1

Introduction
Coordinating Lead Authors:
H-Holger Rogner (Germany), Dadi Zhou (China)

Lead Authors:
Rick Bradley (USA), Philippe Crabb (Canada), Ottmar Edenhofer (Germany), Bill Hare (Australia), Lambert Kuijpers (The Netherlands), Mitsutsune Yamaguchi (Japan)

Contributing Authors:
Nicolas Lefevre (France/USA), Jos Olivier (The Netherlands), Hongwei Yang (China)

Review Editors:
Hoesung Lee (Republic of Korea) and Richard Odingo (Kenya)

This chapter should be cited as:

Rogner, H.-H., D. Zhou, R. Bradley. P. Crabb, O. Edenhofer, B.Hare (Australia), L. Kuijpers, M. Yamaguchi, 2007: Introduction. In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Introduction

Chapter 1

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................... 97 1.1 1.2 Introduction ........................................................ 99 Ultimate objective of the UNFCCC .............. 99
1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 Article 2 of the Convention ................................... 99 What is dangerous interference with the climate system? ................................................................ 99 Issues related to the implementation of Article 2 ............................................................. 100

1.3

Energy, emissions and trends in Research and Development are we on track? ......... 102
1.3.1 1.3.2 1.3.3 Review of the last three decades ....................... 102 Future outlook .................................................... 109 Technology research, development and deployment: needs and trends ......................... 112

1.4

Institutional architecture ............................... 112

1.4.1 1.4.2 UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol........................ 112 Technology cooperation and transfer ................ 113

1.5

Changes from previous assessments and roadmap............................................................. 114

1.5.1 1.5.2 Previous assessments........................................ 114 Roadmap ............................................................ 114

References ................................................................... 115

96

Chapter 1

Introduction

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The ultimate objective of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is to achieve the stabilization of greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner (Article 2). This Chapter discusses Article 2 of the Convention within the framework of the main options and conditions under which it is to be implemented, reflects on past and future GHG emission trends, highlights the institutional mechanisms currently in place for the implementation of climate change and sustainable development objectives, summarizes changes from previous assessments and provides a brief roadmap for the Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change assessment. Defining what is dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system and, consequently, the limits to be set for policy purposes are complex tasks that can only be partially based on science, as such definitions inherently involve normative judegments. Decisions made in relation to Article 2 will determine the level of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere (or the corresponding climate change) that is set as the goal for policy and have fundamental implications for emission reduction pathways as well as the scale of adaptation required. The choice of a stabilization level implies the balancing of the risks of climate change (risks of gradual change and of extreme events, risk of irreversible change of the climate, including risks for food security, ecosystems and sustainable development) against the risk of response measures that may threaten economic sustainability. There is little consensus as to what constitutes anthropogenic interference with the climate system and, thereby, on how to operationalize Article 2 (high agreement, much evidence). Although any definition of dangerous interference is by necessity based on its social and political ramifications and, as such, depends on the level of risk deemed acceptable, deep emission reductions are unavoidable in order to achieve stabilization. The lower the stabilization level, the earlier these deep reductions have to be realized (high agreement, much evidence). At the present time total annual emissions of GHGs are rising. Over the last three decades, GHG emissions have increased by an average of 1.6% per year1 with carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the use of fossil fuels growing at a rate of 1.9% per year. In the absence of additional policy actions,
1

these emission trends are expected to continue. It is projected that with current policy settings global energy demand and associated supply patterns based on fossil fuels the main drivers of GHG emissions will continue to grow. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased by almost 100 ppm in comparison to its preindustrial level, reaching 379 ppm in 2005, with mean annual growth rates in the 20002005 period that were higher than those in the 1990s. The total CO2 equivalent (CO2-eq) concentration of all long-lived GHGs is currently estimated to be about 455 ppm CO2-eq, although the effect of aerosols, other air pollutants and land-use change reduces the net effect to levels ranging from 311 to 435 ppm CO2-eq (high agreement, much evidence). Despite continuous improvements in energy intensities, global energy use and supply are projected to continue to grow, especially as developing countries pursue industrialization. Should there be no substantial change in energy policies, the energy mix supplied to run the global economy in the 20252030 time frame will essentially remain unchanged more than 80% of the energy supply will be based on fossil fuels, with consequent implications for GHG emissions. On this basis, the projected emissions of energy-related CO2 in 2030 are 40110 % higher than in 2000 (with two thirds to three quarters of this increase originating in non-Annex I countries), although per capita emissions in developed countries will remain substantially higher. For 2030, GHG emission projections (Kyoto gases) consistently show a 2590% increase compared to 2000, with more recent projections being higher than earlier ones (high agreement, much evidence). The numerous mitigation measures that have been undertaken by many Parties to the UNFCCC and the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol in February 2005 (all of which are steps towards the implementation of Article 2) are inadequate for reversing overall GHG emission trends. The experience within the European Union (EU) has demonstrated that while climate policies can be and are being effective, they are often difficult to fully implement and coordinate, and require continual improvement in order to achieve objectives. In overall terms, however, the impacts of population growth, economic development, patterns of technological investment and consumption continue to eclipse the improvement in energy intensities and decarbonization. Regional differentiation is important when addressing climate change mitigation economic development needs, resource endowments and mitigative and adaptive capacities are too diverse across regions for a one-size fits all approach (high agreement, much evidence). Properly designed climate change policies can be part and parcel of sustainable development, and the two can be mutually reinforcing. Sustainable development paths can

Total GHG (Kyoto gases) emissions in 2004 amounted to 49.0 GtCO2-eq, which is up from 28.7 GtCO2-eq in 1970 a 70% increase between 1970 and 2004. In 1990 global GHG emissions were 39.4 GtCO2-eq.

97

Introduction

Chapter 1

reduce GHG emissions and reduce vulnerability to climate change. Projected climate changes can exacerbate poverty and undermine sustainable development, especially in leastdeveloped countries. Hence, global mitigation efforts can enhance sustainable development prospects in part by reducing the risk of adverse impacts of climate change. Mitigation can also provide co-benefits, such as improved health outcomes. Mainstreaming climate change mitigation is thus an integral part of sustainable development (medium agreement, much evidence). This chapter concludes with a road map of this report. Although the structure of this report (Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)) resembles the Third Assessment Report (TAR), there are distinct differences. The AR4 assigns greater weight to (1) a more detailed resolution of sectoral mitigation options and costs, (2) regional differentiation, (3) emphasizing crosscutting issues (e.g. risks and uncertainties, decision and policy making, costs and potentials, biomass, the relationships between mitigation, adaptation and sustainable development, air pollution and climate, regional aspects and issues related to the implementation of UNFCCC Article 2), and (4) the integration of all these aspects.

98

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1

Introduction

The assessment Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change is designed to provide authoritative, timely information on all aspects of technologies and socioeconomic policies, including cost-effective measures to control greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A thorough understanding of future GHG emissions and their drivers, available mitigation options, mitigation potentials and associated costs and ancillary benefits is especially important to support negotiations on future reductions in global emissions. This chapter starts with a discussion of the key issues involved in Article 2 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and of the relationship of these to emission pathways and broad mitigation options. The sections that follow reflect on past and future GHG emission trends, highlight the institutional mechanisms in place for the implementation of climate change and sustainable development objectives, summarize changes from previous assessments and provides a concise roadmap to the Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change assessment.

GHG concentrations (IPCC, 2007b, SPM and Chapter 19). Conversely, costly mitigation measures could have adverse effects on economic development. This dilemma facing policymakers results in (a varying degree of) tension that is manifested in the debate over the scale of the interventions and the balance to be adopted between climate policy (mitigation and adaptation) and economic development. The assessment of impacts, vulnerability and adaptation potentials is likely to be important for determinating the levels and rates of climate change which would result in ecosystems, food production or economic development being threatened to a level sufficient to be defined as dangerous. Vulnerabilities to anthropogenic climate change are strongly regionally differentiated, with often those in the weakest economic and political position being the most susceptible to damages (IPCC, 2007b, Chapter 19, Tables 19.1 and 19.3.3). Limits to climate change or other changes to the climate system that are deemed necessary to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system can be defined in terms of various and often quite different criteria, such as concentration stabilization at a certain level, global mean temperature or sea level rise or levels of ocean acidification. Whichever limit is chosen, its implementation would require the development of consistent emission pathways and levels of mitigation (Chapter 3). 1.2.2 What is dangerous interference with the climate system?

1.2

Ultimate objective of the UNFCCC

The UNFCCC was adopted in May 1992 in New York and opened for signature at the Rio Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro a month later. It entered into force in March 1994 and has achieved near universal ratification with ratification by 189 countries of the 194 UN member states (December 2006)2. 1.2.1 Article 2 of the Convention

Article 2 of the UNFCCC specifies the ultimate objective of the Convention and states: The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner (UN, 1992). The criterion that relates to enabling economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner is a double-edged sword. Projected anthropogenic climate change appears likely to adversely affect sustainable development, with adverse effects tending to increase with higher levels of climate change and
2

Defining what is dangerous interference with the climate system is a complex task that can only be partially supported by science, as it inherently involves normative judgements. There are different approaches to defining danger, and an interpretation of Article 2 is likely to rely on scientific, ethical, cultural, political and/or legal judgements. As such, the agreement(s) reached among the Parties in terms of what may constitute unacceptable impacts on the climate system, food production, ecosystems or sustainable economic development will represent a synthesis of these different perspectives. Over the past two decades several expert groups have sought to define levels of climate change that could be tolerable or intolerable, or which could be characterized by different levels of risk. In the late 1980s, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)/International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU)/ UN Environment Programme (UNEP) Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases (AGGG) identified two main temperature indicators or thresholds with different levels of risk (Rijsberman and Swart, 1990). Based on the available knowledge at the time a 2C increase was determined to be an upper limit beyond which the risks of grave damage to ecosystems, and of nonlinear responses, are expected to increase rapidly. This early

http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/items/2627.php. 190 ratifications - one from the European Union.

99

Introduction

Chapter 1

work also identified the rate of change to be of importance to determining the level of risk, a conclusion that has subsequently been confirmed qualitatively (IPCC, 2007b, Chapters 4 and 19). More recently, others in the scientific community have reached conclusions that point in a similar direction that global warming of more than 1C, relative to 2000, will constitute dangerous climate change as judged from likely effects on sea level and extermination of species (Hansen et al., 2006). Probabilistic assessments have also been made that demonstrate how scientific uncertainties, different normative judgments on acceptable risks to different systems (Mastrandrea and Schneider, 2004) and/or interference with the climate system (Harvey, 2007) affect the levels of change or interference set as goals for policy (IPCC, 2007b, Chapter 19). From an economic perspective, the Stern Review (Stern, 2006) found that in order to minimise the most harmful consequences of climate change, concentrations would need to be stabilized below 550 ppm CO2-eq. The Review further argues that any delay in reducing emissions would be would be costly and dangerous. This latter conclusion is at variance with the conclusions drawn from earlier economic analyses which support a slow ramp up of climate policy action (Nordhaus, 2006) and, it has been argued, is a consequence of the approach taken by the Stern Review to intergenerational equity (Dasgupta, 2006). The IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) identified five broad categories of reasons for concern that are relevant to Article 2: (1) Risks to unique and threatened systems, (2) risks from extreme climatic events, (3) regional distribution of impacts, (4) aggregate impacts and (5) risks from large-scale discontinuities. The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) focuses on Key Vulnerabilities relevant to Article 2, which are broadly categorized into biological systems, social systems, geophysical systems, extreme events and regional systems (IPCC, 2007b, Chapter 19). The implications of different interpretations of dangerous anthropogenic interference for future emission pathways are reviewed in IPCC (2007b), Chapter 9 and also in Chapter 3 of this report. The literature confirms that climate policy can substantially reduce the risk of crossing thresholds deemed dangerous (IPCC, 2007b, SPM and Chapter 19; Chapter 3, Section 3.5.2 of this report). While the works cited above are principally scientific (expertled) assessments, there is also an example of governments seeking to define acceptable levels of climate change based on interpretations of scientific findings. In 2005, the EU Council (25 Heads of Government of the European Union) agreed that with a view to achieving the ultimate objective of the Convention the global annual mean surface temperature increase should not exceed 2C above pre-industrial levels (CEU, 2005).

1.2.3

Issues related to the implementation of Article 2

Decisions made in relation to Article 2 will determine the level of climate change that is set as the goal for policy and have fundamental implications for emission reduction pathways, the feasibility, timing and scale of adaptation required and the magnitude of unavoidable losses. The emission pathways which correspond to different GHG or radiative forcing stabilization levels and consequential global warming are reviewed in Chapter 3 (see Tables 3.9 and 3.10). The potential consequences of two hypothetical limits can provide an indication of the differing scales of mitigation action that depend on Article 2 decisions: A 2C above pre-industrial limit on global warming would implies that emissions peak within the next decade and be reduced to less than 50% of the current level by 20503; a 4C limit would imply that emissions may not have to peak until well after the middle of the century and could still be well above 2000 levels in 2100. In relation to the first hypothetical limt, the latter would have higher levels of adaptation costs and unavoidable losses, but carry lower mitigation costs. Issues related to the mitigation, adaptation and sustainable development aspects of the implementation of Article 2 thus include, among others, the linkages between sustainable development and the adverse effects climate change, the need for equity and cooperation and the recognition of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities as well as the precautionary principle (see Section 1.4.1 for more detail on relevant UNFCCC Articles that frame these issues). In this context, risk management issues which take into account several key aspects of the climate change problem, such as inertia, irreversibility, the risk of abrupt or catastrophic changes and uncertainty, are introduced in this section and discussed in more detail in Chapters 2, 3 and 11. 1.2.3.1 Sustainable development

Sustainable development has environmental, economic and social dimensions (see Chapter 2, Section 2.1). Properly designed climate change responses can be part and parcel of sustainable development, and the two can be mutually reinforcing (Section 2.1). Mitigation, by limiting climate change, can conserve or enhance natural capital (ecosystems, the environment as sources and sinks for economic activities) and prevent or avoid damage to human systems and, thereby, contribute to the overall productivity of capital needed for socio-economic development, including mitigative and adaptive capacity. In turn, sustainable development paths can reduce vulnerability to climate change and reduce GHG emissions. The projected climate changes can exacerbate poverty and thereby undermine sustainable development (see, for example, IPCC, 2007b, Chapters 6, Section 9.7 and 20.8.3), especially in

For the best-guess climate sensitivity and the lowest range of multigas stabilization scenarios found in the literature which show a warming of about 2-2.4C above preindustrial temperatures (Chapter 3, section 3.5.2 and Table 3.10).

100

Chapter 1

Introduction

developing countries, which are the most dependent on natural capital and lack financial resources (see Chapter 2 and Stern (2006)). Hence global mitigation efforts can enhance sustainable development prospects in part by reducing the risk of adverse impacts of climate change (see also Chapter 12). 1.2.3.2 Adaptation and mitigation

Adaptation and mitigation can be complementary, substitutable or independent of each other (see IPCC, 2007b, Chapter 18). If complementary, adaptation reduces the costs of climate change impacts and thus reduces the benefits of mitigation. Although adaptation and mitigation may be substitutable up to a certain point, they are never perfect substitutes for each other since mitigation will always be required to avoid dangerous and irreversible changes to the climate system. Irrespective of the scale of the mitigation measures that are implemented in the next 1020 years, adaptation measures will still be required due to the inertia in the climate system. As reported in IPCC, 2007b, Chapter 19 (and also noted in Stern (2006)), changes in the climate are already causing setbacks to economic and social development in some developing countries with temperature increases of less than 1C. Unabated climate change would increase the risks and costs very substantially (IPCC, 2007b, Chapter 19). Both adaptation and mitigation depend on capital assets, including social capital, and both affect capital vulnerability and GHG emissions (see Chapter 2, Section 2.5.2). Through this mutual dependence, both are tied to sustainable development (see Sections 2.5, 11.8 and 11.9, 12.2 and 12.3). The stabilization of GHG concentrations and, in particular, of the main greenhouse gas, CO2, requires substantial emission reductions, well beyond those built into existing agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol. The timing and rate of these reductions depend on the level of the climate goal chosen (see Chapter 3.3.5.1). 1.2.3.3 Inertia

for mitigation are linked to technological, social, economic, demographic and political factors. Inertia is a characteristic of the energy system with its long-life infrastructures, and this inertia is highly relevant to how fast GHG concentrations can be stabilized (Chapter 11.6.5). Adaptation measures similarly exhibit a range of time scales, and there can be substantial lead times required before measures can be implemented and subsequently take effect, particularly when it involves infrastructure (IPCC, 2007b, Chapter 17). The consequence of inertia in both the climate and socioeconomic systems is that benefits from mitigation actions initiated now in the short term would lead to significant changes in the climate being avoided several decades further on. This means that mitigation actions need to be implemented in the short term in order to have medium- and long-term benefits and to avoid the lock in of carbon intensive technologies (Chapter 11.6.5). 1.2.3.4 Uncertainty and risk

Uncertainty in knowledge is an important aspect in the implementation of Article 2, whether it is assessing future GHG emissions or the severity of climate change impacts and regional changes, evaluating these impacts over many generations, estimating mitigation costs or evaluating the level of mitigation action needed to reduce risk. Notwithstanding these uncertainties, mitigation will reduce the risk of both global mean and regional changes and the risk of abrupt changes in the climate system (see Chapter 2, Section 2.3). There may be risks associated with rapid and/or abrupt changes in the climate and the climate system as a result of human interference (Solomon et al., 2007; IPCC, 2007b, Chapter 19 Tables 19.1 and 19.3.5-7). These include changes in climate variability (El Nino Southern Oscillation, monsoons); a high likelihood that warming will lead to an increase in the risk of many extreme events, including floods, droughts, heat waves and fires, with increasing levels of adverse impacts; a risk that a 12C sustained global warming (versus the temperature at present) would lead to a commitment to a large sea-level rise due to at least the partial deglaciation of both ice sheets; an uncertain risk of a shutdown of the North Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation; a large increase in the intensity of tropical cyclones with increasing levels of adverse impacts as temperatures increase; the risk that positive feedbacks from warming may cause the release of CO2 or methane (CH4) from the terrestrial biosphere and soils (IPCC, 2007b, Chapter 19 Tables 19.1 and 19.3.5-7). In the latter case, a positive climate carbon cycle feedback would reduce the land and ocean uptake of CO2, implying a reduction of the allowable emissions required to achieve a given atmospheric CO2 stabilization level (Meehl et al., 2007, Executive Summary).

Inertia in both the climate and socio-economic systems would need to be taken into account when mitigation actions are being considered. Mitigation actions aimed at specific climate goals would need to factor in the response times of the climate system, including those of the carbon cycle, atmosphere and oceans. A large part of the atmospheric response to radiative forcing occurs on decadal time scales, but a substantial component is linked to the century time scales of the oceanic response to the same forcing changes (Meehl et al., 2007). Once GHG concentrations are stabilized global mean temperature would very likely stabilize within a few decades, although a further slight increase may still occur over several centuries (Meehl et al., 2007). The rise in sea level, however, would continue for many centuries after GHG stabilization due to both ongoing heat uptake by the oceans and the long time scale of ice sheet response to warming (Meehl et al., 2007). The time scales

101

Introduction

Chapter 1

1.2.3.5

Irreversibility

Irreversibility is an important aspect of the climate change issue, with implications for mitigation and adaptation responses. The response of the climate system to anthropogenic forcing is likely to be irreversible over human time scales, and much of the damage is likely to be irreversible even over longer time scales. Mitigation and adaptation will often require investments involving sunk (irreversible) costs in new technologies and practices (Sections 2.2.3, 11.6.5; IPCC, 2007b, Chapter 17). Decision-makers will need to take into account these environmental, socio-economic and technological irreversibilities in deciding on the timing and scale of mitigation action. 1.2.3.6 Public good

climate change within and among communities, including future generations. Climate change is subject to a very asymmetric distribution of present emissions and future impacts and vulnerabilities. Equity can be elaborated in terms of distributing the costs of mitigation or adaptation, distributing future emission rights and ensuring institutional and procedural fairness (Chapter 13, Section 13.3.4.3). Equity also exhibits preventative (avoidance of damage inflicted on others), retributive (sanctions), and corrective elements (e.g. common but differentiated responsibilities) (Chapter 2, Section 2.6), each of which has an important place in the international response to the climate change problem (Chapter 13).

The climate system tends to be overused (excessive GHG concentrations) because of its natural availability as a resource whose access is open to all free of charge. In contrast, climate protection tends to be underprovided. In general, the benefits of avoided climate change are spatially indivisible, freely available to all (non-excludability), irrespective of whether one is contributing to the regime costs or not. As regime benefits by one individual (nation) do not diminish their availability to others (non-rivalry), it is difficult to enforce binding commitments on the use of the climate system4 (Kaul et al., 1999; 2003). This may result in free riding, a situation in which mitigation costs are borne by some individuals (nations) while others (the free riders) succeed in evading them but still enjoy the benefits of the mitigation commitments of the former. The incentive to evade mitigation costs increases with the degree of substitutability among individual mitigation efforts (mitigation is largely additive) and with the inequality of the distribution of net benefits among regime participants. However, individual mitigation costs decrease with efficient mitigation actions undertaken by others. Because mitigation efforts are additive, the larger the number of participants, the smaller the individual cost of providing the public good in this case, climate system stabilization. Cooperation requires the sharing of both information on climate change and technologies through technology transfers as well as the coordination of national actions lest the efforts required by the climate regime be underprovided. 1.3.3.7 Equity

1.3 Energy, emissions and trends in Research and Development are we on track?
1.3.1 Review of the last three decades

Since pre-industrial times, increasing emissions of GHGs due to human activities have led to a marked increase in atmospheric concentrations of the long-lived GHG gases carbon dioxide (CO2), CH4, and nitrous oxide (N2O), perfluorocarbons PFCs, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) and ozone-depleting substances (ODS; chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), halons) and the humaninduced radiative forcing of the Earths climate is largely due to the increases in these concentrations. The predominant sources of the increase in GHGs are from the combustion of fossil fuels. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased by almost 100 ppm in comparison to its preindustrial levels, reaching 379 ppm in 2005, with mean annual growth rates in the 20002005 period that were higher than those in the 1990s. The direct effect of all the long-lived GHGs is substantial, with the total CO2 equivalent concentration of these gases currently being estimated to be around 455 ppm CO2-eq5 (range: 433477 ppm CO2-eq). The effects of aerosol and landuse changes reduce radiative forcing so that the net forcing of human activities is in the range of 311 to 435 ppm CO2-eq, with a central estimate of about 375 ppm CO2-eq. A variety of sources exist for determining global and regional GHG and other climate forcing agent trends. Each source has its strengths and weaknesses and uncertainties. The EDGAR database (Olivier et al., 2005, 2006) contains global GHG emission trends categorized by broad sectors for the period 19702004, and Marland et al. (2006) report CO2 emissions on a global basis. Both databases show a similar temporal evolution of emissions. Since 1970, the global warming potential (GWP)-

Equity is an ethical construct that demands the articulation and implementation of choices with respect to the distribution of rights to benefits and the responsibilities for bearing the costs resulting from particular circumstances for example,

4 5

Resulting in a prisoners dilemma situation because of insufficient incentives to cooperate. Radiative forcing (Forster et al., 2007) is converted to CO2 equivalents using the inversion of the expression Q (W/m2) = 5.35 ln (CO2/278) (see Solomon et al., 2007, Table TS-2 footnote b).

102

Chapter 1

Introduction

5 0 5 0 10 5 0 10 5 0 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Gt CO2eq/yr HFCs, PFCs, SF6

Figure 1.1a Global anthropogenic greenhouse gas trends, 19702004.

One-hundred year global warming potentials (GWPs) from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 1996 (SAR) were used to convert emissions to CO2 equivalents (see the UNFCCC reporting guidelines). Gases are those reported under UNFCCC reporting guidelines. The uncertainty in the graph is quite large for CH4 and N2O (of the order of 3050%) and even larger for CO2 from agriculture and forestry. Notes: Other N2O includes industrial processes, deforestation/savannah burning, 1. waste water and waste incineration. 2. Other is CH4 from industrial processes and savannah burning. 3. Including emissions from bio energy production and use. 4. CO2 emissions from decay (decomposition) of above ground biomass that remains after logging and deforestation and CO2 from peat fires and decay of drained peat soils. 5. As well as traditional biomass use at 10% of total, assuming 90% is from sustainable biomass production. Corrected for the 10% of carbon in biomass that is assumed to remain as charcoal after combustion. 6. For large-scale forest and scrubland biomass burning averaged data for 1997-2002 based on Global Fire Emissions Data base satellite data. 7. Cement production and natural gas flaring. 8. Fossil fuel use includes emissions from feedstocks. Source: Adapted from Olivier et al., 2005; 2006; Hooijer et al., 2006

N2O other1) N2O agriculture CH4 other2) CH4 waste CH4 agriculture CH4 energy3)

CO2 decay and peat4) CO2 deforestation5) 6)

CO2 other7)

CO2 fossil fuel use8)

CH4 14.3%

N2 O 7.9%

F-gases 1.1%

1970 50 40 30 20 10 0

1980

1990 2000 2004

CO2 fossil fuel use 56.6%

Total GHG

CO2 (deforestation, decay of biomass, etc) 17.3% CO2 (other) 2.8% Figure 1.1b Global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions in 2004.

1970

1980

1990

2000 2004

Source: Adapted from Olivier et al., 2005, 2006

weighted emissions of GHGs (not including ODS which are controlled under the Montreal Protocol), have increased by approximately 70%, (24% since 1990), with CO2 being the largest source, having grown by approximately 80% (28% since 1990) to represent 77% of total anthropogenic emissions in 2004 (74% in 1990) (Figure 1.1). Radiative forcing as a result of increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations caused

by human activities since the preindustrial era predominates over all other radiative forcing agents (IPCC, 2007a, SPM). Total CH4 emissions have risen by about 40% from 1970 (11% from 1990), and on a sectoral basis there has been an 84% (12% from 1990) increase from combustion and the use of fossil fuels, while agricultural emissions have remained roughly stable due to compensating falls and increases in rice and livestock
103

Introduction

Chapter 1

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Gt CO2 yr

Electricity plants

Industry (excl. cement) Road transport Residential and service sectors Deforestation 1) Other 2) Refineries etc. International transport 3) 1970 1980 1990 2000

1) Including fuelwood at 10% net contribution. For large-scale biomass burning, averaged data for 19972002 are based on the Global Fire Emissions Database satellite data (van der Werf et al., 2003). Including decomposition and peat fires (Hooijer et al., 2006). Excluding fossil fuel fires. 2) Other domestic surface transport, non-energetic use of fuels, cement production and venting/flaring of gas from oil production. 3) Including aviation and marine transport.

Figure 1.2: Sources of global CO2 emissions, 19702004 (only direct emissions by sector).

Source: Adapted from Olivier et al., 2005; 2006).

production, respectively. N2O emissions have grown by 50% since 1970 (11% since 1990), mainly due to the increased use of fertilizer and the aggregate growth of agriculture. Industrial process emissions of N2O have fallen during this period. The use and emissions of all fluorinated gases (including those controlled under the Montreal Protocol) decreased substantially during 19902004. The emissions, concentrations and radiative forcing of one type of fluorinated gas, the HFCs, grew rapidly during this period as these replaced ODS; in 2004, CFCs were estimated to constitute about 1.1% of the total GHG emissions (100-year GWP) basis. Current annual emissions of all fluorinated gases are estimated at 2.5 GtCO2-eq, with HFCs at 0.4 GtCO2-eq. The stocks of these gases are much larger and currently represent about 21 GtCO2-eq. The largest growth in CO2 emissions has come from the power generation and road transport sectors, with the industry, households and the service sector6 remaining at approximately the same levels between 1970 and 2004 (Figure 1.2). By 2004, CO2 emissions from power generation represented over 27% of the total anthropogenic CO2 emissions and the power sector was by far its most important source. Following the sectoral breakdown adopted in this report (Chapters 410), in 2004 about 26% of GHG emissions were derived from energy supply (electricity and heat generation), about 19% from industry, 14%
6 7 8

from agriculture7, 17% from land use and land-use change8, 13% from transport, 8% from the residential, commercial and service sectors and 3% from waste (see Figure 1.3). These values should be regarded as indicative only as some uncertainty remains, particularly with regards to CH4 and N2O emissions, for which the error margin is estimated to be in the order of 3050%, and CO2 emissions from agriculture, which have an even larger error margin. Since 1970, GHG emissions from the energy supply sector have grown by over 145%, while those from the transport sector have grown by over 120%; as such, these two sectors show the largest growth in GHG emissions. The industry sectors emissions have grown by close to 65%, LULUCF (land use, land-use change and forestry) by 40% while the agriculture sector (27%) and residential/commercial sector (26%) have experienced the slowest growth between 1970 and 2004. The land-use change and forestry sector plays a significant role in the overall carbon balance of the atmosphere. However, data in this area are more uncertain than those for other sectors. The Edgar database indicates that, in 2004, the share of CO2 emissions from deforestation and the loss of carbon from soil decay after logging constituted approximately 716% of the total GHG emissions (not including ODS) and between 11 and 28% of fossil CO2 emissions. Estimates vary considerably.

Direct emissions by sector; i.e., data do not include indirect emissions. N2O and CH4 emissions (CO2 emissions are small; compare with Chapter 8) and not counting land clearance. The proportion of emissions of N2O and CH4 are higher around 85 and 45% (5%), respectively. Emissions from agricultural soils not related to land clearance are quite small of an order of 40 MtCO2 per year in 2005 (Chapter 8). Deforestation, including biofuel combustion, assuming 90% sustainable production, biomass burning, CO2 emissions from the decay of aboveground biomass after logging and deforestation and from peat fires and decay of peat soils.

104

Chapter 1

Introduction

14

Gt CO2-eq. F-gases N2 O CH4 CO2

12

10

1990 2004 Energy supply 1)

1990 2004 Transport 2)

TS 1.3b 1990

2004 Residential and commercial buildings 3)

1990 2004 Industry 4)

1990 2004 Agriculture 5)

1990 2004 LULUCF/ Forestry 6)

1990 2004 Waste and wastewater 7)

Figure 1.3a: GHG emissions by sector in 1990 and 2004.

Source: Adapted from Olivier et al., 2005, 2006.

Waste and wastewater7) 2.8% Forestry6) 17.4% Energy supply1) 25.9%

One-hundred year GWPs from IPCC, 1996 (Second Assessment Report) were used to convert emissions to CO2 equivalents. The uncertainty in the graph is quite large for CH4 and N2O (of the order of 3050%) and even larger for CO2 from agriculture and forestry. For large-scale biomass burning, averaged activity data for 19972002 were used from the Global Fire Emissions Database based on satellite data. Peat (fire and decay) emissions are based on recent data from WL/Delft Hydraulics.
1) 2) 3)

Agriculture5) 13.5%

Transport2) 13.1% Industry4) 19.4% Residential and commercial buildings3) 7.9%

4)

Figure 1.3b: GHG emissions by sector in 2004.

Source: Adapted from Olivier et al., 2005; 2006.

5)

6)

7)

Excluding refineries, coke ovens which are included in industry. Including international transport (bunkers), excluding fisheries; excluding off-road agricultural and forestry vehicles and machinery. Including traditional biomass use. Emissions reported in Chapter 6 include the sectors share in emissions caused by centralized electricity generation so that any mitigation achievements in the sector resulting from lower electricity use are credited to the sector. Including refineries and coke ovens. Emissions reported in Chapter 7 include the sectors share in emissions caused by centralized electricity generation so that any mitigation achievements in the sector resulting from lower electricity use are credited to the sector. Including agricultural waste burning and savannah burning (nonCO2). CO2 emissions and/or removals from agricultural soils are not estimated in this database. Data include CO2 emissions from deforestation, CO2 emissions from decay (decomposition) of aboveground biomass that remains after logging and deforestation and CO2 from peat fires and decay of drained peat soils. Chapter 9 reports emissions from deforestation only. Includes landfill CH4, wastewater CH4 and N2O, and CO2 from waste incineration (fossil carbon only). 105

Introduction

Chapter 1

35 30 25 20

t CO2eq/cap Annex I: Population 19.7% Non-Annex I: Population 80.3%

3.0 2.5 2.0

Average Annex I: 16,1 t CO2eq/cap

kg CO2eq/US$ GDPppp (2000)

Share in global GDP 56.6% 43.4% GHG/GDP kg CO2eq/US$ 0.683 1.055

Annex I non-Annex I Other non-Annex I: 2.0%

1.5
EIT Annex I: 9.7% Middle East: 3.8% Latin America & Carribean: 10.3%

USA & Canada: 19,4%

15 10 5 0 0

EIT Annex I: 9.7%

Other non-Annex I: 2.0% Middle East: 3.8% Europe Annex II: and M & T 11,4% Latin America & Carribean: 10.3%

1.0
Africa: 7.8% Average non-Annex I: 4,2 t CO2eq/cap Africa: 7.8% South Asia:13,1%

JANZ: 5.2%

0.5 0

Non-Annex I East Asia: 17,3%

Non-Annex I East Asia: 17,3%

South Asia: 13,1%

USA & Canada: 19,4%

JANZ: 5.2%

Europe Annex II and M & T: 11,4%

1,000

2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 Cumulative population in million

6,000

7,000

10,000

20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 Cumulative GDPppp (2000) in billion US$

60,000

Figure 1.4a: Distribution of regional per capita GHG emissions (all Kyoto gases including those from land-use) over the population of different country groupings in 2004. The percentages in the bars indicate a regions share in global GHG emissions.
Source: Adapted from Bolin and Khesgi, 2001) using IEA and EDGAR 3.2 database information (Olivier et al., 2005, 2006).

Figure 1.4b: Distribution of regional GHG emissions (all Kyoto gases including those from land-use) per USD of GDPppp over the GDP of different country groupings in 2004. The percentages in the bars indicate a regions share in global GHG emissions.
Source: IEA and EDGAR 3.2 database information (Olivier et al., 2005, 2006).

Note: Countries are grouped according to the classification of the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol; this means that countries that have joined the European Union since then are still listed under EIT Annex I. A full set of data for all countries for 2004 was not available. The countries in each of the regional groupings include: EIT Annex I: Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Ukraine Europe Annex II & M&T: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom; Monaco and Turkey JANZ: Japan, Australia, New Zealand. Middle East: Bahrain, Islamic Republic of Iran, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen Latin America & the Caribbean: Antigua & Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Saint Lucia, St. Kitts-NevisAnguilla, St. Vincent-Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela Non-Annex I East Asia: Cambodia, China, Korea (DPR), Laos (PDR), Mongolia, Republic of Korea, Viet Nam. South Asia: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Comoros, Cook Islands, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Kiribati, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, (Federated States of), Myanmar, Nauru, Niue, Nepal, Pakistan, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippine, Samoa, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu North America: Canada, United States of America. Other non-Annex I: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia Herzegovina, Cyprus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Malta, Moldova, San Marino, Serbia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Republic of Macedonia Africa: Algeria, Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Cte dIvoire, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe

There are large emissions from deforestation and other landuse change activities in the tropics; these have been estimated in IPCC (2007a) for the 1990s to have been 5.9 GtCO2-eq, with a large uncertainty range of 1.89.9 GtCO2-eq (Denman et al., 2007). This is about 25% (range: 842%) of all fossil fuel and cement emissions during the 1990s. The underlying factors accounting for the large range in the estimates of tropical deforestation and land-use changes emissions are complex and not fully resolved at this time (Ramankutty et al., 2006). For the Annex I Parties that have reported LULUCF sector data to the UNFCCC (including agricultural soils and forests) since 1990, the aggregate net sink reported for emissions and removals over the period up to 2004 average out to approximately 1.3 GtCO2eq (range: 1.5 to 0.9 GtCO2-eq)9. On a geographic basis, there are important differences between regions. North America, Asia and the Middle East have

driven the rise in emissions since 1972. The former countries of the Soviet Union have shown significant reductions in CO2 emissions since 1990, reaching a level slightly lower than that in 1972. Developed countries (UNFCCC Annex I countries) hold a 20% share in the world population but account for 46.4% of global GHG emissions. In contrast, the 80% of the world population living in developing countries (non-Annex I countries) account for 53.6% of GHG emissions (see Figure 1.4a). Based on the metric of GHG emission per unit of economic output (GHG/GDPppp)10, Annex I countries generally display lower GHG intensities per unit of economic production process than non-Annex I countries (see Figure 1.4b). The promotion of energy efficiency improvements and fuel switching are among the most frequently applied policy measures that result in mitigation of GHG emissions. Although they may not necessarily be targeted at GHG emission

Data for the Russian Federation is not included in the UNFCCC data set. Chapter 7 estimates the Russian sink for 19902000 to be 370740 MtCO2/year, which would add up to approximately 2857% of the average sink reported here. 10 The GDPppp metric is used for illustrative purposes only for this report.

106

Chapter 1

Introduction

mitigation, such policy measures do have a strong impact in lowering the emission level from where it would be otherwise. According to an analysis of GHG mitigation activities in selected developing countries by Chandler et al. (2002), the substitution of gasoline-fuelled cars with ethanol-fuelled cars and that of conventional CHP (combined heat and power; also cogeneration) plants with sugar-cane bagasse CHP plants in Brazil resulted in an estimated carbon emission abatement of 23.5 MtCO2 in 2000 (actual emissions in 2000: 334 MtCO2). According to the same study, economic and energy reforms in China curbed the use of low-grade coal, resulting in avoided emissions of some 366 MtCO2 (actual emissions: 3,100 MtCO2). In India, energy policy initiatives including demandside efficiency improvements are estimated to have reduced emissions by 66 MtCO2 (compared with the actual emission level of 1,060 MtCO2). In Mexico, the switch to natural gas, the promotion of efficiency improvements and lower deforestation are estimated to have resulted in 37 MtCO2 of emission reductions, compared with actual emissions of 685 MtCO2. For the EU-25 countries, the European Environment Agency (EEA, 2006) provides a rough estimate of the avoided CO2 emissions from public electricity and heat generation due to efficiency improvements and fuel switching. If the efficiency and fuel mix had remained at their 1990 values, emissions in 2003 would have been some 34% above actual emissions, however linking these reductions to specific policies was found to be difficult. For the UK and Germany about 60% of the reductions from 1990 to 2000 were found to be due to factors other than the effects of climate-related policies (Eichhammer et al., 2001, 2002). Since 2000, however, many more policies have been put into place, including those falling under the European Climate Change Programme (ECCP), and significant progress has been made, including the establishment of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) (CEC, 2006). A review of the effectiveness of the first stage of the ECCP reported that about one third of the potential reductions had been fully implemented by mid 200611. Overall EU-25 emissions in 2004 were 0.9% lower than in the base year, and the European Commission (EC) assessed the EC Kyoto target (8% reduction relative to the base year) to be within reach under the conditions that (1) all additional measures currently under discussion are put into force in time, (2) Kyoto mechanisms are used to the full extent planned and (3) removals from Articles 3.3 and 3.4 activities (carbon sinks) contribute to the extent projected (CEC, 2006). Overall this shows that climate policies can be effective, but that they are difficult to fully implement and require continual improvement in order to achieve the desired objectives.

1.3.1.1

Energy supply

Global primary energy use almost doubled from 5,363 Mtoe (225 EJ) in 1970 to 11,223 Mtoe (470 EJ) in 2004, with an average annual growth of 2.2% over this period. Fossil fuels accounted for 81% of total energy use in 2004 slightly down from the 86% more than 30 years ago, mainly due to the increase in the use of nuclear energy. Despite the substantial growth of non-traditional renewable forms of energy, especially wind power, over the last decade, the share of renewables (including traditional biomass) in the primary energy mix has not changed compared with 1970 (see Chapter 4, Section 4.2). 1.3.1.2 Intensities

The Kaya identity (Kaya, 1990) is a decomposition that expresses the level of energy related CO2 emissions as the product of four indicators: (1) carbon intensity (CO2 emissions per unit of total primary energy supply (TPES)), (2) energy intensity (TPES per unit of GDP), (3) gross domestic product per capita (GDP/cap) and (4) population. The global average growth rate of CO2 emissions between 1970 and 2004 of 1.9% per year is the result of the following annual growth rates: population 1.6%, GDP/cap12 1.8%, energy-intensity of 1.2% and carbon-intensity 0.2% (Figure 1.5). A decomposition analysis according to the refined Laspeyeres index method (Sun, 1998; Sun and Ang, 2000) is shown in Figure 1.6. Each of the three stacked bars refers to 10-year periods and indicates how the net change in CO2 emissions of that decade can be attributed to the four indicators of the Kaya identity. These contributions to tonnes of CO2 emissions can be positive or negative, and their sum equals the net emission change (shown for each decade by the black line). GDP/capita and population growth were the main drivers of the increase in global emissions during the last three decades of the 20th century. However, consistently declining energy intensities indicate structural changes in the global energy system. The role of carbon intensity in offsetting emission growth has been declining over the last two decades. The reduction in carbon intensity of energy supply was the strongest between 1980 and 1990 due to the delayed effect of the oil price shocks of the 1970s, and it approached zero towards the year 2000 and reversed after 2000 At the global scale, declining carbon and energy intensities have been unable to offset income effects and population growth and, consequently, carbon emissions have risen. Under the reference scenario of the International Energy Agency (IEA, 2006a) these trends are expected to remain valid until 2030; in particular, energy is not expected to be further decarbonized under this baseline scenario.

11 See Table 1 of CEC (2006). Second stage ECCP (ECCP2) policies are being finalized. 12 Purchasing power parity (PPP) at 2000 prices and exchange rates.

107

Introduction

Chapter 1

3,0 2,8 2,6 2,4 2,2 2,0 1,8 1,6 1,4 1,2 1,0 0,8 0,6 0,4

Index 1970 = 1

Income (GDP-ppp)

Energy (TPES) CO2 emissions Income per capita (GDP-ppp/cap) Population Carbon intensity (CO2/TPES) Energy intensity (TPES/GDP-ppp) 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Emission intensity (CO2/GDP-ppp)

Figure 1.5: Intensities of energy use and CO2 emissions, 19702004.

Data Source: IEA data

Of the major countries and groups of countries North America, Western Europe, Japan, China, India, Brazil, Transition Economies only the Transition Economies (refers to 19932003 only) and, to a lesser extent, the group of the EU15 have reduced their CO2 emissions in absolute terms.
Gt CO2 observations

The decline of the carbon content of energy (CO2/TPES) was the highest in Western Europe, but the effect led only to a slight reduction of CO2 in absolute terms. Together with Western Europe and the Transition Countries, USA/Canada, Japan and to a much lesser extent Brazil have also reduced their carbon intensity.

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 -8

scenarios

Population Income per capita (GDP-ppp/Pop) Net change Carbon intensity (CO2/TPES) Energy intensity (TPES/GDP-ppp)

1970-80

1980-90

1990-2000

2000-10

2010-20

2020-30

Figure 1.6: Decomposition of global energy-related CO2 emission changes at the global scale for three historical and three future decades. Sources: IEA data World Energy Outlook 2006 (IEA, 2006a)

108

Chapter 1

Introduction

Declining energy intensities observed in China and India have been partially offset by increasing carbon intensities (CO2/ TPES) in these countries. It appears that rising carbon intensities accompany the early stages of the industrialization process, which is closely linked to accelerated electricity generation mainly based on fossil fuels (primarily coal). In addition, the emerging but rapidly growing transport sector is fuelled by oil, which further contributes to increasing carbon intensities. Stepped-up fossil fuel use, GDP/capita growth and, to a lesser extent, population growth have resulted in the dramatic increase in carbon emissions in India and China. The Transition Economies of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union suffered declining per capita incomes during the 1990s as a result of their contracting economies and, concurrently, total GHG emissions were greatly reduced. However, the continued low level of energy efficiency in using coal, oil and gas has allowed only moderate improvements in carbon and energy intensities. Despite the economic decline during the 1990s, this group of countries accounted for 12% of global CO2 emissions in 2003 (Marland et al., 2006). The challenge an absolute reduction of global GHG emissions is daunting. It presupposes a reduction of energy and carbon intensities at a faster rate than income and population growth taken together. Admittedly, there are many possible combinations of the four Kaya identity components, but with the scope and legitimacy of population control subject to ongoing debate, the remaining two technology-oriented factors, energy and carbon intensities, have to bear the main burden. 1.3.1.3 Energy security

Energy security also means access to affordable energy services by those people largely in developing countries who currently lack such access. It is part and parcel of sustainable development and plays a non-negligible role in mitigating climate change. Striving for enhanced energy security can impact GHG emissions in opposite ways. On the one hand, GHG emissions may be reduced as the result of a further stimulation of rational energy use, efficiency improvements, innovation and the development of alternative energy technologies with inherent climate benefits. On the other hand, measures supporting energy security may lead to higher GHG emissions due to stepped-up use of indigenous coal or the development of lower quality and unconventional oil resources. 1.3.2 1.3.2.1 Future outlook Energy supply

With international oil prices fluctuating around 70 USD per barrel (Brent Crude in the first half of 2006; EIA, 2006a) and with prices of internationally traded natural gas, coal and uranium following suit, concerns of energy supply security are back on the agenda of many public and private sector institutions. Consequently, there is renewed public interest in alternatives to fossil fuels, especially to oil, resulting in new technology initiatives to promote hydrogen, biofuels, nuclear power and renewables (Section 1.3.1.3). Higher oil prices also tend to open up larger markets for more carbon-intensive liquid fuel production systems, such as shale oil or tar sands. However, first and foremost, energy security concerns tend to invigorate a higher reliance on indigenous energy supplies and resources. Regions where coal is the dominant domestic energy resource tend to use more coal, especially for electricity generation, which increases GHG emissions. In recent years, intensified coal use has been observed for a variety of reasons in developing Asian countries, the USA and some European countries. In a number of countries, the changing relative prices of coal to natural gas have changed the dispatch order in power generation in favour of coal.

