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
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
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 />
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Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote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 />
Action<br />
for<br />
chapter<br />
Considerations<br />
by the writing<br />
team<br />
3 box<br />
(Government of Switzerland)<br />
<strong>SPM</strong>- 1 A 3 15 3 0 fig <strong>SPM</strong> 3: what means JANZ, IT Annex I ? (missing in list ACC, clarify 1 ACC<br />
247 F<br />
abreviations)<br />
(1)<br />
3<br />
(Government of Belgium)<br />
<strong>SPM</strong>- 1 A 3 15 0 0 Figure <strong>SPM</strong>.3. The meaning of "JANZ" and "IT Annex" is not clear ACC, clarify 1 ACC<br />
248 F<br />
in this figure. The acronyms are not reader-friendly and there are no<br />
(1)<br />
3<br />
references to this terminology elsewhere in the <strong>SPM</strong>. Additionally,<br />
the difference between "Centrally Planned Asia" and "Other Asia"<br />
is not explained. Including separate designations for major<br />
emissions emitting <strong>co</strong>untries, particularly for Japan, is suggested.<br />
(Government of Japan)<br />
<strong>SPM</strong>- 4 A 4 15 4 30 The main problem with using MERs rather than PPPs is with the REJ; that is not <strong>co</strong>nclusion of<br />
Agree with TSU<br />
249<br />
1990 baseline. Use of MERs underestimates the size of the<br />
e<strong>co</strong>nomy of the developing world. With <strong>co</strong>nvergence assumptions<br />
this exaggerates e<strong>co</strong>nomic growth assumptions. The authors need to<br />
be transparent about this and clearly note it in the <strong>SPM</strong><br />
(Government of Australia)<br />
ch 3<br />
(1)<br />
<strong>SPM</strong>-43 1 B 3 15 3 0 Fig 3 - If this figure is included, a parallel figure showing<br />
See A-244 See <strong>SPM</strong>-244<br />
F<br />
distribution of emissions to gross production for the regions<br />
(1)<br />
3<br />
identified should also be included. Emissions/GDP provides<br />
information that is as relevant to policy makers as emissions/pop.<br />
Highlighting one and not the other represents an implicit policy<br />
choice. U.S. Government<br />
(Government of U.S. Department of State)<br />
<strong>SPM</strong>- 1 A 3 0 3 0 Figure <strong>SPM</strong>.2 This figure requires further explanation or<br />
See A-26 See <strong>SPM</strong>-26<br />
250 F<br />
simplication or deletion. The y-axis label does not apply to all bars<br />
(1)<br />
2<br />
(e.g., population; ratios of indicators). Not clear what the "X" for<br />
change is referring to...<br />
(,)<br />
<strong>SPM</strong>- 2 A 4 1 4 5 Not only will per capita emissions in developed <strong>co</strong>untries still be DISCUSS 1 REJ: Too much<br />
251<br />
higher, if the one fifth (or less) of global population ac<strong>co</strong>unts for<br />
detail for a <strong>SPM</strong><br />
1/3 of total growth, each person in the developed <strong>co</strong>untries will add<br />
(1)<br />
nearly twice as much to their per capita emissions as will each<br />
Will be<br />
Page 63 of 348
Change language