1128<br />
(Andy Reisinger, TSU IPCC Synthesis Report)<br />
28 A 15 26 15 31 It would be helpful to extend this to <strong>co</strong>ver not just renewables but<br />
also all energy technologies and infrastructure, and demonstration<br />
and pre-<strong>co</strong>mmercial trials.<br />
(Government of UK)<br />
28 A 15 26 15 28 Insert "in <strong>co</strong>mbination with appropriate carbon pricing". Rationale:<br />
Carbon pricing is needed in order to make these intruments work<br />
without rebound effect.<br />
(Government of Norwegian Pollution Control Authority)<br />
28 A 15 26 15 26 In place of: “Better understanding of the mechanisms…” the text<br />
should be specific what amounts to (or what the examples are of)<br />
‘better understanding’.<br />
(Government of India)<br />
28 A 15 26 15 31 No mention is made here, or in the supporting chapter, of publicprivate<br />
research partnerships. Many U.S. Department of Energy<br />
R&D programs are <strong>co</strong>st-shared, for example. Also, there is no<br />
mention of the importance of protecting intellectual property. U.S.<br />
Government<br />
(Government of U.S. Department of State)<br />
28 A 15 26 15 28 I think this statement is oversimplified and borders on policy<br />
prescriptive. Even if the government puts in all of those things,<br />
technology transfer is a <strong>co</strong>mplex, poorly understood issue. Private<br />
sector technology innovation depends a lot on funding for basic<br />
science, in national labs, universities, etc. and that state of science<br />
in a <strong>co</strong>untry, which is not captured here. U.S. Government<br />
(Government of U.S. Department of State)<br />
27 A 15 15 15 15 Tradable permits: the distribution of allowances has implications<br />
for e<strong>co</strong>nomic efficiency and <strong>co</strong>mpetitiveness. And also welfare.<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 />
leaving out “better<br />
understanding”<br />
ACC; add other elements in last<br />
sentence<br />
DISCUSS; not clear if this is in<br />
literature<br />
See A-1122<br />
TIA; PPPs are <strong>co</strong>vered through<br />
the “government support”<br />
wording; issue that play a role<br />
in Techtransfer such as<br />
intellectual property rights<br />
cannot all be mentioned (there<br />
are quite a number), but general<br />
<strong>co</strong>nclusions about techtrasfer<br />
can be listed (draw on IPCC<br />
SRTT)<br />
See 1121,1126<br />
Details on innovation to be left<br />
to chapters /TS<br />
REJ; not needed<br />
Action<br />
for<br />
chapter<br />
2,11,13<br />
Considerations<br />
by the writing<br />
team<br />
Page 298 of 348
Change language