A variety of projections of the energy picture have been made for the coming decades. These differ in terms of their modelling structure and input assumptions and, in particular, on the evolution of policy in the coming decades. For example, the IEAs World Energy Outlook 2006 reference case (IEA, 2006a) and the the International Energy Outlook of the Energy Information Agency in the USA reference case (EIA, 2006b) have both developed sets of scenarios; however, all of these scenarios project a continued dependence on fossil fuels (see Chapter 4 for past global energy mixes and future energy demand and supply projections). Should there be no change in energy policies, the energy mix supplied to run the global economy in the 20252030 time frame will essentially remain unchanged with about 80% (IEA, 2006a) of the energy supply based on fossil fuels. In other words, the energy economy may evolve, but not radically change unless policies change. According to the IEA and EIA projections, coal (1.82.5% per year), oil (1.31.4% per year) and natural gas (2.02.4% per year) all continue to grow in the period up to 2030. Among the non-fossil fuels, nuclear (0.71.0% per year), hydro (2.0% per year), biomass and waste, including non-commercial biomass (1.3% per year), and other renewables (6.6% per year)13 also continue to grow over the projection period. The growth of new renewables, while robust, starts from a relatively small base. Sectoral growth in energy demand is principally in the electricity generation and transport sectors, and together these will account for 67% of the increase in global energy demand up to 2030 (IEA 2006a). 1.3.2.2 CO2 emissions

Global growth in fossil fuel demand has a significant effect on the growth of energy-related CO2 emissions: both the IEA and the U.S. EIA project growth of more than 55% in their respective forecast periods. The IEA projects a 1.7% per year

13 EIA reports only an aggregate annual growth rate for all renewables of about 2.4% per year.

109

Introduction

Chapter 1

growth rate to 2030, while the U.S. EIA projects a 2.0% per year rate in the absence of additional policies. According to IEA projections, emissions will reach 40.4 GtCO2 in 2030, an increase of 14.3 GtCO2 over the 2004 level. SRES14 (IPCC, 2000a) CO2 emissions from energy use for 2030 are in the range 37.253.6 GtCO2, which is similar to the levels projected in the EMF-2115 (EMF, 2004) scenarios reviewed in Chapter 3, Section 3.2.2 (35.952.1 GtCO2). Relative to the approximately 25.5 GtCO2 emissions in 2000 (see Fig 1.1), fossil fuel-sourced CO2 emissions are projected to increase by 40110% by 2030 in the absence of climate policies in these scenarios (see Figure 1.7). As the bulk of the growing energy demand occurs in developing countries, the CO2 emission growth accordingly is dominated by developing countries. The latter would contribute two thirds to three quarters of the IEA-projected increase in global energy-related emissions. Developing countries, which accounted for 40% of total fossil fuel-related CO2 emissions in 2004, are projected to overtake the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) as the leading contributor to global CO2 fossil fuel emissions in the early part of the next decade. The CO2 emission projections account for both growth in energy demand and changes in the fuel mix. The IEA projects the share of total energy-related emissions accounted for by gas to increase from 20% in 2004 to 22% in 2030, while the share of coal increases from 41% to 43% and oil drops by approximately 4%, from 39% to 35%, respectively, of the total. On the basis of sectoral shares at the global level, power generation grows from a 41% to a 44% share, while the 20% share of transport is unchanged. The fastest emissions growth rate is in power generation at 2.0% per year followed by transport at 1.7% per year. The industry sector grows at 1.6% per year, the residential/commercial sector at 1% per year and international marine and aviation emissions at 0.7% per year. The SRES range of energy-related CO2 emissions for 2100 is much larger, 15.8111.2 GtCO2, while the EMF-21 scenario range for 2100 is 53.6101.4 GtCO2. 1.3.2.3 Non- CO2 gases

respectively, in terms of their impact on the CH4 sink/source balance and mitigation strategies; waste handling is likewise assessed in Chapter 10. The future increase in CH4 concentrations up to 2030 according to the SRES scenarios ranges from 8.1 GtCO2-eq to 10.3 GtCO2-eq (increase of 1951% compared to 2000), and the increase under the Energy Modeling Forum (EMF)-21 baseline scenarios is quite similar (7.5 GtCO2-eq to 11.3 GtCO2-eq/yr). By 2100, the projected SRES increase in CH4 concentrations ranges from 5 GtCO2-eq to 18.7 GtCO2-eq (a change of 27% to +175% compared to 2000) and that of the EMF-21 ranges from 5.9 to 29.2 GtCO2-eq (a change of 2% to +390%). Montreal gases. Emissions of ODS gases (also GHGs) controlled under the Montreal Protocol (CFCs, HCFCs) increased from a very low amount during the 19501960s to a substantial percentage approximately 20% of total GHG emissions by 1975. This percentage fluctuated slightly during the period between 1975 and 1989, but once the phase-out of CFCs was implemented, the ODS share in total GHG emissions fell rapidly, first to 8% (1995) and then to 4% (2000). Radiative forcing from these gases peaked in 2003 and is beginning to decline (Forster et al., 2007). After 2000, ODS contributed 34% to total GHG emissions (Olivier et al., 2005, 2006). The ODS share is projected to decrease yet further due to the CFC phase-out in developing countries. Emissions of ODS are estimated at 0.51.15 Gt CO2eq for the year 2015, dependent on the scenario chosen (IPCC, 2005); this would be about 12% of total GHG emissions for the year 2015, if emissions of all other GHGs are estimated at about 55 Gt CO2-eq (for the year 2015). The percentage of HCFC emissions in the total of CFC and HCFC emissions for the year 2015 is projected to be about 70%, independent of the scenario chosen. Nitrous oxide. Atmospheric concentrations of N2O have been continuously increasing at an approximately constant growth rate since 1980 (IPCC, 2007a, SPM). Industrial sources, agriculture, forestry and waste developments are assessed in this report in terms of their impact on the N2O sink/source balance and mitigation strategies. The SRES emissions for 2030 range from 3 GtCO2-eq to 5.3 GtCO2-eq (a change of 13% to 55% compared to 2000). For comparison, the recent EMF-21 baseline range for 2030 is quite close to this (2.8 GtCO2-eq to 5.4 GtCO2-eq, an increase of 17% to 58% compared to 2000). By 2100, the range projected by the SRES scenarios is 2.6 GtCO2-eq to 8.1 GtCO2-eq (an increase of 23% to 140% compared to 2000), whereas the EMF-21 range is a little higher (3.2 GtCO2-eq to 11.5 GtCO2-eq, or an increase of 5% to 240% compared to 2000).

Methane. Atmospheric CH4 concentrations have increased throughout most of the 20th century, but growth rates have been close to zero over the 19992005 period (Solomon et al., 2007; 2.1.1) due to relatively constant emissions during this period equaling atmospheric removal rates (Solomon et al., 2007; 2.1.1). Human emissions continue to dominate the total CH4 emissions budget (Solomon et al., 2007; 7.4.1). Agriculture and forestry developments are assessed in Chapters 8 and 9,

14 SRES is the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (IPCC, 2000a). The ranges reported here are for the five SRES Marker scenarios. 15 EMF-21 Energy Modeling Forum Study 21: Multi-gas Mitigation scenarios (EMF, 2004)

110

Chapter 1

Introduction

180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20

Gt CO2-eq/yr F-gases N2O CH4 CO2

A1T

25th

25th

A1T

B1

B1

5th

A1FI

A1B

2000

A1FI

A1B

95th

95th

75th

75th

SRES 2030

post SRES

median

SRES 2100

post SRES

Figure 1.7 Global GHG emissions for 2000 and projected baseline emissions for 2030 and 2100 from IPCC SRES and the post-SRES literature. The figure provides the emissions from the six illustrative SRES scenarios. It also provides the frequency distribution of the emissions in the post-SRES scenarios (5th, 25th, median, 75th, 95th percentile), as covered in Chapter 3. F-gases include HFCs, PFCs and SF6

Fluorinated gases. Concentrations of many of these gases have increased by large factors (i.e., 1.3 and 4.3) between 1998 and 2005, and their radiative forcing is rapidly increasing (from low levels) by roughly 10% per year (Forster et al., 2007). Any projection of overall environmental impacts and emissions is complicated by the fact that several major applications retain the bulk of their fluorinated gases during their respective life cycles, resulting in the accumulation of significant stocks that need to be responsibly managed when these applications are eventually decommissioned. A comprehensive review of such assessments was published in an earlier IPCC Special Report (IPCC, 2005). This review reported growth in HFC emissions from about 0.4 GtCO2-eq in 2002 to 1.2 GtCO2-eq per year in 2015. Chapter 3 also describes in some detail the results of long-term GHG emissions scenarios. The range projected by SRES scenarios for 2030 is 1.01.6 GtCO2-eq (increase of 190 360% compared to 2000) and the EMF-21 baseline scenarios are quite close to this (1.21.7 GtCO2-eq per year, an increase of 115240% compared to 2000). By 2100, the SRES range is 1.44 GtCO2-eq per year (an increase of 300% to more than 1000 % compared to 2000), whereas the new EMF-21 baseline scenarios are higher still (1.96.3 GtCO2-eq). Air pollutants and other radiative substances. As noted above, some air pollutants, such as sulphur aerosol, have a significant effect on the climate system, although considerable uncertainties still surround the estimates of anthropogenic aerosol emissions. Data on non-sulphur aerosols are sparse and highly speculative, but in terms of global sulphur emissions, these appear to have declined from a range of 75 10 MtS in 1990 to 5562 MtS in 2000. Sulphur emissions from fossil fuel combustion lead to the formation of aerosols that affect regional climate and precipitation patterns and also reduce

radiative forcing. There has been a slowing in the growth of sulphur emissions in recent decades, and more recent emission scenarios show lower emissions than earlier ones (Chapter 3, Section 3.2.2). Other air pollutants, such as NOx and black and organic carbon, are also important climatologically and adversely affect human health. The likely future development of these emissions is described in Section 3.2.2. 1.3.2.4 Total GHG emissions

Without additional policies global GHG emissions (including those from deforestation) are projected to increase between 25% and 90% by 2030 relative to 2000 (see Figure 1.7). Fossil fuel dominance is expected to continue up to 2030 and beyond; consequently, CO2 emissions from energy use tend to grow faster than total GHGs, increasing by 1.22.5% over that period. Two thirds to three quarters of the increase in CO2 emissions are projected to come from developing countries, although the average per capita CO2 emissions in developing country regions will remain substantially lower (2.8 5.1 tCO2 per capita) than those in developed country regions (9.615.1 tCO2 per capita). By 2100, the range in the GHG emission projections is much wider from a 40% reduction to an increase of 250% compared to 2000. Scenarios that account for climate policies currently under discussion for implementation also show global emissions rising for many decades. With the atmospheric concentrations of GHGs thus unlikely to stabilize in this century (even for the low SRES scenario) without major policy changes, from an emissions perspective, we are not on track for meeting the objectives of UNFCCC Article 2.

median

5th

A2

A2

B2

B2

111

Introduction

Chapter 1

1.3.3

Technology research, development and deployment: needs and trends Research and development

1.3.3.1

Technology research and development (R&D) are important for altering the emission trends shown in the previous sections. In the absence of measures fostering the development of climate-friendly technologies and/or a lack of incentives for their deployment, however, it is not a priori obvious in which direction R&D will influence emissions. Because of the longevity of energy infrastructures (lock-in effect), it is the near-term investment decisions in the development, deployment and diffusion of technologies that will determine the long-term development of the energy system and its emissions (Gritsevskyi and Nakicenovic, 2002). Generally speaking, it would be economically impossible without technology research, development, demonstration, deployment and diffusion (RDDD&D) and induced technology change (ITC), to stabilize GHG concentrations at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Government support is crucial at the development stage, but private investment will gradually replace the former for deployment (creating necessary market transformation) and for diffusion (successful market penetration). However, RDDD&D alone is insufficient and effective climate policies are also required (Baker et al., 2006). A recent international modelling comparison exercise (Edenhofer et al., 2006) has shown that ITC not only has the potential to reduce mitigation costs substantially but that it is also essential to the stabilization of concentration levels of CO2, avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference. There are various types of technologies that can play significant roles in mitigating climate change, including energy efficiency improvements throughout the energy system (especially at the end use side); solar, wind, nuclear fission and fusion and geothermal, biomass and clean fossil technologies, including carbon capture and storage; energy from waste; hydrogen production from non-fossil energy sources and fuel cells (Pacala and Socolow, 2004; IEA, 2006b). Some are in their infancy and require public RDDD&D support, while others are more mature and need only market incentives for their deployment and diffusion. Some also need persevering efforts for public acceptance (Tokushige et al., 2006) as well as the resolution of legal and liability issues. 1.3.3.2 Research and development expenditures

response from the latest price surges. A technology R&D response to the challenge of climate mitigation has not occurred. Energy technology R&D has remained roughly constant over the last 15 years despite the fact that climate change has become a focus of international policy development. Energy technology R&D is one policy lever that governments have for encouraging a more climate friendly capital, a strengthened publicly funded commitment to technology development could play an important role in altering the trends in GHG emissions. International cooperation in the field of technology R&D may provide the leverage to otherwise insufficient national R&D budgets. Several international partnerships on the development of cleaner technologies have been created (see Section 1.4.2).

1.4

Institutional architecture

The institutional architecture for climate change, energy and sustainable development in principal covers a wide range of different entities and processes. At the international level, these include the Millennium Development Goals, the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 and its Johannesburg Plan for Implementation (JPOI) and the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD), all of which have broad and important connections to climate change in the context of sustainable development, energy and poverty eradication. Other international fora that are important to advancing the agenda for sustainable development and climate change include but are not limited to the UN General Assembly, the G8 Dialogue on Climate Change, Clean Energy and Sustainable Development, OECD, the World Trade Organization (WTO; which pursues trade liberalization, important for technology transfers), IEA and the World Bank. More regional fora include regional banks, the EU and the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate for transferring and deploying clean technologies and building up human and institutional capacity. Chapter 2.1 discusses these issues in detail, and they are further evaluated in Chapter 12. This chapter focuses specifically on the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol and with technology cooperation and transfer. 1.4.1 UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol

The most rapid growth in public-sector energy related technology R&D16 occurred in the aftermath of the oil price shocks of the 1970s. There is no evidence yet of a similar
16 Data for IEA member countries only.

The UNFCCC pursues its ultimate objective, Article 2 (Section 1.2.1), on the basis of several guiding principles laid down in Article 3 of the Convention: Equity, which is expressed as common but differentiated responsibilities that assigns the lead in mitigation to developed countries (Article 3.1) and that takes the needs and special circumstances of developing countries into account (Article 3.2). A precautionary principle, which says that where there are

112

Chapter 1

Introduction

threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures, taking into account that policies and measures to deal with climate change should be cost-effective so as to ensure global benefits at the lowest possible cost (Article 3.3). A right to and an obligation to promote sustainable development (Article 3.4). An obligation to cooperate in sharing information about climate change, technologies through technology transfers, and the coordination of national actions (Article 3.7) Based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, Annex I countries are committed to adopt policies and measures aimed at returning individually or jointly their GHG emissions to earlier levels by the year 2000 (Article 4.2). Following the decision of the first Conference of the Parties17 (COP1) in Berlin in 1995 that these commitments were inadequate, the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated and adopted by consensus at COP3, in Kyoto in 1997, and entered into force on 16 February 2005. This was preceded by the detailed negotiation of the implementing rules and agreements for the Protocol the Marrakech Accords that were concluded at COP7 in Marrakech and adopted in Montreal at CMP118. As of December 2006, the Protocol has been ratified by 165 countries. While Australia and the United States, both parties to UNFCCC, signed the protocol, both have stated an intention not to ratify. Several key features of the Protocol are relevant to the issues raised later in this report: Each Party listed in Annex B of the Protocol is assigned a legally binding quantified GHG emission limitation and/or reduction measured in CO2 equivalents for the first commitment period 20082012. In aggregate, these Parties are expected to reduce their overall GHG emissions by at least 5 per cent below 1990 levels in the commitment period 2008 to 2012 (Article 3.1). Some flexibility is shown towards economies in transition who may nominate a base year or period other than 1990 (Article 3.5, 3.7). Six classes of gases are listed in Annex A of the Protocol: CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs and SF6. Emissions from international aviation and maritime transport are not included. The so-called Kyoto flexibility mechanisms allow Annex B Parties to obtain emission allowances achieved outside their national borders but supplemental to domestic action, which is expected to be a significant element of the effort (Article 6.1 (d), Article17, CMP119). These mechanisms are: an international emission trading system, Joint Implementation (JI) projects in Economies in Transition, projects undertaken as of year 2000 in developing (non-Annex I) countries

under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and carbon sink projects in Annex B countries. A set of procedures for emission monitoring, reporting, verification and compliance has been adopted at CMP1 under Articles 5, 7, 8 and 18. In accordance with Article 3.9, the Parties to the Protocol at CMP1 began the process of negotiating commitments for the Annex B Parties for the second commitment period, creating the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG), with the requirement that negotiations be completed so that that the first and second commitment periods are contiguous. Work continued at CMP2 in Nairobi and in 2007 the AWG will work on, amongst other thing, ranges of emission reduction objectives of Annex I Parties with due attention to the conditions mentioned in Article 2 of the Convention (see 1.2.1). The task is to consider that according to the scenarios of the TAR, global emissions of carbon dioxide have to be reduced to very low levels, well below half of levels in 2000, in order to stabilize their concentrations in the atmosphere (see Chapters 3 and 13). In addition, CMP2 started preparations for the second review of the Protocol under Article 9, which in principle covers all aspects of the Protocol, and set 2008 as the date for this review. Under the UNFCCC, a Dialogue on Long-Term Cooperation Action to Address Climate Change by Enhancing Implementation of the Convention (the Dialogue) was established at COP11 in 2005, met during 2006 and is to conclude at COP13 in 2007. The Dialogue is without prejudice to any future negotiations, commitments, process, framework or mandate under the Convention, to exchange experiences and analyse strategic approaches for long-term cooperative action to address climate change. 1.4.2 Technology cooperation and transfer

Effective and efficient mitigation of climate change depends on the rate of global diffusion and transfer of new as well as existing technologies. To share information and development costs, international cooperation initiatives for RDDD&D, such as the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF), the International Partnership for Hydrogen Economy (IPHE), the Generation IV International Forum (GIF), the Methane to Markets Partnership and the Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP), the Global Bioenergy Partnership and the ITER fusion project, were undertaken. Their mandates range from basic R&D and market demonstration to barrier removals for commercialization/diffusion. In addition,

17 The Conference of the Parties (COP), which is the supreme body of the Convention, also serves as the Meeting of the Parties (MOP) for the Protocol. Parties to the Convention that are not Parties to the Protocol will be able to participate in Protocol-related meetings as observers (Article 13). 18 CMP1: First meeting of the Conference of the Parties acting as the Meeting of the Parties of the Kyoto Protocol. 19 Decisions can be found at http://unfccc.int/documentation/decisions/items/3597.php?dec=j&such=j&volltext=/CMP.1#beg

113

Introduction

Chapter 1

there are 40 implementing agreements facilitating international cooperation on RDDD&D under IEA auspices, covering all of the key new technologies of energy supply and end use with the exception of nuclear fission (IEA, 2005). Regional cooperation may be effective as well. Asia-Pacific Partnership of Clean Development and Climate (APPCDC), which was established by Australia, China, India, Japan, Korea and the USA in January 2006, aims to address increased energy needs and associated challenges, including air pollution, energy security, and climate change, by enhancing the development, deployment and transfer of cleaner, more efficient technologies. In September 2005, the EU concluded agreements with India and China, respectively, with the aim of promoting the development of cleaner technologies (India) and low carbon technologies (China). Bilateral sector-based cooperation agreements also exist. One example is the Japan/China agreement on energy efficiency in the steel industry, concluded in July 2005 (JISF, 2005). These sector-based initiatives may be an effective tool for technology transfer and mitigating GHG emissions. It is expected that CDM and JI under the Kyoto Protocol will play important role for technology transfer as well.

For the Third Assessment Report (TAR) (IPCC, 2001), Working Groups II and III were again reorganized to deal with adaptation and mitigation, respectively. The concept of mitigative capacity was introduced, and the focus attention was shifted to sustainability concerns (IPCC, 2001, Chapter 1.1). Four cross-cutting issues were identified: costing methods, uncertainties, decision analysis frameworks and development, equity and sustainability (IPCC, 2000b). The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) summarizes the information contained in previous IPCC reports - including the IPCC special reports on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, on Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and on the Global Climate System published since TAR - and assesses the scientific literature published since 2000. Although the structure of AR4 resembles the macro-outline of the TAR, there are distinct differences between them. The AR4 assigns greater weight to (1) a more detailed resolution of sectoral mitigation options and costs; (2) regional differentiation; (3) emphasizing previous and new cross-cutting issues, such as risks and uncertainties, decision- and policy-making, costs and potentials and the relationships between mitigation, adaptation and sustainable development, air pollution and climate, regional aspects and the issues related to the implementation of UNFCCC Article 2; and (4) the integration of all these aspects. 1.5.2 Roadmap

1.5 Changes from previous assessments and roadmap

1.5.1 Previous assessments

This report assesses options for mitigating climate change. It has four major parts, AD. Part A comprises Chapter 1, an Introduction and Chapter 2, which is on framing issues. Chapter 2 introduces the reports cross-cutting themes, which are listed above, and outlines how these themes are treated in subsequent chapters. It also introduces important concepts (e.g. cost-benefit analysis and regional integration) and defines important terms used throughout the report. Part B consists of one chapter, Chapter 3. This chapter reviews and analyzes baseline (non-mitigation) and stabilization scenarios in the literature that have appeared since the publications of the IPCC SRES and the TAR. It pays particular attention to the literature that criticizes the IPCC SRES scenarios and concludes that uncertainties and baseline emissions have not changed very much. It discusses the driving forces for GHG emissions and mitigation in the short and medium terms and emphasizes the role of technology relative to social, economic and institutional inertia. It also examines the relation between adaptation, mitigation and avoided climate change damage in the light of decision-making on atmospheric GHG concentrations (Article 2 UNFCCC). Part C consists of seven chapters, each of which assesses sequence mitigation options in different sectors. Chapter 4
114

The IPCC was set up in 1988 by UNEP and WMO with three working groups: to assess available scientific information on climate change (WGI), to assess environmental and socioeconomic impacts (WGII) and to formulate response strategies (WGIII). The First Assessment Report (FAR) (IPCC, 1991) dealt with the anthropogenic alteration of the climate system through CO2 emissions, potential impacts and available cost-effective response measures in terms of mitigation, mainly in the form of carbon taxes without much concern for equity issues (IPCC, 2001, Chapter 1). For the Second Assessment Report (SAR), in 1996, Working Groups II and III were reorganized (IPCC, 1996). WGII dealt with adaptation and mitigation, and WGIII dealt with the socio-economic cross-cutting issues related to costing climate changes impacts and providing cost-benefit analysis (CBA) for use in decision-making. The socio-institutional context was emphasized as well as the issues of equity, development, and sustainability (IPCC, 2001, Chapter 1).

Chapter 1

Introduction

addresses the energy supply sector, including carbon capture and storage; Chapter 5 transport and associated infrastructures; Chapter 6 the residential, commercial and service sectors; Chapter 7 the industrial sector, including internal recycling and the reuse of industrial wastes; Chapters 8 and 9 the agricultural and forestry sectors, respectively, including land use and biological carbon sequestration; Chapter 10 waste management, post-consumer recycling and reuse. These seven chapters use a common template and cover all relevant aspects of GHG mitigation, including costs, mitigation potentials, policies, technology development, technology transfer, mitigation aspects of the three dimensions of sustainable development, system changes and long-term options. They provide the integrated picture that was absent in the TAR. Where supporting literature is available, they address important differences across regions. Part D comprises three chapters (1113) that focus on major cross-sectoral considerations. Chapter 11 assesses the aggregated short-/medium-term mitigation potential, macro-economic impacts, economic instruments, technology development and transfer and cross-border influences (or spill-over effects). Chapter 12 links climate mitigation with sustainable development and assesses the GHG emission impacts of implementing the Millennium Development Goals and other sustainable development policies and targets. Chapter 13 assesses domestic climate policy instruments and the interaction between domestic climate policies and various forms of international cooperation and reviews climate change as a global common issue in the context of sustainable development objectives and policies. It summarizes relevant treaties, cooperative development agreements, privatepublic partnerships and private sector initiatives and their relationship to climate objectives.

REFERENCES
Baker, T., H. Pan, J. Kohler, R. Warren, and S. Winne, 2006: Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change by Inducing Technological Progress: Scenarios Using a Large-Scale Econometric Model. In Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, H.J. Schellnhuber (editor in chief), Cambridge University Press, pp. 361-371. Bolin, B. and H.S. Kheshgi, 2001: On strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 24 April, 2001, 98(9), pp. 4850-4854. CEC, 2006: Report from the Commission: Progress Towards Achieving the Kyoto Objectives. SEC(2006) 1412, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, Belgium. CEU, 2005: Presidency Conclusions - Brussels, 22 and 23 March 2005 IV. Climate Change, European Commission, Council of the European Union, Brussels, Belgium. <http://www.eu2005.lu/en/actualites/ conseil/2005/03/23conseileuropen/ceconcl.pdf> accessed 25 April 2006.

Chandler, W., R. Schaeffer, Z. Dadi, P.R. Shukla, F. Tudela, O. Davidson and S. Alpan-Atamer, 2002: Climate change mitigation in developing countries: Brazil, China, India, Mexico, South Africa, and Turkey. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Dasgupta, P., 2006: Comments on the Stern Reviews Economics of Climate Change. <http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/faculty/dasgupta/STERN.pdf> accessed 15. December 2006. Denman, K.L., G. Brasseur, A. Chidthaisong, P. Ciais, P.M. Cox, R.E. Dickinson, D. Hauglustaine, C. Heinze, E. Holland, D. Jacob, U. Lohmann, S Ramachandran, P.L. da Silva Dias, S.C. Wofsy and X. Zhang, 2007: Couplings Between Changes in the Climate System and Biogeochemistry. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Edenhofer, O., Lessmann, K., Kemfert, C., Grubb, M. and Koehler, J., 2006: Induced Technological Change: Exploring its Implications for the Economics of Atmospheric Stabilisation. Synthesis Report from the Innovation Modelling Comparison Exercise. In Endogenous Technological Change and the Economics of Atmospheric Stabilisation, O. Edenhofer, C. Carraro, J. Khler, M. Grubb. The Energy Journal, Special Issue #1. EEA, 2006: EN09_EU-25_Policy_effectiveness (Underpinning Energy and Environment indicator fact-sheets for Energy and environment in the European Union - Tracking progress towards integration, EEA Report No 8/2006). European Environment Agency. EIA, 2006a: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Washington, D.C., 20585, <http://www.eia.doe.gov/ emeu/international/crude1.html>, accessed 15. December 2006. EIA, 2006b: International Energy Outlook 2006. DOE/EIA-0484(2006), U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Washington, D.C., 20585. Eichhammer, W., F. Gagelmann, J. Schleich and J. Chesshire, 2002: Reasons and Perspectives for Emission Reductions in Germany and the UK. Fraunhofer Institute, <http://www.isi.fhg.de/publ/downloads/ isi02a08/emission-reduction.pdf>, accessed 24 January 2007. Eichhammer, W., U. Boede, F. Gagelmann, E. Jochem, J. Schleich, B. Schlomann, J. Chesshire and H-J. Ziesing, 2001: Greenhouse Gas Reductions in Germany and the UK - Coincidence or Policy Induced. An analysis for international climate policy. Fraunhofer Institute, Science Policy and Technology Research (SPRU), Deutsches Institut fr Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW). <http://www.isi.fhg.de/publ/downloads/isi01b20/greenhouse-gas. pdf>, accessed 20. April 2006. EMF, 2004: Energy Modeling Forum Study 21: Multi-gas Mitigation Scenarios. Energy Modeling Forum, <http://www.stanford.edu/group/ EMF>, accessed 10. December 2006. Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, D.C. Lowe, G. Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga, M. Schulz and R. Van Dorland, 2007: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Gritsevsky, A., and N. Nakicenovic, 2002: Modelling uncertainty of induced technological change. In: Technological change and the environment, A. Grubler, N. Nakicenovic, W.D. Nordhaus, (eds.). Resources for the Future, pp. 251-279. Hansen, J., M. Sato, R. Ruedy, K. Lo, D.W. Lea, and M. Medina-Elizade, 2006: Global temperature change. PNAS: 0606291103.

115

Introduction

Chapter 1

Harvey, L.D.D., 2007: Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference, Dangerous Climatic Change, and Harmful Climate Change: Non Trivial Distinctions with Significant Policy Implications. Climate Change, 82(1-2), pp.1-25. <http://www.springerlink.com/content/ k761w23w3506/> accessed 07/06/07. Hooijer, A., M. Silvius, H. Wsten, and S. Page, 2006: PEAT- CO2, Assessment of CO2 emissions from drained peatlands in SE Asia. Delft Hydraulics report Q3943. IEA, 2005: Energy Technologies at the cutting edge. International Energy Agency, Paris, France. IEA, 2006a: World Energy Outlook 2006. Paris, France. IEA, 2006b: Energy Technology Perspectives: Scenarios and Strategies to 2050. Paris, France. IPCC, 1991: The First Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. IPCC, 1996: The Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. IPCC, 2000a: Emissions Scenarios. [Nakicenovic, N. and R. Swart (eds.)]. Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 570 pp. IPCC, 2000b: Guidance papers on the Cross Cutting Issues of the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [R. Pachauri, T. Taniguchi and K. Tanaka (eds.)]. Geneva, Switzerland. IPCC, 2001: Climate Change 2001: Mitigation - Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [Metz, B., O. Davidson, R. Swart, and J. Pan (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 700 pp. IPCC, 2005: Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System: issues related to Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons [Metz, B., L. Kuijpers, S. Solomon, S.O. Andersen, O. Davidson, J. Pons, D.de Jager, T. Kestin, M. Manning, and L. Meyer (eds.)]. Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. IPCC, 2007a: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B.M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp. IPCC, 2007b: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Parry, M.L., O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, C.E. Hanson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. JISF, 2005; Japan Iron and Steel federation <http://www.jisf.or.jp/en/ activity/050715.html>, accessed 15. July 2006. Kaul, I., I. Grunberg, and M.A. Stern, 1999: Global Public Goods, Oxford University Press 1999. Kaul, I., P. Conceiao, K. Le Gouven, and R.U. Mendoz, 2003: Providing Global Public Goods, Oxford University Press. Kaya, Y, 1990: Impact of Carbon Dioxide Emission Control on GNP Growth: Interpretation of Proposed Scenarios. Paper presented to the IPCC Energy and Industry Subgroup, Response Strategies Working Group, Paris. Marland, G., T.A. Boden, and R.J. Andres, 2006: Global, Regional, and National Fossil Fuel CO2 Emissions. In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., USA. Mastrandrea, M.D., and S.H. Schneider, 2004: Probabilistic Integrated Assessment of Dangerous Climate Change. Science, 304(5670), pp. 571-575.

Meehl, G.A., T.F. Stocker, W.D. Collins, P. Friedlingstein, A.T. Gaye, J.M. Gregory, A. Kitoh, R. Knutti, J.M. Murphy, A. Noda, S.C.B. Raper, I.G. Watterson, A.J. Weaver and Z.-C. Zhao, 2007: Global Climate Projections. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Nordhaus, W.D., 2006: The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 12741. Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. Olivier, J.G.J., J.A. Van Aardenne, F. Dentener, V. Pagliari, L.N. Ganzeveld, and J.A.H.W. Peters, 2005: Recent trends in global greenhouse gas emissions: regional trends 1970-2000 and spatial distribution of key sources in 2000. Environmental Science, 2(2-3), pp. 81-99. DOI: 10.1080/15693430500400345. <http://www.mnp.nl/edgar/global_ overview/>, accessed 5. December 2006. Olivier, J.G.J., T. Pulles and J.A. van Aardenne, 2006: Part III: Greenhouse gas emissions: 1. Shares and trends in greenhouse gas emissions; 2. Sources and Methods; Greenhouse gas emissions for 1990, 1995 and 2000. In CO2 emissions from fuel combustion 1971-2004, 2006 Edition, pp. III.1-III.41. International Energy Agency (IEA), Paris. ISBN 92-64-10891-2 (paper) 92-64-02766-1 (CD ROM) (2006). Pacala, S. and R. Socolow, 2004: Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies. Science, 305, pp. 968-972. Ramankutty, N., et al., 2006: Challenges to estimating carbon emissions from tropical deforestation. Global Change Biology (published article online: 28-Nov-2006 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01272.x). Rijsberman, F.J., and R.J. Swart (eds.), 1990: Targets and Indicators of Climate Change. Stockholm Environment Institute, 1666 pp. Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, R.B. Alley, T. Berntsen, N.L. Bindoff, Z. Chen, A. Chidthaisong, J.M. Gregory, G.C. Hegerl, M. Heimann, B. Hewitson, B.J. Hoskins, F. Joos, J. Jouzel, V. Kattsov, U. Lohmann, T. Matsuno, M. Molina, N. Nicholls, J.Overpeck, G. Raga, V. Ramaswamy, J. Ren, M. Rusticucci, R. Somerville, T.F. Stocker, P. Whetton, R.A. Wood and D. Wratt, 2007: Technical Summary. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Stern, N., 2006: The Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change. <http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_ economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cf>, accessed 28. November 2006. Sun, J.W., 1998: Changes in energy consumption and energy intensity: A complete decomposition model. Energy Economics 20(1), pp. 85100. Sun, J.W. and B.W. Ang, 2000: Some properties of an exact energy decomposition model. Energy 25(12), pp. 1177-1188. Tokushige, K., K. Akimoto, and T. Tomoda, 2006: Public Acceptance and Risk-benefit Perception of CO2 Geological Storage for Global Warming Mitigation in Japan, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. <http://springerlink.metapress.com/content/ fj451l10258r3259/?p=7fa647f50f534>871b6234fdde58fac6a&pi=0> accessed January 10, 2007. UN, 1992: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, United Nations, New York. Van der Werf, G.R., J.T. Randerson, G.J. Collatz, and L. Giglio, 2003: Carbon emissions from fires in tropical and subtropical ecosystems. Global Change Biology, 9, pp. 547-562.

116

First Order draft

Title: Chapter: (Sub)Section: Author(s):

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

Remarks: Version: File name: Date:

Introduction Chapter 1 All CLAs: H-Holger Rogner, Dadi Zhou LAs: Rick Bradley, Philippe Crabb, Ottmar Edenhofer, Bill Hare, Lambert Kuipers, Mitsusune Yamaguchi CAs: Hongwei Yang First Order Draft CH1_Text FOD 21-11 rev.2.doc Chapter 1-Text.doc 22/11/2005 11:49 Time-zone: CET

5 CONTENTS 1.1 1.2 10 Introduction ................................................................................................................................2 Article 2 of the convention .........................................................................................................3 1.2.1 The article .......................................................................................................................3 1.2.2 What is dangerous interference with the climate system?..............................................3 1.2.3 Time scales of climate system responses in relation to the time scales for mitigation and adaptation.................................................................................................................4 Greenhouse gas emission trends.................................................................................................5 1.3.1 The last three decades.....................................................................................................5 1.3.2 Energy and emission trends: the next thirty years..........................................................6 1.3.3 Intensities........................................................................................................................6 Where do we stand?....................................................................................................................7 1.4.1 UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol ...................................................................................7 1.4.2 Sustainable development context ...................................................................................7 1.4.3 Millennium development goals (MDGs) and Johannesburg plan of implementation (JPOI)..............................................................................................................................8 1.4.4 Technology co-operation and transfer ............................................................................8 Characteristics of the challenge..................................................................................................9 1.5.1 Irreversibilities................................................................................................................9 1.5.2 Public good .....................................................................................................................9 1.5.3 Inertia............................................................................................................................10 1.5.4 Risk of catastrophe or abrupt change............................................................................10 1.5.5 Uncertainty ...................................................................................................................10 1.5.6 Complexity ...................................................................................................................10 1.5.7 Equity and ethics...........................................................................................................11 1.5.8 Regional differences .....................................................................................................11 Framing issues ..........................................................................................................................12 Cross-cutting issues ..................................................................................................................12 1.7.1 Relationship between mitigation and adaptation and sustainable development...........12 1.7.2 Risk and uncertainties...................................................................................................13 1.7.3 Costs, technologies and potentials................................................................................13 1.7.4 Policy, governance and decision making......................................................................14 1.7.5 Regional issues .............................................................................................................14 1.7.6 Air pollution and climate ..............................................................................................15 1.7.7 Fluorinated gases ..........................................................................................................15 1.7.8 Short-term versus long-term .........................................................................................16 Changes from previous assessments ........................................................................................16 1 Chapter 1

1.3 15

1.4 20

1.5 25

30

1.6 1.7 35

40

1.8

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 21/11/2005 17:05:00

First Order draft 5 1.9

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

Stucture of report - road map....................................................................................................17

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 10
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) requires that dangerous climate change be prevented and hence the stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations at levels that would achieve this objective. At present the concentrations are generally increasing, especially for carbon dioxide (CO2) and GHG emissions close to current trends - 1.4 per cent annual growth rate over the last 30 years - are projected to continue. Without major emissions reductions stabilization is nowhere in sight. Global energy demand and supply - the main drivers of GHG emissions - is projected to continue to grow, especially as populous developing countries pursue industrialization. Regional differentiation is important - economic development needs, resource endowments and capacities - mitigative and adaptive are too different across regions for a one-size fits all approach. This Chapter places Article 2 of the Convention with its obligation to prevent dangerous interference with the climate system in the context of the main conditions imposed on reaching the Conventions objective, stabilization, such as unthreatened food production or unimpeded sustainable economic development. Any judgment on dangerous interference is necessarily a social and political one depending on the level of risk deemed acceptable. There seems to be a convergence in the literature towards an upper limit of 2C increase in global mean temperature above pre-industrial levels as a cap before entering the zone of dangerous interference but lower and higher temperature values have been argued as well. The entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol in February 2005 marks a first, though modest step, towards the implementation of Article 2 but its outcome will still be far from reversing the overall GHG emission trends. The impacts of population and economic development continue to eclipse the improvement in energy intensities and decarbonisation. The challenges confronting a reversal of emission trends are several-fold and range from compliance of emission mitigation measures with Article 2 conditions of unhindered sustainable economic development, equity and ethics including common but differentiated responsibilities, to the inherent inertia of long-lived infrastructures, the risks of abrupt or catastrophic change, and potential climate irreversibility. Climate change mitigation is inseparable from sustainable development thus meeting the Millennium Development Goals, and the two are mutually reinforcing. Climate change exacerbates poverty - mitigation reduces vulnerability. Therefore, the main framing issue of this report is mainstreaming climate change mitigation as an integral part of sustainable development.

15

20

25

30

35

40
The Chapter closes with a brief synopsis of the changes from previous assessments and a description of the structure of the report. This Report follows the Third Assessment Report (TAR) in its organization but assigns greater weight to cross-cutting issues: risks and uncertainties, decision and policy making, costs and potentials, and the relationships between mitigation, adaptation and sustainable development. New cross cutting issues are F Gases, regional issues, air pollution and climate, UNFCCC Article 2 as well as shortterm versus long-term aspects of climate change and mitigation.

45

1.1 50

Introduction

55

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) requires the prevention of dangerous interference with the climate system with this being achieved through the stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations. Stabilization means harmonizing the co-evolution of two subsystems: the physical climate subsystem and the biosphere subsystem, which interact to form the complex climate system. The biosphere is made of interacting environmental (biotic and abiotic), technological, and socio-economic subsystems. GHG emissions from the biosphere subsystem accumulate in the atmosphere and have long atmospheric lifetimes. The climate system response to increased GHG concentrations occurs over all time scales but is subject to substantial lags (at the scale of centuries) and inertia. CO2 is the main

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 21/11/2005 17:05:00

Chapter 1

First Order draft 5

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

10

anthropogenic greenhouse gas and concentrations of this gas cannot be stabilized without drastic emission reductions. Achieving this quickly (time scale of decades) requires rapid changes of both climate and nonclimate relevant behaviors laden with cultural significance (Shove et al., 1998); of capital stocks which are costly (socio-economic inertia), if only because of their interactions with the technological sub-systems affected by the need to replace carbon emitting technologies with cleaner and climate friendly technologies (technological inertia) (IPCC, 2001).

1.2 15

Article 2 of the convention

1.2.1 The article

Article 2 of the UNFCCC specifies the ultimate objective of that convention and states: The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner (UNFCCC, 1992). Article 2 has several interrelated elements, which are linked to other parts of the Convention including the definitions in Article 1.1 of adverse effects 1 and Article 3.3 that relates to the application of the precautionary principle in the face of scientific uncertainty. The level of stabilization and the timeframe over which this needs to be achieved in order to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system is linked to the set of criteria in its second sentence: unthreatened food production and unimpeded sustainable economic development. Article 2 does not specify exactly what these mean and hence there are many open questions such as whether or not the threat to food production is to be measured nationally, regionally or globally. Sustainable development in the Article 2 context has two criteria to satisfy: First to enable economic development and second to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner If climate change adversely affects economic development, then the first criterion is not met. If, for example, very costly mitigation measures were introduced too quickly, the second criterion would be violated. The assessment of adaptation potentials in each of the areas mentioned in Article 2 is essential for a determination of what level of climate change would result in food production or economic development being threatened, or that would not allow ecosystems to adapt naturally. If stabilization were achieved in such a way that all of these requirements were met, then it could be said that dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system had been prevented. Article 2 could be defined either by some climatic target, such as concentration stabilization at a certain level, which is deemed to prevent dangerous interference with the climate system. Either way, the operationalization of Article 2 for mitigation purposes would rely on the development of emission pathways consistent with whatever metric is chosen to define dangerous climate change.

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1.2.2 What is dangerous interference with the climate system?

The concept of danger has an external dimension in terms of policy and an internal one in terms of perception. As with all policies, there is a top down and a bottom-up approach to danger. In the top down
1

Article 1.1: Adverse effects of climate change" means changes in the physical environment or biota resulting from climate change which have significant deleterious effects on the composition, resilience or productivity of natural and managed ecosystems or on the operation of socio-economic systems or on human health and welfare.

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 21/11/2005 17:05:00

Chapter 1

First Order draft 5

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

10

perspective, focus is on expert-determined physical vulnerability while, in the bottom-up approach, it is on individually or institutionally determined social vulnerability. The internal dimension focuses on social, cultural and institutional contexts, and social psychology methodologies (Dessai et al., 2004). An interpretation of Article 2 is thus likely to rely on political and/or legal judgements to synthesize the two perspectives (Tol and Verheyen, 2004) as to what may constitute unacceptable impacts on food production, ecosystem adaptation or economic development. It may also rely on political assessments of the acceptability of the risk of large scale disruptions in the earth system (Friedlingstein et al., 2003; Archer and Buffett, 2005). Over the past two decades several expert groups have sought to define levels of climate change that could be tolerable or intolerable, or characterized by different levels of risk. In the late 1980s, the WMO/ICSU/UNEP Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases (AGGG) identified two main temperature indicators or thresholds with different levels of risk (Rijsberman and Swart, 1990). Based on the available knowledge at the time it was argued that an increase of greater than 1.0C above pre-industrial levels may elicit rapid, unpredictable and non-linear responses that could lead to extensive ecosystem damage. A 2C increase was determined to be an upper limit beyond which the risks of grave damage to ecosystems, and of non-linear responses, are expected to increase rapidly. Research since that time has tended to confirm this assessment for many different ecosystems (see Chapter 19 WGII AR4) but the question remains as to the scale and significance of such risks. For example, Stocker et al. (1997) argue that the thermohaline circulation could shut down once atmospheric GHG concentrations exceed 600 ppmv and the global mean temperature exceeds pre-industrial levels by 4C. The Third Assessment Report (TAR) (IPCC, 2001) identified five broad reasons for concern relevant to Article 2: Risks to unique and threatened systems, risks from extreme climatic events, regional distribution of impacts, aggregate impacts and risks from large scale discontinuities. Subsequently Leemans and Eickhout (2004) have argued that a sixth ground for concern exists, i.e., regional and global impacts on ecosystems. ONeill and Oppenheimer (2002) use a set of criteria related to ecosystems, risk of ice sheet collapse and abrupt changes in ocean circulation that could be defined as dangerous. Mastrandrea and Schneider (2004) assessed in a probabilistic manner the implications of different interpretations of dangerous anthropogenic interference in relation to the above concerns and found that climate policy can substantially reduce the risk of crossing thresholds deemed dangerous. Whilst the works cited above are principally scientific (expert-led) assessments, there are also several examples of elected officials seeking to define acceptable levels of climate change. In 1996, based on a consideration of the Second Assessment Report (SAR) of the IPCC (IPCC, 1996), the European Unions Council of Environment Ministers (Environment Council) agreed that global temperatures should not be allowed to exceed 2C above pre-industrial levels (EC, 1996). The EU Environment Council reconfirmed this view in 2005 (EU, 2005a) and this also was adopted by the 25 Heads of Government of the European Union (EU, 2005b). Each of these views has its strengths and weaknesses. The AGGG (Rijsberman and Swart, 1990) and ONeill and Oppenheimer (2002) views have the virtue that they are more or less transparent, though individual, judgements based on the presented analyses. The EU Council has the virtue of a high level political judgement by elected Ministers and Heads of Government but with little publicly available documentation detailing the reasoning behind the adopted views.

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50 1.2.3 Time scales of climate system responses in relation to the time scales for mitigation and adaptation 55
Both the climate system and human socioeconomic systems exhibit considerable inertia over different time scales. Whilst a large part of the atmospheric response to forcing changes is on decadal timescales (Hooss et al., 2001) a substantial component appears to be linked to the century time scales of the oceanic response to forcing changes (Senior and Mitchell, 2000). In other words once GHG concentrations are stabilized global mean temperature will soon also stabilize -a slight increase may still occur over several centuries (Hare and

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 21/11/2005 17:05:00

Chapter 1

First Order draft 5

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

Meinshausen, 2005; Meehl et al., 2005). Sea level rise would however continue for many centuries after GHG stabilization. Mitigation measures also have a range of time scales with overall, but not precisely defined limits to how fast mitigation measures can act - i.e., the time scales are linked to technological, social, economic, demographic and political factors. Inertia is characteristic of the energy system and this inertia is highly relevant to how fast greenhouse gas concentrations can be stabilized Adaptation measures typically have shorter timescales than the climate system or many mitigation measures. Over the next 20 years or so even the most aggressive climate policy can do little to avoid warming already loaded into the climate system. Only beyond that time, will benefits from avoided climate change accrue. In broad terms there appear to be several robust implications regarding the operationalisation of Article 2. First, some climate change is inevitable over the next one to three decades given present levels of greenhouse gases and feasible mitigation options. Dealing with these effects of climate change is principally possible via adaptation measures. Second, over longer time frames, beyond the next few decades, mitigation investments have a greater potential to avoid climate change damages compared to unmitigated scenarios and ultimately this potential is larger than the adaptation options presently foreseeable (Jones, 2004).

10

15

20

1.3 25

Greenhouse gas emission trends

1.3.1 The last three decades

A variety of sources exist for determining global and regional greenhouse gas and other climate forcing agent trends. Each source has its strengths and weaknesses and uncertainties. The Edgar 3.0 database (Olivier et al. 2002) contains global emission trends by broad sectors from 1970-2000 2 . Since 1970 emissions of greenhouse gases (not including ozone depleting substances (ODS) controlled by the Montreal Protocol) have increased by more than 50%, with CO2 being the largest source having grown by about 60% (see Figure 1.1). The largest growth in CO2 emissions has come from power generation and road transport, with industry, households and the service sector remaining at approximately the same levels for the 1970-2000 period (Figure 1.2). Methane emissions rose by about 25% from 1970, with a 60% increase arising from combustion and use of fossil fuels and agricultural emissions remained roughly stable due to compensating falls and increases in rice and livestock production respectively. Nitrous oxide emissions grew by about the same proportion as CO2 emissions, mainly due to increased use of fertilizer and the growth of agriculture. Industrial emission of N2O fell during this period. Emission of the F-gases grew rapidly over the 1990s as they replaced ODS and were estimated to make up about 1.2% of emissions on 100 year GWp basis in 2000. [INSERT Figure 1.1 here] According to the Edgar 3.0 database in 2000 about 70% of GHG emissions arose from fossil fuel use, about 15% from agriculture, 6% from deforestation, 1.1% from F-gases, and about 8% from industrial, waste and other sources (Figure 1.3). These figures should be seen as indicative. The UNFCCC reporting system for the Annex I parties provides another indication of the role of GHG emission sources. Table 1.1 gives an indication of the relative sources of emissions from the broad source categories in the UNFCCC system, reinforcing the dominant role of fossil fuel combustion and also indicating that transport related emissions are also a substantial source. [INSERT Figure 1.2 here] [INSERT Figure 1.3 here]

30

35

40

45

50

55

[INSERT Table 1.1 here]

2

Data to 2000 taken from http://arch.rivm.nl/env/int/coredata/edgar/.

