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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

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

1342<br />

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

1343<br />

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

1344<br />

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

266<br />

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

1345<br />

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

1346<br />

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

1347<br />

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

1348<br />

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Se<strong>co</strong>nd Order Draft<br />

di<br />

ng<br />

(Government of Australia)<br />

5 A 5 7 5 8 The statement that "Global emissions need to start declining at<br />

some time in the future…" is obvious and needs sharpening to be<br />

useful. Suggest "A risk management framework suggests that<br />

global emissions need to be stabilised within a period of 1-3<br />

decades and to be strongly reduced thereafter, to achieve<br />

stabilisation of GHG <strong>co</strong>ncentrations without undue risk."<br />

(Ralph Chapman, Victoria University of Wellington)<br />

6 A 7 25 8 15 The <strong>SPM</strong> needs to be a bit more precise in its language when it<br />

F<br />

attempts to equate various CO2 stabilization levels to policies that<br />

4<br />

would seek to hold radiative forcing below some level. The<br />

emissions pathways are not the same and this matters especially<br />

when one adopts such a short time frame as 2030. If larger<br />

emissions reductions are needed in the next <strong>co</strong>uple of decades<br />

under the radiative forcing scenarios -- as <strong>co</strong>mpared to something<br />

like a WRE stabilization scenario -- that will require a different set<br />

of actions and carbon prices which will change which technologies<br />

deploy. These are not the same thing. Need to be more careful on<br />

this point.<br />

(James Dooley, Battelle)<br />

0 A 9 0 11 0 following the suggestion to apply only qualitative statements about<br />

uncertainty in section B this <strong>co</strong>uld also be suggested for the general<br />

parts of section C (statements 9-12), where this is already the case<br />

in most statements.<br />

(Rob Swart, MNP)<br />

12 B 11 41 11 41 “Potentially large <strong>co</strong>st reductions” – on the order of ? U.S.<br />

Government<br />

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

14 A 12 16 0 0 Suggest add after the word "unattractive": "; and there are<br />

sequestration risks associated with CCS."<br />

(Ralph Chapman, Victoria University of Wellington)<br />

16 A 12 34 0 0 Suggest add reference to public transport oriented development.<br />

Specifically, insert after "facilities" the words "and public transport<br />

oriented urban development"<br />

(Ralph Chapman, Victoria University of Wellington)<br />

15 A 12 34 0 0 Add sentence to end of paragraph: "Many of these measures have<br />

-<br />

health benefits or other social <strong>co</strong><br />

16<br />

(Ralph Chapman, Victoria University of Wellington)<br />

21 A 13 27 13 33 different from chapter 9 and chapter 8, it is the first time that a<br />

-<br />

<strong>co</strong>nfidence level is mentioned. It is absolutely unclear how the high<br />

Expert Review of Se<strong>co</strong>nd-Order-Draft<br />

Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote<br />

TIA<br />

UNCLEAR<br />

DISCUSS 4-11, CG<br />

Uncertai<br />

nty<br />

Identical A-803<br />

TIA when reformulating<br />

ACC; add “urban development”<br />

TIA in reformulating<br />

DISCUSS 8,9, CG<br />

Uncertia<br />

Page 347 of 348

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!