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

Chapter-
Comment
para
Batch
From Page
From Line
To Page
To line
Comments
IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second Order Draft
(Expert Review Meeting Paris, IPCC)
SPM-27 6 A 0 0 0 0 Point 6: Suggestion to cut the first sentence in two parts. The IEA
can help quantify this work into graphics for emissions from the
power plant sector. Figure 4: The Fossil fuel should be on one side
and CCS on another side
(Expert Review Meeting Paris, IPCC)
SPM-28 5 A 0 0 0 0 Point 5: Needs to be more precise on the uncertainty statements in
this point need to be improved. There is no need to single out 450
ppmv from chapter 3. The lower the stabilization level, the higher
are the avoided damages needs to be added. Are technologies only
interpreted as energy technologies only? Many references on longterm
in Section B. It should mention that short term policies will
have an impact on long-term policies. Table 1: the + 20 in the last
column will not be taken seriously by policymakers
(Expert Review Meeting Paris, IPCC)
SPM-29 27 A 0 0 0 0 Point 27: line 15- use of carbon trading as policies should be
mentioned line 19- the voluntary agreements of chapter 13 does not
links with chapter 7, which talks about voluntary actions.
Environmental effectiveness has not to be addressed in the SPM.
(Expert Review Meeting Paris, IPCC)
SPM-30 16 A 0 0 0 0 Point 16: Mention it is also possible to include ETS from transport
(Expert Review Meeting Paris, IPCC)
SPM-31 15 A 0 0 0 0 Point 15: This statement is wrong, as the energy sector has grown
faster with regard to emissions
There are other ways to decarbonise the fuel mix in the carbon
sector- line 26.
SPM-32 13
14
A 0 0 0 0
(Expert Review Meeting Paris, IPCC)
Point 13: Deleted “advanced nuclear” Replace unattractive with
costly in line 16. The problem with short-medium term measures
and CCS which is not available right now.
Expert Review of Second-Order-Draft
Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote
Response suggested by cochairs
TIA
Fig 4 comment UNCLEAR
Action
for
chapter
Considerations
by the writing
team
3,4,11 Rejected.
Second part of
sentence in
point 6 relates to
first. Fig 4 being
reconstructed.
ACC; divide ategory A in two 3 Accepted. No
need to single
out specific
stabilisation
levels. Table 1
being
reconstructed in
consultation
with WGI.
TIA, VA statement to be more
balanced
REJ, no basis in literature
ACC; delete sentence and
mention high growth in
modified text
TIA; delete “advanced”;
modify sentence on CCS retrofit
and avoid “economically
7,13
(3)
(3)
Page 8 of 348