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 21/11/2005 17:05:00

Chapter 1

First Order draft 5

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

On a geographic basis, there are important differences between regions in energy related CO2 emissions over the last three decades. Figure 1.4 (IEA, 2005) shows that North America, China, Asia and the Middle East have driven the rise in emissions since 1972. The former USSR region has shown significant reductions since 1990 reaching a level slightly lower than the region had in 1972.

10
[INSERT Figure 1.4 here]

1.3.2 Energy and emission trends: the next thirty years 15

There are a variety of projections of the energy picture for the coming decades. They differ in terms of their modeling structure and input assumptions, in particular about the evolution of policy in the coming decades. As one example, the IEAs World Energy Outlook 2004 (IEA, 2004) takes as its reference case the policies that were in place as of the middle of 2004. Should there be no change in energy policies, and most certainly there will be, the energy mix supplied to run the global economy of 2030 will essentially remain unchanged. In other words, the energy economy may evolve, but not radically change unless policies change. Fossil fuels will still provide the bulk of the worlds energy services. According to the IEA projection, coal (1.5% p.a.), oil (1.6% p.a.) and natural gas (2.3% p.a.) all continue to grow in the period up to 2030. Among the non-fossil fuels, nuclear (0.4% p.a.), hydro (1.8% p.a.), biomass and waste including non-commercial biomass (1.3% p.a.) and other renewables (5.7% p.a.) also continue to grow over the forecast period. New renewables growth while robust starts from a relatively small base. Sectoral growth in energy demand is principally in electricity generation and transport sectors. Together their share of global energy will reach 60% by 2030. There is a particularly dramatic geographic shift in energy demand as two-thirds of the energy demand growth over this period originates in developing countries. Their share increases for all fuels except for nonhydro renewables. Global growth in fossil fuel demand has a significant effect on carbon emissions growth - a 62% growth over 2002 levels. This is an annual growth rate of 1.7%. As the bulk of energy demand growth occurs in developing countries, the emissions growth accordingly is dominated by developing countries.

20

25

30

35

1.3.3 Intensities 40
The Kaya-identity (Kaya, 1990) recognizes four aggregate driving forces of CO2 emissions and decomposes emission growth into: a) population growth, b) gross domestic product per capita (GDP/cap), c) energyintensity (energy per unit of GDP) and d) carbon-intensity (CO2 emissions per unit of energy). Globally, the average growth rate of CO2 emissions between 1973 and 2003 of 1.44% p.a is the result of (see Figure 1.5): Population growth: 1.58% p.a.; GDP/cap 3 :1.51% p.a; Energy-intensity: -1.17% p.a.; and Carbon-intensity: 0.47% p.a. [INSERT Figure 1.5 here] The decarbonisation was highest in the OECD economies but the effect was only a reduction in the growth rate of CO2 emissions. The declining carbon-intensity in the OECD was mainly a by-product of a structural change towards less energy intensive production processes and fuel switching to lower carbon intensive fuels, e.g., from coal to gas and oil or from coal and oil to nuclear and hydro for electricity generation. Globally, the declining carbon and energy intensities could not offset population growth and income effects, thus carbon emissions are on the rise. And where regional carbon emissions actually declined, the regional economy had first deteriorated. Therefore the task at hand is formidable: global GHG emission reductions in
3

45

50

55

Purchasing power parity (PPP) at 2000 prices & exchange rates.

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 21/11/2005 17:05:00

Chapter 1

First Order draft 5

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

absolute terms. This presupposes a reduction of energy and carbon intensities at a faster rate than income and population growth together. Admittedly, there are many possible combinations of the four Kaya identity components. However, Article 2 calls for unimpeded sustainable economic development and. there is an ongoing debate about the scope and the legitimacy of controlling population development. Therefore, the remaining two technology-oriented factors- energy and carbon intensities have to bear the main burden.

10 1.4 15
The UNFCCC was signed in 1992 by 166 countries at the Rio Earth Summit with entry into force in March 1994. Meanwhile the Convention has been ratified by 188 countries and the European Community. UNFCCC pursues its major objective - the implementation of Article 2 based on several principles laid down in other Articles of the Convention, e.g., differentiated responsibilities and that developed countries lead the mitigation process (Article 3.1), adoption of the precautionary principle including cost-effectiveness (Article 3.3), keeping of inventories of GHG sources and sinks, formulation and regular update of national programmes for both mitigation and adaptation, and development and transfer of relevant technologies by OECD countries (Article 4.1). The Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC was signed in 1997 by 84 countries (including Australia and the United States of America). Ratification required that 55 UNFCCC parties representing collectively 55% of the 1990 Annex 1 countries GHG emissions ratify the Protocol (Article 25.1). It was ratified by 153 nations (excluding Australia and the United States), representing 61.6 % of the 1990 emissions and entered into force on 16 February 2005. Parties included in Annex B to the Protocol are expected collectively to reduce their GHG emissions (i.e. the six gases listed in Annex A of the Protocol) by 5.2% with respect to 1990 over the commitment period 2008-2012 (Article 3.1) and to make demonstrable progress towards this goal by 2005 (Article 3.2). Each Annex B Party is assigned a quantified GHG emission limitation listed in this Annex of the Protocol. A key feature of the Protocol is the establishment of an international trading system, although domestic action should constitute a significant element of the effort (Article 6.1 (d), Article 17). The Kyoto mechanisms allow Annex B countries to obtain credits for emissions reductions achieved outside their national borders. These mechanisms include the purchase of Assigned Amount Units (AAUs) from trading under Article 17, Emission Reduction Units (ERUs) from project activities under Article 6 from other Annex B Parties, and Certified Emission Reduction Units (CERs) from projects undertaken in developing (non-Annex 1) countries under the Clean Development Mechanism, Article 12). A powerful and relatively intrusive set of procedures for emission monitoring, verification and compliance have been agreed at COP/MOP1 under Articles 5, 7 and 8 and Article 18. The final status of the compliance procedures is to be agreed at COP/MOP1 4 .

Where do we stand?

1.4.1 UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol

20

25

30

35

40

1.4.2 Sustainable development context 45

Climate change mitigation is part and parcel of sustainable development and the two are mutually reinforcing. Mitigation conserves or enhances natural capital (ecosystems, environment as sources and sinks for economic activities) and, thereby, contributes to the overall productivity of capital needed for socioeconomic development including mitigative and adaptive capacity. In turn, sustainable development paths reduce capital vulnerability to climate change and GHG emissions. Climate change will exacerbate poverty, especially in least-developed countries, which are the most dependent on natural capital (see Chapter 2). Mitigation efforts by developing countries require taking their special circumstances into account. Sustainable development has environmental, economic and social dimensions. Climate change mitigation satisfies environmental sustainability in that stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations, i.e. climate stabilization, is one of the ultimate goals of UNFCCC (Article 2). Mitigation satisfies economic
4

50

55

Note to reader: This is placeholder pending results from COP/MOP1.

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 21/11/2005 17:05:00

Chapter 1

First Order draft 5

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

10

sustainability to the extent that the economic value of natural capital, of which climate is a component, is preserved (strong sustainability) or, at least, the value of aggregate capital (including manufactured, human, natural, and social) is prevented from deteriorating over time (weak sustainability) and maintains the value of consumption. Mitigation satisfies social sustainability as well by paying heed to socio-economic development (rather than simply to growth), to access to resources and freedom, to equity (both inter- and intra-generational), and to organizations and institutions (rules in use; Young, 2002). Social sustainability requires the taking into account of the priority needs of developing countries to achieve economic growth and poverty eradication (UNFCCC, 1992, Article 3.4), i.e., countries which may have other development priorities than climate protection (Lomborg, 2004). Article 3 of UNFCCC specifies additional principles than those listed in Section 1.3.1 which together guide mitigation: intergenerational equity, taking needs and circumstances of developing countries into account especially the most vulnerable ones, policy comprehensiveness, integration of climate into national development policy, openness of trade as support for growth (IPCC, 2001). The equity argument points in the direction of assessing mitigative and adaptive capacity, because vulnerability means degree of exposure to climate risks (IPCC, 2001).

15

20

1.4.3 Millennium development goals (MDGs) and Johannesburg plan of implementation (JPOI) 25
In 2000, heads of state and government of the United-Nations adopted the Millennium Declaration (UN, 2000a) that led to eight MDGs. These address developing countries special needs, and constitute a concerted attack on poverty and the problems of illiteracy, hunger, discrimination against women, unsafe drinking water, health and a degraded environment (UNDESA, 2004). MDG # 7 requires the integration of the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programmes and reversal of the loss of environmental resources. This reinforces Article 4.7 of UNFCCC which states that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of developing countries. In response to such challenges, the World Summit on Sustainable Development developed the JPOI (UN, 2002a) which explicitly commits the signatories to responsible and equitable management of the earths resources as part of the broader effort to achieve the MDGs. Building on Agenda 21 (UNCED, 1992), the Plan privileges the first MDG of poverty reduction (Article 6) through, among others, combating desertification and mitigating the effects of future droughts and floods (Article 6. l), and improved access to environmentally sound energy services (Article 8). Climate change mitigation may help reduce the future need to combat the effects of droughts and floods, facilitating the implementation of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification. The Marrakech Accord (UNFCCC, 2001) and the Monterrey Consensus on financing MDGs (UN, 2002b) are reaffirmed, as well as the need to provide technical and financial assistance and capacity building to developing countries (Article 36, c). Article 103.f re-affirms the precautionary principle following UNFCCC Article 3.3 which offers yet another argument in favor of climate change mitigation.

30

35

40

45 1.4.4 Technology co-operation and transfer

Given the preponderant role played by fossil fuels in global energy supply, it is difficult to imagine meeting the objective of Article 2 of the UNFCCC without technology research, development, demonstration, deployment and diffusion (RDDD&D). Development and diffusion of new technological systems may take a century (Sanden and Azar, 2005) which explains in part the global interest in early action and implementation of incentives. Diffusion of new and existing technologies will be required both domestically and internationally, in particular to developing countries. There are various types of technologies under development including but not limited to: solar, wind, nuclear fission and fusion, geothermal, biomass, fuel cells, clean fossil technologies including carbon capture and

50

55

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 21/11/2005 17:05:00

Chapter 1

First Order draft 5

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

storage, hydrogen production from non-fossil energy sources and energy efficiency improvements throughout the energy system (Pacala and Socolow, 2004, Neuhoff 2005, Grubb 2005). Some of them are in their infancy and require public RDDD&D support, while others are more mature and need only market incentives for their deployment and diffusion. To share information and development costs internationally, there exist several examples of international cooperation for RDDD&D, such as the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF), the International Partnership for Hydrogen Economy (IPHE), Generation IV International Forum (GIF), the Methane to Markets Partnership and the Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP). Their fields range from basic R&D and market demonstration to barrier removals for commercialization/diffusion. There exist also bilateral sector-based cooperation agreements. One example is the Japan/China agreement on energy efficiency in the steel industry concluded in July 2005 (JISF, 2005). As energy efficiency varies greatly throughout various sectors, these sector-based initiatives for promoting technology cooperation may be a more effective tool for technology transfer and mitigating GHG emissions.

10

15

20 1.5 Characteristics of the challenge 1.5.1 Irreversibilities 25

Anthropogenic forcing of the climate system may move it from one stable state to another state. If the perturbation is large enough returning to the original state may be either impossible or extremely difficult and costly (Scheffer et al., 2001; Schneider, 2004). Therefore, climate change may be irreversible. Environmental irreversibility per se does not affect abatement policy in a predictable manner. Under uncertainty, it is the combination of environmental irreversibility with other factors that is sufficient for a socalled irreversibility effect to occur (Baker, 2005; Narain et al., 2004; Webster, 2002; Epstein, 1980). The latter means that a decision-maker will adopt a more flexible course of action than would be the case under certainty. These factors are a) inter-temporal separation of decisions, b) the learning structure (Baker, 2005; Kansuntisukmongko, 2004), c) the shapes of marginal abatement and damage cost functions (Baker, 2005); d) the type of spatial correlation among damages (ibid), e) the potentially catastrophic nature of these damages (Cline, 2005), and f) other irreversibilities. Abatement may take the form of sunk costs in new technologies, which creates another type of irreversibility (reluctance to invest) opposite to the environmental irreversibility. It is impossible to determine a priori which irreversibility will tend to dominate although economic uncertainty seems to matter more than environmental uncertainty (Keller et al., 2004; Pindyck, 2002; Kolstad, 1996).

30

35

40

1.5.2 Public good 45

Climate is a global public good since it is spatially indivisible, it is freely available to all (non-excludability), and its consumption by one individual (nation) does not diminish its availability to others (non-rivalry). Climate benefits are available to all whether one is willing to assume its preservation costs or not. This does not mean that climate impacts are the same for all. Some countries may actually benefit temporarily from climate change (Reilly et al., 2003). Mitigation costs are exclusive to the extent that they may be borne by some individuals (nations) while others evade them (free-riding). The incentive to evade increases with the substitutability of individual mitigation efforts (mitigation is largely additive) and with the inequality of the distribution of net benefits. However, individual mitigation efforts (costs) decrease with efficient mitigation actions undertaken by others. Without cooperation among all climate beneficiaries, mitigation is not cost-effective and the market fails to allocate mitigation costs efficiently. Because of its additive nature, the larger the number of participants, the smaller the individual cost of providing the public good, i.e., GHG stabilization.

50

55

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 21/11/2005 17:05:00

Chapter 1

First Order draft 5

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

10

The unequal distribution of (a) stable climate benefits (skewed towards the least-developed countries) and (b) the ability to pay (skewed towards developed countries) may deter participation from the least well off net beneficiaries or from the least wealthy ones with different spending priorities. These distributional inequalities require information sharing and compensation. In a strategic environment, leadership from a significant player (GHG emitter) provides incentives for others to follow suit by lowering their costs (Grasso, 2004; ODS, 2002). Mitigative and adaptive capacities are public goods as well. Without a concerted effort to shore them up, their levels will be insufficient.

15

1.5.3 Inertia
Ambitious climate protection goals require new investments in climate friendly technologies (efficiency improvements, renewables, nuclear power) or end-of-pipe-technologies (e.g., carbon capture and storage). From an economic point of view these investments are essentially irreversible. Therefore, in the presence of uncertainty concerning future policy towards GHG emission reduction or stabilisation targets, investors are reluctant to undertake irreversible investments (sunk costs) and investments in carbon-free technologies are postponed (see 1.4.1).

20

1.5.4 Risk of catastrophe or abrupt change 25

The possibility of abrupt climate change and/or abrupt changes in the earth system triggered by climate change with potentially catastrophic consequences cannot be ruled out (Budyko, 1999; Higgins et al,. 2002; NRC 2002; Alley et al., 2003). Potential examples include the disintegration of the West Antarctic Ice sheet (Oppenheimer and Alley, 2005) which, if it occurred could raise sea level by 4-6 meters over several centuries, a shutdown of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation (Rahmstorf and Zickfeld, 2005) with far reaching, adverse ecological and agricultural consequences (Vellinga and Wood, 2002; Higgins and Vellinga, 2004; Higgins and Schneider, 2005); increases in the frequency of droughts (Salinger, 2005) or a higher intensity of tropical cyclones (Knutson and Tuleya, 2004; Emanuel 2005; Trenberth, 2005). Positive feedback from warming may cause the release of carbon or methane from the terrestrial biosphere (Shindell et al., 2004; Jones et al., 2005) and oceans (Archer et al., 2004; Archer and Buffett, 2005) which would add to the mitigation required.

30

35

1.5.5 Uncertainty 40
Uncertainty is a steadfast companion when analyzing the climate system, assessing future GHG emissions or the severity of climate change impacts, evaluating these impacts over many generations or estimating mitigation costs. The TAR reported an explosion of uncertainties. Moreover, the terminology concerning risk and uncertainty and its treatment in the literature, including previous IPCC assessments are not consistent (see Chapter 2). Different types of uncertainties have been identified (Manning et al., 2004) and range from value uncertainty related to statistical parameters in a stochastic model or the data themselves, to modeling errors (structural uncertainty) due to a lack of understanding of the factors one is trying to model (relations among variables, functional relationships, etc). Moreover, the model may be incapable of prediction as is standard in complex or chaotic systems (unpredictability). The use of projections and scenarios is an attempt to overcome unpredictability. Projections are hypothetical trends in driving variables; scenarios are plausible and consistent images about the future chosen among a very large number (a continuum) of possible futures, essentially for their illustrative purpose. One may test policies for sensitivity, robustness, etc. across scenarios. Risks on which no probability can be assigned may be managed through precautionary behavior, real option theory, crisis management, etc. (see Chapter2).

45

50

55 1.5.6 Complexity

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 21/11/2005 17:05:00

10

Chapter 1

First Order draft 5

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

The climate system (including physical climate, biosphere, socio-economic, and technological sub-systems) is complex, i.e. it gives rise to collective properties, which are specific to the coupling of the sub-systems. It is subject to multiple interactions among sub - systems, some stabilizing (negative feedbacks), some destabilizing (positive feedbacks), some uncertain, which give rise to a richness of possible behaviors. The climate system is non-linear in important ways, which means that changes may not always be proportional to the original forcing (greenhouse gas increases or decreases): this can give rise to abrupt changes, surprises, i.e., abrupt responses to climate change or low probability high consequence events. (Higgins et al., 2002; Rial et al., 2004; Schneider, 2004). Its spatial-temporal scope covers several generations and regions over which societys perceptions of what is dangerous are likely to vary and are, therefore, uncertain. (Obersteiner et al, 2001a, 2001b). There is a time - lag between the time when mitigation is applied and the change in GHG concentrations, yet another uncertainty. Properties such as these, quite apart from uncertainty in our knowledge of the climate system or of future greenhouse gas emissions, make it difficult to predict exact changes in the global and regional climate systems due to greenhouse gas emissions (Giorgi 2005; Giorgi and Bi 2005). Notwithstanding these uncertainties, it appears that mitigation will reduce the risk of both global mean and regional changes and the risk of abrupt changes in the climate system (Obersteiner et al. 2001a, 2001b) and that a precautionary and anticipatory risk management approach should incorporate adaptation and preventive mitigation (Obersteiner et al. 2001a, 2001b) The complex nature of the climate change issue, where predictions are not possible, is one of the reasons why scenarios are used to characterize different plausible pathways into the future involving the technological, social and economic evolution of the human system and to quantify the drivers of climate change.

10

15

20

25

30

1.5.7 Equity and ethics

There are two broad ethical frameworks for equity: deontology (rights-based, concern for procedures and for individual interest) and consequentiality (outcome or goal-based, concern for societys interest). Equity is an ethical construct that demands the articulation and implementation of choices about the distribution of rights to benefits and responsibilities for costs resulting from particular circumstances, say climate change, within and among communities including future generations. Equity exhibits preventative (avoid damage inflicted on others), retributive (sanctions), and corrective elements (e.g., common but differentiated responsibilities) (Ikeme, 2003a). The South, more deontological in its approach, tends to favour corrective equity, distributive justice (parity, i.e., equal rights to emissions), retributive equity (ecological debt repaid through emission trading), and procedural equity (broad participation). Procedural equity, i.e. the means by which an outcome is reached must be considered fair and reasonable, may well lead to unequal outcomes if historical responsibilities for cumulative emissions or the inheritance of assets and liabilities by future generations are taken into account (Thompson et al., 1998). The North, being more consequentialist, favors a sharing of benefits and costs so as to minimize overall costs and maximize global welfare. Resource transfers to the South are based on caring, especially for the poor, and not on an ecological debt (Ikeme, 2003b).

35

40

45

50 1.5.8 Regional differences

The Kaya-identity as applied to the world (see Section 1.2.3) conceals the fact that the evolution of its driving forces varied considerably across different world regions. The population growth was highest in Africa and Latin America and lowest in Western Europe and US. Over the last three decades, GDP per capita decreased in Africa, was moderate in Latin America, and was strong in Europe and North America. Historically, global income per capita and population growth were partly compensated by decreasing primary energy-intensities. Against this global development, Africa and Latin America experienced

55

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 21/11/2005 17:05:00

11

Chapter 1

First Order draft 5

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

10

increasing energy intensities whereas energy intensities declined in East Asia, North America and Western Europe. The capacity of mitigation of and adaptation to climate change depends on a countrys economic development level. When the basic needs for food and shelter have not been met properly, the capacity and resources to effectively respond to climate change in developing countries are far from sufficient. This is more severe and obvious in low-income countries when the gap of per capita income between high income and low income countries has enlarged during the recent three decades 5 .

1.6 15

Framing issues

20

25

30

An authoritative assessment of climate change mitigation options commands not only clear and unambiguous definitions, concepts, objectives and boundaries but also a comprehension of the framing issues. Framing issues are the product of organizational mandates, the interests of key actors, and of policy initiatives into which climate change matters may be tied in a synergistic fashion with an above average probability to obtain stakeholders support (Young, 2002). Thus, framing issues are not entirely determined by the objective characteristics of the relevant problem at hand. The perception of climate change of individuals and societies are based on psychological, social, ethical, institutional and cultural processes with which scientific information interacts, and also on personal experience, values, information, cognitive processes, and trust. Framing requires surfacing hidden assumptions, black box types of methodologies and unstated issues. In this assessment report, the main framing issues are mainstreaming climate change mitigation as an integral part of sustainable development, the highest possible geographical resolution of mitigation options, costs (private and social) and potentials (economic, market, technical) including associated uncertainties and risks as well as the stage of technology maturity and technology diffusion between North-South and South-South. Further issues include the integration of adaptive and mitigative capacity and the underlying institutional and social structures and equity aspects. Transparency, internal consistency and quantification of assumptions, uniformity in the use of terminology throughout the report and openness and clarity in the presentation of findings and recommendations help convey the essential message to policy makers and embed the proposed action into the ultimate objective of the climate change convention.

1.7 35

Cross-cutting issues

1.7.1 Relationship between mitigation and adaptation and sustainable development

Adaptation and mitigation are two sets of policy responses to climate change, which can be complementary, substitutable or independent of each other. If adaptation and mitigation are not independent, separation may result in an undervaluation of the net benefits of risk-reducing activities, thus to a lower than required level (Kane and Shogren, 2000). Moreover, risks may be transferred from one collectivity to another, if mitigation and adaptation efforts are incompatible with the ones taken by another collectivity. If complementary, adaptation reduces the costs of impacts and thus reduces the benefits of mitigation. Although adaptation and mitigation may be substitutable, they are never perfect substitutes for each other since mitigation will always be required to avoid dangerous climate change (Yohe and Tol, 2002). Irrespective of the scale of mitigation measures in the next ten to twenty years, adaptation measures will be required due to the inertia in the climate system, especially at the regional level as climate change impacts and vulnerabilities tend to be regional (e.g., McKibbin et al., 2002). Both adaptation and mitigation depend on capital assets, including social capital, and affect capital vulnerability and GHG emissions. Through this mutual dependence, both are tied to sustainable development (see Section 1.3.2). Both mitigative and adaptive capacity depend on a number of factors such as available technological options, all forms of capital, access to risk-hedging instruments, the ability of decision-makers to access relevant information and to process the latter in a credible fashion, decision-makers own credibility and the publics perception of the causality between climate change and its manifestations. Which response to adopt and when to adopt is very much dictated by the sustainable development agenda to the
5

40

45

50

55

World Bank: World Development Indicator 2003.

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 21/11/2005 17:05:00

12

Chapter 1

First Order draft 5

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

point that sustainable development policies may be the most effective mitigation and adaptation policies. Enhancing mitigative and adaptive capacity is the best risk-hedging policy. Both capacities evolve over time and understanding the determinants of their dynamics is important (Adger et al., 2001; Tol et al., 2004).

1.7.2 Risk and uncertainties 10

One of the major sources of uncertainties regarding the magnitude of future climate change and associated risks are future GHG emissions released to the atmosphere (see also Chapter 2.3). These are inherently unpredictable and, in the presence of uncertainty, scenarios are a useful approach for illustrating a range of possible future and more importantly the constellation of conditions that could bring them about. Scenarios consistent images of how the future may unfold - embrace numerous assumptions on the future development of key drivers of emissions such a demographics, economic activity, structural change, innovation and technology change, costs and prices, policy and social preferences. Each of these drivers has its own uncertainties and when combined in a quasi causal chain usually generates an uncertainty explosion, i.e., large uncertainties concerning the probability of occurrence of a specific scenario. As a result, quantification with any range of uncertainty can be entirely subjective (Manning et al., 2004). Even if uncertainties are large or subjective, they are not necessarily distributed evenly throughout the domain of GHG mitigation. The performance of some technologies or mitigation measures are better known than others and lend themselves to quantification, as are short-term options compared with more distant ones. In this report, therefore, uncertainties are quantified whenever possible and supported by the literature. The importance of the use of a common and consistent terminology describing uncertainty and risk throughout the report cannot be overemphasized and all possible efforts have been undertaken to that extent based on the guidance notes developed for this purpose (Manning, et al., 2005). Still, climate change mitigation remains decision making under uncertainty. Given the long lead times of mitigation action, fully resolving uncertainties would make an adequate response infeasible (IPCC, 2001). Thus, uncertainty often increases rather than decreases the rational for early preventative action. Moreover, the fact that future emissions are uncertain is less important than the fact that they are, to a large extent, a matter of economic choice.

15

20

25

30

1.7.3 Costs, technologies and potentials 35

Unless otherwise stated, through this report costs are given in US dollars at prices and exchange rates of the year 2000. For reasons of comparing different mitigation options on a level playing field, boundaries need to be clearly defined, i.e., what is included in the costs: overnight costs, life cycle costs, discount and interest rates, location factors, life times, etc. While such information is usually available in a consistent manner for a particular study, this is not the case for the numerous studies found in the literature underlying this report. These studies embrace vastly different assumptions on each of these parameters and comparisons of different study results cannot be made in any straightforward fashion. This report, therefore, provides cost or mitigation ranges reflecting the breadth of information available in the literature and summarizes the main factors determining the cost or mitigation range. The future performance and market penetration of new and advanced technologies in these studies are shaped by varying scenario assumptions related to innovation and technology change as well as to the presence of effective policy. As much as possible, the report will highlight robust technology performance expectations and explain, where appropriate, the reasons for the ranges found in the literature.

40

45

50
Investments in technologies and practices that could reduce GHG emissions are often hampered by barriers ranging from lack of information, trade barriers, market failures due to wrong price signals, to social norms, individual habits, life styles and vested interests which reduce the potentials for GHG mitigation (IPCC, 2001). The TAR identified five categories of increasing mitigation potentials: market, economic, socioeconomic, technological and physical potential. At any point in time, the market potential represents the actual use of a technology or practice. The removal of barriers such as market or institutional imperfections would results in an expansion of cost-effective mitigation technologies and open up the economic potential, i.e., all options that are cost-effective from the consumers point of view are implemented. Changing

55

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 21/11/2005 17:05:00

13

Chapter 1

First Order draft 5

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

10

consumer preferences and life styles towards climate responsible behaviour push the mitigation envelope even further towards the realization of the socio-economic potential, i.e., all cost effective measures are being implemented. Reducing the costs of non-cost effective or unaffordable mitigation options makes the technological potential accessible. The final category physical potential represents the theoretical upper limit. The boundaries between these potentials are not fixed or constant but are in flux as a result of changing relative costs and prices, innovation, policy and behaviour. Reference to mitigation potentials in this report, therefore, unambiguously specifies category and temporal scope of the potential.

1.7.4 Policy, governance and decision making 15

Typical climate policies include direct regulations and standards, economic incentives (carbon tax, tradable permits, hybrid of these, i.e. tradable permits with a safety valve, and subsidies), voluntary agreements and others (such as R&D, public procurement etc.). Sometimes, policies for other purposes (for example liberalization of energy regulations) may contribute to GHG emissions reduction. Most of these policies can be introduced both nationally and internationally, having their own pros and cons as discussed in the following chapters. The most frequently used criteria for policy evaluation are: environmental effectiveness, economic efficiency, equity, administrative and political feasibility and impact on technological change. From the governance point of view, international policy is made through, in many cases, multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). Their effectiveness depends on the factors both within and outside the scheme. To avoid free riders and to invite as many participants as possible, many MEAs frequently include financial and technological incentives (carrots) and trade restrictions (sticks). Also, for MEAs to be effective, major stakeholders should participate and act within the scheme. A recent innovation in the context of the Kyoto Protocol is the introduction of trading in order to lower costs and a powerful emission monitoring, verification and compliance system that can both encourage compliance (through triggers allowing or disallowing trading) and also rectify cases of non-compliance. Decision-making tools include; cost benefit analysis (policy to be undertaken as long as benefit exceeds cost), cost effectiveness analysis (comparison of costs for attaining given targets), multi-criteria-analysis (integrating different decision parameters not necessarily with monetary values attached), portfolio analysis (portfolio of policies that have different returns and risks) etc. One must bear in mind, however, the complex nature of decision-makings in climate change due to the very characteristics of climate change, i.e. intergenerational, uncertain and catastrophic. Also the difficulty to measure environmental damages in monetary values should be taken into account.

20

25

30

35

40

1.7.5 Regional issues

The energy use per capita in developing countries is still fractions of the per capita levels in the industrialized countries. For example, the levels in China (0.726 toe) and India (0.316 toe) are much smaller than that in United States (8.0 toe), Canada (7.98 toe), Japan (4.1 toe) and OECD Europe (3.44 toe). Recent studies (Zhou et al., 2004; Yang, 2004; Yang and Xu, 2003; Yang et al. 2001) show that developing countries need and will take active measures towards the implementation of their national sustainable development objectives, i.e., to coordinate and integrate economic development, energy supply based on their national resource endowment and accessibility of energy resources, and environmental protection. To achieve the multiple objectives of economic development, poverty alleviation, providing affordable energy services, reducing the population without electricity access, and improving the environment, will to a large extent depend on technology innovation and diffusion. Efforts towards achieving sustainable development will benefit the global economic development and lead to a further decline in energy-income elasticities.

45

50

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 21/11/2005 17:05:00

14

Chapter 1

First Order draft 5 1.7.6 Air pollution and climate

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

10

15

Energy production and use is a major source of air pollution. Projected future levels of air pollutants if realized present major problems for crops and health in different regions of the world (Chameides et al., 1999; Prather et al., 2003; Kan et al., 2004). Air pollution enters the climate issue in at least three main, interacting ways. Firstly air pollutants, or their by products, can have an effect, directly or indirectly, on the climate system and can change climate regionally and globally. Secondly, mitigation of greenhouse gases will usually also reduce air pollution emissions, which in some cases will act to reduce radiative forcing of climate change and in others act to increase it (see Table 1.2). Thirdly climate change can also act to affect air pollution levels through changes in atmospheric chemistry, stability and circulation. Adverse regional changes in air pollutants such as tropospheric ozone and other air pollutants (Mickley et al., 2004) with negative effects on human health (Knowlton et al., 2004) are projected. For example, the interaction between the high temperatures and air pollution levels apparently contributed to the death toll caused by the 2003 European heat wave (Fischer et al., 2004). [Insert Table 1.2 here] In short, greenhouse gas mitigation can have a substantial array of co-benefits (ancillary benefits) in relation to the reduction of air pollutants resulting from GHG mitigation policies. Numerous studies from, for example, the USA (Burtraw et al., 2003; Morgenstern et al., 2004), Europe (Alcamo et al., 2002; van Minnen et al., 2002), India (Smith et al., 2000; Venkataraman et al., 2005) and China (Aunan et al., 2004; Streets and Aunan, 2005) demonstrate that there are significant benefits in this area. The European studies show that the costs of achieving existing air pollution standards are lowered when considered in the context of GHG reduction policies.

20

25

30

1.7.7 Fluorinated gases

Where this report deals with fluorinated gases, it concerns not only the Kyoto basket gases, but also Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS, i.e., CFCs and HCFCs) that many of them replace, wherever the emissions of the latter are or will be climate relevant. The most abundant of the fluorinated gases used as ODS replacements, the hydrofluorocarbons, are used in sectors where their unique thermal and safety properties add value in such applications as refrigeration equipment and as blowing agents in foams. Perfluorinated gases have valuable specific properties in a number of mainly industrial applications. Due to the high direct GWp of the fluorinated gases (for HFCs generally 750-4,000 times that of CO2, for PFCs much higher, owing to their long lifetimes), emissions are significant. Many PFC uses are immediately emissive, which also applies to a limited number of HFC uses. For the latter, total emissions remain small expressed in CO2equivalents compared with the ODS quantities emitted in the past decades and still scheduled to occur in future. Predicting overall environmental impacts is complicated by the fact that several major applications retain the bulk of their fluorinated gases during the lifecycle, resulting in the development of significant banks which, in many instances, can be managed at end-of-life. In some cases, the use of fluorinated gases also increases energy efficiency over the product or equipment lifetime, thereby reducing CO2 emissions. This may also apply to replacements for fluorinated gases with negligible GWp which are considered in mitigation scenarios of this report. Use of replacements may have a lower climate impact than the use of fluorinated gases, if considered together with energy related CO2 emissions, assuming all gases are eventually emitted. Evaluating emission scenarios and the environmental impacts resulting from them, is therefore a complex task, involving parameters such as economic growth, technology selection, regional climatic variation, and emission factors for the operational phase and at end-of-life. Evaluations will be different for the application sectors considered in this report. A significant review of such assessments was published in an earlier IPCC study (IPCC, 2005). More recent assessments are further evaluated in this report.

35

40

45

50

55

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 21/11/2005 17:05:00

15

Chapter 1

First Order draft 5 1.7.8 Short-term versus long-term

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

10

The public discourse on climate change mitigation often focuses on the timing of action. The reality of effective and efficient GHG mitigation is that action is needed now and will be required for at least the next century in order to achieve the objective of Article 2. Cost effective reductions in the near term reduce the risk of exceeding dangerous concentrations and provide time for the introduction of newer, lower emitting technologies that will be required for stabilised concentrations. At the same time, focussing on near term actions and cost can lock-in capital that is difficult to remove during its economic lifetime (Sanden and Azar, 2005). However, it is also clear that the technologies required to fuel the global economy in a world of stabilized concentrations do not exist at competitive prices when compared to existing fossil fuels. Policy responses therefore must include the development of a new generation of technologies. Technology RDD&D is also needed in the near term so that very low levels of GHG emissions can be achieved in the longer term (Sanden and Azar, 2005). The balance cost-effective mitigation policy must find is therefore in the relative commitment of resources to nearer term reductions versus the development of technologies for future reductions, not whether action is required now or later.

15

20

1.8 25

Changes from previous assessments

The IPCC is both an intergovernmental organization (IGO) and a scientific and technical assessment organization. The IGO meets formally to develop and approve the overall workplan, to review and accept technical reports, and to approve line-by-line summaries for policy-makers. The reports are written and reviewed by scientists and technical experts from around the world, including academics and NGO and industry representatives. These scientists are selected by their governments (Jasanoff et al., 1998). The IPCC was set up in 1988 by UNEP and WMO with three working groups: to assess available scientific information on climate change (WG I), to assess environmental and socio-economic impacts (WG II), and to formulate response strategies (WG III).

30

35

The first assessment report (FAR), in 1990, dealt with the anthropogenic alteration of the climate system, potential impacts and available response measures. For SAR, in 1996, Working Groups II and III were reorganized. WG II dealt with adaptation and mitigation. WG III dealt with the socio-economic cross-cutting issues related to costing climate changes impacts and providing cost-benefit analysis (CBA) for decision-making (IPCC, 1996). Preparation of the SAR formally included NGO and government policy representatives to help overcame the divide between science and policy and help build a shared transparent consensus. For TAR, in 2001, Working Groups II and III were again reorganized to deal with adaptation and mitigation respectively. Four cross-cutting issues were identified: costing methods; uncertainties; decision analysis frameworks; and development, equity and sustainability (IPCC, 2000). The fourth assessment report, due in 2007, follows TAR in its organization but assigns greater weight to the following cross-cutting issues: risks and uncertainties; decision and policy making; costs, including technologies and potentials; and sustainable development, including relationships between mitigation, adaptation and sustainable development. New cross-cutting issues are F gases, regional issues, air pollution and climate, UNFCCC Article 2 as well as short-term versus long-term aspects of climate change and mitigation.

40

45

50

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 21/11/2005 17:05:00

16

Chapter 1

First Order draft 5 1.9 Stucture of report - road map

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

10

This report assesses options for mitigating climate change. It has four major parts, A-D. Part A includes Chapter 1, an introduction, and Chapter 2, on framing issues. Chapter 2 introduces the reports cross-cutting themes, listed above, and outlines how these themes are treated in subsequent chapters. It introduces important concepts (e.g. cost-benefit analysis and regional integration) and defines important terms used throughout the report. Part B has one chapter, Chapter 3. It summarizes long-term mitigation scenarios and gaps between various baseline scenarios and different atmospheric GHG stabilization levels. It discusses driving forces for GHG emissions and mitigation in the short- and medium-terms, and emphasizes the role of technology relative to social, economic and institutional inertia. It examines the relation between adaptation and mitigation in the light of decision-making regarding atmospheric GHG concentrations (Art 2 UNFCCC). Part C has eight chapters. The first six assess mitigation options in different sectors. Chapter 4 addresses the energy supply sector, including carbon capture and storage. Chapter 5 addresses transport and associated infrastructures; Chapter 6 the residential, commercial and service sectors; Chapter 7 the industrial sector including internal recycling and reuse of industrial wastes; Chapters 8 and 9 the agricultural and forestry sectors including land use and biological carbon sequestration; and Chapter 10 waste management, postconsumer recycling and reuse. These six chapters use a common template and cover all relevant aspects of GHG mitigation, including costs, policies, technology development, technology transfer, system changes and long-term options. They provide the integrated picture that was absent in the TAR. Where supporting literature was available, they address important differences across regions.

15

20

25

30
Part Cs other two chapters address major cross-sectoral considerations. Chapter 11 assesses the aggregated mitigation potential, macro-economic impacts, economic instruments, technology development and transfer, and cross-border influences (or spill-over effects). Chapter 12 links climate mitigation with sustainable development, and assesses the GHG emission impacts of implementing the Millennium Development Goals and other sustainable development policies and targets. Part D has one chapter, Chapter 13. It assesses the interaction between domestic climate policies and various forms of international cooperation and reviews climate change as a global commons issue in the context of sustainable development objectives and policies. It summarizes relevant treaties, cooperative development agreements, private-public partnerships and private sector initiatives and their relationship to climate objectives.

35

40

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 21/11/2005 17:05:00

17

Chapter 1

First Order draft 5 REFERENCES

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

Adger, W.N., Kelly, P.M. and Ninh, N.H., 2001: Living with Environmental Change; Social Vulnerability, Adaptation and Resilience in Vietnam, Routledge.

10

Alcamo, J., P. Mayerhofer, R. Guardans, T. van Harmelen, J. van Minnen, J. Onigkeit, M. Posch et al., 2002: An integrated assessment of regional air pollution and climate change in Europe: findings of the AIRCLIM Project. Environmental Science & Policy 5(4), 257-272. Alley, R.B., J. Marotzke, W.D. Nordhaus, J.T. Overpeck, D.M. Peteet, R.A. Pielke, Jr., R.T. Pierrehumbert et al., 2003: Abrupt Climate Change. Science 299(5615), 2005-2010.

15

Archer, D., and B. Buffett, 2005: Time-dependent response of the global ocean clathrate reservoir to climatic and anthropogenic forcing. Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems 6. Archer, D., P. Martin, B. Buffett, V. Brovkin, S. Rahmstorf, and A. Ganopolski, 2004: The importance of ocean temperature to global biogeochemistry. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 222(2) 333-348. Aunan, K., J. Fang, H. Vennemo, K. Oye, and H.M. Seip, 2004: Co-benefits of climate policy-lessons learned from a study in Shanxi, China. Energy Policy 32(4) 567-581.

20

Baker, E., 2005: Uncertainty and Learning in a Strategic Environment: Global Climate Change, Resource and Energy Economics, 27, 19-40. Budyko, M., 1999: Climate catastrophes. Global and Planetary Change 20(4), 281-288. Burtraw, D., A. Krupnick, K. Palmer, A. Paul, M. Toman, and C. Bloyd, 2003: Ancillary benefits of reduced air pollution in the US from moderate greenhouse gas mitigation policies in the electricity sector. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 45(3) 650-673. Chameides, W.L., H. Yu, S.C. Liu, M. Bergin, X. Zhou, L. Mearns, G. Wang et al., 1999: Case study of the effects of atmospheric aerosols and regional haze on agriculture: An opportunity to enhance crop yields in China through emission controls? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 96(24) 13626-13633.

25

30

Cline, W.R. 2005, Climate Change, in B. Lomborg, ed., Global Crises, Global Solutions, Cambridge University Press, c.1. Dessai, S., W.N. Adger, M. Hulme, J. Turnpenny, J. Kohler, and R. Warren, 2004: Defining and Experiencing Dangerous Climate Change, Climatic Change, 64, 11-25.

35

Emanuel, K., 2005: Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature 436(7051) 686-688. Epstein, L. 1980: Decision Making and the Temporal Resolution of Uncertainty, International Economic Review, 21(2) 269-82. EC, European Commission: 1996. Climate Change - Council conclusions 8518/96, Presse 188-G: 25/26. VI.96, pers. comm.

40

EU, European Union: 2005a. Climate Change: Medium and longer term emission reduction strategies, including targets. Council conclusions. Brussels, European Union: 5. EU, European Union: 2005b. Presidency Conclusions - Brussels, 22 and 23 March 2005 IV. CLIMATE CHANGE. Brussels, European Union: 39.

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 21/11/2005 17:05:00

18

Chapter 1

First Order draft 5

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

Fischer, P.H., B. Brunekreef, and E. Lebret, 2004: Air pollution related deaths during the 2003 heat wave in the Netherlands. Atmospheric Environment 38(8) 1083-1085. Friedlingstein, P., J.L. Dufresne, P.M. Cox, and P. Rayner, 2003: How positive is the feedback between climate change and the carbon cycle? Tellus Series B-Chemical and Physical Meteorology 55(2) 692-700. Giorgi, F. (2005). "Climate Change Prediction." Climatic Change 73(3): 239-265.

10

Giorgi, F., and X. Bi (2005). "Regional changes in surface climate interannual variability for the 21st century from ensembles of global model simulations." Geophysical Research Letters 32(13). Grasso, M., 2004: Climate Change, the Global Public Good, Dipartimento di Sociologia e Ricerca Sociale, Universit degli Studi di Milano, Bicocca, WP econwpa.wustl.edu:8089/eps/othr/papers/0405/0405010.pdf. requires permission to cite.

15

Grubb, M., 2005: Technology Innovation and Climate Change Policy: an overview of issues and options Keio Economic Studies, forthcoming. Hare, W.L. and Meinshausen, M., 2005: How much warming are we committed to and how much can be avoided? Accepted by Climatic Change.

20

Higgins, P.A.T., and M. Vellinga, 2004: Ecosystem responses to abrupt climate change: Teleconnections, scale and the hydrological cycle. Climatic Change 64(1-2) 127-142. Higgins, P.A.T., and S. H. Schneider, 2005: Long-term potential ecosystem responses to greenhouse gasinduced thermohaline circulation collapse. Global Change Biology 11(5) 699-709. Higgins, P.A.T., M.D. Mastrandrea, and S.H. Schneider, 2002: Dynamics of climate and ecosystem coupling: abrupt changes and multiple equilibria. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences 357(1421) 647-655. IEA 2004: World Energy Outlook 2004. OECD/IEA, Paris. IEA 2005. CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion 1971-2003 -- 2005 Edition, 560 pages, ISBN 92-6410891-2 (paper) 92-64-10893-9 (CD ROM)

25

30

Ikeme, J., 2003a: Equity, Environmental Justice and Sustainability: Incomplete Approaches in Climate Change Policies, Global Environmental Change, 13, 195-206. Ikeme, J., 2003b: Climate change adaptational deficiencies in developing countries: The case of sub-Saharan Africa. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 8: 29-52. IPCC, 1996: Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change: ScientificTechnical Analyses. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

35

IPCC, 2000: Guidance papers on the Cross Cutting Issues of the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC. R. Pachauri, T. Taniguchi and K. Tanaka, eds.: IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. IPCC, 2001: Climate Change 2001 - Mitigation. The Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

40

IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on climate Change: 2005: Special Report on Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System: issues related to Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 21/11/2005 17:05:00

19

Chapter 1

First Order draft 5

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

Jasanoff, S. and B. Wynne, Science and Decision-Making 1998: c.1 in Rayner, S. and E. Malone, ed., Human Choice and Climate Change, Vol. I, Batelle Press 1998. JISF, 2005: Japan Iron and Steel federation, http://www.jisf.or.jp/en/activity/050715.html: Jones, C., C. McConnell, K. Coleman, P. Cox, P. Falloon, D. Jenkinson, and D. Powlson, 2005: Global climate change and soil carbon stocks; predictions from two contrasting models for the turnover of organic carbon in soil. Global Change Biol 11(1) 154-166. Jones, R. 2004: Managing Climate Change Risksin Corfee-Morlot, J., ed., The Benefits of Climate Change Policies: Analytical and Framework Issues. Paris, OECD. Kan, H., B. Chen, C. Chen, Q. Fu, and M. Chen, 2004: An evaluation of public health impact of ambient air pollution under various energy scenarios in Shanghai, China. Atmospheric Environment 38(1 SU) 95-102.

10

15

Kane, S.M. and Shogren, J.F., 2000: Linking Adaptation and Mitigation in Climate. Kansuntisukmongko, C., 2004: Irreversibility and Learning in Global Climate Change Problem: Linear and Single-Quadratic Models, http://berkeley.edu/courses/ envres_seminar/s2004/PaperChalotorn.pdf. Kaya Y, 1990: Impact of Carbon Dioxide Emission Control on GNP Growth: Interpretation of Proposed Scenarios. Paper presented to the IPCC Energy and Industry Subgroup, Response Strategies Working Group, Paris. Keller, K., B.M. Bolker, and D. Bradford, 2004: Uncertain Climate Thresholds and Optimal Economic Growth, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 48, 733-741. Knowlton, K., J.E. Rosenthal, C. Hogrefe, B. Lynn, S. Gaffin, R. Goldberg, C. Rosenzweig et al., 2004: Assessing ozone-related health impacts under a changing climate. Environmental Health Perspectives 112(15) 1557-1563. Knutson, T.R., and R.E. Tuleya, 2004: Impact of CO2-induced warming on simulated hurricane intensity and precipitation: Sensitivity to the choice of climate model and convective parameterization. 3477-3495. Kolstad, C.D. 1996: Learning and Stock Effects in environmental Regulation : the Case of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 31(2) p.1-18.

