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

Chapter-
Comment
SPM-
366
SPM-
367
SPM-
368
SPM-
369
SPM-
370
para
5
he
ad
in
g
5
he
ad
in
g
5
he
ad
in
g
5
he
ad
in
g
5
he
Batch
From Page
From Line
To Page
To line
Comments
IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second Order Draft
A 5 5 5 6 The last sentence of the paragraph misleads the actual situation
because there is some literature that afirms so, but other authors
assure that the ancillary benefits obtained when lower levels are
met, could outweigh the "overcosts" of doing so. I think that IPCC
must offer more balanced views. If in fact, humankind surviving is
challenged, avoiding that risk would be cost-effective, no matter
how much it would be the cost. But besides, developed countries
could balance their responsibility to the "original accummulation of
GHG", paying now those overcosts in order to attain lower
stabilisation levels and help preserving society.
(JULIO TORRES-MARTINEZ, Cuban Observatory for Science
and Technology)
A 5 5 0 6 The reference to costs and uncertainty needs to be substantially
modified to make it clear that these are short-term
costs/uncertainties due to mitigation measures and that they must be
offset against the potentially much larger costs, impacts, and
uncertainties of higher levels of climate change. As it stands, this
brief sentence could be very misleading to policy-makers.
(Stephen Sheppard, University of British Columbia)
A 5 5 5 6 I assume this means "uncertainty in costs", but that should probably
be specified
(Paul Baer, EcoEquity)
A 5 5 5 6 This sentence might be confusing. Please make clear that only
"abatement costs" are considered. The message about uncertainty is
even less clear. Presumably, it was intentded to mean "uncertainty
about abatement costs". However, the following paragraph 5 only
mentions uncertainty in the estimates of climate sensitivity. It
seems thus unappropriate to speak about cost uncertainty in the
higher-level text B.
(Cédric PHILIBERT, International Energy Agency)
A 5 5 5 6 This phrase is misleading, and suggests with lower stabilisation
level the less certainty which is not the case.
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Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote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 considered for
para 7
TIA; heading text to be deleted,
but wording to be considered for
para 7
TIA; heading text to be deleted,
but wording to be considered for
para 7
TIA; heading text to be deleted,
but wording to be considered for
para 7
TIA; heading text to be deleted,
but wording to be considered for
Action
for
chapter
Considerations
by the writing
team
Page 94 of 348