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

Chapter-
Comment
SPM-
1200
SPM-
1201
SPM-
1202
SPM-
1203
SPM-
1204
para
30
T
3
30
T
3
30
T
3
30
T
3
30
T
3
Batch
From Page
From Line
To Page
To line
Comments
IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second Order Draft
defensible than the repeated statements in the SPM about the need
for a strong government role or a significant government role. The
authors of the SPM need to explain precisely what this active
government role is and what the literature is that backs it up or
simply stick with the point here as well as the points later on about
investments in R&D which are also supported by the literature.
(James Dooley, Battelle)
A 17 0 17 0 The term “technology cooperation” is vague, and the suggestion
that cooperation is needed is potentially misleading. If stabilization
of climate will require the fruits of an energy technology race, then
technology cooperation is not needed at the R&D stage. (A race is
“competitive” rather than “cooperative”) Cooperation will, to a
degree, be desirable when and if scaleable, economically
competitive, technologies are developed and are ready to be
deployed. Of course, there need to be enough entrants committed
to, and in, the race. As long as a number of nations enter the race,
and that there are at least several potentially successful technologies
that could generate big payoffs, a Schumpeterian approach to
innovation would emphasize the profit incentives instead of
“cooperation”.
(Christopher Green, McGill University)
A 17 0 17 0 Table SPM 3: the assessment entry "0" is not explained in the title
(Aviel VERBRUGGEN, University of Antwerp)
A 17 0 17 0 Table SPM.3: (1)column1,row3,the "sectoral agreements" should
be clarified to be well understood.(2)column5,row3,what's the
meaning of "0"? Is it a mistake? Please check and correct.
(Government of China Meteorological Administration)
A 17 0 17 0 Table SPM-3 : vertical bold lines should be used to make it clear
which column is qualified by the signs +, -, ?
(Government of France)
A 17 0 17 0 Table SPM-3: Please define the rating of 0 - it is not in the caption.
(Government of Environment Canada)
Expert Review of Second-Order-Draft
Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote
Response suggested by cochairs
DISCUSS
Table is too controversial to be
kept and has to be deleted; can
we find text that summarises the
key findings from the literature
on various regime approaches?
See A-1200
See A-1200
See A-1200
See A-1200
Action
for
chapter
Considerations
by the writing
team
13 Maintain option
of keeping the
table or replace
by a paragraph
(13)
Table has been
revised. TSU to
look at it. If not
okay, a para will
be submitted to
replace the
table.
Page 317 of 348