20

25

30

Leemans, R., and B. Eickhout, 2004: Another reason for concern: regional and global impacts on ecosystems for different levels of climate change. Global Environmental Change Part A 14(3) 219-228. Lomborg, B., 2004: Lomborg, ed. Global Crises, Global Solutions, Cambridge University Press. Manning, M.R., M. Petit, D. Easterling, J. Murphy, A. Patwardhan, H-H. Rogner, R. Swart, and G. Yohe, Eds, 2004: IPCC Workshop on Describing Scientific Uncertainties in Climate Change to Support Analysis of Risk and of Options: Workshop report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Geneva. Manning, M.R2005: Mastrandrea, M.D., and S.H. Schneider, 2004: Probabilistic Integrated Assessment of Dangerous Climate Change. Science 304(5670) 571-575. Mc Kibbin, W.J. and Wilcoxen, P.J., 2002: The Role of Economics in Climate Change

35

40

Meehl, G.A., W.M. Washington, W.D. Collins, J.M. Arblaster, A. Hu, L.E. Buja, W.G. Strand et al., 2005: How Much More Global Warming and Sea Level Rise? Science 307(5716) 1769-1772.

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 21/11/2005 17:05:00

20

Chapter 1

First Order draft 5

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

Mickley, L.J., D.J. Jacob, B.D. Field, and D. Rind, 2004: Effects of future climate change on regional air pollution episodes in the United States. Geophysical Research Letters 31(24). Morgenstern, R., A. Krupnick, and X. Zhang, 2004: The Ancillary Carbon Benefits of SO2 Reductions from a Small-Boiler Policy in Taiyuan, PRC. The Journal of Environment Development 13(2) 140-155.

10

Narain, U., M. Hanemann and A. Fisher, 2004: The Temporal Resolution of Uncertainty and the Irreversibility Effect, CUDARE Working Paper 935, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Berkeley. Neuhoff, K., 2005: Large-scale deployment of renewables for electricity generation, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Vol. 21, No. 1, 88-110. NRC, 2002: Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises. Washington D.C., National Academy Press.

15

Obersteiner, M., C. Azar, P. Kauppi, K. Mollersten, J. Moreira, S. Nilsson, P. Read et al. (2001b). "Managing Climate Risk." Science 294(5543): 786b-787. Obersteiner, M., K, Riahi, C. Azar, R. Mechler, Managing Climate Risk (2001b). International Institute for Applied System Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria. IR-01-051, http://www.iiasa.ac.at

20

ODS, Office of Development Studies: 2002: Profiling the provision status of global public goods. New York: United Nations Development Programme. Olivier, J.G.J., J.J.M. Berdowski, J.A.H.W. Peters, J. Bakker, A.J.H. Visschedijk, and J.J. Bloos, 2002: Applications of EDGAR. Including a description of Edgar 3.2: reference database with trend date for 19701995. Bilthoven, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research (TNO), 142.

25

ONeill, B.C. and M. Oppenheimer 2002, Dangerous Climate Impacts and the Kyoto Protocol, Science, 296, 1971-1972. Oppenheimer, M. and R.B. Alley, 2005, Ice Sheets, Global Warming, and Article 2 of the UNFCCC, Climatic Change, in press.

30

Pacala, S. and Socolow, R., 2004: Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies, Science Vol. 305, 968-972 Pindyck, R., 2002: Optimal Timing Problems in Environmental Economics, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 26, 1677-1697. Prather, M., M. Gauss, T. Berntsen, I. Isaksen, J. Sundet, I. Bey, G. Brasseur et al., 2003: Fresh air in the 21st century? Geophysical Research Letters 30(2).

35

Rahmstorf, S., and K. Zickfeld, 2005: Thermohaline circulation changes: A question of risk assessment - An editorial review essay. Climatic Change 68(1-2) 241-247. Reilly, J, F. Tubiello, B. McCarl, D. Abler, R. Darwin, K. Fuglie, S. Hollingr, C. Izauralde, S. Jagtap, J. Jones, L. Mearns, D. Ojima, E. Paul, K. Paustian, S. Riha, N. Rosenberg and C. Rozenzweig, 2003: U.S. Agriculture and Climate Change: New Results, Climatic Change, 57, 43-69.

40

Rial, J.A., R. Pielke Sr., M. Beniston, M. Claussen, J. Canadell, P. Cox, H. Held, N. de Noblet-Ducoudr, R. Prinn, J.F. Reynolds and J.D. Salas (2004). Nonlinearities, Feedbacks and Critical Thresholds Within the Earths Climate System, Climatic Change 65: 1138.

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 21/11/2005 17:05:00

21

Chapter 1

First Order draft 5

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

Rijsberman, F.J., and R.J. Swart eds. 1990. Targets and Indicators of Climate Change, Stockholm Environment Institute. Salinger, M., 2005: Climate variability and change: Past, present and future - An overview. Climatic Change 70(1-2) 9-29.

10

Sanden, B.A. and Azar, C., 2005: Near-term technology policies for long-term climate targets --- economy wide versus technology specific approaches, Energy Policy 33, 1557-1576. Scheffer, M.S., S. Carpenter, J.A. Foley, C. Folke, and B. Walker, 2001: Catastrophic Shifts in Ecosystems, Nature, 413, October, p. 591-6. Schneider, S., 2004: Abrupt Non-linear Climate change, Irreversibility and Surprise, Global Environmental Change, 14, 245-258.

15

Senior, C.A., and J.F.B. Mitchell 2000. The time-dependence of climate sensitivity. Geophysical Research Letters 27(17) 2685-2688. Shindell, D.T., B.P. Walter, and G. Faluvegi, 2004: Impacts of climate change on methane emissions from wetlands. Geophysical Research Letters 31(21:

20

Shove, E., R. Lutsenhiser, S. Guy, B. Hackett and H. Wihite, Energy and Social systems, c.5 in S. Rayner and E.L. Malone, 1998:, Human Choice and Climate Change, Battelle Press, vol. 2, p. 291-325. Smith, K.R., R. Uma, V.V.N. Kishore, J. Zhang, V. Joshi, and M.A.K. Khalil, 2000: Greenhouse Implications of Household Stoves: An Analysis for India. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 25(1) 741-719. Stocker, T.F., and A. Schmittner, 1997: Influence of CO2 emission rates on the stability of the thermohaline circulation. Nature 3(88)862-865.

25

Streets, D.G., and K. Aunan, 2005: The importance of China's household sector for black carbon emissions. Geophysical Research Letters 32(12). Thompson, M. and S. Rayner, Cultural Discourses, c.4, vol. 1, in S. Rayner and E.L. Malone,ed., Human Choice and Climate Change, Battelle Press, 1998, Columbus, Oh.:, 265-344.

30

Tol, R.S.J., and R. Verheyen, 2004: State responsibility and compensation for climate change damages - a legal and economic assessment. Energy Policy 32(9) 1109-1130. Tol, R.S., T.E. Downing, O.J. Kuik, J.B. Smith, 2004: Distributional Aspects of Climate Change Impacts, Global Environmental Change, 14, 259-272. Trenberth, K., 2005: Uncertainty in hurricanes and global warming. Science 308(5729) 1753-1754. UNFCCC, 1992: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. United Nations, New York.

35

UNFCCC, 2001: Marrakech Accords, FCCC/CP/2001/13. UNCED, 1992; Agenda 21, A/CONF.151/26, Vol. I & II: http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/ UN 2000a: United Nations Millennium Declaration, A/Res/55/2 September 18, 2000. UN, 2002a: Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, A/CONF.199/20.

40

UN, 2002b: Monterrey Consensus, A/CONF.198/11. http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/aconf198-11.pdf.

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 21/11/2005 17:05:00

22

Chapter 1

First Order draft 5

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

UN, 2003: Report of the Secretary General: Implementation of the Millennium Declaration, A/58/323, September 2, 2003. UNDESA, 2004: United Nations Millennium Development Goals: Progress Report, UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs and the UN Department of Public Information - DPI/2363, October 27, 2004.

10

van Minnen, J.G., J. Onigkeit, and J. Alcamo, 2002: Critical climate change as an approach to assess climate change impacts in Europe: development and application. Environmental Science & Policy 5(4) 335-347. Vellinga, M., and R.A. Wood, 2002: Global climatic impacts of a collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation. Climatic Change 54(3) 251-267. Venkataraman, C., G. Habib, A. Eiguren-Fernandez, A.H. Miguel, and S.K. Friedlander, 2005: Residential Biofuels in South Asia: Carbonaceous Aerosol Emissions and Climate Impacts. Science 307(5714) 14541456. Webster, M.D., 2002: The Curious Role of Learning in Climate Policy: Should We Wait for More Data?, The Energy Journal, 23(2) 97-119. World Bank, 2004: World Development Indicators 2003. Yang, Hongwei, 2004: AIM/Local 1820042 . Vol.

15

20

Yang, H., M. Kainuma and Y. Matsuoka, 2001: Modeling the clean development mechanism: direct benefits, co-benefits and priorities. Proceedings of International Federation of Automatic Control Workshop on Modeling and Control in Environmental Issues, Keio University, Yokohama, Japan. August 22-23, 2001.

25

Yang, Hongwei and Xu Huaqing, 2003; . 2003 2003 Yohe, G. and R.S. J. Tol, 2002: Indicators for Social and Economic Coping Capacity - Moving Toward a Working Definition of Adaptive Capacity. Global Environmental Change, 12, 25-40.

30

Young, O., 2002: The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change; Fit, Interplay, and Scale. MIT Press. Zhou Dadi, Yang Hongwei, et al., 2004: Chinas energy strategy towards 2020 for the development goal of a farewell society. ERI Report, 2004.

35

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 21/11/2005 17:05:00

23

Chapter 1

INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE

WMO UNEP

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Expert Review of the First-Order Draft

Chapter 1

Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote Page 1 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

0-1

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

I limit my comments to a few overall observations. My major objection against the report is that the caveats have not been spelled out, which makes the report less than scientific. Its is based on the assumption that anthropogenic GHG, particularly CO2, represent major climate forcings. However, new doubts have arisen whether this is really the case. The (peer-reviewed') literature which is sceptical of the man-made global warming hypothesis, has been growing quite impressively over de the last few years. It has been completely ignored. Many observations (e.g. on temperatures and CO2 concentrations, and their development over time) do not match the man-made global warming paradigm. They offer a multitude of anomalies' (in the vocabulary of Thomas Kuhn). This should be recognised. If not, the whole exercise runs the risk of being dismissed by critics as being biased by cherry-picking'. Model-based attribution of the different forcings, influencing the (minor) rise in surface temperatures since the middle of the previous century, cannot be construed as proof of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect, because no single model has ever been validated. The report posits that 450 ppmv CO2 concentration equals 2 degrees warming over the 21 century. In the light of the previous comments on the relationship between the two, this is not proven. It could be argued that these observations do not fit into the Report of Working Group III and that they should be addressed elsewhere. But as far as I know, this has not been done. Anyhow, the authors should make their assumptions explicit in the preamble of the document, so that the reader will be able to form his own opinion in the light of all available views and/or information. Moreover, nowhere reference has been made of the critical report on The Economics of Climate Change', which was issued, in early July 2005, by the British Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Noted uncertainties are spelled out

Reject: WGI issue but is virtualy certain that Anth. GHGs are major climate forcing.

Reject: WGI issue and attribution of anth signal now has very high confidence.

Reject: see above.

Reject: see above

Noted. WGIII uses output from WGI for future projections and uncertainties are dealt with in WGI. Refer to WGI.

Rejected as not relevant to Chapter 1 and could be discussed inter alia in Chapter 13.

Page 2 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs, and the discussion ensuing therefrom. Furthermore, at the recent G-8 Summit at Gleneagles and the Montreal Climate Conference, it has become clear that the first phase of the Kyoto (sort of European mini-Kyoto) will not get any follow-up. This is a crucial fact, which will drastically overturn the outlook presented in earlier IPCC reports. Somehow and somewhere, the authors should deal with this issue and its implications in the document. At various places in the report, it is suggested that (man-made?) climate change (if any) will disproportionably hurt the poor (especially in Africa). However, the causal relationship between the two, has not been convincingly substantiated to my mind. It is, furthermore, suggested that mitigation and sustainable development can be realised without impairing the fight against poverty (in the traditional meaning of the words). Undoubtedly there are many examples where this is true. At the same time, there are many opposite examples, where this is not the case. The relationship is simply more complex than the text wants us to believe. Therefore, a more elaborate and balanced presentation of pros and cons is called for. Another element which is missing is the impact of Kyoto (plus, plus) on our (socio)economic system. It is true, this issue has - so far - hardly been addressed in the climate change literature. But it is nevertheless of utmost importance. Emission trading, which, according to the logic of Kyoto, should be progressively extended to more and more sectors of the economy, will fundamentally change the main features of our (socio)economic system: from a basically free enterprise system to an more centrally planned system, with heavy (international) government intervention. This aspect has, so far, been almost totally ignored in the climate change policy literature. For an elaboration of this line of reasoning, see: http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=120304A As regards sea levels, no acceleration in sea level rise has been recorded, which is inconsistent with the statement that there is a discernable human influence on Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote Noted and the G8 and COP/MOP1 results and their implications are to be mentioned in Chapter 1. Does not affect any earlier IPCC reports as these are not policy prescriptive.

Noted that there is a discussion over this but is principally a WGII issue, will be mentioned in Chapter 1.

Noted that there is a discussion over this and it will be mentioned briefly in Chapter 1.

Noted but beyond scope of Chapter 1. Chapter 3 deals with economic implications of mitigation policies. Rejected as Kyoto is a market mechanism.

Rejected. WGI issue and in any event SLR acceleration has been detected and in any

Page 3 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

climate since the middle of the previous century. Only very rarely reference has been made to cost/benefit analysis. Where this has been the case, the relevant passages were on the whole overstating the benefits and understating the costs. The PPP approach concerning future real growth cum emissions, has not been covered (allegedly because of the fact that most of the literature is still based on market exchange rates). Let's hope that there is still sufficient time to include the outcome of new OECD work on that score which can be expected in the months to come. ---Leimuiden, 4 January 2006. (Hans H.J. Labohm, 0) It is very good indeed that in the report climate change is being placed in the context of sustainable development (SD) and the Millennium Development Goals (MDG). What has not been worked out to the full in this repect is the fact that SD and MDGs will not be reached in a reasonable time given the fact that there simply is not and will not be enough money available. In this respect the concept of Global Public Good, which has received a lot of attention of the last couple of years, could play a role (other than what has been denoted in e.g. chapter 1, paragraph 1.5.2.). It has been proposed as a new frontier of finance for international development. See especially Inge Kaul, Isabele Grunsberg, Marc A. Stern, Global Public Goods (International Cooperation in the 21st Century), UNDP and Oxford University Press, 1999, Inge Kaul, Pedro Conceicao, Katell Le Goulven, Ronald U. Mendoza, Providing Global Public Goods, UNDP, Oxford University Press, 2003. On the basis of the notion of Global Public Good innovative mechanisms for dealing with the climate change issue from a world-wide perspective; e.g. a CO2-tax, have been proposed. Through such a tax the environmental and development dimension of climate change could be clearly interlinked. This relates to the concept of the environmental footprint (Wackernagel and Rees, 1996; chapter 12, page 25, line 45) but is a more direct derivation of global warming. The CO2-footprint has been introduced by the World Wildlife Fund. The CO2-footprint of every inhabitant in the world could be related to the intrinsic capacity of the earth to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (about two tons of CO2 per year). Payment, in preferably an international fund, should start when this threshold is passed. The Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

event its detection is not relevant to the discernable influence statement. Rejected as not relevant to Chapter 1 and is discussed in Chapter 2

0-2

Page 4 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

0-3

0-4

average emissions per year in most developing countries are still below 2 tons of CO2. They will receive money. Industrialized countries have to pay on the basis of their per capita footprint. Such a system could generate a lot of money for development and at the same time provide an economic incentive to reduce emissions. See in this respect: A, Sandmo, Environmental Taxation and Revenue for Development, in: A.B. Atkinson, 2005, New Sources for Development Finance, UNU-Wider Studies in Development Economics, Oxford University Press. See also D. Bradford, Improving on Kyoto: Greenhouse Gas Control as the Purchase of a Global Good, CEPS Working Paper No. 96, January 2004 (Gert de Gans, Kerkinactie) The units are different among the chapters. For example, the unit of CO2 emissions, GtC in fig.3.17, Mt-CO2 in Fig.5.28. The unit should be uniformed. (Toshihiko Masui, National Institute for Environmental Studies) In general, I found the quality of the report to be very uneven. The chapters that address mitigation potential in individual sectors that I managed to scan were far superior to the cross-cutting chapters 1, 12 and 13 that I reviewed in greater depth. The latter chapters generally do not constitute a systematic assessment of the state-ofthe-art, based on publicly-available information, but are often anecdotal, reflecting only the view of the author or a very limited number of references or examples, even in cases where there is a rich literature on the subject. It will be crucial that these chapters are improved to meet the same standards of rigor that the WG1 report does, or the credibility of the IPCC as an independent assessment panel will be compromised. (Anne Arquit Niederberger, Policy Solutions) General comment: The level of detail of the draft text on co-benefits is uneven across chapters. Some discussions are relatively detailed, and some are very cursory. It would be better to have greater consistency across chapters and sections. (Mark Heil, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) GENERAL COMMENT: Good treatment of SD linkages. Developing country (DC) literature on sustainable development could be used more, since it provides a different viewpoint. Some recent publications have been left out: e.g., the most up-to-date and Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Accepted

Noted and will be taken into account in rewriting.

0-5

accepted

0-6

Page 5 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

0-7

0-8

0-9

0-10

0-11

comprehensive reference is (MMRS 2005) = Munasinghe, M. and Swart, R. 2005. Primer on Climate Change and Sustainable Development, Cambridge Univ. Press, UK. (Mohan Munasinghe, Munasinghe Institute for Development (MIND)) Innovation is present in the whole report, yet how to steer innovation in the desired direction is not clear. How succesfull are policies directed at innovation, when sustainability or CO2-emissions rather than financial succes is the most important criteria? Presently, I am preparing research on this issue, and would like to take topics around climate and energy as a special case. (Tineke van der Schoor, Sustainability Centre Lauwersoog/ RUG-Bedrijfskunde) In general, the importance of the public, of education, of changing behavior, could be more worked out as a separate issue. How to reach the public, how to involve consumers, what do consumers want, and then think again about technology, this is being overlooked. Many technological development paths as sketched in this report, but also in a lot of other publications (like the 'energy transition' in the Netherlands, are very technocratic in nature and fail to note people. Human beings seen as subjects, not as objects. As continually choosing, problemsolving, thinking individuals. The same comment goes for the integration of sustainable development in the curricula of schools. Not as a separate topic, but integrated in the normal courses. This issue is taken up in the Centre for Sustainability, mentioned above. (Tineke van der Schoor, Sustainability Centre Lauwersoog/ RUG-Bedrijfskunde) The developing world need energy for their development. Therefore denying them access to affordable energy sources through imposing policies that will make energy unaccessable will hinder their development and creat an unfair situation. (Mohammed Alfehaid, Saudi Aramco) In general, I found many of the chapters weak in providing references for key statements. While it is nice to save page length by not providing references and thus no bibliographic citations it does a dis-service to the reader. All chapter should take care to make sure that statements are bettere referenced and the TSU should be aware of this as well. Contrast this with WG2 who may have gone too far the other way in some cases.... (Jeff Price, California State University, Chico) I have not made comments on references, since I assumed this is dealt with by the technical support unit. However, I just want to mention that there are citations Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Noted and will be discussed in Article 2 and energy security issues.

Noted

Noted

Page 6 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

0-12

0-13

0-14

0-15

0-16

0-17

given in text here and there that does not appear in the list of references. (Gran Berndes, Chalmers University of Technology) Global climate change is a worldwide challenge and climate protection needs joint efforts by all countries. (James Bero, BASF Corporation) To avoid misunderstandings and errors, it may be helpful to use both Ceq and CO2eq. In most plubications for public and policy makers, greenhouse gas emissions are given in units gCO2eq/kWh or gCO2/kWh, which in itself may be confusing. The chance of wrongly quoted numbers increases with the introduction of two additional units gCeq/kWh and gC/kWh. (Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen, Ceedata Consulting) Suggestion to use SI units and SI notation throughout the report. For example: 1 Gt (1 gigaton or gigatonne? Metric tonne, short ton, long ton?) is not a SI unit and introduces ambiguities. Suggestion: use 1 Mg = 1 megagram = 1 metric tonne, 1 Gg = 1 gigagram = 10E9 gram = 1000 metric tonnes 1 Tg = 1 teragram = 10E12 gram = 1 million metric tonnes. For example: 0.7 GtC/yr becomes in SI notation: 0.7 Tg(C)/a (Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen, Ceedata Consulting) General comment: The FAR is a comprehensive, massive and impressive piece of work. Due to its size and depth, however, it is not very easy to digest. (Jan Paul van Soest, Advies voor Duurzaamheid on request of International Gas Union) There seems to have been little communication between the chapters. In particular, there is a good review of the issues of technological change in chapter 2, that is not reflected in chapter 3, where technological change is of vital importance. The material inchapter 2 is also not reflected in chapter 11, although the macroeconomic intersectoral analysis of chpater 11 requires an assessment of technology. (Jonathan Khler, Tyndall Centre, University of Cambridge) While the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of WG III contains a wealth of information, I think it lacks a clear and concise statement (a "vision" if you will) of the mitigation/stabilization problem. While, to be sure, there is much relevant and useful material regarding stabilization throughout the thirteen chapters, it is difficult to find a clear statement of what seems to me the crucial question: What will it take Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Noted

Noted

Noted

Agree

Noted

Noted and will be taken into account in rewritting

Page 7 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

to "stabilize climate" (by which I mean stabilize the atmospheric concentration of GHGs--or at least CO^2)? There are, of course, differing views regarding the answer to that question (the differences mainly centered on the importance, availability, and scaleability of carbon-emission free energy technologies--more on this later). It would be very helpful, therefore, if this question was explicitly posed up front, and, as well, explicitly acknowledged that among experts in the field there are different views and different approaches to answering this key question. I think the appropriate place to pose the "what will it take" question is in the Introductory Chapter (Ch 1), perhaps on p.5 after the conclusion of section 1.2 on article 2 of the FCCC convention. It might also be helpful to briefly set out the differing views about what it will take to "stabilize climate". For example, material in the last paragraph on p.68 of Chapter 2 could be usefully employed in Chapter 1. I think the AR4 report needs to acknowledge, from the outset, an important implication of the SRES emission scenarios, and scenarios that are similar to the SRES. The implication to which I refer is a general tendency to understate (perhaps greatly so) the costs and general difficulty of achieving stabilization. Because many of the 40 individual SRES reference scenarios have already built into them high long term (110 year) rates of global energy intensity decline (the main exception being the A2 family), and large amounts of carbon-free energy, their use in mitigation/stabilization analysis is likely to substantially understate the magnitude and cost of the stabilization task. Although, there is reference in Chapter 3 to other emission scenarios, it is not clear whether any other (than SRES) reference scenarios were used by the very large number of mitigation analyses that are reported in the chapter. Of particular interest here is whether the EMF-21 modelling scenarios used different baselines than those implied by the SRES. The reason for interest is that, as portrayed in chapter 3, including Figures 3.25 and 3.26, the EMF21 appears to estimate much higher GDP costs of stabilization than do the great body of other mitigation scenarios. An obvious question is whether the difference in GDP costs of stabilization reflects the way in which the reference (or baseline) scenario(s) were constructed. (Another question is why Chapter 11 appears to have overlooked the EMF-21 findings.) To the Report's credit, it does include, in Chapter 2, a set of Figures (2.9.2) that reflect the excellent work, initially carried out by Edmonds for the IS92a scenario, demonstrating how much technology change is already assumed in reference emission scenarios. Figure 2.9.2 makes clear that the SRES reference scenarios incorporate a very large share of the Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote Page 8 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

emission-reducing "gains" from future technological change. What is unclear is the degree to which other parts of the Report take the reference scenarios as given (as if the embedded technological change were supplied as manna from heaven) and focus on what extra is needed for stabilization. For example, in Chapters 4-7, how much of the technological improvements from current practice will be required to meet the technological change incorporated in the reference scenarios? Arguably, most, if not all, will be. If so, then little or nothing is left over to achieve stabilization. The implications for interpreting the findings on the cost of mitigation reported in Chapter 11 are important. The relatively low costs estimates reported there for achieving stabilization (often generated by models assuming a carbon-free backstop technology) may be the result of effectively "double counting" the contribution of technological change, first in the reference scenario and second in the mitigation/stabilization scenario. Thus while the reader can find scattered statements about just how difficult it will be to achieve stabilization", the cost estimates reported in Chapter 11 make the economic (GDP) cost of stabilization seem small-and they do so in part because of a lack of clarity on the technologymitigation issue in other parts of the report. One result is to continue to leave the false impression, initially generated in WG III TAR, that if we could only overcome socio-economic and institutional inertia, stabilization can be relatively easily achieved in the 21st century. One way to illustrate the nature and importance of reference scenarios for assessments of the difficulty of achieving stabilization is to contrast the paper by Pacala and Socolow (Science, 2004), which is frequently discussed as well as cited in AR4, with Hoffert et.al (Nature, 1998) which does not appear to be cited at all by AR4 (although there are a number of citations to a subsequent Hoffert et al paper (Science, 2002). Pacala and Socolow (P-S) conclude that (given the rate of growth of GDP) the technologies are available to stabilize emissions for the next 50 years (out to 2054), by assuming that energy intensity decline will automatically decline at a global average annual rate of 1.0%, and that the carbon intensity of energy will decline at a 0.5% rate. Thus, in considering the availability and scaleability of carbon-free energy technologies, P-S only consider what is needed over and above a 1.5% rate of decline in the carbon intensity of output. In contrast, Hoffert et al (Nature,1998) ask how much carbon free energy (power) is required to stabilize (given the rate of growth of GDP), and varying rates of decline in energy intensity, and find that the amounts are generally so large that major technological breakthroughs in the supply of carbon-free energy would Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote Page 9 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

almost certainly be required for stabilization. The Hoffert, et al, Science, 2002, article attempted to demonstrate that no individual or combination of carbonemission-free technologies is up to the task. The Caldeira, et al (Science, 2003) article demonstrated the climate sensitivity implications for the speed and amount of carbon-free energy deployment. One disturbing implication, in my view, of the two Hoffert et.al and the Caldeira, et al, papers, taken together, is that if climate sensitivity is on the high side and if the threshold for acceptable temperature change is relatively low (say, 2 C), avoiding DAI may be, for all practical purposes, impossible. The possibility that energy technology cannot be changed fast enough, and in the required magnitudes, in time to avoid DAI should be recognized in the Report. It would be useful if the sector-based chapters (especially 4-7) provided a rough idea of the overall (within sector) increase in energy efficiency that is potentially achievable over the course of the 21st century. As the AR4 now stands, while estimates of energy efficiency are given for some individual users of energy, there is no indication of what these add up to on a global and cross-sectoral basis. But it is arguably very important to know something quantitatively about the overall potential for energy efficiency improvement, because that improvement, in combination with sectoral shifts in the share of economic activity, determine the overall decline in energy intensity. As Hoffert et al, (Nature, 1998) demonstrated (using the Kaya identity and a carbon cycle model), the rate of growth in GDP, and the rate of decline in energy intensity, determine the amount of carbon-free energy required for stabilization. Having some idea how much carbon-free energy is required for stabilization not only tells us how much technology change will be required on the energy supply side, but it may shed light on whether, as a practical matter, we can avoid a "dangerous anthropogenic interference" (DAI) with climate, given climate sensitivity and some estimate of how much warming is acceptable (say 2C). There is another reason why it would be useful to have some quantitative idea of what can be achieved on a sectoral basis (on a global scale) in terms of energy efficiency. It would help evaluate the plausibility of reference emission scenarios. In my view this is critical because three-quarters of the 40 SRES emission scenarios have pair-wise energy and GDP growth rates that imply 110 year (1990-2100) global average annual rates of energy intensity decline above 1.1%. Century-long, global average annual rates in excess of 1.1% seem implausibly high for the following reasons. The scope for energy efficiency increases in the electricity-generating sector are likely limited by thermodynamic Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote Page 10 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

factors to 100% or less. The same is almost surely the case for the heavy transport sub-sector (including boats airplanes railroads and heavy trucks). Together these sectors account for about 45% of energy consumed, and that share is likely to increase as more of the world is hooked up to the electric grid. While, 300% increases in energy efficiency are potentially achievable globally (more in the US), over the course of the 21st century, in the automobile/light truck and residential/commercial sectors, the scope for improvement in the industrial sector is more limited. Even if a 200% improvement in energy efficiency in the industrial sector is achievable, the weighted increase in energy efficiency across all sectors would, at most, be 200%.-and probably substantially less. Given the assumed increase in the relative importance of the electricity generating sector, it can be shown that these numbers imply that at best energy intensity in 2100 would be about 30% of the level in 1990. That works out to a 1.09% average annual rate of decline in energy intensity- a rate that we would have to work very hard to achieve. It is a rate that will require important advances in technology, ones that will require a long term commitment to well-funded R&D, and will not happen as if manna from heaven. Yet 30 of 40 SRES reference scenarios have imbedded within them 110 year global average annual rates of decline in energy intensity in excess of 1.09%. Moreover, 25 of the 40 SRES reference scenarios incorporate upward of 350 EJ/yr of renewable energy (including "new", but not old, biomass)-an order of magnitude above current levels. Arguably, the plausibility of most of the SRES emission is in doubt, yet they are used to carry out stabilization analyses. 4. In summary, while I would not quarrel with the chapter outline of the report, I believe that the manner in which the mitigation/stabilization issue is framed in the report could be substantially improved. So too, the individual components of the report need to be tied together in a more coherent and relevant manner-and related to what I believe should be the central theme of the Report, "what will it take to stabilize"? As Chapter 11 makes clear, it is now widely accepted that technology and technological change will be crucial to stabilization. How much technological change, and how to assure the necessary research, development and deployment, remains uncertain and in dispute. The answers to these questions are the key to successful stabilization and to whether stabilization can be achieved before the threshold of DAI is breached. The science of climate change, as reported by IPCC WG I, convincingly demonstrates that we face major problems from rising emissions and concentrations of GHGs, especially CO^2. Unfortunately, WG III in Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote Page 11 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

0-18

0-19

0-20

its TAR fumbled the ball in failing to make clear just how difficult achieving stabilization short of DAI will be, both technologically and economically. Based on my reading of the First Order Draft of WG III AR4, the fumble has not yet been recovered. It is to be hoped that recovery is still possible before final publication. (Christopher Green, McGill University) I am missing in the report the ugency of the geopolitical dimension of climate change in relation to energy provision. (Even more) serious conflicts could arise as a result of the increased demands for oil and other resources by countries like China en India. (Gert de Gans, Kerkinactie) Congratulations on such an excellent start! The emphasis on sustainable development hits the very heart of the GHG problem in the future. (Tao Ren, Utrecht University) There is much new literature about regional abatement costs of allocation schemes, which are not described in this report. Herewith a brief summary. Studies of energy system-models: Criqui, P. et al.: 2003. Greenhouse gas reduction pathways in the UNFCCC Process up to 2025; den Elzen, M.G.J. and Lucas, P.: 2005, The FAIR model: a tool to analyze environmental and costs implications of climate regimes, Environmental Modeling and Assessment 10(2), 115-134; den Elzen, M.G.J., Lucas, P. and van Vuuren, D.P.: 2005b, Abatement costs of post-Kyoto climate regimes, Energy Policy 33(16), pp. 2138-2151; Nakicenovic, N. and Riahi, K.: 2003. Model runs with MESSAGE in the Context of the Further Development of the Kyoto-Protocol. WBGU - German Advisory Council on Global Change, WBGU website, http://www.wbgu.de/, Berlin, Germany; Persson, T.A., Azar, C. and Lindgren, K.: 2006, Allocation of CO2 emission permits economic incentives for emission reductions in developing countries, Energy Policy In Press. Also of macro-economic model analyses (although there are many others as well): Buchner, B. and Carraro, C., 2003. Emissions Trading Regimes and Incentives to Participate in International Climate Agreements. FEEM Working paper 104.03, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM), Milan, Italy. Bhringer, C. and Lschel, A., 2003. Climate Policy Beyond Kyoto: Quo Vadis? A Computable General Equilibrium Analysis Based on Expert Judgements. ZEW Discussion Paper No. 0309, Centre for European Economic Research, Mannheim, Germany.; Bhringer, C. and Welsch, H., 1999. C&C - Contraction and Convergence of Carbon Emissions: The Economic Implications of Permit Trading, ZEW Discussion Paper No. 99-13, Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Noted and will be taken into account in rewritting.

noted

Page 12 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

0-21

0-22

0-23

0-24

Centre for European Economic Research, Mannheim, Germany; Bollen, J., C , Manders, A.J.G. and Veenendaal, P.J.J., 2004. How much does a 30% emission reduction cost? Macroeconomic effects of post-Kyoto climate policy in 2020. CPB Document no 64, Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, The Hague. (Michel den Elzen, The Netherlands Environmental Agency) The regional costs implications of post-2012 regimes for the allocation of emission allowances (future commitments) is not described in the overall report. Chapter 3 describes the regional costs of 4 IPCC SRES regions (based on EMF study), based on one (costs-based) regimes based on full IET and marginal costs. This seems rather ad-hoc choice, as there are many allocation schemes based on various equity principles and allocation schemes (i.e. Multi-Stage, Triptych, Contraction & Convergence, costs-allocation etc) (IIASA, WBGU, MNP-RIVM, Chalmers University/Gothenburg, CIRED, University in USA, MIT, etc. etc.). Chapter 13 describes part of these regimes (in fact not the costs-based regimes) as analyzed in the literature, but do not describe the regional costs implications (* see commentblock: in which I have included the some of the new literature in this field). In fact Chapter 11, discusses only one macro-economic study, i.e. Bollen et al. I would recommend discussing the regional costs in Chapter 3, and in Chapter 13 and Chapter 11. I can deliver some text on this issue. (Michel den Elzen, The Netherlands Environmental Agency) WGIII is not the competent IPCC Working Group to assess vulnerability of systems to temperature rise - that is principally the task of WGII and, to an extent, WGI. Throughout the WGIII report a figure of 2C for DAI is used, however, this has very little explanation or underpinning in the literature cited. For consistency the range of values expressed in the WGII report should be reflected in the WGIII report. (Spencer Edwards, Australian Greenhouse Office) Throughout the sectoral chapters there is no consistency in the dates used to report proportions of sectoral emissions (for example in Chapter 5 - Transport - figures for greenhouse gas emissions in 2000 are used; while in Chapter 6 - Residential and Commercial Buildings - 2004 figures are used). If there is no consistent use of dates/figures across sectors in the literature, this should be clearly explained and accounted for in a framework/consolidation chapter. (Spencer Edwards, Australian Greenhouse Office) Throughout the report, mitigation efforts are equated with political instruments Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Noted, already considered.

Noted.

Noted, will be taken into account in the body

Page 13 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

0-25

0-26

(particularly the Kyoto Protocol). For example in Chapter 1 at page 2 it is stated that "The entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol in February 2005 marks a first, though modest step, towards the implementation of Article 2". This statement fails to take into account the significant mitigation efforts already being implemented by Parties under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the plethora of national mitigation measures that have been underway in a host of countries for many years. References in the WGIII report should concern specific mitigation activities rather than to compliance (or otherwise) with any particular political instrument. It is, therefore, submitted that a review be conducted of the report to ensure that references to the Kyoto Protocol are proportionate to its role in the body of mitigation literature. (Spencer Edwards, Australian Greenhouse Office) The use of 2006 references throughout the report, tends to obscure the transparency of the expert review process. If reviewers cannot obtain cited papers, it becomes difficult for an adequate assessment to be made of the literature used to constitute and support the assessment report. (Spencer Edwards, Australian Greenhouse Office) see my word paper on two proposed Common Methodologies for Priority Assessment of Mitigation Measures (PAMM) and for Priority Assessments of Adaptation (PAA) (Robbert Misdorp, PUM) Each of the sectoral chapters focuses on different regions to provide examples as to mitigation efforts. A more uniform treatment of the regions is necessary to provide a comprehensive summary of each mitigation sector. (Spencer Edwards, Australian Greenhouse Office) Considered as a FOD, the report is in reasonable shape, and may---given progress already made at this stage--be reasonably expected to be up to (if not actually even over) the high standard already set by previous AR's. As advised, comments below concentrate on attempting to add value to specific content in, and the general direction of, AR4 as specified in its TOR. As also advised, therefore, comments made here specifically exclude any grammatical, linguistic and/or syntactic errors (glaring or otherwise) still present in this draft. In view of the time available to me, unfortunately only selected chapters are reviewed here in detail (naturally, without prejudice to the remainder). That said however (based on an initial, Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

of the chapter.

noted

0-27

noted

0-28

Noted and agree

Page 14 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

0-29

0-30

0-31

somewhat abridged, reading) I have reservations that a number of the most crucial cross-cutting issues have themselves not been adequately synthesised in terms of an overall requirement to get to grips with a global mitigation challenge that many policymakers still appear to be at risk of failing if Article 2 of UNFCCC is to be ultimately fullfilled. The introduction of Art 2 itself as a cross-cutter provides--it seems to me at least--- an opportunity to situate the challenge more firmly (vis a vis previous reports) where it ultimately belongs---i.e. explicitly within the arena of UNFCCC. Therefore one of the biggest problems (familiar to us all) namely the Annex-1 vs NA1 configuration has unfortunately not been adequately tackled throughout the report in my view. This is unfortunate, as I believe it is certainly highly arguable that a synthesis of the decision and policy-making, sustainable development, regional issues and short vs long-term cross cutting drivers could reasonably be summoned up as a strong case to incorporate a much larger and wider-spread review of the plentiful literature concentrating on the A1 vs NA1 dialectic. Subsequent comments below are framed against this context. (Pat Finnegan, Grian) Confidence ranges that are used for mitigation technology development could be included. The Working Group II practice of including specific confidence ranges in brackets after a forecast is made (as is done to a small extent in the Executive Summary of Chapter 9) could provide a useful addition to the report. (Spencer Edwards, Australian Greenhouse Office) chapters 5-10 disregard generaly the social and regional differences when addressing the problems and solutions of these sectors as if these problems emanate from only one single society or region. (Mohammed Alfehaid, Saudi Aramco) As former Technical Secretary of the IPCC-WGII-Subgroup Coastal Zone Management 1989 - 1994 and present Netherlands Governmental IPCC Peer Reviewer WGII and III, I strongly suggest to the IPCC - Chair: do not shy away, do not introduce the word uncertainties" unnecessarily too much in the text of the FAR. Replace the word "uncertainty", because the cause you are fighting for is a right cause, and too much use of this word "uncertainties" will shy away the needed future investors. And I assume that that is not the intention of IPCC. Furthermore please come up with clear instructions on systematic mitigation and adaptation for each country so that all the 190 member countries will follow your leadership and enjoy the transfer of knowledge provided by IPCC in an harmonized and effective Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote Page 15 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

0-32

0-33

0-34

0-35

0-36

fashion. I politely invite the chairman of IPCC to announce the introduction of the hereunder proposed Common Methodologies on PAMM and PAA in the IPCCFAR, which in my view ought to be developed by IPCC. (Robbert Misdorp, PUM) Discussion(s) of carbon sequestration are difficult to identify in the outline of the entire report. There is a clear inclusion of sequestration in the agriculture and forestry chapters -- but it took me a while to find the discussion of sequestration related to fossil fuels. (Stan Bull, National Renewable Energy Laboratory) Throughout the whole draft report there is almost a total absence of gender analysis in relation to climate change and mitigation. From the limited research done it is clear that different energy and mitigation options have different impacts on men and women and this should be reflected in this report. See for example: Mainstreaming Gender into the Climate Change Regime 14 December 2004 COP10 Buenos Aires http://www.genanet.de/fileadmin/downloads/Stellungnahmen_verschiedene_en/Ge nder_and_climate_change_COP10.pdf and Lorena Aguilar (2004) Climate Change and Disaster Mitigation (IUCN) available on-line: http://www.iucn.org/congress/women/Climate.pdf (Lars Friberg, Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe) The sections on innovation and technological change in chapter 2, 3, 4 and 11 need a common view on how innovation processes work. All of them should include the perspective of the systems of innovation literature and the model of feedbacks between all phases of innovation. Chapters 3, 4, and 11 already imply that climate policies also have important feedbacks on generation of technologies. This view should be more thoroughly discussed in chapter 2, which lays out the foundations on how innovation processes work (see comment on chapter 2 below) (Rainer Walz, Fraunhofer Institute Systems and Innovation Research) My general impression is that the report should highlight the changes compared to TAR more specifically. In many chapters, the 'delta' to TAR is hard to conceive. (Fritz Reusswig, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research) It is noted that the terms are not used in a consistent manner throughout the whole report. It is strongly encouraged to better harmonize. (Radunsky Klaus, Umweltbundesamt) Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

accepted

Page 16 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

0-37

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

0-38

0-39

0-40

It is noted that the scope of the WG3 report should be to provide on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of climate change mitigation. However, in its current status not all subchapters of the FOD are consistent with that scope. This is because a) the scope has been interpreted too broad and information clearly goes beyond the scientific basis of climate change mitigation, covering e.g. issues of a primarily political nature as the scientific basis of climate change should be mainly limited to methodological and conceptual issues but clearly shall not include issues related to implementation; b) the literature to be addressed should in general be limited to literature published after 1999 as it has to be assumed that the TAR already covered all relevant literature until 1999, c) the report should also be limited to more robust findings that can be based on more than one publication; d) conclusions included in the TAR need not be replicated but providing detailed reference could also help to keep the report concise and short. (Radunsky Klaus, Umweltbundesamt) It is noted that the length of the FOD (about 1300 pages) is considerable above the envisaged length. However, there seems to be room to shorten the report, e.g. be limiting the text to the scope as specified by the IPCC plenary (see below) and by streamlining the text by avoiding addressing the same information more than once. (Radunsky Klaus, Umweltbundesamt) It is noted that the FOD includes whole paragraphs without any linkage to other parts of the report or to literature. This clearly is inconsistent with the requirement of providing information on an open and transparent basis but may be interpreted as an indication that the text reflects the views of the authors but not findings identified in the underlying literature. Any text, that cannot be linked to underlying literature therefore should also be deleted in the SOD. If there are gaps in literature that do not allow to provide information based on literature but that should be provided according to the agreed outline than such findings should also be clearly indicated as that could help to guide future research. (Radunsky Klaus, Umweltbundesamt) I am very concerned that the focus of the Report, and particularly Chapters 3 and 4, is predominantly on the next 50 years, and subdominantly on the remainder of this century. The reality illustrated by the analysis of Wigley, Richels and Edmonds (and later analyses provided for example on pages 223-224 of the TAR Climate Change 2001, The Scientific Basis) BUT IGNORED HERE, is that the problem is Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote Page 17 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

0-41

much longer term than this. Furthermore, the problem is 10x larger in the long term (~50,000 EJ / 50 years) than in the short term (~5000 EJ / 50 years). As part of the resolution of this problem, we need to introduce technologies in the present century that can almost fully replace carbon-emitting technologies in the next century. Thus we need to be advancing new energy technologies with very high total potential, and we need to be moving to energy uses that are consistent with very low CO2 emission. While it is important to pay attention to the near term, this report must absolutely also keep the much larger long term challenge in focus. It is critical that analyses looking to 2200 be included in this report, as they were in the TAR. See the attached analysis of future non-carbon energy needs, labeled "WRE Analysis.pdf". (Robert Goldston, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory) Preliminary Comments: My relevant areas of expertise are inverse integrated assessment modeling for climate change decision support and energy system modeling for energy policy support. The integrated assessment modeling is based on the tolerable windows approach (TWA) (other broadly equivalent terms include the guard-rail approach and safe-landing analysis). I have therefore concentrated on those parts of the WG III AR4 (principally chapters 2, 3, and the glossary), where the tolerable windows approach is discussed. As one of the lead developers of the TWA, I paid particular attention to the consistent usage of TWA-related terminology throughout the entire report. And as the AR4 is intended to provide a comprehensive assessment of scientific progress since the TAR, I took the liberty of adding two publications to the cited literature in order to highlight recent advances in the applicability of the TWA method. I have also proposed a substantial revision to the glossary entry for TWA. (Thomas Bruckner, Technical University of Berlin) IPCC, 2001 and the like are not valid references. The particular chapter of the assessment should be referenced using the lead authors' names. (Nick Campbell, ARKEMA SA) In many of the chapters there should be further reference to relevant sections from WG I and or II FOD report. This would be useful to ensure full consistency of the reported findings and to demonstrate the interactions between the WGs, which do not seem fully optimal at this stage. Such systematic linking work will be time Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

noted

0-42

0-43

Page 18 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

0-44

0-45

0-46

0-47

consuming, it is though necessary. (Philippe Tulkens, TERI School of Advanced Studies) Do a clear distinction between "Biological carbon sequestration" involving the enhanced uptake of atmospheric CO2 by plants, forest, soils, and ocean fertlisation, and "Carbon dioxide Capture and Storage (CCS) involving the capture of CO2 from industrial and energy-related sources and its long-term storage. This disctinction is very clear in the IPCC Special Report on CO2 Capture and Storage. It never uses the term "sequestration" for the CCS technology, and mentions explicitely that it does not cover "biological carbon sequestration". Such distinction is for instance clear in Chapters 3, 7, 8, 12 but should be made in other Chapters such as Chapters 4, 5, 11 etc. (CZERNICHOWSKI-LAURIOL Isabelle, BRGM) Chapter "GLOSSARY": Page 21: Line 35-40: Please replace the old TWA definition by (see cell above): "The tolerable windows approach (TWA) seeks to identify the set of all climate protection strategies that are simultaneously compatible with (a) prescribed longterm climate protection goals, and (b) normative restrictions placed on the emissions mitigation burden. These constraints or guard-rails can include limits on the magnitude and rate of global mean temperature change, on the weakening of the thermohaline circulation, on ecosystem type loss, and on economic welfare losses originating from selected climate damages, adaptation costs, and directed mitigation efforts. For a given set of guard-rails, and assuming that a solution exists, the TWA outputs an emissions corridor which delineates all complying emissions paths. Safe-landing analysis is similar in concept and if no particular research line is indicated, then the term guard-rail approach covers both." (Thomas Bruckner, Technical University of Berlin) The Report do not include any section about reserves, resources and prices, as it was not planned, but now under present conditions and the important relation to mitigation and not conventional technologies I suggest to consider some assessment of latest trends. (Juan Llanes, Havana University) The integration of the whole report requires much more work. Particularly in the treatment of costs and benefits of mitigation and technology, there is a lack of integration over chapters 2, 3, 4-10 and 11. My suggestion as to how to divide up the costs literature over chapters 2, 3 and 11 is that concepts should be in 2, Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote Page 19 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

0-48 0-49

A A

0 0

0 0

0-50 0-51

A A

0 0

0 0

0-52

numbers for 2050 to 2100 should be in 3 and numbers for 2000 to 2050 in 11. However, Figures in chapter 3 may well need data over history and between 2005 and 2050 to make a point. Dividing up the technology literature is more difficult. My suggestion is that chapter 2 covers concepts and definitions, and explains the main ways that technology has been modelled (e.g. covering Clarke and Weyant, 2002) and later developments in the treatment as in Edenhofer, 2006), 3 covers baseline issues and effects of technology in cost-benefit studies which require a very long-term analysis and cost-effectiveness studies of stabilisation covering 2050 to 2100, and 11 covers technology in cost-effectiveness studies and attempts to integrate them with the technologies discussed in 4 to 10. When covering both cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness studies, it should be made clear in chapter 3 that there is a subsantial different between them as regards costs and effects of induced technological change as brought out in (Goulder and Matthai, 2000). There are so many estimates of GDP costs and carbon permit prices in recent literature that a meta-analysis is worth doing to supplement the tabulated comparison on models and qualitative discussion with some quantitative estimates to sort out the reasons for the differences. (Terry Barker, 4CMR Centre for Climate Change Mitigation Research, University of Cambridge) References: only 7.6 percent from developing countries in chapters 1,2,3,11,12.!!!!! (Juan Llanes, Havana University) Chapter 1, 2 and 12 dedicate more than 70 pages to Sustainable Development, suggest reviewing chapter 2 and 12 overlaps (Juan Llanes, Havana University) Also overlaps with regards to ancillary benefits within chapter 11 and 4-10 (Juan Llanes, Havana University) Almost all quotations to economic issues relays on the neoclassical approach, other approaches as ecological economics and bioeconomics both with well-known Journals are not included as alternatives to be assessed, specially on chapter 2,3, and 11. (Juan Llanes, Havana University) There is a general problem how to handle the TAR. Should it be summarized or just cited as a reference? THis issue is not dealt with in the same way in the different chapters. Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

noted

noted

noted

Page 20 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

0-53

0-54

0-55

0-56

0-57

(Marco Mazzotti, Institute of Process Engineering) The whole present report gives a good updated material and captures as well new recent information. Chapters 2, 3, 11 and 12 will be in that regard very important, in the sense they are going to capture cross sectoral informations as well as long term perspective consequences of all the relevant informations. I recommend that particular attention is given to these chapters, which will be of added value, for the whole process. (Jean-Yves CANEILL, Electricit de France) Very comprehensive document, but from the Chapters I have carefully read, I would like to see more integration between Ch. 4 and the general aspects covered in Ch. 2, 12 and 13. Presume this also relates to the other sectoral chapters. (Oren Kjell, Norsk Hydro ASA) There are a number of practical consequences of taking such a view seriously. One is that distributional issues are much more important than commonly recognized. Mainstream economics acknowledges the existence of a declining marginal utility of income, but with limited exception it is not incorporated into economic analysis. Frankly, there is not - and I would argue cannot be - an objective measure of the declining marginal utility of income; in practice it is a choice of the analyst, and - as with the choice of a discount rate - it implies that costs are fundamentally indeterminate, and specifiable only by value choices of the analyst. The few studies (e.g., the work of Richard Tol and Christian Azar) that have taken this up have demonstrated that the conclusions of climate policy analyses are enormously dependent on these choices, but the consequences of this indeterminacy havent been widely acknowledged. (Paul Baer, Stanford University) One issue that seems to have fallen between the scope of chapter outlines is any analysis of the financial sector. I am not expert in this field but surely it plays an important role and the literature on this should be covered somewhere? (Michael Grubb, Cambridge University) Indeed, if I had one meta-level comment to make about all of the WGIII FOD, its that the draft needs to be more self-conscious about the deep controversy about values at the heart of the economic paradigm. In particular, the assumption that utility is something objective that can be measured through market or non-market valuation, and thus that economic analysis is a useful approximation of true Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Noted, will be discussed.

