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

Chapter-
Comment
SPM-
334
SPM-
335
SPM-
336
SPM-
337
SPM-
338
para
5
he
ad
in
g
5
he
ad
in
g
5
he
ad
in
g
5
he
ad
in
g
5
he
ad
Batch
From Page
From Line
To Page
To line
Comments
IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second Order Draft
A 5 1 5 5 This paragraph seems to recommend a stabilization level around
450 ppmv CO2 eq.However, the literature indicate that greenhouse
gas concentrations have to be stabilized in the long term at a level
lower than 450 ppmv CO2 eq. (400 CO2 alone) to ensure with
some certainty not to breach the 2 C threshold and cause severe
impacts on biodiversity and social systems. The lower level of 400
ppmv CO2 eq. would allow for more margin of error. In addition,
Table SPM1 indicates that stabilization levels as low as 375 have
been considered considered. We suggest to replace the current text
with the following: 'Scenario studies suggest it is technically
feasible to stabilise GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, even at
levels as low as around 375 ppmv CO2eq'.
(Giulio Volpi, WWF International)
A 5 1 5 6 The message of Paragraph B is potentially seriously misleading.
Ammend second sentence, "For achieving such levels, policies
should lead to peaking of global emissions within the next few
decades, which would involve a reduction in ghg emission trends
by major emitting countries that heretofore has not been
experienced."
(John Drexhage, International Institute for Sustainable
Development)
A 5 1 5 15 Present text is unclear and vague, it does not give any indication of
when reduction of emissions should start by and what the
consequences of delays in taking action are.
(Government of UK)
A 5 1 5 15 It would be helpful to quantify current levels of greenhouse gases in
the atmosphere and the increase that has occurred since preindustrail
times.
(Government of UK)
A 5 1 5 6 Extend text to read: '…implemented in association with the
necessary investment'. This key point, referred to in para 6 that
follows, needs to be brought out in the section heading
Expert Review of Second-Order-Draft
Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote
Response suggested by cochairs
TIA; heading text to be deleted,
but wording to be used for
merging with para 5
DISCUSS if “below 450 ppm
…” is justified based on
available studies
REJ; not relevant here that such
reduction have historicall not
happened
REJ is in table 1, ACC
consequence of delay.
ACC in footnote table 1
TIA; heading text to be deleted,
but wording to be used for
merging with para 6
Action
for
chapter
Considerations
by the writing
team
3 Rejected. Text
to be revised to
be consistent
with SPM-328.
(3)
Page 84 of 348