Noted, will be discussed.

Page 21 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

0-58

0-59

0-60

0-61

values, is only one perspective, albeit the dominant one. What I would consider the primary alternative - that valuation is an ongoing a social process, and that the value of outcomes is a question of meaning and choice rather than utility - is not well represented in this document. (Paul Baer, Stanford University) Generally I am surprised there is not an element in the structure that identifies key weaknesses in literature/knowledge to assist future work (Andrew Dlugolecki, university of east anglia) A second practical consequence is that uncertainty becomes much more important. Subjective expected utility maximization requires a unique probability distribution for outcomes as well as a unique utility function. Such unique probability distributions do not exist for most parameters of interest (both scientific and economic) in the climate policy debate (see Baer et al 2005 and Baer 2005). The consequences of this kind of multi-dimensional uncertainty for decision-making have barely begun to be explored, but again, it implies that most economic analyses which suppress this uncertainty through unexplained value choices of the analysts, do not provide the kind of objectivity that they are presumed to have. (Paul Baer, Stanford University) Whenever data for the European Union are mentioned, it is important to make clear "which" EU it refers to. The EU has been enlarged from 15 to 25 member states in 2004, and it maybe further enlarged by 2007. Some data cannot be interpreted without the knowledge whether it refers to the EU-15, the EU-25 (and perhaps later the EU-27). (Diana Urge-Vorsatz, Central European University) All authors and lead authors must be commended for bringing a large amount of valuable material in this first order draft. There at this stage many redundancies, which should be reduced in the further development of the report. However, despite these redundancies, or perhpas because of them, there are several topics that are not addressed with sufficient scope and detail altogether - or presented in a misleading manner. I shall limit my general comments to two of them: renewables, and long term strategy (though a third one could be discounting, but I hope the detailed comments that follow will be sufficient). 1. RENEWABLE. It is hardly surprising that in a 1255 page draft renewables are only covered in a few pages, and with somehow misleadidng information. First, a global perspective could be given about the overall potential. Solar energy exceeds 8,000 times our primary energy supply. Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Noted, will be discussed

Page 22 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

Although the technico-economic potential is certainly orders of magnitude lowers than the overall potential, it is still likely to ultimately cover a large percentage of our needs, if not all. Second, a fair assessment could be made of the "technicoeconomic potential" that could be reached, say, in 2050 and 2100, for all technologies. For example, table 4.3.1 narrows solar thermal to solar thermal electricity alone - and mixes estimates of overall technical potential, such as indicated for PV (1600 Ej/y), and assessments likely to be derived from technicoeconomic consideration, such as that for solar thermal (1.7 Ej/y). Although the confusion is in the source, IPCC role is to critically assess the information. What solar technology is more likely to provide more electricity in 2050 or 2100 is hard to guess, but they may end with comparable contributions: PV is handicapped by its costs and intermittent nature, CSP technologies being cheaper and more easily made guaranteed and even dispatachable, but limited to areas with strong direct insulation unless exported. In any case, both technologies may remain outweigthed by far, as they are today, by solar thermal contribution to heating and cooling needs (see comments on chapt'er 4). 2. LONG TERM STRATEGY.The report could perhaps more clearly make three points: 1) cooperative strategies oriented toward research and development, as useful they might be, are unlikely to produce sufficient results by themselves in the absence of carbon prices throughout the economy; 2 Economic instruments, as useful they might be, need to be complemented by other instruments to address market imperfections, including R&D support and some specific financing mechanisms for technologies in their infancy, in order to bring down their costs through learning by doing processes; 3 Uncertainties on both costs and benefits of climate policies conflict with inertia to create a dilemma on long term objective(s): it cannot be defined once for all, but its absence is detrimental to the process. An abundant literature showing firm targets do not really fit the long terme cumulative nature of the climate change problem in the context of uncertainties. Combined with periodic revisions of an educated guess on what we would like to pay for mitigating climate change, the most pragmatic way to drive action by all countries and all players would be set indicative ambitious long term targets while making their full achievement dependent on actual costs - ie a sustained use of price capping mechanisms to accompany tradable permit schemes. This and similar suggestions could be more extensively discussed, in particular, but not exclusively in chapter 13 (see detailed comments). (Cdric Philibert, International Energy Agency) Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote Page 23 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

1-1

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-2

There is confusion throughout this Report between concentrations of greenhouse gases and emissions of greenhouse gases.In Chapter 1 it is pointed out that the FCCC requires control of greenhouse gas concentrations. Yet the Chapter then proceeds with the problem of controlling emissions as if it were the same thing as concentrations. The Tables to Figure 1 are only of emissions. There is no mention of concentrations.They are not the same. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have risen in an approximately linear fashion for the past 30 year whereas emissions have increased to a greater extent, but irregularly; to such a degree that there is no certainty that reduction in emissions will necessarily lead to a reduction in concentration. The situation with methane is even more confused. Atmospheric methane concentrations are currently stable, or even falling whereas emissions are thought to be increasing. Again. Ther is no guarantee that changes in emissions will affect concentrations. Table 3.4 states that it was relatively easy to relate emissions to concentrations. I do not agree. One consequence of this confusion is that there appears to be no serious attempt to find out whether emission reductions are influencing concentrations. (Vincent Gray, Climate Consultant) I have four general observations. 1. There is considerable overlap between the chapters I looked at, between WG2 and WG3, and even within chapters. A lot of material is simply duplicated, and should be cut to improve readability and reduce size.2. In a number of instances, authors mainly quote their own work. This is unworthy. In a number of instances, authors mainly quote other IPCC material. This is incestuous. The quoting of IPCC material is most pronounced in the scenario discussion, which can be summarised as "We, the Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Partially accepted: Remove confusion between emissions & concentrations in revised text the rest of the comment is WG I stuff.

Noted : (1) (4) Chapter will be restructured and non-prescriptive language used. (2) Additional reference will be added or cross-referenced to other chapters. (3) Rejected: Necessary for context in relation to scenarios: plenary decision. References will be checked or cross-

Page 24 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-3

1-4

1-5

IPCC, declare that all previous IPCC work is great." This is silly. 3. When cutting overlap, please concentrate the material in the chapters with experts among the authors. In many places, the authors are out of their depth; the selection of papers is haphazard, the assessment superficial. I also found too many references that are simply wrong; the authors cannot have read these papers. For a supposedly expert panel, this is very serious. 4. In a number of instances, the draft material reads like a political manifesto rather than a scientific document. In other instances, the authors have tried to hide their political message in pseudo-scientific language. For a supposedly independent panel, this is very serious. (Richard Tol, Hamburg University) On the choice of currency (e.g. par. 1.7.3, p.13): I do not understand why the US$ is chosen as currency instead of the Euro. In the European Trading System CO2 has a real price. In the US there is no cap on CO2 emissions and thus the price for CO2 is derived from real transactions in the Euro-world and brings additional uncertainty from exchange rates. Substantive emission reduction measures are implemented in Europe connected with real costs and money transfers (they take place mainly in Europe and not in the US where these things happen mainly 'on paper'). Europe and not the US is the leading power in tackling climate change and implementing actions with real costs. Therefore the values in Euro map the economic reality, the values in US$ are hypothetical and map the academic expectations. (Manfred Treber, Germanwatch) Throughout the chapter, all references to "unimpeded sustainable economic development" should be removed when referring to Article 2; instead cite the UNFCCC directly: "enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner". (Anne Arquit Niederberger, Policy Solutions) I conclude that this chapter -- based on the first 8 pages -- is not yet ready for review. Just to give a few examples: The table of contents is incoherent and arbitrary. The text does not appear to be the result of a systematic literature review. And references to the UNFCCC misquote it. Because of all of these basic deficiencies, I feel a detailed peer review at this stage is a waste of time. Compared with previous assessments, this chapter is a disappointment, certainly not up to the Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

referenced to other chapters.

Rejected: TSU decision

Accepted

Noted - Chapter will be restructured Accepted: discussion of equity

Page 25 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-6

1-7

1-8

1-9

1-10

1-11

standard required by the IPCC for it to maintain its legitimacy. It is more of a patchwork of random topics, addressed through limitied citations than a systematic assessment of the overall body of peer reviewed literature (e.g, Ikeme and Thompson et al are not the only publications on equity and climate change!) (Anne Arquit Niederberger, Policy Solutions) I believe that the main role of IPCC is presenting the scientific knowledge of climate change, not the social or political judgements. Therefore, the LAs should distinguish scientific base values from values with author's judgements. For example, although the upper limits of global mean temperature rise in literatures usually include the author's judge, the facts are not clearly mentioned in this report. If there are confusions of scientific values with judged values, this report may rose credit with readers such as policy maker. (Fuminori Sano, Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth) There is a lot of repetition of the same principles. For example, the sentence "The United Nations has set goals to eradicate poverty, raise living standards and encourage sustainable, economic and social development in its Millennium Declaration, (UN 2000)." appears repeatedly. (Lourdes Maurice, US Government) The quality of some of the figures is not very good and should be enhanced as captions are difficult to read in some cases. (Lourdes Maurice, US Government) A general comment for Chapter 1 is that it tends in numerous places to do its own assessment of topics that are already being assessed in other places. Suggest that these short assessments be replaced with references to the underlying chapters of all 3 working group reports. (Haroon Kheshgi, ExoonMobil Research and Engineering Company) Given the author team I was rather surprised that there was no explicit mention of biodiversity. There are plenty of references the author's could have linked to in WG2 chapters 1,4,5 and 19 on this topic. (Jeff Price, California State University, Chico) General on FOD: the report is an impressive compilation and assessment so congratulations. However, it would benefit from closer involvement of practitioners and decision-makers in this field throughout. Attention could be given in the next draft to addressing the considerable overlaps that exist as a result of the sectoral/ Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Noted - Chapter will be restructured

Accepted

Accepted

Accepted and will be taken into account in rewriting

Accepted

Accepted, will be partly resolved by rewriting, partly by transferring parts to Chapter 2

Page 26 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-12

1-13

1-14

cross sectoral split (such as adaptation/ mitigation, and on which there is more conjecture than substance to comment anyway) but also give more attention to critical cross-cutting issues which have not yet been adequately addressed such as public acceptability of policies. General on chapter 1. Very succinct compilation of the context the rest of the report currently fails to provide a satisfactory dialogue with this material. Perhaps critical issues could be identifiedthat would enable other chapters to respond and make the task of summarising in due course easier. (HEDGER MERYLYN, Environment Agency) WGIII should assess mitigation of climate change. This chapter is the introduction to the mitigation assessments. If dangerous levels of climate change are described in this chapter, the dangerous levels of climate change "mitigation", e.g., cost increase depending on different CO2 stabilization targets, should be more discussed rather than the dangerous levels of climate change. (Keigo Akimoto, Resaerch Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth (RITE)) There are a lot of confusions between science and value judgments. Even if the reviewed papers are referred, some of the papers could report the authors' value judgments for some sentenses. The LAs should write them with clear distinctions. For example, the literature of ONeill and Oppenheimer (2002) is referred in manly palaces in Chapter 1, but the numbers of the thresholds reported in the literature include not only scientific-base value, but also include their value judgments. They "define" a limit at 3degC from today over 100 years to avert shutdown of the THC, and describe that a limit of 2degC above 1990 global average temperature is justified to protect WAIS "taking a precautionary approach", for example. These are the authors' value judgments. (Keigo Akimoto, Resaerch Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth (RITE)) Copenhagen Consensus (Lomborg, 2005, "Global Crises, Global Solutions") is one of the remarkable endeavors and insights for value judgments of climate change within many other issues. The study indicates the difficulty for the climate change mitigation and the essence of climate change issues, although we should mitigate climate change. I think that this is a very useful literature particularly in Chapter 1. I strongly recommend referring the literature. (Keigo Akimoto, Resaerch Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Both issues will be addressed in a balanced way

Accepted, resolved through restructuring

Reference can be found on page 8, line 13. Whether it will be moved within the chapter, will be decided in the rewriting

Page 27 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-15

1-16

1-17

1-18

1-19

1-20

(RITE)) A general note that being among the early movers may lead to strategic-economic opportunities for a country and its industries is lacking. This idea, however, seems to be increasingly appealing to captains of industry and policy makers. Why not use it in the FAR? (Jan Paul van Soest, Advies voor Duurzaamheid on request of International Gas Union) There is considerable overlap between chapter 1 and 2. Especially in the of risks and uncertainities (1,7,2) and Equity (1,5,7). The chapter teams from both chapter need to discuss who will deal with these issues, to avoid duplication and increased pages. (Rutu Dave, IPCC WGIII TSU) One possible scene-setting graphic is that of "population vs per-capita emissions" in different regions, because it encapsulates several dimensions of the challenge including current inequalities, potential for future growth, relative scales of industrialised and developing country contributions, and divergence within each group. The most recent version of the graphic is published in M.Grubb, "Kyoto and the Future of International Climate Change Responses: From Here to Where?", International Review for Environmental Strategies, Vol. 5, No. 1. But if the authors were interested I could supply the data and package for generating the graphic, with or without attribution. (Michael Grubb, (a) Carbon Trust, (b) Cambridge University, (c) Imperial College London) This chapter is very poorly written,being ungrammatical, jargon-filled and with ideas very unclearly expressed.(Although the TSU indicated that grammar would be fixed later, this is so bad as to make sections unreadable).The chapter seems too long for the actual content. The whole chapter ignores the possibility (or even probability) that dangerous interference has already happened. (Ian Enting, MASCOS) The 1.4.2 section on sustainable development and section 1.7.1. seem to be on the same topic which is a confusing aspect to the structure. The same goes for 1.5.4 and 1.7.2. (Kenneth Mllersten, Swedish Energy Agency) Chapter 1: The durrent draft gives the impression that the authors were not clear Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Chapter 1 will allude to the issue in the SOD

Accepted

Accepted

First part accepted, but second part rejected, no literature

Accepted, resolved through restructuring

Accepted, messages will be brought out more

Page 28 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-21 1-22

A A

0 0

0 0

1-23

what it is that they want to convey to their readers. What is the focus of the chapter, what are the key messages, how is this chapter related to the rest of the WG III report? Currently, the individual sections are not well linked, and a "leitmotiv" is missing. Ideally, the chapter should converge toward Section 1.9 ("road map"). The preceding sections should explain the scope of the WG III report, give a very brief overview of previous WG III / Mitigation reports, and present the main crosscutting issues. Given that this is an introductory chapter, detailed discussions of specific topics should be avoided in favour of cross-references to other chapters (e.g. WG II Chapter 2 and 19, WG III Chapter 2 and 3), wherever possible. At the end of chapter 1, the reader should know what the WG III report is about, how it is structured, whether there are important differences to the WG III TAR, and what the most important cross-cutting issues in the following chapters are. The individual sections should be written with this goal in mind. (Hans-Martin Fuessel, Stanford University) The Technical Summary is poorly written. (Richard Tol, Hamburg University) Overall, Chapter 1 is in a pretty bad shape. It starts with alarmist nonsense that has no place in the IPCC, and it continues with badly informed assertions. Chapters like this are hard to write, but I've seen better ones. (Richard Tol, Hamburg University) While I found Chapter 1 admirably short, and good as far as it goes, the Chapter could be strengthened in three ways. The first has already been adumbrated above: explicitly posing the key question, "what will it take to 'stabilize climate'" and the different views/approaches to answering this question. In addition, the chapter would be strengthened by recognizing two other important issues. The objective of avoiding a "dangerous interference with climate" (DAI) may be in conflict with other stated objectives. An obvious potential conflict is economic growth or development. As is made (repetitively) clear (on pages 2 and 3 of the chapter) the "obligation" to avoid DAI is conditioned by "unimpeded sustainable economic development" [my emphasis]. Although the concept of "sustainable economic development" is not pinned down (even in chapter 2), the reader must assume that avoiding DAI should not interfere with economic growth, at least not in the large part of the world which is still "less developed" or "developing". AR4 then discusses what might constitute DAI, leaving the impression that anything more than 2C warming may constitute just such "dangerous interference". The potential Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

clearly

Not yet an issue, space limitations likely Alarmist nonsense is not agreed to because statements are based on literature and are also linked to WG II. By the way, Chapter 1 has seen worse drafts Partially accepted, will be considered in the rewrite, where relevant.

Page 29 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

conflict arises in the following manner. Suppose it is determined that avoiding DAI requires keeping the increase in global average temperature below 2 C. This is our obligation under section 2 of the FCCC. At the same time there is also an obligation not to impede economic growth over much of the world. Are these two objectives compatible, given: (1) evidence that we may be 60% of our way to 2 C warming when energy imbalances are accounted for (Hansen et al, Science, 2005); (2) the long time lags in energy capital turnover; and (3) the, as yet, undemonstrated scalability of carbon emission-free energy sources/technologies to levels capable of displacing, rather quickly, carbon-emitting energy? It seems to me that the jury is still out on an answer to this question. If so, then I think it incumbent on the IPCC to recognize the potential conflict and the predicament it poses-and to do so up front (in Chapter 1). At the very least, it should be mentioned/discussed in section 1.5 ("Characteristics of the Challenge"). As it stands now, the chapter leaves the erroneous impression that, irrespective of climate sensitivity", we are technologically in a position to both avoid DAI and maintain "unimpeded" economic development, that is, "to have our cake and eat it too". But it may not be so. And if it is not, and something must give, is there any doubt that it will be climate policy and objectives? Another issue that deserves attention up front is the problem of "time-consistency", or more accurately, the potential "time inconsistency" of climate policies. Mitigation raises two issues of time consistency, one is political, and one is economic in character. A) Policies to substantially mitigate GHG emissions now may require near term energy-use limits (until new carbon emission-free technologies are deployed/installed), that may for some period place costly constraints on an economy. If the time period for constraint is both longer than the election cycle, and is uncertain in length, the mitigation policy may not survive the next election. B)If new energy technologies need to be researched and developed before being deployed, then it may not be possible to induce (risky) investments in their R&D without some way of committing future governments to compensate past investors for their investments. Since, in general, current governments cannot commit future governments, and investors know this, the required up-front investments may not be undertaken. This important point is made and elaborated on by Montgomery and Smith, 2006. The Montgomery-Smith paper is cited and briefly discussed on page 81 of Chapter 2. The time consistency issue merits attention up front. Perhaps it, too, could be included in section 1.5 ("Characteristics of the Challenge"). Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote Page 30 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-24

1-25

1-26

1-27

(Christopher Green, McGill University) In the second part of the Introduction too much emphasis is laid on uncertainty of the future occurrence of CC. This will influence the reader in a not good manner, namely the decision-making community and other investors will then refrain from (mitigative & adaptive) actions. And that is not the meaning of contribution of the WGIII, I belief! The reasoning ought to be: no uncertainty about the vast amount of GHG emitted beyond what is know during one million years, most likely Temperature will increase, most likely many impacts will happen see IPCC FAR, SAR, TAR, what should be done now is that no-regret/precautionary measures both mitigative and adaptive, should be prepared by countries, industries and other direct stakeholders. Two examples of simple mitigation type of measures which will not hurt: i) analogue to the development of the Hybrid Toyota, more of those effective initiatives by industry should be highlighted and ii) capacity building on sustainable development, integrated management of coastal zones, of river basins, and on CC effects, impacts and measures in the LDC. Such no hurting measures should be promoted for immediate execution, while the development of more comprehensive measures is being prepared. Short, mid and long term actions are to be distinguished. Good examples of such measures should be also mentioned in the Introduction. (Robbert Misdorp, PUM) Fundamentally, the outcomes presented in the report must be drawn from the literature reviewed and cited. If conclusions are drawn in the body of the text that are not adequately supported by the literature, (as in the Executive Summary of Chapter 1) the objectivity of the IPCC may be questioned. (Spencer Edwards, Australian Greenhouse Office) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY of the Introduction provides a good overview of the entire (IPCCFARWGII1-) Report. Will the Executive Summary of the entire IPCCFARWGIII also be open for review? (Robbert Misdorp, PUM) As a framing exercise, it is a good idea to include this chapter. Its general architecture is probably sound enough at Section level. However, I am less convinced that the same can be said for either the balance across or the content within, the sub-Section level, Given the (surely widely-recognised) tendency for policy makers---as much as other stakeholders---to only read and/or concentrate on the contents of the SPM, there is a particular onus in this regard for this chapter (in Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Rejected, uncertainty is supported by literature. Timing of actions issue will be reflected in the SOD of Chapter 1

Agreed

Humbly accepted

Will be taken into account in rewriting

Page 31 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-28

1-29 1-30

A A

0 0

0 0

advance of the SPM) to both adequately put the case and fulfil the mission of AR4 as scoped. As mentioned above, specific comments on a (recommended) more synthesised approach to cross-cutting issues follow for this chapter, on the basis that this might be an appropriate chapter where cross-cutting issues could be more thoroughly integrated. (Pat Finnegan, Grian) 3) The Executive Summary of the Introduction does provide a clear overview but does not show examples of mitigative measures. The present Chapter 1.4.4. touches on technology cooperation and transfer and should be followed up by a real detailed new Chapter on "Mitigating technology: developments of most promising mitigation techniques and results of demonstrations/pilots." More attention should be paid to concrete types of innovative measures, demonstrations of renewable projects possibly including CAB analyses. 4) I miss a clear overview about the essence of the whole report: MITIGATION. With other words, the essence of the mitigation measures of Chapters 4 - 10 should be reported in a cohesive way in this Introduction, possible illustrated by a graphs or table, supporting and providing an overview. (Robbert Misdorp, PUM) The structure of chapter 1 is appreciated; in particular subchapter 1.9 is welcomed. (Radunsky Klaus, Umweltbundesamt) I believe that for the sake of clarity and in order to smooth the arguing which is going on about global warming, it would be useful to introduce (or to end) the first chapter with some statements similar to the following: "This report assumes that there is a climatic variation in act of appreciable magnitude and not an occasional fluctuation with a rapid return to the average meteorological values of the last decades. The report also assumes that the principal cause of this variation is the increase of GHG in the atmosphere produced by anthropic activity, and that the natural climatic system does not have spontaneous feedback mechanisms that can stop global warming. Most researchers share these opinions, but consensus is not unanimous and a minority of researchers believes that global warming is mostly natural, and that there is not a correlation between GHG and global warming or that such a correlation is not demonstrated (cf., just for example, Lindzen and Emanuel, 2002; McIntyre and McKitrick, 2005). Some of these researchers believe that actions to diminish CO2 emissions are useless or even harmful, because these actions would strongly influence global economical growth and greatly increase Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Rejected since it is beyond the scope of Chapter 1

Agreed Rejected since it is beyond the scope of Chapter 1; it is a WG I issue

Page 32 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-31

1-32

1-33

1-34

unrest with severe consequences. In this regard it has to be noted that the mitigation actions suggested in the present report are in any case necessary, because the temperature, no matter the reasons, is increasing as it is increasing the anthropic pressure on the planet. In other words even if the "minority group" is right (which is unlikely), these actions would minimize the impact of warming, would improve the standard of living in underdeveloped countries, would help in maintaining the standard of living in developed countries and would improve environmental conservation. As regards to actions for diminishing CO2 emissions , the necessary technology will soon be inevitable, considering the diminution of hydrocarbon reserves and so: the "sooner we prepare for that, the better it is." Lindzen R.S. and. Emanuel K (2002) The greenhouse effect. in Encyclopedia of Global Change, Environmental Change and Human Society, Volume 1, Andrew S. Goudie, editor in chief, pp 562-566, Oxford University Press, New York, 710 pp, McIntyre, S., and R. McKitrick (2005), Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L03710, doi:10.1029/2004GL021750.,Walter Dragoni - Dip. Scienze Terra, Perugia University, Italy, dragoni@unipg.it (Walter Dragoni, Perugia University) The Executive Summary does not appear to take into account the texts of the following sections of this chapter (Nick Campbell (Batch 2), ARKEMA SA) structure of the chapter does not work very well: in 1.2 art 2 UNFCCC is discussed, but many of the issues that are relevant in that context only appear in section 1.5 and 1.7. Also, the emission trends and the progress on the policy front are squeezed in between 1.2 and 1.5; it would be more logical to start the chapter with these trends, before dealing with the art 2 context (Bert Metz, IPCC) chapter has a strong overlap with ch 2, particularly in sections 1.4, 1.5, 1.6 and 1.7; consider to merge the two chapters; when doing take into consideration that the material under several headings actually covers other issues: e.g 1.5.1 (irreversibilities) and 1.5.2 (public good) could very well be covered under "decision making" and "uncertainty"; 1.5.3 (inertia) is in fact about decisison making; 1.5.4 (risk of catatstrophic or abrupt chnage) belongs to "article 2"; 1.5.6 (complexity) is in fact about inertia and uncertainty (Bert Metz, IPCC) I understand the enormous challenge of authors to write chapter 1 which intends to Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Accepted

Accepted, will be considered in the restructuring

Accepted, will be considered in the restructuring

Accepted, will be considered in the

Page 33 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-35

1-36

23

35

give well organized introduction to the rest of the report. Having said this, I have general concerns on the current structure of Chapter 1 as the relation between different discussions in the chapter is not quite clear so are the relation with the similar discussions in the rest of the chapters, in particular the Chapter2, and WGII report. The discussion on greehouse gase emission trends is half-finished and appears better disccused in Chapter 3. Similar problem exists in the discussion on SD. Chapter 2 has much better discussion on this issue, and Chapter 1 may want to introduce the points of the discussion. The discussion on technology co-operation and transfer appears abrupt and half-finished as well. The discussion on Characteristics of the challenge appears better placed at the beginning of the chapter and may be better presented by referring to the (discussions of the) past assessment reports to explain clearly how discussions on each factor has evolved. Similar situation is found in the treatment of cross-cutting isseus. (Shigetaka SEKI, METI) I am puzzled with the function of the discussion of the Framing Issues since I considered that the issues would be discussed in Chapter 2. The discussion on the Article 2 is important and should be clear how WG3 report tries to discussed the issues compared with the way WG2 report does. However, the nature of discussion largely duplicate with that in WG2 Chapter 19, and the conclusion is not consistent. The Chapter 19 carefully describes the status of the current findings and does not make a judgement that "convergence exists in the literature towards an upper limit of 2 degree increase in global mean temperature above pre-industrial levels as a cap before entering the zone of dangerous interference". Instead, the Chapter 19 honestly states that lots of literature starts with the assumption of 2 degree increase and found possibilities of (statistically--I assume) significant impacts of various types. I read the chapter implying that what significant impacts should be addressed are subject to policy judgement. (Shigetaka SEKI, METI) see general comment attachment 1 in Word format..>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The purpose of this covering message is to draw to attention a body of work that was, in the main, communicated to the Secretariat on August 3rd last (Annex 1), but which appears not to have reached the authors of these Chapters. This work is mainly the peer-reviewed output, forthcoming in a Special Issue of Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, of an Expert Workshop to address the policy implications of potential abrupt climate change that was funded Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

restructuring (in the SOD), if data available

Accepted, consistency will be checked with WG II (inter alia Chapter 19)

Agreed, will be considered in the rewriting

Page 34 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

by the Better World Fund of the UN Foundation, and which I convened in Paris at the end of September 2004. Along with an additional paper (Greene et al, 2004) these provide substantiation for the practicability of the Workshops conclusion, as stated in the Editorial Introduction to the Special Issue (Annex 2: also includes acknowledgements and contents page). Such practicability provides the basis for the first stage of a precautionary holistic strategy that is developed in my publications referenced below. These comprise an initial group dealing with the co-production of woody biomass and conventional timber, a second group that analyses the economic dynamics of proportional instruments for driving policy-desirable innovation, a third group that analyses BECS Bio-Energy with Carbon Storage as a negative emissions energy system, prima facie capable of achieving a return to pre-industrial CO2 levels in a few decades, and a final group that develops the science-based holistic strategy. Prima facie, because the basis of peer-reviewed publications to date has been illustrative calculations using plausible parameters for a small set of technologies that could contribute to the achievement of relatively ambitious greenhouse gas reductions (such as may be needed when the thresholds for abrupt climate change come to be better understood) and to the delivery of the multiple benefits (and hence potential international negotiability) of the holistic strategy. Clearly, as outlined towards the end of Annex 2, much further research is needed to establish better scientific certainty of the regional and sectoral aspects of the holistic strategy but, in relation to precautionary policy addressed at potential abrupt climate change under Article 3.3 of the Convention, this should not provide grounds for delay. Given the parallel between the Workshops conclusion and the Action Plan adopted by G8, I suggest it is appropriate for AR4 to treat the holistic strategy as a framing issue, as defined at Chapter 1, p12, lines 15-18, citing Young (2002), i.e. policy initiatives into which climate change matters may be tied in a synergistic fashion . Also, given its prima facie implication that the policy community has been misled in its focus on reducing energy sector emissions rather than managing the carbon cycle holistically, I suggest it is also appropriate to treat it as a cross-cutting issue, or possibly as a special case of the relationship between mitigation and adaptation and sustainable development. A draft for insertion in either Chapters 1 or 2 at suggested positions is at Annex 3. Also attached for convenience is the submitted draft of my article with A. Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote Page 35 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-37

13

1-38

15

1-39

1-40

1-41

23

1-42

Parshotam on the holistic strategy. Reviewers comments to hand, with one outstanding, indicate the need for substantial presentational changes without challenging the main conclusion. I am hopeful it will be accepted for publication in revised form before the WG3 July citation deadline.<<<<<<<<<<<<<< (Peter Read, MASSEY UNIVERSITY) here is a chance to define major emissions reductions in a really meaningful way, or even state bounds on emissions reductions that could make sense. If the proposed Kyoto reductions are too small, why doesnt IPCC take the lead and state what is the minimum for sensible reductions? Stated here, IPCC could use these bounds throughout the report (and beyond, presumably) to frame the whole reductions issue (as well as drive mitigation strategies, etc.) and make a huge difference. Without stating the bounds, the global community of emitters (i.e., all of us) is left to define what is meant to be reductions. Result: no standards, and probably only hit and miss reductions. (Michael Ebinger, Atmosphere, Climate & Environmental Dynamics (EES-2)) no reference to developing countries needed if no reference to the past. Such a trend is not due only to industrialization, but to improve welfare and eradicate poverty, goals subscribed by MDG (Juan Llanes, Havana University) Finally, I see the difficulties of making summary of the chapter since the chapter itself has a nature of summary. I would suggest that this part be carefully drafted once the above mentioned problems in the body part are addressed. (Shigetaka SEKI, METI) The Executive Summary is hard to read when you have not read the entire chapter. There is a lot of assumed knowledge and implicit assumptions. It is not easy to distill 60+ pages into a few pages, but explaining a few points or themes well is better than trying to be comprehensive. One could also think about reducing the length of the sentences and leave out some of technical terms. Both of these suggestions could make the summary easier to read. (Jensen Jesper, J-Consulting ApS) Would be better to refer to article 2 and of the UNFCCC and its meaning in the first para and then not repeat the menaing in the second para. (Kenneth Mllersten, Swedish Energy Agency) Prevention of dangerous climate change is an `objective', of the things required by Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Agreed to addressing the too small issue; this will be discussed in the context of the rewrite of the Article 2 section (IPCC can never take the lead)

Accepted, will be referred to in the discussion on Article 2 (common but differentiated.....)

Accepted

Accepted

Agreed, will be considered in rewriting

Rejected because it is not consistent with the

Page 36 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-43

1-44

11

1-45

11

1-46

1-47

11

the FCCC, not a specific requirement. (Ian Enting, MASCOS) Executive Summary: The ES does not make clear what Chapter 1 is about -describing the climate change problem, implementing UNFCCC Art. 2, outlining the WG III report? -- and what its role in the whole WG III report is. (Hans-Martin Fuessel, Stanford University) Change "The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) requires that dangerous climate change be prevented and hence the stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations at levels that would achieve this objective. " to "The objective of the United Nations Convention on Climate Change is to avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, which requires the stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations at levels that would achieve this objective." This more correctly reflects the wording of Article 2 and also focuses on anthropogenic climate change. Natural climate change, e.g. the onset on the next period of glaciation, could be dangerous, but is not addressed by the UNFCCC. (Lenny Bernstein, L. S. Bernstein & Associates, L.L.C.) This sentence is not a full or accurate paraphrasing of Article 2. A general suggestion for this chapter is that Article 2 should be stated in full and that this chapter provide information to guide the reader to sections of this report, and those of WG1&2 that are relevant to the UNFCCC objectives. (Haroon Kheshgi, ExoonMobil Research and Engineering Company) The use of the word "dangerous" is ambiguous (albeit it is the word of the Convention), It is subject to the reader's interpretation as to what is "dangerous"; which in some cases might be nothing thus possibly implying there is no cause for action. Although this concept is further discussed, the inherent issues with the term (other than acknowledging that there are issues with the measures -- food supply and sustainable economic development). The document would be much more succint, and useful, if repetitive sections were eliminated. (Lourdes Maurice, US Government) Executive Summary. Given the (aforementioned) particular importance of this chapter in terms of its readership, there is therefore a double onus on it to be as coherent, as balanced, as well-argued and as telling as it can possibly be----in my view at least. It is disappointing therefore that the very first sentence in this draft Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Convention language Accepted

Accepted, with the caveat that avoid should be prevent

Accepted

Noted

Accepted

Page 37 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-48

1-49 1-50

A A

2 2

9 9 2 11

1-51 1-52

A A

2 2

11 11

2 2

11 13

1-53

12

contains what amounts to a category mistake: The wording of UNFCCC Art 2 actually requires stabilisation as the first order objective. The words "at a level that will prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system" (sic) follow as the qualifier, or metric. The wording in this draft not only reverses this order, but actually misquotes the qualifier---it is not "that dangerous climate change must be prevented" (sic) but, rather, "dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system". In my view, these are definitely two different categories; "interference" pre-dates climate change, The need to prevent this is both overwhelming and lexically prior. I suggest it is not helpful to alienate the issue in the first sentence (Pat Finnegan, Grian) Section: Executive summary. L. 23 to 25. I wonder if the IPCC should enter into such type of statement. There is no consensus on what dangerous interference means. Perhaps the assessment should focus only whether ecosystems and food production would adapt naturally or whether those systems are likely to be threatened (as defined in Art.2 of the UNFCCC) or if the pace of change is already to rapid for the natural adaptation to occur. In this way, scientists would assess whether this component of Article 2 is still relevant or not. Should the threshold for natural adaptation of the ecosystems have been already reached, it would implicitely mean that the dangerous interference has already begun. This approach would offer less scope for criticism than mentioning a convergence in the literature that is not evident. (Philippe Tulkens, TERI School of Advanced Studies) Quote UNFCCC rather than paraphrase (use quotation marks) (Frdric Ghersi, CNRS) This sentence paraphrases the text of UNFCCC and should be changed to reflect the actual text itself. See Chapter 2 page 66, line 10 for an example. (Nick Campbell (Batch 2), ARKEMA SA) What is meant by 'generally 'increasing'? This is very unspecific language. (Kenneth Mllersten, Swedish Energy Agency) Sentence is unclear, some word seems to be missing; concentrations are projected to continue increase GIVEN? or FOR? a development close to current trends (Kenneth Mllersten, Swedish Energy Agency) split sentence for readablility Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Accepted, will be revised

Accepted Accepted

Accepted, more precise language will be used Accepted

Accepted (part will be rewritten)

Page 38 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-54

12

13

1-55

12

13

1-56

12

12

1-57

13

1-58

13

14

1-59

13

14

1-60

13

14

(Ian Enting, MASCOS) Change "1.4% annual growth rate over the last 30 years" to 0.4% annual growth rate since 1958." The Mauna Loa data show atmospheric CO2 concentration increasing from 315 ppm in 1958, to 380 ppm in 2004, an average rate of 0.4%/year. Change "are projected to continue." to "Depending on the SRES scenario chosen, these growth rates are expected to continue or increase. (Lenny Bernstein, L. S. Bernstein & Associates, L.L.C.) I do not understand what 1.4 percent refers to? This is not CO2 in the atmosphere. Fix. (Haroon Kheshgi, ExoonMobil Research and Engineering Company) Growth rate is wrong. In PPMv it is 0.45% per year over the last 30 years. In WG1 there is a coupled model intercomparison based upon models at 1.00% per year. Because of the linearity of temperature response to percent changes in carbon dioxide, this means that the consensus of climate models is for roughly twice as much warming to occur as will occur in at least the next fifty years. Somewhere WG3 needs to note this, because critics of the report (like me) will take great advantage of this overestimation unless it is noted. (Patrick Michaels, University of Virginia and Cato Institute) "stabilisation is nowhere in sight" colloquial language apart, isn't the SRES B1 scenario supposed to be void of climate policy? (Richard Tol, Hamburg University) This sentence should give a clearer perspective on emission trends and scenarios than "nowhere in sight". In particular, SRES showed consistency with some CO2 levels for some scenarios for the next century. (Haroon Kheshgi, ExoonMobil Research and Engineering Company) Sentence uses emotive language not in keeping with IPCC. Would suggest deletion as the text can be implied from the previous sentence. (Nick Campbell (Batch 2), ARKEMA SA) Replace sentence with "Although, it has seemed that, without major emissions reductions, stabilzation is nowhere in sight, a recently proposed holistic strategy that focuses on sustainable development through managing the whole carbon cycle, rather than simply on reducing energy sector emissions, may offer better prospects. (Peter Read, MASSEY UNIVERSITY) Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

First part not accepted as 1.4% refers to the emissions growth rate; second part will be checked with WG I / WG III, chapter 3

See comment 1-54

See comment 1-54

Agreed, less colloquial language will be used

Agreed, will be checked with WG III, chapter 3

Agreed

See answer to 1-59

Page 39 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

1-61

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

13

1-62

14

17

1-63

14

14

1-64

14

1-65

15

17

1-66

15

24

after "reductions" insert "and/or increases in biotic fixation, hereafter referred to as 'reductions in net emissions' " (Peter Read, MASSEY UNIVERSITY) Given the concerns expressed about conventional oil resource availability highlighted in Chapters 4 and 5, the peak oil problem etc., is it not worth qualifying the reference to global energy supply projected to grow? (Michael Jefferson, World Renewable Energy Network/Congresses) Energy demand is indeed a driver, but one may have doubts whether energy supply is a driver. Supply is a source that responds to drivers. (Kenneth Mllersten, Swedish Energy Agency) Global fossil energy supply results in GHG emissions, but the underlying drivers are things like demographic effects, end-use efficiency trends, income & wealth effects, shift in fuel mix, etc. (see also section 1.3.3) (Anne Arquit Niederberger, Policy Solutions) Delete "Regional differentiation is important - economic development needs, resource endowments and capacities - mitigative and adaptive - are too different across regions for a one-size fits all approach." It is not clear what regional differentiation is important for or what a one-size fits all approach is. It implies that there is no common ground for an international climate regime, which is not the case. (Anne Arquit Niederberger, Policy Solutions) This paragraph misses what Article 2 actually says, namely, that the goal is to stabilize GHG concentrations at a level that prevents DAI. Thus, it is clear that "interference" is defined at the point of concentrations in the long cause-effect chain, not at the point of temperature change. A 2-C temperature change is dangerous temperature change, while GHG concentrations that have a non-neglible risk of provoking a 2 C temperature change are what constitute dangerous interference in the climate system. Given that the climate sensitivity to the radiative forcing of a CO2 doubling could be 4 C or larger (at least 10% odds), and given the convergence in the literature the 2 C is dangerous warming, it follows immediately that CURRENT concentrations constitute DAI because the current GHG forcing is already 2.5+-0.5 W/m2 while that for a CO2 doubling is about 3.7 W/m2. However, by simply shifting the definition of "interference" from concentrations (as in Article 2) to "temperature change", this fundamentally important point is lost! Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Rejected, because it would require additional text, and is then beyond the chapter scope Accepted, will be discussed in the body of the SOD chapter (trends section)

Agreed

Agreed

Rejected but more regional specificity in the trends sections

Taken into account, will be ensured that the A 2 discussion includes the relevance of this interpretation

Page 40 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-67

16

16

1-68

19

19

1-69

19

21

1-70

21

1-71

22

1-72

22

22

1-73

23

1-74 1-75

A A

2 2

23 23

2 2

25 25

In fact, I don't think that this point - perhaps the single most important point following from all the work done by WGs I and II, is made anywhere in the entire 1200 page WG III report! (Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) In order to improve the readability the following wording is proposed: Regional differentiation is important - economic development needs, resource endowments and mitigative and adaptive capacities are too different across regions or one-size fits all approach. (Radunsky Klaus, Umweltbundesamt) Insert "anthropogenic" between dangerous and interference. If you are going to quote Article 2, do it correctly. (Lenny Bernstein, L. S. Bernstein & Associates, L.L.C.) This sentence paraphrases the text of UNFCCC and should be changed to reflect the actual text itself. Furthermore, why are the two issues chosen following the words ".. such as "? (Nick Campbell (Batch 2), ARKEMA SA) Article 2 does not state that 'sustainable economic development' should be 'unimpeded', it states that economic development should be enabled to 'proceed in a sustainable manner'. The phrasing is too strong and could be understood as 'climate mitigation must not impact economic development'. (Frdric Ghersi, CNRS) This seems to be confusing the concept of "risk". What we have is a risk of particular levels of dangerous interference. (I.e risk = impact x probability) (Ian Enting, MASCOS) Insert "anthropogenic" between dangerous and interference. If you are going to quote Article 2, do it correctly. (Lenny Bernstein, L. S. Bernstein & Associates, L.L.C.) There is very little convergence in the literature on the appropriate long-term target; there is convergence only in subsets of the literature; see Tol (forthcoming, Energy Policy) (Richard Tol, Hamburg University) lacks consistency between ranges and limits for "dangerous" (Ian Enting, MASCOS) Delete the sentence "There seems to be a convergence in the literature " It is Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Issue will be taken into account in the SOD section on regional trends

Accepted

Will be taken into account in rewriting

Will be taken into account in rewriting

Will be taken into account in rewriting

Will be taken into account in rewriting

Will be taken into account in rewriting

Will be taken into account in rewriting Will be taken into account in rewriting

Page 41 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-76

23

25

1-77

23

1-78

23

25

1-79

23

25

1-80

23

beyond the scope of WG III to make comments on what constitutes "dangerous anthropogenic interference." WG II is charged with assessing impacts and vulnerability. It would be appropriate to refer the reader to their contribution. (Lenny Bernstein, L. S. Bernstein & Associates, L.L.C.) Although there are the literatures and statements that argue 2degC as the upper limit, there is no convergence in the literature towards an upper limit of 2degC increase. I think that the dangerous level of temperature rise should be discussed as social and political problems and the judgement on the level is not the role of IPCC. Therefore, this sentence is not appropriate for this report and should be deleted. (Fuminori Sano, Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth) Suggest to drop the sentence on "a convergence in the literature towards an upper limit of 2 degrees". No evidence is provided regarding such a convergence and it can be policy priscriptive since a "dangerous level" is to be determined by a political judgement. (Koji Kadono, Global Industrial and Social Progress Research Institute) WGIII claims (Chapter 1, page 4, line 22) that WGII supports a figure of 2C for DAI, however, WG II FOD is not conclusive on that point. It is concluded that the WGIII FOD is overstretching and indicating a dangerous temperature threshold (2C). (Spencer Edwards, Australian Greenhouse Office) Tol (2006, "Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change") argue that the aggregated harm or injury cannot be defined although an individual harm or injury can be defined, and that it may be impossible to agree on dangerous interference although perhaps it is possible to agree on climate policy. This is true. The description of "... to be a convergence in the literature towards an upper limit of 2degC increase in global mean temperature above pre-industrial levels ..." is an inappropriate one for the IPCC report, whose role does not agree on a climate policy. There is no convergence in the literature towards an upper limit of 2degC increase. This sentence should be deleted. (Keigo Akimoto, Resaerch Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth (RITE)) Comments about convergence in literature concerning a 2 degree limit (a) belong in WGII, and (b) should be better documented (See next point). Is this convergence political or scientific? From preceding sentence, seems political? Does this Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Will be taken into account in rewriting

Will be taken into account in rewriting

Will be taken into account in rewriting

Will be taken into account in rewriting

Will be taken into account in rewriting

Page 42 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-81

25

25

1-82

26

1-83

26

27

1-84

27

28

1-85

27

34

1-86 1-87 1-88 1-89

A A A A

2 2 2 2

27 28 29 30

2 2 2 2

27 28 30 34

perspective exist in the U.S. literature? (William Pizer, Resources for the Future) To improve clarity it is proposed to delete either "but lower and higher temperature values have been argued as well" or "lower and". (Radunsky Klaus, Umweltbundesamt) There are a number of papers that argue that the Kyoto Protocol stands in the way of effective climate policy. (Richard Tol, Hamburg University) Statement that "The entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol in February 2005 marks a first, though modest step, towards the implementation of Article 2". This statement fails to take into account the significant mitigation efforts already being implemented by Parties under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the plethora of national mitigation measures that have been underway in a host of countries for many years. (Spencer Edwards, Australian Greenhouse Office) It should be stated clearly that the commitments to date are inadequate to achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention, which is stabilization of atmospheric concentrations. (Anne Arquit Niederberger, Policy Solutions) State the amount of warming that the Protocol would prevent if fully enacted to show what an irrelevant instrument it is. As given by Wigley et al. (1998, Geophysical Research Letters), the reduction in temperature is 0.07 degrees per fifty years. (Patrick Michaels, University of Virginia and Cato Institute) The word "modest" is very subjective. (Nick Campbell (Batch 2), ARKEMA SA) The words "...will still be far from." are very subjective and emotive. (Nick Campbell (Batch 2), ARKEMA SA) "energy intensities" should be defined at first use (Ian Enting, MASCOS) What challenge does the reversal of emissions trends confront specifically in relation to ACC and climate irreversability? The risk of ACC and irreversability are rather to be considered when defining a 'safe level'. (Kenneth Mllersten, Swedish Energy Agency) Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Rejected, because literature shows higher and lower temperatures Will be taken into account by referring in the chapter to the debate in literature on the most appropriate policy instruments (see Ch 13) Will be taken into account in the body of the chapter

Accepted

Rejected, because the calculation is not relevant (and this discussion is beyond the scope of the chapter)

See 1-83 See 1-83 See glossary Noted, will be taken into account in redrafting

Page 43 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

1-90

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

30

34

1-91

30

30

1-92 1-93 1-94

A A A

2 2 2

30 31 36 2 37

1-95

36

37

1-96

36

39

This is an extremely confusing sentence. The Article 2 referred to earlier in the Executive Summary is Article 2 of the UNFCCC, which says nothing about sustainable development, equity or any of the other conditions mentioned in the sentence. Article 2 of the Kyoto Protocol refers to some, but not all, of the conditions mentioned in the sentence. Not being able to understand the intent of the sentence, it is not possible to suggest a rewrite. (Lenny Bernstein, L. S. Bernstein & Associates, L.L.C.) Suggest removing "and decarbonization". Recent trends and projections of IEA show an increase in C/PE. (Haroon Kheshgi, ExoonMobil Research and Engineering Company) before "emissions" insert "net" (Peter Read, MASSEY UNIVERSITY) before "emissions" insert "net" (Peter Read, MASSEY UNIVERSITY) "inseparable" is a desirable objective, not a statement of fact. (mitigation could occur in a non-sustainable way). the above sort of "disconnect" occurs frequently in the chapter, with outcomes desired by the authors being stated as facts. (Ian Enting, MASCOS) Change this sentence to the sentence that appears on Pg. 7, lines 46-47, "Climate change mitigation is part and parcel of sustainable development and the two are mutually reinforcing." It is simplistic to say that climate change mitigation and sustainable development are inseparable. The sustainable development characteristics of mitigation technologies and practices have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. For example, more energy efficient production will reduce the cost of goods, as well as reducing CO2 emissions. As has been demonstrated in both theory and practice, lowering the cost goods leads to more consumption. This increased consumption could be sustainable, if it is used for poverty alleviation, or unsustainable, if it only leads to increased waste. Chapter 12 on sustainable development makes this point clearly in its Executive Summary, Page 12-3, lines 22-25. (Lenny Bernstein, L. S. Bernstein & Associates, L.L.C.) "Sustainable development" has different meaning to different people/societies. What constitutes sustainable development in the context of this report? (Lourdes Maurice, US Government) Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Accepted

Noted, will be taken into account in rewriting

Rejected, see comment to 1-61 Rejected, see comment to 1-61 Accepted

Noted, relevant section will be redrafted

Rejected, see chapter 12

Page 44 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

1-97 1-98

A A

2 2

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

36 37

2 2

37 37

1-99 1-100 1-101

A A A

2 2 2

38 45 45 2 45

1-102

51

53

1-103

51

53

1-104

52

52

There are three issues in this sentence, CC, SD and MDG, which 2 are reinforcing? (Nick Campbell (Batch 2), ARKEMA SA) Is the statement "climate change exacerbates poverty" supported by literature ? The opposite has been argued by Henderson in the literature. (Nick Campbell (Batch 2), ARKEMA SA) "mainstreaming" is jargon (Ian Enting, MASCOS) "F gases" should be defined at first use (Ian Enting, MASCOS) The term "F-gases" has no place in a scientific document. It is imprecise, ambiguous (see later where it is used in this report for materials that are not normally regarded as "F-gases". It was coined in Europe to encompass HFCs, PFCs and SF6. It does not include CFCs and HCFCs; these are ODS (Ozone Depleting Substances). The correct description would be "fluorochemical greenhouse gases" which is unambiguous and not imprecise jargon but if you must use "F-gases" the definition should be included in the Glossary and the reader referred to that in a footnote. (Nick Campbell, ARKEMA SA) Change "The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) requires the prevention of dangerous climate change with this being achieved through the stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations. " to "The objective of the United Nations Convention on Climate Change is to avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, which requires the stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations at levels that would achieve this objective." This more correctly reflects the wording of Article 2 and also focuses on anthropogenic climate change. Natural climate change, e.g. the onset on the next period of glaciation, could be dangerous, but is not addressed by the UNFCCC. (Lenny Bernstein, L. S. Bernstein & Associates, L.L.C.) This sentence paraphrases the text of UNFCCC and should be changed to reflect the actual text itself. As a minimum the word "requires" probably should be changed. (Nick Campbell (Batch 2), ARKEMA SA) The use of the word "dangerous" is confusing. It lacks an associated quantity and is Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Accepted, section will be redrafted Accepted, literature will be checked

Accepted, will be defined in glossary Accepted, will be defined in glossary Accepted, will be defined in glossary

Accepted, with the caveat that avoid will be replaced by prevent

Accepted

Rejected, official language is referred to

Page 45 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-105 1-106

A A

2 2

53 53

1-107

53

55

1-108

53

10

1-109

53

55

subject to interpretation. (Lourdes Maurice, US Government) What does "harmonizing co-evolution" mean? Why are humans ignored? (Richard Tol, Hamburg University) replace the word "means" by something more appropriate (implies, requires, etc depending on what the authors actually intend -- this is not a definition of stabilization) (Ian Enting, MASCOS) (Please note that the Excel file used to report the macros does not allow entering line numbers above 55. Hence, whenever line number 55 is used, the authors should assume that a comment also refers to text with line numbers above 55.) The system description is confusing. GHG are not emitted by the biosphere (in its normal meaning) but by the anthoposphere, which together with the "ecosphere" and the "global subject" forms the Earth system (Schellnhuber & Wenzel, Earth System Analysis, 1998 (Hans-Martin Fuessel, Stanford University) In practice, stabilization requires that net emissions of long-lived GHG be reduced to near zero. (Wigley, T.M.L.,R. Richels and J. Edmonds, 1996: Economic and environmental choices in the stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Nature, 379: 240-243.) Since this report is about mitigation, this section would be far more understandable if it focused on the mitigation challenge, which is to reduce GHG emissions to near zero in the long term. (Lenny Bernstein, L. S. Bernstein & Associates, L.L.C.) Section 1.1 The idea that the climate system is composed of 2 subsystems---the physical climate subsystem and the biosphere subsystem is a totally new one to me. I suspect I am not alone. Subsequent (attempted) clarification of the composition of the biospheric subsystem while omitting clarification of just what exactly comprises the "physical climate subsystem" does not furnish any further overall clarity. At a minimum, a reference is needed. That said---and nevertheless---the framework as described appears to be thoroughly at odds with the description of the climate system as provided in TAR (WG1 1.1.2 p.87). If the definition has since been changed by WG1 for the purposes of AR4, then this obviously needs referencing. (Pat Finnegan, Grian) Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Noted, will be reworded Accepted, will be considered in rewriting

Noted, the correct wording will be checked

Accepted

Accepted

Page 46 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

1-110 1-111

A A

2 2

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

54 54 2 55

1-112 1-113 1-114

A A A

2 2 2

55 55 0 17

1-115 1-116

A A

3 3

4 5

3 3

10 6

1-117 1-118 1-119 1-120

A A A A

3 3 3 3

5 5 6 6

3 3

7 7

1-121

10

insert "some" before "have" (Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) It is strange that the biosphere subsystem should include also the socio-economic subsytem. Other subchapters of the report use those terms in a different meaning (see subchapter 1.5.6, page 11, line 5, or subchapter 2.2.2 on page 7, line 49). (Radunsky Klaus, Umweltbundesamt) Rewrite as "The respons of the climate system to ." (Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) insert "decades to" before "centuries" (Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) This Introduction does not do justice to the rest of the report. Clearly, the text has been written by individuals, with resulting jumps in content (as well as presentation). It is full of jargon, which might be acceptable in the bodies of the Chapters, but has no place in an introduction, where it simply serves to confuse. The Executive Summary bears little relationship to the rest of the text. The chapter needs to be rewritten, with a very clear focus on what the reader will want, not on what the authors wish to tutorialise about. (Nick Campbell, ARKEMA SA) This whole sentence was hard to comprehend. (Kenneth Mllersten, Swedish Energy Agency) please add to 'drastic emission reductions' 'and thus reduction in use of fossil energy' (Manfred Treber, Germanwatch) The word "drastic" seems very subjective. (Nick Campbell (Batch 2), ARKEMA SA) replace "emissions reductions" with "reductions in net emissions" (Peter Read, MASSEY UNIVERSITY) the terminology 'climate and non-climate relevant behaviour' need an explanation. (Kenneth Mllersten, Swedish Energy Agency) Logical contradiction: If behaviour influences GHG emissions, it is by definition "climate relevant". (Hans-Martin Fuessel, Stanford University) needs rephrasing and explanation of "capital stocks". ""Achieving this quickly (time scale of decades) requires rapid changes of both climate and non-climate Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Accepted, will be considered in rewriting Accepted, will be considered in rewriting

Accepted, will be considered in rewriting Accepted, will be considered in rewriting Noted, will be considered in rewriting

Accepted, will be considered in rewriting Rejected, the issue is emission reductions, not how Rejected, drastic is considered the appropriate term Rejected, see above Noted Noted

Accepted, needs rephrasing (related to glossary issues)

Page 47 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-122 1-123 1-124

A A A

3 3 3

7 7 8 3 8

1-125

12

44

relevant behaviors laden with cultural significance (Shove et al., 1998); of capital stocks which are costly (socio-economic inertia), if only because of their interactions with the technological sub-systems affected by the need to replace carbon emitting technologies with cleaner and climate friendly technologies (technological inertia) (IPCC, 2001)."" (Robbert Misdorp, PUM) "of capital .." is gramatically disconnected from anything. (Ian Enting, MASCOS) "capital stocks are costly" what does this mean? (Richard Tol, Hamburg University) What is meant by socio-economic inertia? Specifically, what constitutes socioeconomic in the context of this report? (Lourdes Maurice, US Government) Section 1.2.1 is biased in favour of an interpretation of Article 2 in terms of making sure that whatever emission reductions are undertaken do not impede economic growth. First, no discussion of ecosystem impacts is found in the paragraph elaborating on the 3 conditions in article 2, second, "enabling" becomes "unimpeded", and 3rd, "sustainable economic development" becomes transformed into simply "economic development". SInce Article 3 has 3 conditions, a balanced discussion would provide roughly equal weight in the elaboration of all 3 conditions, rather than dropping the first (ecosystems) altogther. Second, Article 2 states "to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner", but somehow this gets broken into two separate conditions, one of which is simply to enable economic development. Then, there is a sudden jump, with no justifcation, from climatic change hindering economic development, to efforts to limit climatic change (mitigation) hindering economic development. This section should stick to what Article 2 says, and not try to transform it into something else that serves purely economic interests. It is quite clear that climatic change itself is a major threat to sustainable socio-economic systems (see WG II), and Article 2 is quite clear in saying that GHG concentrations should be kept below levels that threaten sustainable socio-economic systems (which most parts of the world, including socalled "developed" countries, have yet to achieve), as well as being kept below levels that threaten ecosystems and food production. Thus, this whole section should be re-written in a more balanced, showing the consistency between the three conditions. Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Noted Noted Rejected, accepted language

Accepted

Page 48 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-126

12

1-127

12

21

1-128

21

23

1-129 1-130 1-131

A A A

3 3 3

29 29 30 3 3 30 34

1-132

31

(Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) A general comment on the Art2 section is that it tends to drift into interpretation of Art2, and its own assessment of the issues. As an introductory chapter it is important that this chapter aids the reader to those chapters relevant to the various issues of Art2, and not present an alternate assessment of those issues. It may also be helpful to include a figure or table that links or lists relevant issues and where they may be found in the 3 WG reports. (Haroon Kheshgi, ExoonMobil Research and Engineering Company) section 1.2 only discusses art 2 itself, some of the suggested interpretations of what is dangerous and some limited observations regarding timing and the relation between mitigation and adaptation. That is not very comprehensive. There are many other relevant issues that play a role in applying art 2 on the mitigation question that deserve discussion in ch 1, such as development vs sustainable development, distributional issues, inertia and social change, differences and similarities between adaptation and mitigation (see also TS draft), global cooperation, uncertainty. So strongly suggest to elaborate this section and integrate other elements here that are now coveredd in section 1.5 or 1.7. It is important to refer to chapter 19 of WG II and focus on the mitigation aspects. (Bert Metz, IPCC) Inconsistency about times." Within" implies some upper limit on the time, while "sufficient for adaptation" implies a lower limit on the time , I.e. change slow enough to allow adaptation. (Ian Enting, MASCOS) Same comment as above 1-2-21 (Frdric Ghersi, CNRS) Why are only two of the three criteria in the extra sentences listed here? (Paul Baer, Stanford University) As alluded to above, this paragraph makes leaps in reasoning that have no logical basis. What you can (and perhaps should) do is point that, in order to comply with the 3 conditions in Article 3, mitigation measures may have to have to be taken so rapidly that there could be great cost to the world economy, and therefore, it is important to begin as early as possible in order to minimize these costs. (Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) what is missing here is a more in-depth discussion on the issue of local vs global Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Rejected, no specific assessment done. The idea of the table may be worth to pursue

Accepted

Rejected, Convention language

Agreed Accepted, will be considered in rewriting Rejected, statement as such is not always correct

Partially accepted (linked to WG 2, Ch 19

Page 49 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-133

34

37

1-134

34

37

1-135

34

37

1-136

34

37

impacts/ vulnerabilty, in other words, what is the literature saying about this? (Bert Metz, IPCC) I do not see how the statement that any "climate change that adversely affects economic development" would violate the sustainable development criterion of Art.2. In fact, the main difficulty in interpreting Art.2 is to establish at which scale it is relevant (community, national, global, ...) and what level of impacts (of climate change or climate policy) would violate one of the interrelated provisions. (Hans-Martin Fuessel, Stanford University) It is certainly the case that to satisfy Article 2 mitigation measures should ensure economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner in ensuring climate change is not too costly and in ensuring that they are not too costly either. But if one is to distinguish two criteria here, one related to economic development only, the other related to "economic development in a sustainable manner", it seems that it might be the very costly mitigation measures that could violate the first criterion, and unsufficient climate mitigation that could wiolate the second criterion - and not the reverse, as the text suggests. The reason for that is that mitigation measures will have immediate and short term costs, while climate damages are more likely to be long term, so the "sustainability" criterion relates to damages more than to measures. (Cdric Philibert, International Energy Agency) Article 2 does not make reference to criteria for sustainable development. It refers to stabilization of atmospheric concentrations at a safe level WITHIN A TIMEFRAME that would "enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner". The statement in AR4 that Art. 2 "sustainable development criteria" are not met, if climate change adversely affects economic development has no foundation in the text. Economic development can proceed in a sustainable manner, while still suffering some adverse climate impacts. (Anne Arquit Niederberger, Policy Solutions) GHG mitigation policies should drive innovations that reduce energy and capital intensity of industry, while stimulating economic activity. It is recognized that increased economic activity may result in increased energy usage; however, GHG mitigation policies should favor low-carbon emissions so that the economic stimulation results in lower overall carbon emissions. (James Bero, BASF Corporation) Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

etc.) Agreed

Noted, will be rewritten in a balanced way

Rejected, but reference added

Rejected, capital intensity reduction does not imply reducing emissions

Page 50 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

1-137

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

34

37

1-138 1-139 1-140

A A A

3 3 3

34 35 35

38

50

1-141

35

This paragraph is quite puzzling. (1) The two criteria are not for 'sustainable development' to satisfy (??), but rather economic criteria for stabilization. (2) The cutting in half of 'enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner' is very debatable--arguably, it should rather be understood as 'enable sustainable economic development to proceed'. The political consequences are the same as those commented about 1-2-21 and 1-3-29, i.e. tending to reject any policy that would have some impact on economic growth. Article 2 does definitely not say 'should not impact on economic growth' !!, the whole mitigation debate being precisely on a trading off between economic costs of mitigation, adaptation and laisser-faire (3) The 'example' starting at the end of line 36 does not seem to make sense: there is very little connection, if any, between the 'very costly' nature of a mitigation policy (compared to what?) and its sustainability. (Frdric Ghersi, CNRS) not clear (Marco Mazzotti, Institute of Process Engineering) The first criterion is part of the second. (Richard Tol, Hamburg University) The report is not precise enough as to definitions of the concept of sustainable development. The common definition is Brundtland's, where the report says 'to enable economic development' and '() to proceed in a sustainable manner'. Which is still unclear. Why not use the common idea of three objectives people, planet, profit that have to be balanced, realising that these objectives can be conflicting to some extent, and can be conflicting on the longer and shorter term. Furthermore, it is not clear what is meant by 'economic development': are we talking about the narrow concept of GDP growth or income growth? Or is a broader welfare economics perspective being used, the idea of 'satisfaction to be derived from the use of scarce goods', which includes loss of human capital, nature and so on. This is highly relevant when it comes to analysing whether certain objectives (people, planet, profit where 'economic development' seems to refer to 'profit') in a specific case are compatible or conflicting. (Jan Paul van Soest, Advies voor Duurzaamheid on request of International Gas Union) repitition of " to enable economic development" is confusing: suggest "and second for it "to proceed in a sustainable manner" " (Peter Read, MASSEY UNIVERSITY) Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Agreed

Rejected, not clear why Agreed Rejected, there is no and will not be a unique definition

Agreed

Page 51 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

1-142

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

36

1-143

41

1-144

43

48

1-145

43

48

1-146

44

46

1-147

44

46

1-148 1-149

A A

3 3

45 45

3 3

45 45

1-150 1-151

A A

3 3

45 45

45

very strong assumptions, (any literature on this assumption?). Climate change affects already SD? (Juan Llanes, Havana University) "naturally" : almost all ecosystem adjustment will be by natural responses -- what matters is what type of adjustment (Ian Enting, MASCOS) Section 1.2.1 The second sentence proposes that Art 2 could be defined by "either.climate system". But no alternative ("or") is proposed. Yet the next sentence starts "Either way.". What is the other way ?? (Pat Finnegan, Grian) The first sentence of the paragraph seems to equate 'dangerous interference with the climate system' to threatening food production and sustainable economic development, whereas article 2 seems to differentiate them--on the one hand a criterion placed on the level of stabilization to be aimed at, on the other hand a criterion on the pace at which this stabilization should be achieved. It should be left to section 1.1.2 to define 'dangerous interference with the climate'. This remark questions the rest of the paragraph (unclear, esp. the 'either' at the beginning of line 46?). (Frdric Ghersi, CNRS) "concentration" is not a "climatic target". The "or" part of the "either" statement is missing. (Hans-Martin Fuessel, Stanford University) Statement is and either-or without the or. Reconstruct the sentence to be more grammatically sound. (Michael Ebinger, Atmosphere, Climate, & Environmental Dynamics (EES-2)) One would expect this 'either' to be followed by an 'or'. (Kenneth Mllersten, Swedish Energy Agency) please add after 'climatic target, such as 'maximum tolerable warming or' and continue 'concentration stabilisation' (Manfred Treber, Germanwatch) There is an "either" in the sentence, but where is the "or"? (Cdric Philibert, International Energy Agency) "either" not followed by an "or" . Suggest "either by some climate target that is deemed to be non-dangerous (and which would definitionally preclude abrupt Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Agreed, add references

Agreed, add references

Agreed, will be considered in rewriting (add reference to Ch 13)

Noted, picked up in redrafting

Noted, picked up in redrafting

Noted, picked up in redrafting

Noted, picked up in redrafting Noted, picked up in redrafting

Noted, picked up in redrafting Noted, picked up in redrafting

Page 52 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-152 1-153

A A

3 3

46 46 4 45

1-154

46

1-155

50

49

1-156

50

1-157

52

12

changes) or by concentration at a certain level which is deemed to prevent dangerous interference with the climate system (but which, in the absence of better information about abrupt climate change mechanisms and thresholds, might not preclude such abrupt change)." (Peter Read, MASSEY UNIVERSITY) What does "either way" refer to? (Anne Arquit Niederberger, Policy Solutions) As indicated in my comment on the Executive summary (pg 2), DAI involves CONCENTRATIONS that run the risk of dangerous climatic change, rather than being dangerous climatic change itself. Of course, one has to know what levels of climatic change are dangerous (that is, possibly harmful), and I agree that 1-2 C is the likely threshold. Dangerous concentrations (i.e, DAI) are concentrations that have a non-negligible possibility of provoking dangerous climatic change. Since the climate sensitivity has anywhre from a 10-30% change of being 4 C or larger, it immediately follows that current GHG concentrations represent DAI. This crucially important points are missing altogether because you have equated DAI with dangerous climatic change rather than dangerous concentrations. (Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) The sentence ending with ".climate system" needs to continue with " or ; sentence is not complete now (Bert Metz, IPCC) The executive summary states that the decision is necessarily a political one. This judgement is not at all reflected in this discussion conserning scientific vs 'political' views. (Kenneth Mllersten, Swedish Energy Agency) It seems to me that "dangerous" needs to be evaluated from the perspective of the most vulnerable parts of the population, which are least able to adapt and that therefore there is a need to involve marginalized voices in its determination (see p. 8, lines 18-20). There is plenty of literature on this topic. (Anne Arquit Niederberger, Policy Solutions) This paragraph is difficult to follow. Many different terms are used, but not distinguished: dangerous, vulnerability, unacceptable impacts. Also, the discussion of external vs. internal, top-down vs. bottom-up and expert vs. individual or institutional is not clear. Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Noted, picked up in redrafting Rejected, this is just one interpretation

Noted, picked up in redrafting

Rejected, has been made clear in the existing text

Noted, picked up in redrafting (part of the literature)

Accepted, picked up in redrafting

Page 53 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-158 1-159

A A

3 3

52 53

4 3

12 53

(Anne Arquit Niederberger, Policy Solutions) delete paragraph as it detracts from what follows (Stephen Perkins, European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT)) Why the concept danger is not automatically perceived as such? For the uncertainty of danger. To include a note? (FLIX HERNNDEZ, IEG-CSIC) figure 1: It would be welcome if this figure would include also more recent emission data (until 2003?). Furthermore it seems strange that the figure for "Other" ends in the year 1995. (Radunsky Klaus, Umweltbundesamt) "methodologies" This seems to be confusing the objects of the study with the techniques used. (Ian Enting, MASCOS) insert "sustainable" before "economic" (Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) Continuing confusion between the criteria on the level of stabilization, and the criteria on the pace of stabilization. They should be more clearly distinguished when interpreting Art. 2, even if it is to conclude that they very significantly overlap--although 'dnagerous inteferences' might be broader than the three requirements on the pace of sabilization. The first paragraph of section 1.1.2 would be the place for that. (Frdric Ghersi, CNRS) WG II, Chapter 19 of the TAR was careful not to make sweeping conclusions as are presented in this section. It defined a small temperature rise as up to 2 C. The systems most sensitive to climate change were unique and threatened ecosystems, such as tropical glaciers, coral reefs etc. In its Executive Summary, the Chapter said "There is medium confidence that several of these systems will be affected by small temperature increase ..." Several is not many. Similar language was included in WG II's SPM and in the TAR Synthesis Report. It would be more appropriate to quote the TAR than to rewrite its conclusions. (Lenny Bernstein, L. S. Bernstein & Associates, L.L.C.) This section might best be served discussing not only WG2 Ch. 19 but also WG2 Chapter 4 which contains an extensive amount of information on what happens at different temperature thresholds. Chapter 19 deals mostly with key vulnerabilities Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Rejected, thought to be important for the description of Article 2 Rejected, danger is a social construct

1-160

Accepted

1-161

Will be picked up in redrafting (techniques is a wrong definition) Noted, picked up in redrafting Agreed, picked up in redrafting

1-162 1-163

A A

4 4

7 9

1-164

15

23

Rejected, chapter will be working with WG II AR4 conclusions

1-165

15

25

Accepted

Page 54 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-166

15

1-167

19

20

1-168

20

23

1-169

20

21

1-170

20

23

yet the material in Ch. 4 shows that siginificant anthropogenic influence occurs in other systems as well. (Jeff Price, California State University, Chico) References to dangerous temperature change should be better documented. The comment about 1 degree warming makes no sense--it talks about the possibility of "rapid" responses without considering the time over which the 1 degree warming occurs. (William Pizer, Resources for the Future) I quite agree with this sentence that points out the great risk from climate change by rising above 2-degrees because it is evaluated accurately from the viewpoint of current scientific knowledge. The papers below evaluate to be important to stay below 2 degrees. See two papers. - Kriegler, E., 2005: Imprecise probability analysis for integrated assessment of climate change.University of Potsdam, Germany. - EU, European Union: 2005, Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM(2005) 35 final. (Masatake Uezono, Citizens' Alliance for saving the Atmosphere and the Earth) Although I do now know the descriptions in Chapter 19 WG II, this description should be revised discretely, as described the above cell. (Fuminori Sano, Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth) The authors should look at Burkett et al 2005 article in Ecological Complexity for many examples of potential nonlinear impacts to ecosystems. I can provide a PDF on request. (Jeff Price, California State University, Chico) I am not a reviewer for the WGII, and therefore do not know the descriptions in Chapter 19 WGII. However, as described above, the upper limit of aggregated harm or injury cannot be defined. In addition, there is almost no literature to show the threshold for some of the catastrophic and discontinuous events, i.e., THC, WAIS, at 2degC limit from pre-industrial levels excluding some authors' value judgments. The description of "A 2degC increase was determined to be an upper limit beyond which the risks of grave damage to ecosystems, (see Chapter 19 WGII AR4) ..." should be revised cautiously. (Keigo Akimoto, Resaerch Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Partly accepted, references will be added

Noted

Rejected, not clear what is meant

Agreed (Bill Hare has the pdf)

Noted, picked up in redrafting, will be checked with WG II, chapter 19

Page 55 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-171

20

25

1-172

21

22

1-173

22

1-174

23

25

1-175

23

25

1-176

23

25

(RITE)) Rather than a specific CO2 level as a threshold, the trigger could be rates of change and the multiple changes occurring in the components of the climate system. See: Epstein PR, McCarthy JJ. Assessing Climate Stability. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. December 2004;1863-1870. (Paul Epstein, Harvard Medical School) Citing another WG as seen here ("see Chapter 19 WGII AR4") is inappropriate because the mentioned chapter is currently being reviewed and not yet completed. Thus, suggest to drop the first part of the sentence starting with "Research since that time---". (Koji Kadono, Global Industrial and Social Progress Research Institute) It is of course acceptable to refer to Chapter 19, WG2; but the authors of this chapter should be aware that that chapter got severely clobbered in review for being exceedingly alarmist. (Richard Tol, Hamburg University) The use of a single reference (that was already used in the TAR) seems inappropriate here. The cross-ref to Ch. 19 WGII AR4 is sufficient. A similar comment applies to lines 31-35. (Hans-Martin Fuessel, Stanford University) Delete this sentence. Stocker et al (1997) is correctly quoted, but it does not reflect the consensus, which is more accurately portrayed by the following quote from the Executive Summary of TAR, WG I, Chapter 7 (pg 419-420): "The Atlantic THC is likely to change over the coming century but its evolution continues to be an unresolved issue. While some recent calculations find little change in the THC, most projections suggests a gradual and significant decline of the THC. A complete shutdown of the THC is simulated in a number of models if the warming continues, but knowledge about the locations of thresholds for such a shut-down is very limited." Given this uncertainty, it is unreasonable to cite a single study as the definitive statement on this complex system. (Lenny Bernstein, L. S. Bernstein & Associates, L.L.C.) The description should be changed to "For example, Stocker et al. (1997) argue that the thermohaline circulation could shut down once atmospheric GHG concentration exceed 600 ppmv if climate sensitivity is assumed to be 3.7 degC, which means that the threshold is the global mean temperature change over 4 degC." Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Accepted

Rejected, will be (continuously) checked

Noted, will be checked with Ch 19 WG II

Agreed

Noted, picked up in redrafting (will be taken up with WG II and I)

Noted, picked up in redrafting (coordinated with WG II)

Page 56 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-177

23

25

1-178

23

25

1-179

25

1-180 1-181

A A

4 4

26 33 4 35

1-182

37

49

1-183

37

43

1-184

37

49

(Keigo Akimoto, Resaerch Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth (RITE)) Stocker at al (1997) seems a rather old reference, considering the availability of recent research (for example that presented by M Schlesinger; by R Wood at the Exeter Conference in Feb 2005) (Claire Parker, Environmental Policy Consultant) Stocker et al. (1997) is a single selective citation designed to alarm people. Cite other papers showing little disturbance of the thermohaline circulation. Otherwise IPCC will be accused of alarmist bias here. (Patrick Michaels, University of Virginia and Cato Insitutute) However, more recent work (e.g. Schlesinger, 2004 [ref not to hand]) suggests possible lower thresholds with potential for irreversibility and empirical studies (Bryden, 2005 [ref Nature], Wadham 2005[ref not to hand]) suggest that a slowing process has already begun. (Peter Read, MASSEY UNIVERSITY) The SAR has FOUR reasons for concern, not FIVE. Please read the chapter. (Richard Tol, Hamburg University) WHAT climate policies? The world can't even come close to meeting the Kyoto Protocol! (Patrick Michaels, University of Virginia and Cato Insitutute) Suggest to drop the two paragraphs as they would give the wrong impression that the 2-degree target is becoming the mainstream standard. The Japanese government, for example, has a different view in developing a long-term target (see pp 23-24of "Sustainable Future Framework on Climate Change Interim Report" by the METI, available at http://www.meti.go.jp/english/information/data/cFramework2004e.pdf ). (Koji Kadono, Global Industrial and Social Progress Research Institute) Elected officials seeking to define acceptable levels of climate change appears to be characterized as somehow separate from scientific input, which is inaccurate. The more appropriate point is that elected officials have paid heed to scientific advice. (Lourdes Maurice, US Government) Not only EU council statements but also United States statements, for example, should be described to be fair. (Keigo Akimoto, Resaerch Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Noted, picked up in redrafting

Rejected, will be coordinated with WG II Ch 19

Noted, picked up in redrafting

Rejected, please read the TAR Rejected, the UNFCCC shows that countries are on target (press release 15/2/06) Rejected, however, larger regional context will be inserted (coordinated with Ch 13)

Agreed, will be picked up in redrafting

See comment 1-182

Page 57 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-185

45

49

1-186 1-187

A A

4 4

47 50

17

48

1-188 1-189

A A

4 4

54 55 4 55

1-190 1-191 1-192

A A A

4 4 4

55 55 55 4 5 56 5

1-193

55

(RITE)) The fact that there are little publicly available documentation detailing the reasoning behind the views adopted by the EU Cuncil is not the weakness of the views themselves but the characteristic of the EU Council's documentation. As explained from line 19 of the same page, research has tended to confirm the assesment that 2 degree increase may be upper limit and already there are many documents to explain EU council's views. Therefore, it should be deleted as an example of weakness. (Kimiko Hirata, Kiko Network) the resources of these energies are more important, in particular in Europe (MICHEL PAILLARD, IFREMER) This literature review is very selective. It omits, for instance, the large body of literature on economic, legal and ethical approaches to target setting, some of which, by the way, argues against a 2 degree target. See Tol (forthcoming, Energy Policy). The literature review is fine for a political manifesto, but not for the IPCC. (Richard Tol, Hamburg University) "human socioeconomic" as opposed to ant and bee economies? (Richard Tol, Hamburg University) The reference "Hooss, 2001" is missing from the references list at the end of the chapter. Furthermore, Hooss' work on impulse-response climate models reveals the decadal time scales of the atmospheric response as well as the century-long time scales of the oceanic response. (Hans-Martin Fuessel, Stanford University) Hare and Meinshausen, the well-known climatologists? (Richard Tol, Hamburg University) Reference missing in REFERENCE section (Leo Schrattenholzer, IIASA) "global mean temperature will soon also stabilize-" should be modified to "global mean temperature will also stabilize relatively soon". (Koji Kadono, Global Industrial and Social Progress Research Institute) Line 56 contradicts line 58. The last sentence of this paragraph is a non-sequitor as the delay in sea level rise response is to do with the inertia of the Antarctic ice cap, not "oceanic response". (Stephen Perkins, European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT)) Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Rejected, it is a factual reflection

Rejected, not clear Will be taken into consideration

Accepted, Tols contribution to ant and bee economies will be reviewed (soon) Agreed, will be added

Rejected, not clear what is meant Agreed Rejected, no clear differences

Rejected, no contradiction observed

Page 58 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

1-194

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

55

55

1-195 1-196 1-197

A A A

4 4 5

58 0 1 5 9

1-198 1-199

A A

5 5

5 10 5 11

1-200

11

1-201

12

1-202

13

21

It is not clear what it the meaning of "temperature will soon stabilize-". "soon" means decades or years or centuries? It should be better specified. (Walter Dragoni, Perugia University) replace " - " with ", though a further " (Peter Read, MASSEY UNIVERSITY) Figure 1.3 of Tables & Figures could usefully spell Fluorinated in full. (Michael Jefferson, World Renewable Energy Network/Congresses) WG2 chapter 1 had far more data on this and should be referred to. It is also covered in ch 4 and 19. Not only polar and mountain top but also coral reefs are being impacted, although coral is a bit more controversial. Authors are encouraged to consult chapter 1 for more information. (Jeff Price, California State University, Chico) Meehl et al (2005) is about sea level rise (Claire Parker, Environmental Policy Consultant) Section 1.2.3. The reference to inertia in the energy system is crucial for the purposes of the whole report. Introducing it at an early stage in this section is very welcome. A reference to inertia in political systems might be apposite (TAR Synthesis, p.18) (Pat Finnegan, Grian) Suggest add "However, beneficial land use change may be implemented more quickly and achieve a temporal decoupling of net emissions reductions from energy sector re-investment (Read, 1996) (Peter Read, MASSEY UNIVERSITY) "Adaptation shorter time-scales" I doubt that this is true. It would be interesting if you could back this up with references. (Richard Tol, Hamburg University) This paragraph gives the adaptation perspective on mitigatiton, rather than the mitigation perspective on adaptation. It could thus be interpreted as 'adaptation in the short run, mitigation in the longer term', with the danger of misleading to 'no mitigation in the short run'. It should be rephrased along something like (1) mitigation has a greater potential than adaptation in the longer run (Jones 2004), (2) to ripe this potential, mitigation must start in the short run because of inertia (3) but, because of inertia again, it won't have short-run impacts, and adaptation is thus necessary in the short run. Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Agreed

Agreed Agreed Noted, will be checked

Rejected, has been checked, it is not only about sea levels, but also on global warming Accepted

Rejected, would require substantial discussion (space limitations)

Noted, will be checked with WG II relevant chapters Accepted

Page 59 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-203

14

15

1-204

15

21

1-205

15

15

1-206 1-207

A A

5 5

16 16

5 5

16 21

1-208

18

18

1-209

18

19

(Frdric Ghersi, CNRS) Replace with "Over the next two decades, mitigation can do little to avoid warming already 'loaded' into the system unless a holistic approach to managing the carbon cycle (Read 1992, Read and Lermit, 1993/5, Read 1995, Read 1996 (in print, MITI), Read, 1996 [under review]) is adopted on an ambitious scale, with futher benefits from avoided climate change in the following decades. (Peter Read, MASSEY UNIVERSITY) Poorly written. What is the point? I think the message is that we are already committed to some climate change and that not only mitigation, but also adaptation are needed, particularly since the potential to avoid damages in the short-term through mitigation is limited due to the lag time in the climate system between emission reductions, stabilization of concentrations in the atmosphere and reequilibration of temperature. Right now, it reads as if one should adapt now and mitigate later. (Anne Arquit Niederberger, Policy Solutions) Why "20 years" and not "30 or 10 or 40"? It should be explained or some reference should be given. (Walter Dragoni, Perugia University) two is not several. what does "robust" mean in this context? (Marco Mazzotti, Institute of Process Engineering) These conclusions are called "robust"; shouldn't they be quantified with confidence levels described in such detail in chapter 2? (Paul Baer, Stanford University) What is the criterion for "feasible" mitigation options? The TAR distinguished five levels of increasing mitigation poitential: market, economic, socio-economic, technical, and physical. In a different context, comparative risk assessment in human health distinguishes four alternative "counterfactual distributions of exposure": theoretical, plausible, feasible and cost-effective (Murray, C. J. L. and Lopez, A. D. (1999). On the comparable quantification of health risks: Lessons from the global burden of disease study. Epidemiology, 10:594605.) (Hans-Martin Fuessel, Stanford University) Even during the next one to three decades these effects can only be dealt with PARTIALLY. Effects such as coral bleaching and species extinction (see Thomas et al (nature 424, 2004)) will begin to bite and no adaptation measures could Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Noted, will be checked

Noted, will be checked

Accepted, references will be supplied

Accepted, robust will be deleted See above

Noted, reference added (and this means technically and economically feasible)

Agreed

Page 60 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-210

19

21

1-211

20

20

1-212

23

1-213

23

1-214

24

1-215

25

10

completely halt those. (Kenneth Mllersten, Swedish Energy Agency) The comparison of the long-term potential of mitigation compared to adaptation seems to be very relevant and therefore should be addressed also in the executive summary. (Radunsky Klaus, Umweltbundesamt) I see the danger that this could be understood as waiting with mitigation. To prevent I suggest to add another sentence:"But due to the inertia of the energy and the transport system it is necessary to begin with mitigation immediately so that emissions reductions are possible and effects can be seen in some years" (Manfred Treber, Germanwatch) The trends section should also refer to trends in atmospheric concentrations of GHGs (to be taken from WG I). Section should also incluse reference to climatic changes and impacts registered so far (to be taken from W G I and II) (Bert Metz, IPCC) The emission trends section misses information on the distribution of emissions. Add information on ermissions per capita, for instance fig 1 from Bolin and Kheshgi PNAS, Apr 24, 2001 (vol98, no 9, page 4850-4854). Add also country comparison expressed as CO2/ GDP (PPP) (Bert Metz, IPCC) This section on greenhouse gas emission trends seems quite arbitrary: Why only refer to past 30 years? Why not mention large differences in absolute emissions, emissions sources and emissions per capita among countries? The point should be made that there are three basic types of emissions: (i) emisisons for basic needs satisfaction; (ii) collective consumption (e.g., emissions associated with public infrastructure); and (iii) luxury emissions (Pan, Jiahua: Meeting human development goals with low emissions, IISD Bulletin 35(3): 90-97, July 2004). Or at least in a general way explain that developing countries have a different starting point and capacity to reduce emissions than Annex I countries do. (Anne Arquit Niederberger, Policy Solutions) Section 1.3.1 It is regrettable that the figures in the section and the corresponding graphs and tables do not refer to the same 'emissions', preferably that of all GHGs rather than that of CO2 alone (fig. 1.2), or an even more narrow CO2 from fossil fuel Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Agreed

Agreed

Checking with IPCC WG III Co-Chairs

Agreed but not necessarily this graph

Rejected, lack of data

Agreed

Page 61 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-216 1-217 1-218

A A A

5 5 5

25 28 28

11

55

1-219

28

29

1-220

30

combustion only (fig. 1.4). Appropriately compiled figures are probably available in the abundant literature--or could be derived from EDGAR or the UNFCCC database. (Frdric Ghersi, CNRS) section should also cover aerosol emissions, also in figures (Bert Metz, IPCC) Why Edgar? (Richard Tol, Hamburg University) The use of the sector breakdown in Table 1.1 and associated figures and discussion is poorly defined and detracts from the logic of the report. Suggest using a sector breakdown that is consistent with the sectors of chapters 4-10, and consistent with chapter 11 (e.g. Table 11.4.3). If there is reason to also retain the existing breakdown, then suggest that it be made clear how the different sector breakdowns interrelate, and what are the contributions for each sector by gas. (Haroon Kheshgi, ExoonMobil Research and Engineering Company) EDGAR is in capital letters. Pls. also refer to the following references: Olivier, J.G.J., Van Aardenne, J.A., Dentener, F., Pagliari, V., Ganzeveld, L.N. and J.A.H.W. Peters (2005) Recent trends in global greenhouse gas emissions: regional trends 1970-2000 and spatial distribution of key sources in 2000. Env. Sc., 2 (2-3), 81-99. DOI: 10.1080/15693430500400345. Olivier, J.G.J., T. Pulles and J.A. van Aardenne (2005) Part III: Greenhouse gas emissions: 1. Shares and trends in greenhouse gas emissions; 2. Sources and Methods; Greenhouse gas emissions for 1990 and 1995. In: "CO2 emissions from fuel combustion 1971-2003", 2005 Edition, pp. III.1-III.37. International Energy Agency (IEA), Paris. ISBN 9 92-64-10891-2 (paper) 92-64-10893-9 (CD ROM) (2005). (Jos Olivier, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP)) fig.1.1 In order to combat, to mitigate GHG emissions it is wise to know where the sources of GHG are? Where are the sources? About 65% of the GHG emissions are unspecified as Fossil Fuel Combustion in Fig.1.1. Fossil Fuel Combustion is a too general category, which are the real GHG emission sources? As long we do not know which sources are underlying these combustions, it will be difficult to combat them! (Robbert Misdorp, PUM) Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Agreed Why not? Agreed in principle, depends on easy access

Agreed

Noted, will be picked up in redrafting

Page 62 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

1-221 1-222

A A

5 5

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

32 33 5 36

1-223 1-224 1-225

A A A

5 5 5

35 38 38 5 5 38 40

1-226

40

1-227

41

41

1-228

41

41

1-229 1-230

A A

5 5

43 43 5 49

1-231

43

45

Specify 'CO2 emissions specifically' (not all GHG) (Frdric Ghersi, CNRS) Note that Methane concentrations in the atmosphere began to stabilize about 20 years ago and have actually been in decline in two of the last four years (Dlugokenky, 2004) (Patrick Michaels, University of Virginia and Cato Insitutute) add semi colon: and use of fossil fuels; agricultural (Michael Ebinger, Atmosphere, Climate, & Environmental Dynamics (EES-2)) Explain what the "F-gases" are. (Hans-Martin Fuessel, Stanford University) "F-gases" again. Furthermore, the imputed growth in these greenhouse gases is misleading. In fact their contribution remained more or less constant during the period 1990 to 2000 because a reduction in emissions of byproduct HFCs was almost balanced by a growth in emissions from fluorinated greenhouse gases used as ODS substitutes. (Nick Campbell, ARKEMA SA) the 6% for deforestation cannot be right. Recent assessments of deforestation emissions are 1-3 Gt C/yr, vs 6-7 for fossil fuels. There should be an update in WG 1. Revise all the numbers to be consistent with whatever WG 1 says. (Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) Figure 1.1 - 10 exp 12 kg is an unusual measure of emissions. The vertical axis should be relabelled Gigatonnes CO2-eq. (Lenny Bernstein, L. S. Bernstein & Associates, L.L.C.) It would be very useful to also have the numerical information of the graph as a table. (Leo Schrattenholzer, IIASA) is this 70% in CO2-equivalents (ie. Scaled by 100-year GWP) ? (Ian Enting, MASCOS) It is noted that the UNFCCC has meanwhile also published emission data of NonAnnex I Parties. It is proposed to build on this information and to include another paragraph highlighting the structure of emissions from Non-Annex I Parties. (Radunsky Klaus, Umweltbundesamt) Same comment as 1-24-Table 1.1 above. Some fossil fuel combustion is happening in agriculture. Precise perhaps CH4 and NO2 emissions from agriculture? Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Accepted Rejected, no concentrations considered in chapter

Agreed Agreed Noted, to be checked

Noted, will be checked with WG I and II (full range to be added)

Noted, whatever the final units will be, they will be used Agreed, but space limitations may be prohibitive Will be clarified in the text Noted

Noted, will be considered in redrafting

Page 63 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-232

43

1-233

44

1-234

44

44

1-235 1-236

A A

5 5

45 48

1-237

51

51

(Frdric Ghersi, CNRS) Text (and figures) should describe distribution by gas and sector more clearly and separate (Bert Metz, IPCC) F-gases should be explained as fluorinated first time around, and listed in abbreviations/acronyms. (Michael Jefferson, World Renewable Energy Network/Congresses) the number for deforestation seems dramatically understated here, by as much as 2 or 3 times, with particular reference to: Houghton R.A. (2005) Aboveground Forest Biomass and the Global Carbon Balance. Global Change Biology. 11, 945 958 Houghton, R. A.: 2003, Revised estimates of the annual net flux of carbon to the atmosphere from changes in land use and land management, Tellus 55, 378390. DeFries, R. S., Houghton, R. A., Hansen, M. C., Field, C. B., Skole, D., and Townshend, J.: 2002, Carbon emissions from tropical deforestation and regrowth based on satellite observations for the 1980s and 1990s, PNAS 99, 1425614261. Achard, F., Eva, H. D., Stibig, H. J., Mayaux, P., Gallego, J., Richards, T., and Malingreau, J. P.: 2002, Determination of deforestation rates of the worlds humid tropical forests, Science 297, 9991002 (Steve Sawyer, Greenpeace International) Should refer to industrial process emissions rather than "industry"? (Anne Arquit Niederberger, Policy Solutions) Table1.1. the National Communications of all member states of the UNFCCC provide much more information per nation which could be analysed and lead to more in depth information than table 1.1. provides. USA and the Netherlands have supported more than 70 developing countries in formulating National Communications according to a logical frame. So use more UNFCCC data. (Robbert Misdorp, PUM) Since Figure 1.2 shows only CO2 emissions, the vertical axis should be relabelled Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Noted, will be considered in redrafting

Noted, will be considered in redrafting

See response to 1-226

Noted, should be industrial processes Noted, will be clarified in text why which data were used (UNFCCC data are not as geographically complete)

See response to comment 1-227

Page 64 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-238

51

1-239

55

1-240 1-241 1-242

A A A

5 5 6

56 0 6

1-243

1-244 1-245 1-246 1-247 1-248

A A A A A

6 6 6 6 6

9 11 11 12 13 36

Gigatonnes CO2. (Lenny Bernstein, L. S. Bernstein & Associates, L.L.C.) Figure 1.2: Only from this figure, it is difficult to understand the differences between developed countries and developing countries. In addition to this figure, other figures related to both the developed region and the developing region can be displayed separately? (Toshihiko Masui, National Institute for Environmental Studies) In table 1.1 there is a confusing sector distribution: F gases is no sector; what does fossil fuel combustion mean? (transportation also covers that; probably meant electricity production); check with TAR and ch 11 to ensure full consistency in how sectoral emissions are reported (Bert Metz, IPCC) Pls. replace link by: http://www.mnp.nl/edgar/ (Jos Olivier, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP)) Table 1.1: Information up to 2003 is now available on the UNFCCC website. (Hans-Martin Fuessel, Stanford University) Delete "on a geographic basis" .. It adds nothing to the sentence about differences between regions (Ian Enting, MASCOS) Regarding "Asia" in line 7 and in Figure 1.4. The figure is cited from IEA(2005) and the original figure has a footnote clarifying that "Asia" refers to Asia including Korea and excluding China and Japan. This should be mentioned. (Koji Kadono, Global Industrial and Social Progress Research Institute) Precise that the decline in FSU emissions is due to the collapse of the Soviet Union. (Frdric Ghersi, CNRS) Figure 1.4. Concerning Asia** - What is the meaning of the asterisk? (Matti Melanen, Finnish Environment Institute) Figure 1.4: Unit of the vertical axis is missing. (Toshihiko Masui, National Institute for Environmental Studies) Section 1.3.2.: The recent trend of oil price is not mentioned. Why? (Toshihiko Masui, National Institute for Environmental Studies) Citing a single projection does not reflect the available literature, and the text provides no information on the model assumptions, structure, etc., so that the results are essentially meaningless Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Noted, quality will be improved

Noted, will be checked and considered in redrafting

Agreed Noted Agreed

Agreed, only regions will be given in Table 1.4

Accepted See response to 1-243 Agreed Accepted, fuel prices will be mentioned Accepted, analysis will be included

Page 65 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-249

15

35

1-250 1-251

A A

6 6

15 15

35

1-252

15

21

1-253

15

36

(Anne Arquit Niederberger, Policy Solutions) IEA's scenarios are not realistic, they are not based on any credible price perspectives. This paragraphe should be delted; at least, it should be detailled something as "the iea reference case does not take into account any significant price" (Antoine-Tristan Mocilnikar, Dlgu Interministriel au Dveloppement Durable) "increase. It corresponds therefore to a demand scenario for energy". (Antoine-Tristan Mocilnikar, Dlgu Interministriel au Dveloppement Durable) Section 1.3.2 This will be a vital section in terms of both readership and potential influence. So it is baffling to me why, having introduced it with "There are a variety of projections of the energy picture for the coming decades", only one projection (IEA WEO 2004) is either quoted or described. There should be (at the very least) a description of at least one alternative (less BAU) projection included (e.g IEA Alternative Energy Scenario). A table outlining the various ranges of the various projections in play would be even more useful. (Pat Finnegan, Grian) It seems that the IEA's 'World Alternative Policy' Scenario merits inclusion here, which is outlined in Ch. 11 of the 2004 WEO (IEA 2004); more work on this has beend one this year (although I'm not sure if published) esp. at the workshop in June, and there are important new variations being readied for publication early this year, which may not meet your deadline. However, this new work reflects, among other things, the reality of current fossil fuel prices, rather than the 28 USD/bbl oil and other ca. year 2000 fossil fuel prices...since which time coal has doubled, oil has almost triped, and gas has at least tripled... (Steve Sawyer, Greenpeace International) It should be noted that projections, almost by definition, are often wrong. Unexpected events can come across, that may alter future choices. Think, e.g. about the recent developments Russia - Ukraine, related to gas security of supply. Also current oil prices are much higher than were projected byu IEA some time ago. These developments may change future energy choices, the fuel mix, the introduction of new or the revival of older energy sources, etc. It may therefore be better to, instead of referring to trends, use background scenarios or storylines that offer a variety of possible futures. The International Gas Union is now working on a storyline project, to be presented at the Wold Gas Conference in June 2006. The Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Noted

Noted See response to comment 1-248

See response to comment 1-248

See response to comment 1-248

Page 66 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

project is carried out by IIASA (Nebojsa Nakicenovic) and Groningen University (Catrinus Jepma). Please don't hesitate to contact the IGU secretariate, mrs Geja Popken for further details and (interim) reports: Office of the International Gas Union Presidency Phone number +31 50 521 2296 Fax number +31 50 521 1977 Mail address g.popken@gasunie.nl (Jan Paul van Soest, Advies voor Duurzaamheid on request of International Gas Union) The IEA's 2005 World Energy Outlook also contains information of relevance, and it would be appropriate to make some critical comments on the assumptions therein as no hint is given there of resource shortages. (Michael Jefferson, World Renewable Energy Network/Congresses) To be absolutely clear, it should be mentioned again that these numbers all refer to the reference scenario of the World Energy Outlook (IEA 2004); For example, it cold say (in line 22): "According to IEA projections in the reference scenario." (Joachim Schleich, Fraunhofer Institute Systems and Innovation Research) Suggest using the definition of 'new renewables' in Martinot (2005) (Steve Sawyer, Greenpeace International) replace 'will' with 'is currently projected' (Steve Sawyer, Greenpeace International) 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 the sections and tables do not give a full comprehensive approach to the problem but assure that p.6, r 30-31 tow- thirds of energy related emissions will come from developing countries, and r 36, emission growth will be dominated by developing countries. As we know, industrialized countries are responsible for about 83% of the rise of cumulative emissions since 1800, and developed countries were responsible for 61.5% of global carbon dioxide emissions in 1996. Are developing countries going to save the world? I suggest this is the place where the information is needed as just to clarify the situation. (Juan Llanes, Havana University) I couldnt resolve the 1.7% growth with the 62% growthplease add clues on how to do this for future readers. (Michael Ebinger, Atmosphere, Climate, & Environmental Dynamics (EES-2)) Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote Page 67 of 111

1-254

17

21

See response to comment 1-248

1-255

22

36

See response to comment 1-248

1-256 1-257 1-258

A A A

6 6 6

26 28 30

6 6

26 28

Accepted Accepted Partly accepted, will be picked up in redrafting (in the regionalisation approach)

1-259

34

36

Accepted, will be made more clear

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

1-260

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

37

1-261

40

55

1-262

40

10

1-263

40

45

1-264 1-265

A A

6 6

43 44

I miss here a section on the trend in sectoral energy consumption, e.g. that transport, in particular road transport, and electric power generation are dominating the energy consumption trend in both industrialised and developing regions. And, the trend in non-electrical energy consumption in manufacturing and households is nearly constant, also at global level. (see IEA data and http://www.mnp.nl/mnc/1nl-0166.html). (Jos Olivier, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP)) There is a substantial body of literature on decomposing energy use and carbon emissions, mostly published in Energy Economics and Energy Policy. None of that literature is referred to here. The simple-minded decomposition attempted here pales in comparison to the professional standard. The population numbers can't be right. (Richard Tol, Hamburg University) The Kaya identity has two faces: it gives insight in the key factors leading to trends in CO2 emissions on the one hand, but may be seen as a guide to policy interventions on the other hand. In a politically neutral report like the IPCC reports are/should be, it can not be defended to make political choices and assumptions. The conclusion NOT to use two of the four Kaya identity factors as steering factor for policies (namely population and GDP growth) is a normative/political conclusion, which should be avoided. In the IPCC reports these factors should be elaborated as possible factors that can be influenced, and how that can be done, the choice to do so or not is a political one. It is in our view that these factors, population and GDP growth, are addressed in the FAR report. (Jan Paul van Soest, Advies voor Duurzaamheid on request of International Gas Union) Also mention the two main causes of increase of energy use in society over the last 3 decades: 1) the electrification trends of societies, both in developed and developing countries; 2) the growth of transport, in particular local (road) but also at international level (ship/air). (Jos Olivier, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP)) Figure 1.5: the caption of the figure is not clear as the text (Marco Mazzotti, Institute of Process Engineering) The relevance of the decreasing Energy intensity and CO2 (Carbon??? = line 54) intensity is not clear. These two decreasing intensities (Fig 1.5) may suggest that Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Rejected, part of sectoral chapters 4, etc.

Accepted

Rejected, because it is not an instrument for policy evaluation

Noted, will be analysed whether a more detailed description can be given

Accepted, figure and caption will be changed Rejected, but comment for clarification will be made

Page 68 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-266

50

50

1-267

50

51

1-268

55

1-269

1-270

the future might be bright under the decreasing intensities, but that is fake and only due to the definition of these two intensity parameters. It creates confusion! My suggestion: skip these two parameters. (Robbert Misdorp, PUM) Suggest including a discussion of the recent increase in C/PE and projected (e.g. IEA) increasing trends in carbon per unit primary energy. The sign is opposite that mentioned in this section. (Haroon Kheshgi, ExoonMobil Research and Engineering Company) Mention part of decarbonization is illusionary, linked to leakage of heavy industries to non-OECD countries? (Frdric Ghersi, CNRS) Therefore the task at hand is formidable: global GHG emission reductions in absolute terms. This presupposes a reduction of energy and carbon intensities at a faster rate than income and population growth together. Bravo, yes that is a good statement by IPCC. I fully agree with this statement. Yes that is indeed one of the major tasks to be undertaken by a conscious UN agency! My question is what results of the proposed measures by which (UN) organization striving to reach population growth reduction, can be mentioned here? (Robbert Misdorp, PUM) It could be added, that the basic conclusions of IEA (2004) also hold in the more recent "World Energy Outlook 2005 - Middle East and North Africa Insights" (IEA 2005) (Joachim Schleich, Fraunhofer Institute Systems and Innovation Research) recognizing that population is a factor in future emissions, and therefore that promoting lower population scenarios can be part of a strategy to eventually stabilize climate, is not a question of "controlling" population development. Rather, it is more a question of giving people CHOICE - namely the ability to choose to have smaller families if they want to. Check the population and demographic literature - it is known that there is large unmet demand at present (probably several hundred million couples) for contraceptive and family planning services. Thus, it does not at all follow that the last two terms in the Kaya identity have to bear the main burden. This paragraph should be re-written and expanded to present a more balanced perspective. (Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Partly accepted, will be improved through better presentation of analysis

Rejected, at global level it is no issue

Rejected, this is not the issue (however, precise analysis will be presented)

Noted, will be dealt with

Agreed, will be considered in redrafting

Page 69 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

1-271

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-272 1-273

A A

7 7

5 7 7

1-274 1-275

A A

7 7

7 7 7 7

1-276

1-277

10

Article 2 most emphatically does not call for unimpeded sustainable economic development. It calls for GHG concentrations and resulting climatic change low enough to ENABLE sustainable economic development. Economic development could, for example, be slowed down but still be enabled, but it would not be unimpeded in that case. (Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) after "intensities " insert "or an increase in net biotic fixation" (Peter Read, MASSEY UNIVERSITY) Reference to "unimpeded sustainable economic development" unacceptable (UNFCCC says that GHG concentrations must be stabilized at a level and within a timeframe that "enables economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner") (Anne Arquit Niederberger, Policy Solutions) Debatable interpretation of Art. 2 again (cf. 1-2-21, 1-3-29, 1-3-34 above). (Frdric Ghersi, CNRS) This is a somewhat misleading characterization of Article II - it doesn't say that "sustainable economic development shall be unimpeded"; it says "economic development shall proceed in a sustainable manner." Particularly since all countries will claim that their development is sustainable, this amounts to an interpretation that "economic development (growth) shall be unimpeded, which is a very problematic reading of Article II. (Paul Baer, Stanford University) The issue of controlling population may alternatively be considered as a simple numbers X resource demand problem, where increased numbers can already be seen in many parts of the World to have imposed severe pressures. Thus % ghg emissions targets which do not reflect projected population growth are of limited value (e.g the UK officially projects a 7 million plus increase in its population by 2030, which makes a nonsense of 'aspirational' 20% electricity generation from new renewables by 2020 and path to a 60% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050). This highlights the need for fully-integrated strategic thinking and responses which could usefully be covered more fully and directly in this WGIII submission. (Michael Jefferson, World Renewable Energy Network/Congresses) I miss here a par. on the trends of the non-CO2 GHGs. This has been summarised e.g. in Part III of the annual IEA book 'CO2 from fuel combustion 1971-2003', Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Accepted

Rejected Agreed

Agreed Agreed

Accepted, will be considered in redrafting

Accepted

Page 70 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-278

14

42

1-279

19

23

1-280

20

20

1-281

23

23

1-282

23

1-283

25

29

based on EDGAR data, of which the methodology is also described, as are emissions per country provided for 1990, 1995 and 2000, or in 'The Climate System' and in Olivier, J.G.J., Van Aardenne, J.A., Dentener, F., Pagliari, V., Ganzeveld, L.N. and J.A.H.W. Peters (2005) Recent trends in global greenhouse gas emissions: regional trends 1970-2000 and spatial distribution of key sources in 2000. Env. Sc., 2 (2-3), 81-99. DOI: 10.1080/15693430500400345. I will send you FYI a copy of this IEA book Part III and the Env Sc. Paper; further details on sources and regions can be found at the EDGAR website http://www.mnp.nl/edgar/. (Jos Olivier, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP)) This is not a good overview of the stipulations of these two agreements (e.g., all countries have an obligation under the UNFCCC to implement programs to mitigate climate change). For a more systematic overview, refer to Fact Sheets 18 and 21 at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/publications/infokit_2002_en.pdf (Anne Arquit Niederberger, Policy Solutions) Throughout the text, when referring to specific UNFCCC texts, these should be cited directly (e.g., Art. 3.1 refers to the concept of "common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities", not just "differentiated responsibilities") (Anne Arquit Niederberger, Policy Solutions) It would be very useful to have a formulation of the precautionary principle (if it exists in a generally accepted form) referenced here or formulated here. Maybe even better, you could simply say sth. like "the adoption of precautionary measures". (Leo Schrattenholzer, IIASA) Ch 1 page 7 line 23 - There should be an explanation of the obligation (Kirsty Hamilton, retainer to UK Business Council for Sustainable Energy; Associate Fellow, Chatham House.) the parallel track negotiations. It should be made clear what UNFCCC parties must do to meet the objectives of Art 2. It has become much more important since Montreal with in Arts 4(2)(a)(b) and (d). The IPCC must set out the meaning of the obligation here. (Kirsty Hamilton, retainer to UK Business Council for Sustainable Energy; Associate Fellow, Chatham House.) It should pointed out whether the United States and Australia are the only countries Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Noted

Agreed

Partially accepted, use Convention language (Article 3.3)

Rejected, this is not a review of the Convention Rejected, this cannot be a review of the Convention

Noted will be reflected

Page 71 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-284

25

42

1-285

25

30

1-286

25

25

1-287

27

27

1-288

27

27

1-289

28

that have signed but not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, or why they are named explicitly here. (Hans-Martin Fuessel, Stanford University) Most of the information in this paragraph is technically correct but incomprehensible to anyone not intimately familiar with the Kyoto Protocol. It is unclear what message the authors are trying to convey. If it is to summarize the important features of the Kyoto Protocol, then a more thematic approach should be used. For example, the Kyoto Protocol has been characterized as having three major features: 1) a set of mandatory emission reduction targets for developed nations, 2) a set of flexibility mechanisms to reduce the cost of meeting those targets, and 3) a set of procedures for determining whether the targets have been met. There are three errors in the paragraph: on line 26, it is 55% of 1990 Annex I CO2 emissions, not GHG emissions. On line 28, the countries that have ratified Kyoto represent 61.6% of 1990 Annex I CO2 emissions, not 61.6% of 1990 emissions. On line 34, the phrase used in Articles 6, 12, and 17 of the Kyoto Protocol is that the use of the flexibility mechanisms shall be "supplemental to domestic action." The phase "significant element of effort" is not used and should not be in quotation marks. (Lenny Bernstein, L. S. Bernstein & Associates, L.L.C.) 61.6% of the 1990 CO2 emission of Annex 1 countries only less Ukraine. So 153 should be changed. (Alexander Golub, Environmental Defense) Technically, after adoption by consensus at COP3 it was signed by countries mostly during 1998 (Michael Grubb, Cambridge University) Article 25.1 of the Kyoto Protocol refers to CO2 emissions not to greenhouse gas emissions (Joachim Schleich, Fraunhofer Institute Systems and Innovation Research) The threshold is not 55% of Annex I 1990 emissions, it is 55% of 1990 Annex I CO2 emissions only. (cfr. Article 25.1 of the Kyoto Protocol) (Philippe Tulkens, TERI School of Advanced Studies) "61.6% of the 1990 emissions" => "61.6% of the 1990 emissions from the Annex I countries" (Koji Kadono, Global Industrial and Social Progress Research Institute) Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Accepted

Accepted to be che cked

Noted to be checked

Accepted

ccepted

Accepted

Page 72 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

1-290

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

28

1-291 1-292

A A

7 7

28 29 7 32

1-293

30

30

1-294

33

33

1-295

33

42

Non-ratified parties to the Kyoto Protocol are not just only Australia and the United States. So, those quote should be deleted. (Kimiko Hirata, Kiko Network) 61.6% of the 1990 emissions from Annex I countries and .. (Claire Parker, Environmental Policy Consultant) The phrase "are expected to" fails to take account of the fact that the original 5.2% figure has been whittled away in subsequent UNFCCC negotiations. Similarly, very few of the Annex B Parties (except for economies in transition) made demonstrable progress by 2005 - very much the reverse. (Michael Jefferson, World Renewable Energy Network/Congresses) The reduction of 5.2% relative to 1990 level is an estimate computed by compiling all individual targets of Annex I countries. As such, the overall target is not a commitment. Moreover, the figure of 5.2% was published prior to the finalization of the rules in the Marrakesh accords. The figure should be checked against all the additional concessions on sinks for instance given to some Parties. Recomputing the aggregate of all targets taken into account the final decisions is likely to change the figure of 5.2%. Dr. den Elzen from the Netherlands published on the Kyoto objective as assessed after the Marrakesh accords, his paper may help in reassessing the figure. The reference is http://www.mnp.nl/en/publications/2002/The_Bonn_Agreement_and_Marrakesh_ Accords__an_updated_analysis.html (Philippe Tulkens, TERI School of Advanced Studies) a significant element of the effort, being placed between quotation marks, looks like an exact quote of the Kyoto Protocol Article 6.1 d) or Article 17, but isn't. The text says :"The acquisition of emission reduction units shall be supplemental to domestic actions for the purposes of meeting commitments under Article 3." I suggest a wording closer to the actual text, or supress the quotation marks. (Cdric Philibert, International Energy Agency) The key feature of the Kyoto Protocol is explained only in view point of developed countries(Annex B). One of the objective of the CDM is to contribute to the sustainable development of developing countries(Article 12 of Kyoto Protocol). The CDM can contribute to the sustainable development mainly through by technology transfer. This is important point to developing countries considering that some Annex I countries tried to get CER only, not to transfer technology. So, I Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Noted will be rephrased

Accepted Partially accepted: Part 1 accepted, part 2 irrelevant

Noted will be tried to do

Accepted

Accepted & but phrased diffeerently

Page 73 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-296

34

34

1-297

34

1-298

36

1-299

36

39

1-300

37

38

1-301 1-302 1-303 1-304

A A A A

7 7 7 7

39 39 40 44

7 7 7

40 42 43

1-305

45

20

recommend to add the sentence "The CDM can contribute to the sustainable development of developing countries through by technology transfer" in line 39, page 7. The alternative way is to insert this sentence in line 13, page 8. (Dong-Woon Noh, Korea Energy Economics Institute) Section 1.4.1 Again, it seems to me vitally important that when UNFCCC and the KP are cited, as a minimum one would expect them to be quoted correctly. The quoted reference to supplementarity appears to be drawn from the wording used in the EU Linking Directive, not the quoted KP Articles (6.1 d & 17). (Pat Finnegan, Grian) the statement on domestic action also pertains to the project based mechanisms, either because of Art 6.1 (d) or because of subsequent decisions of the Parties (Claire Parker, Environmental Policy Consultant) Replace "purchase" with "acquire," since some Kyoto transactions are in the form of investments (which is a relevant point with respect to technology transfer, taxation, etc). See Arquit Niederberger, A., and R. Saner, Exploring the relationships between FDI flows and CDM potential, Transnational Corporations, 14(1), 1-40, April 2005. (Anne Arquit Niederberger, Policy Solutions) Why are the common terms "emission trading" and "Joint Implementation" avoided here? (Leo Schrattenholzer, IIASA) too many "from" 's. Suggest ." (ERU's) form other Annex B Parties for project activities under Article 6" and similarly for CER's and CDM Art 12 (Peter Read, MASSEY UNIVERSITY) relatively intrusive' is rather pejorative and could be considered subjective. (Frdric Ghersi, CNRS) This sentence seems very subjective, in particular, the use of the word "instrusive". (Nick Campbell (Batch 2), ARKEMA SA) Should be updated to represent MOP decisions better. (Alexander Golub, Environmental Defense) Section 1.4.2: This section as well as Section 1.7.1 lacks coordination with Section 2.2., which addresses the same topic. (Hans-Martin Fuessel, Stanford University) The attempt to place climate change in an overall sustainability framework did not Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Accepted

Noted to be checked

Accepted

Accepted

Accepted

Rejected it is a feature of the system Rejected it is a feature of the system Agreed Accepted

Noted there are three dimensions but will be

Page 74 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-306

45

46

1-307

45

50

1-308

45

20

1-309

46

49

1-310 1-311

A A

7 7

46 46 7 52

succeed. The devolution of sustainability into "environmental sustainability," "social sustainability" and "ecomomic sustainability" is problematic, since sustainability is a holistic concept generally defined so as to address all three dimensions in relation to one another (i.e., "environmental sustainability" -- without regard for economic and social considerations -- is a contradiction in terms). (Anne Arquit Niederberger, Policy Solutions) Good overview. First sentence should be made more general, to cover two-way SDCC links -- e.g., "Climate change responses (including mitigation) should become part and parcel of sustainable development, and the two made mutually reinforcing (MMRS 2005)." Note that MMRS is a good general reference with extensive analysis of SDmitigation linkages. (Mohan Munasinghe, Munasinghe Institute for Development (MIND)) Climate change mitigation had the potential to harm ecosystems as often as help (see WG3 ch 9, WG2 ch 4) so a statement that "mitigation conserves or enhances natural capital" is simply not correct. It CAN conserve or enhance but it can also damage or reduce. (Jeff Price, California State University, Chico) "Climate change mitigation is part and parcel of sustainable development and the two are mutually reinforcing"; therefore, it is necessary to have standardized metrics and methods to measure sustainability. There is a need to adopt a unified, global, approach(s) to assessing sustainability. (James Bero, BASF Corporation) Is this a scientific statement (reference?) or a political wish? I can envision several sustainable development measures that would contribute to climate change (e.g., switching from high-polluting traditional biogenic fuels for indoor cooking to fossil fuels or electricity). (Hans-Martin Fuessel, Stanford University) insert "reduce" before "GHG" (Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) Mitigation may also be directly beneficial for human capital ('people'), eg energy saving may lead to lower fossil fuel production (or lower growth of fossil fuel production), transport and use, which may have a lower impact on e.g. local communities, conflicts etc. Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

made more factual

Noted rephrased to include can be

Accepted

Noted

See comment 1-307

Accepted Noted

Page 75 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-312

47

1-313

52

52

1-314 1-315

A A

7 7

54 54

8 8

13 10

1-316

54

54

1-317

54

54

1-318

55

(Jan Paul van Soest, Advies voor Duurzaamheid on request of International Gas Union) Replace "Mitigation..." with "This is particularly the case with a holistic carbon cycle management strategy addressed at potential abrupt climate change, of which the first stage involves the development of a large-scale global bioenergy market, with South-North trade in bio-fuels, based on a redirection of energy sector investment in primary energy production towards land improvement, particularly in many land rich but otherwise impoverished developing countries, leading to raised soil productivity and the co-production of biomass as primary energy raw material with food and forest products within a framework of enforceable sustainable development criteria. Such mitigation... ". (Peter Read, MASSEY UNIVERSITY) Section 1.4.2 A reference to UNFCCC Art 3.2 would support the text on the special circumstances of developing countries. (Pat Finnegan, Grian) See my comment re. p. 7, l. 46. (Hans-Martin Fuessel, Stanford University) --- as with P2L36, the authors are presenting as consequential facts, things that are their ideas of what is desirable. (Ian Enting, MASCOS) First sentence refers to the well-known "SD triangle", which was comprehensively covered in TAR and earlier. An appropriate reference would be useful to readers who seek more details: "Sustainable development has environmental, economic and social dimensions (MM 1992, IPCC 2000, IPCC 2001 SYR)". Cited refs are: (1) Munasinghe, M. 1992. Environmental Economics and Sustainable Development, World Bank, Wash. DC, USA; (2) IPCC 2001, Synthesis Report, Figure 8.3, pp.132-133, IPCC, Geneva; & (3) IPCC 2000, "Development, Equity and Sustainability", Cross Cutting Issues Guidance Papers, pp.69-113, IPCC, Geneva. (Mohan Munasinghe, Munasinghe Institute for Development (MIND)) What is meant by social dimensions? Does this include poverty, problems with illiteracy, discrimination against women, etc.? If yes, then this point should be explained or clarified when first mentioned on page 7. (Lourdes Maurice, US Government) "Climate change will exacerbate poverty" please delete or substantiate; my last Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Rejected too long and not always correct

Accepted

Noted Noted will be accounted for

Accepted

Rejected included in definition

Noted literarture will be reviewed

Page 76 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-319

1-320

1-321

13

1-322

1-323

13

1-324

reading of the literature is that one cannot make this statement with any confidence (Richard Tol, Hamburg University) 1.5.2, is climate a public good or a global common? is climate consumed by humans or used?, is climate a resource like most public goods or a condition ?. What kind of public good is Climate with regard to Calculus or National Defense, a special one where humans can change the quality so drastically? Public goods theory is an economic theory linked to game theory and I cant see how this section contributes to the purpose of the chapter. Later on the Report there is no reference to public good theory. (Juan Llanes, Havana University) There is no evidence that existing climate is "ideal", and therefore this should not be a component of "sustainability" (Patrick Michaels, University of Virginia and Cato Insitutute) Discussion of economic value (or aggregate capital) value could be more explicit about the tendency for the anthropocentric nature of much discussion on sustainable development in more recent times to undervalue landscape, 'natural' habitat, and related amenity values. This lies at the root of growing conflicts about wind energy developments, where concerns about ever higher turbines (125 m plus) in areas of low average wind speed with high landscape value are rising, schemes promoted by subsidies and unbalanced policy initiatives. The discussion as presented allows for inclusion of this, given its references to natural capital. This is an issue which most developed countries may consider 'more affordable' than developing ones, but social sustainability can encompass many different levels of economic development. (Michael Jefferson, World Renewable Energy Network/Congresses) I suggest refering the reader to Neumayer (1999) for a definition and a discussion of the strong and weak substainability concepts. Neumayer, Eric, 1999, Weak versus Strong Sustainability: Exploring the Limits of Two Opposing Paradigms. Cheltenham and Northampton. Edwar Elgar publishing (Cdric Philibert, International Energy Agency) This paragraph appears unbalanced by only mentioning the benefits, saying nothing about potential cost. (Leo Schrattenholzer, IIASA) Change "Mitigation satisfies social sustainability as well " to "Mitigation can Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Noted definition of public good needs clarification plus references

Rejected no aspects of ideal in public goods Rejected beyond scope of chapter

Accepted

Noted well be taken on board

Accepted

Page 77 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-325

1-326

12

13

1-327

12

13

1-328

13

1-329

13

13

1-330

14

satisfy social sustainability as well " Mitigation does not automatically pay heed to socio-economic development rather than growth. It can be implemented without proper consideration of these aspects. (Lenny Bernstein, L. S. Bernstein & Associates, L.L.C.) This is an assertion that depends on the type of mitigation. Suggest replace "satisfies" with "can satisfy" and "by paying" with "if it pays". (Peter Read, MASSEY UNIVERSITY) The final part of this sentence is somewhat controversial. All Parties have recognized the priority for developing countries to develop economically. However, Parties to the Convention should not simply state that they have other priorities than climate protection. Their commitment is in a way to integrate, in accordance with their capacity, climate protection within their development priorities. A ranking of priority that would simply put climate protection in low priority does not seem much in line with the Conventions objective. (Philippe Tulkens, TERI School of Advanced Studies) Lomborg (2004) is not suitable paper to quote on the sentence because it describes a general thing. It is unworthy of quoting Lomborg (2004). It is necessary to delete Lomborg (2004). (Masatake Uezono, Citizens' Alliance for saving the Atmosphere and the Earth) Lomborg should probably not be as bluntly quoted: the reader should be aware that his work on climate change (if not the precise book referred to) is very polemical and has triggered much contradiction. Anyway the point made would be better sustained through quoting some DC expert. (Frdric Ghersi, CNRS) whilst recognising that failure to prevent climate change leads to huge economic costs in one generation (Kirsty Hamilton, retainer to UK Business Council for Sustainable Energy; Associate Fellow, Chatham House.) Lomborg is not a serious author on the issue of priorities of development. One suggestion of an respected source is the Brazilian economist Ignacy Sachs in Sachs. (I.), 1998, "La logique du dveloppement", Revue Internationale des Sciences Sociales, Paris 50me anne, in English under "The Logic of development", International Social Science Journal, Oxford, 50th year, N 157, september 1998, pp.361-365. Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Accepted

Accepted

Noted Reference is misplaced & other references will be provided

See comment 1-327

Noted see comment 1-318

Noted Part I irrelevant and Sachs literarture will be reviewed

Page 78 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-331

19

20

1-332

22

1-333

40

(Antoine BONDUELLE, E&E_Consultant) Vulnerability is defined differently in the climate change context and by other scientific and policy communities, but never as "degree of exposure" (selected publications discussing the conceptualization of `vulnerability' in climate change research include Adger (1999), Kelly and Adger (2000), Olmos (2001), Downing et al.(2001), Moss et al. (2001), Brooks (2003), Downing and Patwardhan (2003), and O'Brien et al. (2004a)). (Hans-Martin Fuessel, Stanford University) Section 1.4.3. There seem to be an assumption in this section that economic growth is a sufficient criterion to describe progress in poverty alleviation or eradication. This criterion is necessary but it is not sufficient. The redistribution of wealth is as essential to poverty eradication as much as the overall growth of an economy. Could this be clearly mentionned somewhere? (Philippe Tulkens, TERI School of Advanced Studies) Short of explanation as to why the Marrakesh Accord is referred to in the context. (Koji Kadono, Global Industrial and Social Progress Research Institute) Section 1.4.4. A reference to the chapter elaborating on technology transfer should be given. (Philippe Tulkens, TERI School of Advanced Studies) The use of this acronym (RDDD&D) is childish and holds this document up to ridicule. (Patrick Michaels, University of Virginia and Cato Insitutute) P.8, r 50 and Induced Technological Change (ITC) (Juan Llanes, Havana University) While the development and deployment of some technologies may take a century, there are many examples of technologies (e.g. cell phones) that have been developed and deployed on much shorter time scales, often driven solely by market forces. Leaving this statement without further discussion presents an unduly negative outlook for technology transfer. (Lenny Bernstein, L. S. Bernstein & Associates, L.L.C.) While technology development and diffusion is a lengthy process,a century seems excessive. What are some examples of technology development and diffusion that take a century? Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Noted to be checked with WG II

Rejected, not directly pertinent

1-334

47

Marrakesh Accord will be deleted here and text on Marrakesh Accord and developing countries will be added Noted, will be done once it is known where the technology transfer will be located Rejected, irrelevant

1-335

49

50

1-336 1-337

A A

8 8

50 52 8 52

Accepted Rejected, some technology may have a short time scale, in the energy sector timescales are generally longer

1-338

52

54

See response above (1-337)

Page 79 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-339

52

55

1-340 1-341

A A

8 8

53 54

1-342

55

1-343

55

(Lourdes Maurice, US Government) diffusion of new technologies MAY indeed take a century, but there are many examples that it can be done much faster. The introduction of mobile phones e.g. went incredibly fast. In the energy realm, the shift from coal to gas for heating, in western europe, was a transition that was completed in 10 - 30 years (depending on the country, its gas resources, the infrastructure and policies). (Jan Paul van Soest, Advies voor Duurzaamheid on request of International Gas Union) "global interest" please delete or substantiate (Richard Tol, Hamburg University) "early action" this sentence entirely ignores the timing debate which has raged for 10 years now; Azar is just one of many authors, and typically found at the extreme end of the debate (Richard Tol, Hamburg University) Suggestion:"There are various types of technologies under development including--" should be changed to "There are various types of low carbon technologies including---." Reason: "Under development" tends to imply that the technology has not been established. But the examples of "various types of technologies under development" provided here are in various stages as described in the last sentence of the paragraph. (Koji Kadono, Global Industrial and Social Progress Research Institute) Development and diffusion of new technological systems may take a century: I do not agree with this rather negative world vision on transfer of technology. Transfer of technology from the west to the east and from the north to the south ought to take shorter. No I think that even in the interest of the western societies, selective transfer/export of knowledge is imperative. Export of the "bulk technology from west to east from north to south" should be accelerated, but on the other hand proper arrangements for high intellectual, tech. developments originated in the west and north should be arranged in a sustainable manner. So the transfer of the most important technologies concerning (1) The abatement - proactive measures and to (2) The re-active, adaptive measure to climate change ought to increase in the coming years, in favor of north and the south. The transfer of both the pro-active and adaptive measures should be initiated and their execution assisted on an equal footing by the northern and western countries in close Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

See response above (1-337)

Rejected, factually incorrect Rejected, not relevant in this section because it is related here to R&D

Noted

Partially accepted, because it may go faster when there is determined policy action

Page 80 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-344

55

1-345

55

20

1-346

1-347

10

cooperation with the vulnerable southern (coastal) countries providing their increased knowledge on CC, impacts and responses. This is possible as shown during the nineties, namely the 1) The Governments of USA and the Netherlands gave assistance to more than 70 UNFCCC- countries contributing to their National Communications ; 2) The executing of IPCC-Common Methodology on Vulnerability Assessments of coastal zones to accelerated sea level rise, in about half of the total number of coastal countries. I was personally involved in both activities (Robbert Misdorp, PUM) Nuclear fusion technology is still far from "infancy" level, so that it should be deleted in this context. And as well as nuclear fission and fusion, carbon capture and storage is controversial technologies, so that it should noted that there are concerns to pursue these technologies and be dealt differently from other technologies. (Kimiko Hirata, Kiko Network) it may be helpful to characterise energy options following the energy 'chain' from exploration and production of energy sources via transport, one ore more conversions to useable energy carriers to sometimes further conversions, and finally end use and energy functions. Using these chains as an analytical tool gives better insights in links in the chain that can be best used for policy measures. (Jan Paul van Soest, Advies voor Duurzaamheid on request of International Gas Union) These are all supply-side technologies. There are also many technologies and practices on the end-use side where cooperation and transfer is needed (i.e., efficient applicance, heating and cooling equipment, advanced practices for creating low-energy buildings). Add some references to end-use side for balance. (Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) Results of the hereunder mentioned types of technologies and RDDD&D cooperation should be mentioned and used as illustrative material in a box.""There are various types of technologies under development including but not limited to: solar, wind, nuclear fission and fusion, geothermal, biomass, fuel cells, clean fossil technologies including carbon capture and storage, hydrogen production from nonfossil energy sources and energy efficiency improvements throughout the energy system (Pacala and Socolow, 2004, Neuhoff 2005, Grubb 2005). Some of them are in their infancy and require public RDDD&D support, while others are more Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Noted, part one of the text mentions some technologies and not all. In the second part a sentence will be added that all technologies have some deployment issues involved

Accepted, sentence on efficiency improvements at end-use side will be added

Accepted, sentence on efficiency improvements at end-use side will be added

See response to 1-345

Page 81 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-348

1-349

1-350

1-351

1-352

10

14

mature and need only market incentives for their deployment and diffusion. To share information and development costs internationally, there exist several examples of international cooperation for RDDD&D, such as the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF), the International Partnership for Hydrogen Economy (IPHE), Generation IV International Forum (GIF), the Methane to Markets Partnership and the Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP). Their fields range from basic R&D and market demonstration to barrier removals for commercialization/diffusion."" (Robbert Misdorp, PUM) add cryogenic energy storage (Kirsty Hamilton, retainer to UK Business Council for Sustainable Energy; Associate Fellow, Chatham House.) please also quote some real experts of the energy system, such as Edmonds and Richels (Richard Tol, Hamburg University) Nuclear fission and fusion and Carbon capture and storage are uncompleted technologies. Then there are arguments for and against them (it is necessary to clarify that there are arguments for and against them.) It should be added to describe them on this sentence clearly. (Masatake Uezono, Citizens' Alliance for saving the Atmosphere and the Earth) some technologies do not need subsidy but do need coherent regulatory frameworks (Kirsty Hamilton, retainer to UK Business Council for Sustainable Energy; Associate Fellow, Chatham House.) This is a very limited list. There are many, many other examples of international collaboration, and some of them are as much, if not more, relevant than those quoted here. At a minimum, the text should mention the more than 35 'Implementing Agreements' under the IEA auspices, which includes all kind of renewables, energy efficiency in end-use sectors (industry, transport, buildings, etc.), fossil fuels (including clean coal and carbon capture and storage), hydrogen, fusion and others (see IEA 2005, energy technologies at the cutting edge, IEA/OECD, Paris). A reference could be made to more comprehensive assessments of international cooperation in the field of technology: Philibert 2004 and Justus and Philibert 2005 (Philibert, Cdric (2004): International Energy Technology Collaboration and Climate Change Mitigation, OECD/IEA; Justus, Debra and Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Rejected, too specific

Noted, further references will be added

See response to 1-351

Noted, will be dealt with in redrafting

Agreed to mention IEA implementing agreements

Page 82 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-353

10

19

1-354 1-355 1-356 1-357

A A A A

9 9 9 9

10 17 19 19

9 9 9 9

14 19 19 19

1-358 1-359

A A

9 9

19 21 9 40

1-360

21

21

1-361

23

1-362

23

Cdric Philibert, International Energy Technology Collaboration and Climate Change Mitigation: synthesis report, OECD/IEA). (Cdric Philibert, International Energy Agency) This section seems to be advocating international collaboration in research and development. Perhaps it should be more clearly stated. (Lourdes Maurice, US Government) A reference to the work of the UNFCCC EGTT should be made. (Nick Campbell (Batch 2), ARKEMA SA) It is proposed to substitute "a more" by "an". (Radunsky Klaus, Umweltbundesamt) "more effective" than what? (Hans-Martin Fuessel, Stanford University) either replace "may be a more effective tool" by "may be an effective tool" or name the policy instrument to what these sector-based initiatives are compared to. (probably the more general RDD&D cooperations mentioned in the paragraph before (Joachim Schleich, Fraunhofer Institute Systems and Innovation Research) "more" should be deleted, because it is not clear if it is "more than what". (Kimiko Hirata, Kiko Network) One might note that Thomas C.D. et al (Nature 424, 2004) predict that even for conservative assumptions, predicted GHG concentration increase would lead to a substantial share of land-living species being committed to extinction by mid century. This is an example of a likely environmental irreversibility that is highly relevant in the light of Article 2's message that ecosystems should be able to adapt. Loss of species is irreversible. (Kenneth Mllersten, Swedish Energy Agency) Suggest including a section on provision of energy to satisfy demand, since this is a key characteristic of the challenge. (Haroon Kheshgi, ExoonMobil Research and Engineering Company) Sect. 1.5.1: This section is far too technical to be meaningful in an introductory chapter. Furthermore, it confuses irreversibility and uncertainty. (Hans-Martin Fuessel, Stanford University) delete the sentence "Therefore . Irreversible" (it is redundant) (Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Rejected, otherwise policy prescriptive

Rejected, already mentioned Agreed Agreed Agreed

Agreed Rejected, not relevant to this section

Rejected, issue is about energy services

Noted, will be dealt with in redrafting

Accepted

Page 83 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

1-363

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

23

23

1-364 1-365

A A

9 9

25 25

9 9

40 40

1-366 1-367

A A

9 9

27 28 30

1-368 1-369

A A

9 9

31 33

32

1-370

34

36

Combine the headings for sections 1.5.1 and 1.5.3. Keep first three sentences of Irreversibilities section. Delete rest. And Continue with the Inertia paragraph. (Stephen Perkins, European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT)) very confused. What is the take-home msg? (Marco Mazzotti, Institute of Process Engineering) This section on "irreversibility" is quite misleading. Without specifying what is being discussed, it has framed the problem of "irreversibility" completely within the mainstream economic paradigm, in which the concern about "irreversibility" is reduced to a problem of maximizing expected value. While this reflects at least some aspects of the decision problem, it is hardly a comprehensive discussion of what is involved in avoiding "irreversible" damages. The number of controversial assumptions that have to be made in order to fit the problem into this model is very large (including the same controversies that underly cost-benefit analysis of climate change in general, which I assume are discussed later), but that controversy is invisible here. Additionally the statement that its unclear a priori "which irreversibility will tend to dominate" literally refers only to "dominate in economic optimzation models", and the conclusion that "economic uncertainty seems to matter more" is based as far as I can tell only on Pindyck's model, which again takes a very narrow view of the problem. (Paul Baer, Stanford University) add Schlesinger ref 2004/5 [not too hand ] (Peter Read, MASSEY UNIVERSITY) This sentence is a mess. Uncertainty has no necessary link to irreversibility, and the second part has irreversibility as a condition for irreversibility. (Ian Enting, MASCOS) What does "flexible course" mean in this context? (Alexander Golub, Environmental Defense) Baker is not representative for the abatement cost literature, he is on either extreme depending on who pays the bill (Richard Tol, Hamburg University) To whom does economic uncertainty seem to matter more than environmental incertainty? Probably only the people that are cited, not a representative sample of the human race and especially not those potentially affected by collapse of environmental systems. Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Rejected, cannot be combined

Noted, will be picked up in redrafting Noted

Noted, picked up in redrafting Noted, picked up in redrafting

Noted, picked up in redrafting Rejected, no action needed

Noted, picked up in redrafting

Page 84 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-371

35

1-372

36

40

1-373

39

40

1-374

40

1-375

44

45

1-376

44

44

(Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) You cannot quote Cline without quoting Manne and Mendelsohn in the same volume. Nordhaus, Tol and others also wrote about catastrophes, and reached different conclusions. (Richard Tol, Hamburg University) These studies all carry same error of not representing irreversibility in carbon intensive capital stock. Unless there is a reason to assume that non-carbon stock is more irreversible than carbon intensive stock, these cancel, leaving the environmental irreversibility as the relevent consideration. See WGIIII FOD, Chapter 11; also Grubb M. J.C.Hourcade, O.Edenhofer and N.Nakicenovic, Submission to Stern Review, Dec 2005, downloadable from http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/faculty/grubb/publications.html; submitted in revised form to Cambridge Journal of Economics. (Michael Grubb, Cambridge University) The statement that "economic uncertainty seems to matter more than environmental uncertainty" seems a bit abrupt: what justifies it? (Cdric Philibert, International Energy Agency) add "despite the requirement of the Convention's Article 3.3 for precautionary action in response to threats of environmental irreversibility" (Peter Read, MASSEY UNIVERSITY) It would be preferable if the discussion in this paragraph would go about the atmosphere (instead of climate) as a global public good. Related to this is its capacity to absorb CO2 from the air. This intrinsic capacity is to a large extent already being used by industrialised countries (free riding) which means that a fair share of this common good is not anymore available to developing countries. If the UNFCCC-principle the polluter pays is applied to this situation, a large amount of money would flow to developing countries (compensation payments [page 10, line 8]). With a high market price of 1 ton CO2, it would serve the goals of generating new money for international development and reduction in emissions because of comparable costs. See remark 2. (Gert de Gans, Kerkinactie) The sentence that states climate is a "public good" is good. However, it would be quite helpful to include a more detailed definition of a public good in the glossary section of the report for non-economists. Although the key characterisitics of a Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Noted, additional references will be added

Accepted

Agreed

Noted

Noted (should be pointed out that this UNFCCC principle does not exist)

Accepted

Page 85 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-377

44

55

1-378

44

45

1-379

44

10

14

1-380

47

48

1-381

48

1-382

50

12

10

public good are shown on page 9, a simpler definition with some examples would be helpful to non-economists. (Lourdes Maurice, US Government) The first para of 1.5.2 says "climate is a global public good" but the last sentence of the second para says "the public good, i.e., GHG stabilization". It is not clear if GHG stabilization is a public good. The word should be dropped or for consistency, it should be changed to "climate". (Koji Kadono, Global Industrial and Social Progress Research Institute) Climate is not necessarily a public good nor desirable. There are some very inhospitable climates that people would rather modify if they could. Ask africans crowded into an arid sahel if they would like more rain, for example. (Patrick Michaels, University of Virginia and Cato Insitutute) The analysis of climate as a global public good is adequate, but unfortunately the consequence of that analysis, the insight that some form of 'forced' co-operation (through governments, agreements, etc.) is inevitable to overcome the prisoner's dilemma is not mentioned. Is that consequence too politically sensitive? If so, that should not play a role in the analysis. (Jan Paul van Soest, Advies voor Duurzaamheid on request of International Gas Union) In context of WG2 report benefits from climate change appear questionable. Reily et al, 2003 is sort of controversial. The benefits identified there resulted from modeling assumptions. (Alexander Golub, Environmental Defense) Climate benefits are usually associated with Maddison, Mendelsohn, and Tol; not with Reilly. (Richard Tol, Hamburg University) The view is "individual mitigation efforts (costs) decrease with efficient mitigation actions undertaken by others" may not be the most compelling reason for cooperation amongst collaboration. Here is a summary of the "public good argument": "Climate stability is a public good. As such, it would be undersupplied by agents and countries acting in isolation, for countries would aim at equalising their marginal abatement cost with the marginal benefit they derive from their action alone. Provided free-riding can be avoided, collective or integrated action would drive higher level of mitigation, for countries would aim at equalising their Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Noted

Noted, picked up in redrafting

Noted, picked up in redrafting

Noted, literature will be checked

Noted, literature will be checked

Noted, picked up in redrafting

Page 86 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-383

50

56

1-384

53

53

1-385

54

55

1-386

1-387

1-388

10

marginal abatement cost with the (greater) marginal benefit they derive from the action of all countries (Philibert, Cdric, 2005, Climate Mitigation: Integrating Approaches for Future International Co-operation, OECD and IEA Information Paper, OECD/IEA, Paris). (Cdric Philibert, International Energy Agency) I think that one should either assume that readers know what "free riding" means (and shorten the paragraph) or explain it in a language that is both understandable and theoretically correct (complete). (Leo Schrattenholzer, IIASA) "efforts" and "costs" are not synonymous. Usually, efforts to do something increase when the costs (per unit) of doing so decrease. (Hans-Martin Fuessel, Stanford University) .Without cooperation among all climate beneficiaries, mitigation is not costeffective and the market fails to allocate mitigation costs efficiently. Taken at facevalue, does this statement mean those mitigation efforts to be adopted by participants in the Kyoto accord (which does not include the U.S. and Australia) are not cost-effective? If yes, then what is the point of adopting such mitigation measures? (Lourdes Maurice, US Government) There seems to be little (or no) difference between economic irreversibilities mentioned in chapter 1.5.1 and inertia in 1.5.3 (Joachim Schleich, Fraunhofer Institute Systems and Innovation Research) Section 1.5.1 Irreversibilities. I'm afraid I find this paragraph almost totally incomprehensible. Given its importance ---not to mention potential readership--this is a very serious matter. While there are plenty of references to support the case (one assumes is) being made, there is, unfortunately, a distinct lack of clarity as to what this case actually is. (Pat Finnegan, Grian) The statement that impacts are skewed towards least developed countriesis no longer true. The dramatic (50-fold) rise in catastrophe-related damages from $4 billion to $200 billion per year in three decades has stunned financial leaders. Insured losses have also tripled: from 10% in the 1980s to an average of 30% in recent years, as more extreme weather events affect Europe, the US and Japan. (Paul Epstein, Harvard Medical School) Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Noted, picked up in redrafting

Agreed

Noted, picked up in redrafting

Accepted

Accepted

Accepted

Page 87 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

1-389 1-390

A A

10 10

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

2 5 10 6

1-391

10

10

1-392

10

1-393 1-394

A A

10 10

9 12

1-395

10

13

10

13

1-396

10

15

10

19

"least well off net beneficiaries" could be rephrased or at least hyphenated (Ian Enting, MASCOS) It is questionable that stable climate benefits are scewed towards the leastdeveloped countries. According to WG2 Europe will benefit a lot if Gulf Stream current change will be prevented. (Alexander Golub, Environmental Defense) This sentence is unclear, but it clearly omits an obvious point: the skewed distribution of benefits and costs discourages participation of even very wealthy countries like the US. Standard game theoretic models imply that the US would have to be compensated to particpate, which is prima facie inequitable and will never happen. (Paul Baer, Stanford University) Before ". These", add reference to Schelling (1992) 'some economics of global warming [presidential address to the AEA] (Peter Read, MASSEY UNIVERSITY) See previous comment about costs (Ian Enting, MASCOS) It is logically unclear or short of explanation why mitigative and adaptive capacities are considered public goods. (Koji Kadono, Global Industrial and Social Progress Research Institute) I would add the following to the last phrase: "It is important to understand that the distinction between private and (global) public goods is not given by nature, but depends on societal choices and political decisions (Kaul et al. 1999). Climate policy may profit from the wide array of institutional arrangements and financial mechanisms that are available today in managing global public goods (Kaul et al. 2003)." References: Kaul, I., I. Grunberg and M.A. Stern (Eds.): Global Public Goods. International Cooperation in the 21st Century, Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press 1999. Kaul, I., P. Conceio, K. Le Goulven, and R.U. Mendoza (Eds.) (2003). Providing Global Public Goods. Managing Globalization. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press). (Fritz Reusswig, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research) The classification used here into 'climate friendly techs' and 'end-of-pipe techs' is not logical. Properly functioning CCS is just as 'climate friendly' as renewables. CCS may have other disadvantages in that it relies on finite resources, but this has Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Accepted See 1-388

Accepted

Accepted

Accepted, see 1-389 Noted, picked up in redrafting

Accepted

Accepted, change or to and

Page 88 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-397

10

15

1-398

10

16

10

22

1-399

10

17

10

22

1-400 1-401

A A

10 10

17 17

1-402

10

18

1-403 1-404

A A

10 10

24 25

36

nothing to do wih climate friendliness. (Kenneth Mllersten, Swedish Energy Agency) Chapter 1.5.3: This chapter should be redrafted. It is not based on literature - the only linkage is to chapter 1.4.1 that informs about the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol but does not include any findings based on literature on inertia. (Radunsky Klaus, Umweltbundesamt) Is it true that there are uncertainties about the future policy towards GHG emission reduction targets? The Kyoto Protocol is clear and not uncertain in its targets until 2012! There is no uncertainty about the direction of the target development, for the period after 2012, is not it? The sheer fact that the present 360 ppm CO2 is never been observed during large part of the Pleistocene and the entire Holocene, will be enough to determine the direction of the mitigation measures, the precise detailing is another question. The direction is without uncertainties, and this should not be the reason for not undertaking no-regret/precautionary investments! My suggestion is skip the sentence here-under: ""Therefore, in the presence of uncertainty concerning future policy towards GHG emission reduction or stabilisation targets, investors are reluctant to undertake irreversible investments (sunk costs) and investments in carbon-free technologies are postponed (see 1.4.1). (Robbert Misdorp, PUM) The inertia discussion is appropriate. However, efficiency improvements, which have a cost benefit, should not be grouped with opetions that do not offer opportunities to recoup costs. (Lourdes Maurice, US Government) "climate friendly"=> "low carbon": more accurate (Koji Kadono, Global Industrial and Social Progress Research Institute) Ambitious goals require climate friendly technologies as well as end-of-pipe technologies (not ; or) (Claire Parker, Environmental Policy Consultant) add "or 'start-of-pipe-technologies to sustainably increase biotic fixation (e.g. coproduction of biomass energy raw material with food and/or fibre". (Peter Read, MASSEY UNIVERSITY) This section should be combined with the section about irreversibility (Ian Enting, MASCOS) What follows is a comment and a speculative scenario: Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Accepted

Rejected, because there are uncertainties about greenhouse policies

Noted

Accepted Accepted

Rejected, because it is too specific for this chapter Rejected, sections will be deleted Noted, reference to WG I

Page 89 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-405

10

26

10

36

1-406

10

26

10

36

1-407

10

31

1-408

10

32

Recent work (Bryden et al. 2005) suggests that Atlantic currents, like other aspects of the climate system (e.g., ice cover), are changing faster than previously projected. While aspects of this study deserve greater scrutiny, it re-raises the specter of a shutdown of the Ocean Conveyor Belt or thermohaline circulation (THC). While no IPCC models project a shutdown of THC, ice core data depicts such cold reversals after warming and polar ice thawing. The ice core data thus provide a plausible pathway of mechanisms for envisioning the shutdown scenario. But, is there a positive scenario embedded in this alarming one? It is an overriding principle that systems seek equilibriums. But a shutdown (in the coming years or decades) may also be a climate shockwith some positive dimensions. The amount of global warming in the system and the diminished North Polar ice cap now (compared to that coincident with the last cold reversal, prior to the Holocene) could moderate the impacts. This is a relatively hopeful scenario -- albeit one with widespread consequences, especially for the Northern Hemisphere, SW Asia and the Middle East. Perhaps this relatively stable cooling-off periodwill allow a modicum of predictability and adaptatability, and provide a window in which to accelerate the collaborative effort needed for mitigation. Work on tipping points (Schellnhuber et al.2006 and referenced in Nature, fall 2005) needs to be included. (Paul Epstein, Harvard Medical School) Nor can one rule out a strike by an asteroid. When using shoddy, loaded language like this, you have to qantify the probabilities and state the magnitude of changes. As an example, this paragraph cites Knutson and Tuleya (2004). In fact, that paper only projects a 6% increase in tropical cyclone winds IF the entire Atlantic Hurricane basin exceeds 28 degrees. The amount would be too small to measure, given year-to-year noise in hurricane intensity. (Patrick Michaels, University of Virginia and Cato Insitutute) Why is the Greenland Ice sheet left out of this, particularly since there is plausible evidence that it has the lowest threshold (you know all the citations)? (Paul Baer, Stanford University) will NEED TO adopt ---- there can be no pre-knowledge of what decision makers will actually do (Ian Enting, MASCOS) You missed the paper of Link and Tol (2004, Portuguese Economic Journal); it reaches the opposite conclusion, and in contrast to the papers you do cite, it is Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Noted, cross checked with WG I and II

Noted, picked up in redrafting

Rejected, no indication where

Noted, Link and Tol reference will be checked

Page 90 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-409 1-410

A A

10 10

32 33 10 36

1-411 1-412

A A

10 10

33 36

1-413

10

40

1-414

10

40

11

50

1-415

10

42

10

42

1-416

10

44

1-417

10

44

10

48

actually based on an impacts model. (Richard Tol, Hamburg University) are these the unspecified "other factors" from line 29? (Ian Enting, MASCOS) The main source of methane would be soils (in particular permafrost soils), which are not generally categorized as part of the "terrestrial biosphere". (Hans-Martin Fuessel, Stanford University) Tropical cyclones: Also reference Webster et al. 2005 Science309: 1844-46. (Paul Epstein, Harvard Medical School) "Abatement may take the form of sunk costs" what does this mean?? -- Abatement may result in sunk costs? (Ian Enting, MASCOS) Describing uncertainty as a "steadfast companion" is a ridiculous metaphor. Uncertainty could equally-well be described as an insideous cancer. (Ian Enting, MASCOS) a paragraph on 'how to deal with critics' could be quite helpful. There is a variety of critics to the climate change who may even hold completely different theories and concepts. Often, they cause a lot of turmoil in the media and they can be quite influential in the policy debate. A clear procedure as to how to include (or exclude) these critics and their ideas, and transparency as to how their critique has been incorporated in the proces would strengthen the credibility of IPCC reports. (Jan Paul van Soest, Advies voor Duurzaamheid on request of International Gas Union) The statement about the "explosion of uncertainties" is meaningless and potentially misleading, if it is presented without further qualification what exactly it refers to. (Hans-Martin Fuessel, Stanford University) An excellent, and more widely known, discussion of types of uncertainty is given in the book "Uncertainty" by Morgan and Henrion (CUP) 1990. (Ian Enting, MASCOS) Disagreement about the valuation of impacts or the appropriate discount rates or equity weights to attach is also often referred to as "uncertainty", although "controversy" would be a better description since there is not any "true" or "correct' value for such parameters. (Paul Baer, Stanford University) Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Rejected, cannot be found in the existing FOD text Noted, picked up in redrafting

Agreed Rejected, no indication found in text

Agreed

Rejected, not relevant for the chapter

Agreed, sentence will be deleted

Rejected, reference too old

Rejected, too specific

Page 91 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

1-418

10

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

47

10

48

1-419

10

50

10

54

1-420

10

53

1-421

10

54

10

54

1-422

11

11

1-423 1-424

A A

11 11

5 5

11 11

8 28

The statement about the "unpredictability" of a model is meaningless and potentially misleading, as it does not qualify which aspects of the complex climate system are inherently unpredictable. (Hans-Martin Fuessel, Stanford University) The statements on lines 50 through 54 have questionable logic. The use of projections and scenarios as an attempt to overcome unpredictability. The creation and adoption of any projection or scenario must be bound by some likelihood of occurrence. Without such bounds, any projections made or scenarios created and adopted would be nothing more than "Best Guesses" without any apparent links to reality. In other words, such scenarios and projections would have little added value in the real world. This is why confidence intervals are chosen, based on observations using empirical data (small or large), as a means of capturing some idea of likelihood of occurrence. The use of the "precautionary principle" only compicates this matter because it relies more on personal judgement than empirical data. (Lourdes Maurice, US Government) This discussion of additivity is confused. Mitigation efforts by one party can easily increase mitigation costs for another party in an open trading environment. (Ian Enting, MASCOS) I would add: "Risk and uncertainty are, both on a conceptual and a measurement level, deeply connected to the underlying understanding of rational action, the nature of the decision making process, and the weight and role of knowledge in decision making (Jaeger et al. 2001). It is worth noting that decision making under various kinds of uncertainty is by no means a prerogative of climate science or climate policy, but an integral part of everyday action and virtually all policy fields." (Reference: Jaeger, C.C., O. Renn, E.A. Rosa, T. Webler. 2001. Risk, Uncertainty, and Rational Action. London: Earthscan.) (Fritz Reusswig, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research) I don't think it is a good idea to define the climate system so broadly that it includes "scocio-economic" and "technical subsystems". (Hans-Martin Fuessel, Stanford University) This paragraph appears quite tautological (and therefore superfluous). (Leo Schrattenholzer, IIASA) It is confusing that the term 'climate system', well defined earlier as the geoExpert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Agreed, sentence will be deleted

Accepted, last sentence will be deleted

Rejectede, cannot be found

Referred to chapter 2

Agreed

Noted, picked up in redrafting Agreed, use UNFCCC language

Page 92 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-425

11

10

11

1-426

11

10

11

22

1-427

11

13

11

15

1-428

11

14

11

15

1-429 1-430

A A

11 11

15 18

11 11

16 18

1-431

11

19

11

24

physical system, now includes even socio-economic and technological sub-systems. Please reserve climate system for the physical part only. (Jan Paul van Soest, Advies voor Duurzaamheid on request of International Gas Union) The climate models are remarkably linear, projecting constant-rate warming for the 21st century; they just project different rates. These are models of the "climate system". What you really mean to say is that certain aspects of local or regional climate may change disproportionately to the global change. (Patrick Michaels, University of Virginia and Cato Insitutute) it should be noted that also social systems (politics, economics) often are nonlinear, which in interaction with a non-linear geophysical system may lead to even stronger amplitudes. (Jan Paul van Soest, Advies voor Duurzaamheid on request of International Gas Union) Again, where perceptions vary, there is not "uncertainty" but "disagreement" or "controversy" (although variability through time implies true uncertainty including uncertainty about future controversy. (Paul Baer, Stanford University) This sentence falsely suggests that variability always implies uncertainty. I can be very certain about the maximum altitude in each country even though there is a wide variety of this figure across countries. (Hans-Martin Fuessel, Stanford University) This sentence falsely suggests that a time lag always implies uncertainty. (Hans-Martin Fuessel, Stanford University) Isn't it frankly impossible, not merely difficult, to predict "exact changes in the global and regional climate systems?" (Paul Baer, Stanford University) How the precautionary principle can serve as a useful tool in reducing risk as a means of addressing mitigation concerns is not clear. Please provide rationale that explains how this works. How do you reduce risks without the aid of empirical data? The use of the precautionary principle in this context has implications about the analytical integrity. Are the authors implying that this concept be used any analytical work on climate change by the IPCC? What are the implications to a policy maker? Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Rejected, part of the work for WG I (reference will be added for local and regional changes)

Rejected too detailed for purpose of the chapter

Noted, picked up in redrafting

Rejected, variability has an uncertainty component

See above, 1-428 Noted

Rejected, precautionary principle implies the reduction of risk

Page 93 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-432 1-433

A A

11 11

19 23

23

1-434 1-435

A A

11 11

25 30

11 11

28 50

1-436

11

30

11

49

1-437 1-438

A A

11 11

31 32

11

49 49

1-439

11

32

11

49

1-440

11

32

(Lourdes Maurice, US Government) I would add a citation to Mastrandrea and Schneider 2004 here as well. (Paul Baer, Stanford University) This paragraph should be linked back to (or better-still merged with) earlier discussion (Ian Enting, MASCOS) Are there other reasons for using scenarios? (Hans-Martin Fuessel, Stanford University) This is the kind of gibberish that gives the UN a bad name and makes it politically desirable for the U.S. to withhold financial support. Delete it. (Patrick Michaels, University of Virginia and Cato Insitutute) This whole subsection on ethics is extremely weak; it falsely characterized both the ethical systems involved and the relationship of ethical principles to negotiating positions. I suggest that it needs to be either completely revised or eliminated. (Paul Baer, Stanford University) This should be better put into context. What is North and South? (Marco Mazzotti, Institute of Process Engineering) This is a very poor representation of a very rich literature. I don't think there is any reason to belief that the South is interest in procedure, and the North in outcome. I suggest deleting this subsection entirely. If not, please read the literature. (Richard Tol, Hamburg University) The equity/ethics discussion, which attributes specific behavior to "North" and South" tries to simplify a deep and complex phenomena. Would suggest that differences in ethical perspectives be discussed without attribution to specific regions. (Lourdes Maurice, US Government) Section 1.5.7 Equity and Ethics. Again, a potentially vital section is unfortunately neither particularly clear nor particularly comprehensive. The issue is covered very well in Sections 13.3.3.4.1 and (particularly) Sec 2.7.2 - 2.7.6. It would be a better idea to include here a precis of the case being made in these sections as opposed to the text proposed here, in my opinion. Furthermore the view in this section that deontological approaches can be considered as individualistic while consequentialism expresses more of an interest in society would not necessarily be a view that would be widely supported amongst the academic community, I Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Accepted Rejected, not clear what is meant

Noted (yes, there are) Noted (1.5.7 will be shifted to chapter 2, and this may be rewritten anyhow) See above, 1-435

See above, 1-435 See above, 1-435

See above, 1-435

See above, 1-435

Page 94 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-441

11

32

11

33

1-442

11

40

11

49

1-443

11

40

11

50

1-444

11

40

11

50

1-445

11

40

11

45

suggest. A better description might be that deontological approaches are generally considered to be normative (capable of extension to others), while consequentialist approaches are generally considered to be instrumental (self-centred) (Pat Finnegan, Grian) This is a bad characterization of the distinction between deontological and consequentialist ethics. It is not part of the definition of deontological ethics that it is concerned with individuals, nor of consequentionalist ethics that it is concerned with aggregated social well being. The latter in particular conflates utilitarianism with consequentialism more generally. Furthermore, it's not even obvious that this distinction is exhaustive of relevant systems, since a crucial one (Rawlsianism) isn't straightforwardly either deontological or consequentialist. (Paul Baer, Stanford University) Is it possible to provide such abrupt and broad judgments about "the South, more deontological" and "the North, more consequentialist"? (Cdric Philibert, International Energy Agency) It seems too simplistic to characterise monolithic groups ('north'/'south' - which are political terms, not scientific terms) as holding singular, differentiated views on equity (etc). This seems more of a political assertion than a scientific assessment. (Spencer Edwards, Australian Greenhouse Office) The description of the prevalent positions in the South and in the North is somewhat a caricature. The deontological approach in the South is specific to the issue of GHG emissions and this is not at all an approach that is being advocated for sharing other natural resources such as water or fossil fuels for instance. The positions in the North reflect the current situation and the fact that industrialized countries are indeed responsible for the GHG accumulation to date but that prior to the ninetees, little was known on the consequences of that situation. I would suggest to write these to paragraph differently or at least to specify that the positions given are relevant to GHG emissions case only. (Philippe Tulkens, TERI School of Advanced Studies) Characterizing "the south" and "the North" as "more deontological" or "more consequentialist" and explaining their positions on that basis is extremely misleading. In most of the relevant cases, narrow national interest is being put forward with equity-based arguments, which makes it non-sensical to refer to the ethical frameworks as being the basis for the arguments. Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

See above, 1-435

See above, 1-435

See above, 1-435

See above, 1-435

See above, 1-435

Page 95 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-446

11

42

11

45

1-447

11

47

11

49

1-448

11

48

11

49

1-449 1-450

A A

11 11

51 53

11 11

55 55

1-451

11

53

11

54

1-452

11

55

11

55

1-453

11

55

(Paul Baer, Stanford University) Saying that procedural equity may lead to "unequal outcomes" is misleading. What is clearly meant is "unequal allocations of emissions rights." But pretty much every proposed allocation scheme will lead to unequal allocations of emissions rights, and those which allocate emissions rights equally will be allocating something else unequally! (Paul Baer, Stanford University) This is plainly false. To the extent that one can refer to "The North" at all, it does not favor a sharing of costs and benefits to minimize global costs and maximize global welfare; it favors minimizing its own costs. Given the declining marginal utility of income, Minimizing global welfare losses would actually imply that the richest should pay all the costs or at a minimum that the more of the costs paid by rich, the greater the overall welfare (Baer and Templet 2001). (Paul Baer, Stanford University) Instaed of what is stated resource transfers to the South are nowadays often viewed as repayment of ecological debts (or payment for environmental services), also because the legal basis is gaining more ground as a result of increasing consequential evidence. See: Andrew Simms, Ecological Debt (The Health of the Planet & the Wealth of Nations), London, Pluto Press, 2005. (Gert de Gans, Kerkinactie) Section 1.5.8, it is unclear what is this section trying to say. (Rutu Dave, IPCC WGIII TSU) Population growth is confirmed here as a key driving force, reinforcing the desirability of confronting the issue more directly and firmly than is done at the top of page 7. (Michael Jefferson, World Renewable Energy Network/Congresses) Comment on the reference number. Section number should be changed from 1.2.3 to 1.3.3. (Shigeo Murayama, The Federation of Electric Power Companies) "moderate" and "strong" in l.5.6 should refer to change (presumably growth) rather than to absolute values. (Hans-Martin Fuessel, Stanford University) The population growth is not likely to have been the lowest in the US. According to World Bank's World Population Prospects the 2004 revision, the population growth Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

See above, 1-435

See above, 1-435

See above, 1-435

Noted, picked up in redrafting See response to 1-276

Accepted

Noted, picked up in redrafting

Noted, to be checked

Page 96 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-454

11

55

11

55

1-455

11

55

11

55

1-456 1-457

A A

12 12

10 12

12

10

1-458 1-459

A A

12 12

12 12

12

12

1-460

12

14

31

1-461 1-462

A A

12 12

14 14 12 15

over the last three decades (1975-2005) was highest in Africa(2.60%p.a.) and lowest in Europe(0.25% p.a.) by major areas, and highest in least developed countries(2.53%p.a.) and lowest in more developed regions(0.49%) by development groups (see p55 of the report: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/WPP2004/2004Highlights_finalrevi sed.pdf ) (Koji Kadono, Global Industrial and Social Progress Research Institute) Wrong about the U.S., where there is substantial growth because of immigration from the south. Dont you mean GDP "growth" in Latin America, etc.? (Patrick Michaels, University of Virginia and Cato Insitutute) It is proposed to improve the logic of the sentence: Over the last three decades ....In order to improve clarity one sentence should describe the trend over the past 30 years by region and another sentence should compare the current absolute values. (Radunsky Klaus, Umweltbundesamt) References in footnotes (here and elsewhere) should be included in the main text. (Hans-Martin Fuessel, Stanford University) Section 1.6 Framing issues is difficult to understand. Suggest to drop the section or rewrite clearly keeping consistency with Ch 2. (Koji Kadono, Global Industrial and Social Progress Research Institute) I recommend to define what precisely is to be understood under "framing issues". (Leo Schrattenholzer, IIASA) This section on framing issues does not have a clear role; it could be introductory text to the issues covered in ch 2 (Bert Metz, IPCC) this seems to be defining the meaning (and importance) of the term "framing issues" rather than identifying the framing issues for climate change and mitigation (Ian Enting, MASCOS) "demands" rather than "commands" (Ian Enting, MASCOS) The sentence "An authoritative assessment of climate change mitigation options commands not only clear and unambiguous definitions, " contradicts the ambiguous definitions described in this chapter. Suggest using less prescriptive language. (Lourdes Maurice, US Government) Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Noted, to be checked

Noted, picked up in redrafting

Accepted Noted, will be kept consistent with chapter 2 contents Rejected, it has been defined in the text Accepted

Rejected, thye definition is important for chapter 1, issues are further elaborated in chapter 2 Accepted Accepted

Page 97 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

1-463 1-464

A A

12 12

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

14 16

12 12

14 18

1-465

12

19

1-466

12

22

12

22

1-467 1-468 1-469

A A A

12 12 12

22 30 31

12

22 31

12

31

1-470

12

32

1-471

12

35

13

"commands" should be "demands" or "requires" (Nick Campbell, ARKEMA SA) This is a very confusing definition, and it's not at all clear what "an above average probabiltiy to obtain stakeholder support" has to do with something being a framing issue. (Paul Baer, Stanford University) After "at hand" insert new sentence. "For instance the development of a large scale global bioenergy industry may, as evidenced by the G8's adoption of an action plan that includes the promotion of a global bioenergy partnership, be motivated by energy security concerns and the issue of 'peak oil' , by the need for WTOcompatible farm-support policies in the 'North' and by prospects of sustainable rural development in the 'South', particularly sub-Saharan Africa, as well as by climate change issues." Suggest paragraph break before "The perception...." (Peter Read, MASSEY UNIVERSITY) The previous argument suggests that framing issues are advanced more-or-less stragegically by actors to advance their interests; this suggests that they "require surfacing hidden assumptions." These are very definitions with contradictory implications. (Paul Baer, Stanford University) obscure sentence (Marco Mazzotti, Institute of Process Engineering) What does "the proposed action" mean in this context? (Paul Baer, Stanford University) I would add: "There is evidence in the years since the publication of TAR that it may be justified to contextualize climate change mitigation activities as well as the integration of mitigation and adaptation no longer in an 'individual sacrifice/social cost' framework exclusively, but in an 'individual and social opportunities' framework." (Fritz Reusswig, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research) Section 1.7: The consumption pattern change or lifestyle change seems to be also important issue, but in this section, there is no description about this. Why? (Toshihiko Masui, National Institute for Environmental Studies) The links between adaptation and mitigation are well described, but the relationship of these with SD is not given enough attention. A practical tool applied in several Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Accepted Rejected, is defined by the reference (definition will be clarified)

Rejected, it is beyond the scope of the chapter

Rejected, because this is precisely the reason (this goes to chapter 2 anyhow)

Accepted Accepted (needs clarification) Rejected for space limitation reasons

Rejected, CCTs were imposed on chapter 1 (will go to chapter 2) Accepted

Page 98 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-472

12

37

40

1-473 1-474

A A

12 12

38 40

12

40

1-475

12

43

12

45

1-476 1-477

A A

12 12

45 45 12 45

1-478

12

50

51

1-479

12

51

12

52

countries called Action Impact Matrix (AIM) has proved very useful to identify, prioritise, and address mitigation-adaptation-development synergies (MIND 2004, MMRS 2005). (MIND 2004) = MIND. 2004. Action Impact Matrix - Application to Climate Change and Sustainable Development in Sri Lanka, Munasinghe Institute for Development, Colombo, Sri Lanka. (Mohan Munasinghe, Munasinghe Institute for Development (MIND)) Adaptation and mitigation can also be conflicting, most notably in the demands for resources. Again the authors seem to be presenting their hopes as necessary consequences, but overall the sentence doesn't actually really say anything much. (Ian Enting, MASCOS) obscure sentence (Marco Mazzotti, Institute of Process Engineering) After 2000) insert "or the opposite (e.g. if large scale hydro-electric projects lead to loss of cultivable land that may be needed if populations adapt by relocating)"+K37 (Peter Read, MASSEY UNIVERSITY) The reason given why mitigation and adapation are "never perfect substitutes" is not convincing. Basically, some climate impacts cannot be avoided by mitigation (e.g. impacts in the next few decades), and some impacts cannot be avoided by adaptation alone (e.g. many impacts on natural ecosystems or coastal/island communities). (Hans-Martin Fuessel, Stanford University) Yohe and Tol write about something entirely different. (Richard Tol, Hamburg University) The term should be dangerous anthropogenic climate change. None of the discussion is about dangerous natural climate change, e.g., the onset of the next period of glaciation. (Lenny Bernstein, L. S. Bernstein & Associates, L.L.C.) "Social Capital" is a theoretically controversial category; if you're going to use it you should at least give a definition and a citation. (Paul Baer, Stanford University) Comment on the reference number. Section number should be changed from 1.3.2 to 1.4.2. (Shigeo Murayama, The Federation of Electric Power Companies) Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Accepted

Accepted, needs rewording (goes to chapter 2 anyhow) Accepted

Accepted

Noted, reference needs to be checked Accepted

Partially accepted (needs to be defined)

Accepted

Page 99 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

1-480 1-481 1-482

A A A

12 13 13

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

53 8 9 13 9

1-483

13

11

13

20

1-484

13

11

13

12

1-485

13

11

13

32

1-486

13

12

after "hedging" insert "insurance" [I think this is what is meant?] (Peter Read, MASSEY UNIVERSITY) additional paragraphs provided as Annex 3 in the covering message herewith (Peter Read, MASSEY UNIVERSITY) It is confusing that there are two subsections focussing on "uncertainties": 1.5.5. and 1.7.2. In addition, Section 2.4 is devoted to the same topic. I suggest coordination with the Chapter 2 writing team, with the aim of shifting the detailed discussion to Chapter 2. (Hans-Martin Fuessel, Stanford University) This paragraph is very weak. Not all factors determining future emissions are "inherently unpredictable"; scenarios are not the only useful approach in the presence of uncertainties; and Manning et al. (2004) never suggest that quantification of uncertainties about climate change is "entirely subjective". (Hans-Martin Fuessel, Stanford University) There are two major sources of uncertainty in projecting future climate change: scientific and economic. Scientific uncertainty derives from the inherently chaotic nature of the climate system and the limitations in our knowledge of climate science. Economic uncertainty derives from our inability to forecast population and economic growth and technology development, the drivers of GHG emission. The TAR indicates that these two sources of uncertainty are of the same order of magnitude. Both should be introduced at this point. A full discussion of scientific uncertainty is the responsibility of WG I, but economic uncertainty is one of the topics of this report. (Lenny Bernstein, L. S. Bernstein & Associates, L.L.C.) The status of this section is unclear: it seems to focus on uncertainties regarding future GHG emissions, while at the end it rightly says "the fact that future emissions are uncertain is less important than the fact that they are, to a large extent, a matter of economic choice." Instead, uncertainties on climate changes given any GHG emissions scenarios (resulting concentrations, climate sensitivity, local consequences), and uncertainties on future mitigation costs (uncertain technological developments, uncertain evolution of relative price of different energy sources, and uncertain emissions scenarios) should be spelled out here. (Cdric Philibert, International Energy Agency) replace "GHG emissions released to" with "net flows of GHG's into and from" Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Rejected, this is not the same Rejected (space limitations) Accepted

Accepted

Noted, but the climate system is not inherently chaotic

Accepted

Rejected, refer to earlier discussion on Reads

Page 100 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-487

13

17

13

20

1-488

13

19

13

20

1-489 1-490 1-491 1-492

A A A A

13 13 13 13

31 32 36 36 13 13 13 32 36 37

1-493

13

38

13

38

1-494

13

48

1-495

13

52

13

53

(Peter Read, MASSEY UNIVERSITY) The early Shell scenario work [certainly the period 1974-1979] explicitly recognised that subjective probablilites were involved, and sought to encourage all parties involved to multiply the perception of a subjective probability of a scenario occurring by a 'co-efficient of seriousness'. (Michael Jefferson, World Renewable Energy Network/Congresses) I think what is meant here is not that quantification "can be entirely subjective" (which leaves the possibility that it could also be entirely objective", but "can never be entirely objective." (Paul Baer, Stanford University) "rationale" not "rational" (Ian Enting, MASCOS) Surely this should be "economic and political" choice! (Paul Baer, Stanford University) here is the place where the general comment above fits in the text (Manfred Treber, Germanwatch) why not year 2005 (many things have changed in these five years, including oil prices)? (Marco Mazzotti, Institute of Process Engineering) The term "overnight" cost is not common and therefore should be explained in the glossary. It is noted that that term is also not used in chapter 2. The better option therefore might be to avoid that term at all and to use a consistent terminology throughout the report. (Radunsky Klaus, Umweltbundesamt) after "policy" insert "and the realities of technological competition, with unstable lock-in and bandwagon effects (Arthur, 1994) influenced by shifting managerial vision (Fransman, 1998) - experience with new technologies both lowers their costs and raises the projected costs of competing technologies no longer sustained by R and D." (Peter Read, MASSEY UNIVERSITY) Barrriers also include the lack of policy certainty into the future. The need for greater alignment between timeframes covered by policies, and the length of time required for technological R&D and development, is identified in Defra, 'Business Insights' (report of business conference proceedings October 2005). Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

comments Rejected, still a matter of debate

Accepted (insert never)

Accepted Accepted Noted, picked up in redrafting Rejected, data availability

Accepted, glossary issue

Noted

Accepted

Page 101 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-496

13

54

14

11

1-497

13

54

14

11

1-498

14

14

1-499

14

10

1-500

14

13

1-501

14

15

14

38

1-502

14

20

14

21

(Kirsty Hamilton, retainer to UK Business Council for Sustainable Energy; Associate Fellow, Chatham House.) As a CLA for this report, I expected to see a discussion of the change in definition of potential between the TAR and AR4 in this section. Why is the discussion limited to what was done in the TAR? (Lenny Bernstein, L. S. Bernstein & Associates, L.L.C.) The whole part explaining the various types of mitigation potentials can be substituted by a reference to chapter 2.5.5 as the latter chapter includes an even more comprehensive description of mitigation potentials. (Radunsky Klaus, Umweltbundesamt) Do the authors feel that cost is the only barrier to making "technological potential accessible." ? (Lourdes Maurice, US Government) after "prices" replace rest of sentence with "influenced by managerial behaviour towards research and innovation investments, in the context of changing perceptions of policy and their business environment". Following sentence may be somewhat hubristic? -- suggest "....aim to specify the category and temporal scope of the potential unambiguously." (Peter Read, MASSEY UNIVERSITY) Section 1.7.4: This section (and some other parts of Section 1.7) has considerable overlap with Section 2.3, in particular 2.3.2. (Hans-Martin Fuessel, Stanford University) The text is a bit too general and vague. Why not clearly analysing the key policy debate, which is in my view: is relative decoupling of GDP and GHG emissions enough (economics first, climate risks accepted as a possible consequence of this priority), or should we aim at absolute decoupling (avoiding climate risks as the highest priority, accepting economic risks as a consequence of that choice). What are pro's and con's of these perspectives? (Jan Paul van Soest, Advies voor Duurzaamheid on request of International Gas Union) A further criteria would be effectiveness, of policy or regulation, to induce investment or investment change, unless that notion is embodied in the phrase 'impact on technological change'. This is a comment picked up again several times below. Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Noted

Accepted (issue will be dealt with by chapter 2 anyhow)

Noted (no)

Noted, picked up in redrafting

Accepted (will be moved to chapter 2 anyhow) See above, 1-500

See above, 1-500

Page 102 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-503

14

25

14

26

1-504

14

28

14

29

1-505

14

28

14

28

1-506 1-507

A A

14 14

31 32 14 38

1-508

14

32

14

38

(Kirsty Hamilton, retainer to UK Business Council for Sustainable Energy; Associate Fellow, Chatham House.) Delete "and trade restrictions (sticks)." Most MEAs do not include sticks of any sort, especially not trade restrictions. For climate change specifically, at present neither the UNFCCC nor the Kyoto Protocol contains sticks. The UNFCCC is a voluntary agreement that cannot contain sticks. The Kyoto Protocol sets legally binding targets for Annex I countries, but at present contains no sticks for their enforcement. The Protocol states (Art. 18) that any penalties for non-compliance with "binding consequences" will have to be approved as an amendment. At the recent COP/MOP Saudi Arabia proposed such an amendment, which will be discussed starting in May, 2006, but given the amendment approval procedure in the Protocol (Art. 20) it is highly unlikely that an amendment will enter into force by the time AR4 is published. The COP/MOP did approve a decision with a set of indicative penalties that might be applied by Kyoto Protocol's Compliance Committee, but it is far from clear how this decision will be implemented, particularly since one country (Japan) has argued strongly against any punitive measures. (Lenny Bernstein, L. S. Bernstein & Associates, L.L.C.) What is the basis for asserting that Kyoto is "a powerful emission monitoring, verification and compliance system "? This assessment seems premature. (Lourdes Maurice, US Government) It is proposed to substitute "trading" by "flexible mechanism" because "emissions trading" is only one of three flexible mechanisms. (Radunsky Klaus, Umweltbundesamt) (policy to be undertaken as long as costs are commensurate with benefits)? (Claire Parker, Environmental Policy Consultant) The description of decision-support tools is inaccurate and provides little orientation to those readers who aren't already familiar with these tools. (Hans-Martin Fuessel, Stanford University) This paragraph covers decision-making tools, but skips any framing of the decision-making problem. Clearly, as highlighted in the TAR, sequential decisionmaking under uncertainty is a central strategy to deal with the decision-making problem and should be introduced. (Haroon Kheshgi, ExoonMobil Research and Engineering Company) Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

See above, 1-500

Rejected, Kyoto is in force and it is legally binding Accepted

Rejected, is necessary but not sufficient Rejected, it is too prescriptive

Noted, picked up in redrafting

Page 103 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

1-509

14

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

32

1-510

14

32

14

32

1-511 1-512 1-513 1-514

A A A A

14 14 14 14

37 37 37 40 14 53 14 37

1-515

14

42

14

44

1-516 1-517

A A

14 14

42 42

14

42

The explanation of cost-benefit analysis, "policy to be undertaken as long as benefit exceeds cost" is not precise. Need change, for example, to "comparison between costs and benefits associated with a certain policy or measure". (Koji Kadono, Global Industrial and Social Progress Research Institute) These are "decision support" tools rather than "decision-making" tools (or "decision-analytic tools in the terms of Ch. 2) (Paul Baer, Stanford University) uncertain and POTENTIALLY catastrophic (Ian Enting, MASCOS) Suggest qualifying "catastrophic" with "potentially". (Lourdes Maurice, US Government) before "catastrophic" insert "potentially". (Peter Read, MASSEY UNIVERSITY) Section 1,7,5, is very bare at this stage. It needs to have much more information regarding the interplay between various regions. Also there are the extent of the regions mentioned should be elaborated, for example nations in Africa and South America can be included to give a more wholestic view. (Rutu Dave, IPCC WGIII TSU) The data on energy use are correct, but wouldn't it make more sense to present data on per capita GHG emissions. Such data is available from a recent UNFCCC Secretariat publication, Key GHG Data, available on the UNFCCC website, www.unfccc.int.ication, (Lenny Bernstein, L. S. Bernstein & Associates, L.L.C.) Which energy? Primary energy? Final energy? (Leo Schrattenholzer, IIASA) Section 1.7.5 Regional Issues. Again, as arguably one of the most crucial issues (as per general comments above regarding the need to synthesise cross-cutting issues) this section is, most unfortunately seriously inadequate. In my view, a mere 10 lines on, arguably, one of the most contentious issues in the entire process, is seriously disappointing, particularly given the huge amount of literature available. Just to take an example, this section only alludes to regional differences in per capita energy use---and even these are treated exceptionally coarsely. Just as important, in terms of the problem to be solved, are (obviously, to all involved in the UNFCCC process) regional (also intra-regional) and both inter and intra-Annex Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

See response to comment 1-506

Agreed

Accepted See above See above Accepted, picked up in redrafting

Accepted

Accepted (needs clarification, it is primary) Accepted

Page 104 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-518

14

42

14

42

1-519 1-520 1-521

A A A

14 14 14

43 43 45

14 14 14

44 44 48

1-522

14

48

14

52

differences in per capita GHG emissions, income and historic responsibility. This is not even to mention inter-regional national differences in impacts, terms of trade or even cultural attitudes to climate change or even climate itself. The key case is made in lines 53-56. I agree absolutely that solving all these probelms will "to a large extent depend on technology innovation and diffusion". Yet this is, arguably, one of the single most important regional issues of all, I would submit. Most, unfortunately for the sake of the overall report, these issues are again most inadequately considered (both seperately and combined ) in Section 2.8, where (ostensibly) they ought to be comprehensively covered. (See below) (Pat Finnegan, Grian) The text "is still fractions of.." does not read well, would suggest "considerably lower than" (Nick Campbell (Batch 2), ARKEMA SA) Better to put all amount bracket off with one decimal number only. To homogenize. (FLIX HERNNDEZ, IEG-CSIC) sorry, what is toe? (Marco Mazzotti, Institute of Process Engineering) "...developing countries need and will take active measures towards the implementation of their national sustainable development objectives, i.e., to coordinate and integrate economic development, energy supply based on their national resource endowment and accessibility of energy resources, and environmental protection." This is a generic issue which has been covered more comprehensively in the past literature -- e.g., (MM 1995), (PMMM 2005) and (MMRS 2005) (MM 1995) = Munasinghe, M. 1995. Sustainable Energy Development (SED), World Bank, Wash. DC, USA. (PMMM 2005) = Meier, P. and M. Munasinghe. 2005. Sustainable Energy in Developing Countries, Edward Elgar Publ., London, UK. (Mohan Munasinghe, Munasinghe Institute for Development (MIND)) No evidence that technology is made accessable to developing countries without severe conditions that limit its effectiveness to alleviate poverty and provide affordable energy services. Hence the sentence should be translated into a more indicative and realistic description of the relationship etween developing and developped worlds, where the latter has benefit largely of the affordable cheap Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Noted, picked up in redrafting

Accepted Glossary (tonnes oil equivalent) Noted, more references will be added

Rejected, no evidence reports this claim

Page 105 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-523

14

50

1-524 1-525

A A

14 15

52 5

14 15

52 18

1-526

15

15

29

1-527

15

15

28

1-528 1-529

A A

15 15

5 5

1-530

15

resources and cosequentl was capable of building the required technology, while on the other side the other world is denied that chance. (Mohammed Alfehaid, Saudi Aramco) "reducing the population." may have unfortunate connotations - suggest "increased access to electricty for currently deprived populations" (Peter Read, MASSEY UNIVERSITY) What is the concept of "energy-income elasticities"? (Lourdes Maurice, US Government) As a CLA for this report, I was surprised to see air pollution listed as one of the cross-cutting issues, while water was omitted. My list of cross-cutting issues include water, but not air pollution. I suggest you insert a section on water and move the discussion on air pollution elsewhere in the Chapter. (Lenny Bernstein, L. S. Bernstein & Associates, L.L.C.) Discussion on ancillary benefits is not sufficient. At least some references to TAR WG3 Chapter 8 should be made. (Alexander Golub, Environmental Defense) The relationship between air pollution and climate can and should be analysed in greater detail. This will complicate the matter, but that is what reality sometimes does. Mitigation of GHG may well be conflicting with air pollution goals, e.g. in the case of using biomass for energy production leading to an increase of NOx, PM, and/or toxics. There is a need for evalution tools (e.g. overall cost - benefit analyses) to clarify what concrete actions are indeed steps forward. (Jan Paul van Soest, Advies voor Duurzaamheid on request of International Gas Union) Air Pollution: Suggest citing: Cifuentes et al. Science 2001: 293:1257-1259. (Paul Epstein, Harvard Medical School) I miss here a remark that: The Kyoto Protocol only addressses direct GHGs, not ozone precursors nor aerosols (or precursors of them), and ODPs, which also have a global and regional impact on climate and weather. (Jos Olivier, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP)) Add the names of the air pollotants referred to: ozone precursors CO, NOx and NMVOC and aerosols such as black carbon and organic carbon and SO2, a main aerosol precursor. (Jos Olivier, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP)) Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Accepted

Rejected, this is not a textbook Noted, unfortunately CCTs are defined elsewhere (defined by plenary)

Rejected, introduction is by definition never sufficient Rejected, cannot be as such in introduction

Noted Rejected, not relevant (will be picked up in the redrafting earlier on in the chapter)

Rejected, not necessary and space limitations

Page 106 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

1-531

15

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

15

1-532

15

13

1-533

15

20

1-534

15

20

1-535

15

22

29

1-536

15

25

1-537

15

35

15

35

1-538

15

47

15

49

please don't use the words 'energy production' but instead 'energy transformation'. We have learnt from the First law of Thermodynamics and from Einstein that energy is conserved and cannot be produced. (Manfred Treber, Germanwatch) recently publicised results from P Cox and co-workers (Guardian Weekly 6.12.06, p19) suggests "others act to increase it" may be a so-far seriously underestimated effect -- this should be noted in table 1.2 or in the text. (Peter Read, MASSEY UNIVERSITY) the material covered in table 1.2 is far too detailed for an introductory chapter; would fit better in ch 11 (Bert Metz, IPCC) Table 1.2 Air Pollution and Climate change. Include work on CO2, pollen and asthma. For text and references: Please see www.climatechangefutures.org, pp4852. (Paul Epstein, Harvard Medical School) It is simply not true that climate policy automatically has ancillary benefits for air pollution. I know that there are a bunch of papers out there that claim this, but these are just wrong. In developed economies, these papers go wrong by assuming simplistic behaviour in energy use; in developing economies, primary and secondary concerns are swapped, and climate should be seen as an ancillary cost of air quality policy. (Richard Tol, Hamburg University) On China it seems natural to even refer to Vennemo, Haakon , Kristin Aunan, Fang Jinghua, Pernille Holtedahl, Hu Tao and Hans Martin Seip, 2006, Domestic environmental benefits of China's energy related CDM potential, forthcoming, Climatic Change (Haakon Vennemo, ECON) Am I right that there is a refrigerator on the market which works without fluorinated gases? If so, the fluorinated gases have interesting and useful properties, but they are not 'unique'. (Manfred Treber, Germanwatch) "Use of replacements may have a lower climate impact than the use of fluorinated gases, if considered together with energy related CO2 emissions, assuming all gases are fluorinated gases, if considered together with energy related CO2 emissions, Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Rejected, good that somebody knows the difference

Rejected, refernce unknown

Accepted (nneds to be taken up with chapter 11, Rogner) Noted, see response to 1-533

Rejected, no citation provided and, moreover, this is not claimed in the text

Noted, reference will be checked

Noted (unique will be deleted)

Rejected, proposal reduces clarity

Page 107 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-539 1-540

A A

15 16

53 5 16 21

1-541

16

1-542

16

16

1-543

16

13

assuming all gases are eventually emitted." only makes sense in the context of the other sentences in this paragraph if replacements may have a higher climate impact (Nick Campbell, ARKEMA SA) Don't say "IPCC study" but "IPCC report" (Bert Metz, IPCC) Whether 'lock-ins' are being created or not, and whether short term actions conflict with long term perspectives and the need for flexibility, largely depends upon the policy instruments that are chosen. Highly specific instruments, such as subsidies for certain technologies, prescriptions, means oriented regulation etc. indeed have a higher lock in risk. But more generic instruments, such as carbon trading, flat rate carbon taxes and the like, direct markets in a general sense towards low C futures, but leaving specific choices as to what options/measures are 'best' to market players. (Jan Paul van Soest, Advies voor Duurzaamheid on request of International Gas Union) Comment to chapter 1.7.8: It is noted that chapter 3.6 includes a quite comprehensive discussion on timing of mitigation. The sentence beginning with: "The reality of effective and efficient GHG mitigation " does not really provide new information to policy makers because all countries will and can claim that they are already mitigating climate change. It is proposed to add at the end of chapter 1.7.8 a reference to chapter 3.6 that includes a much more comprehensive discussion on the timing issue. (Radunsky Klaus, Umweltbundesamt) The text "that action is needed now" seems to be policy proscriptive and could be re-worded, for example, "many actions can be taken now and.". What is meant by "public discourse"? (Nick Campbell (Batch 2), ARKEMA SA) add "Thus precautionary investments with multiple uses are needed, for instance investments in creating a large buffer stock of standing forest as a strategic stock of biomass raw material (Read, 1996, Read and Lermit 2003/5) serve also to coproduce timber, with the balance of outputs determined by the evolution of relative market prices and later decisions on rotation length (i.e. date of felling). This also provides a long run sustainable supply of forest products in lieu of continued deforestation, thereby serving the purposes of the Biodiversity Convention. Similarly, Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Accepted (Yes BOSS) Rejected, too specific (the discssion is moved to chapter 2)

Noted (discussion in chapter 1 will be reduced)

Rejected, action is not specified and therefore not prescriptive

Rejected, too specific and too long

Page 108 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-544

16

19

16

21

1-545

16

22

16

53

1-546

16

23

1-547

16

23

16

53

1-548

16

24

1-549

16

29

investments such as terra preta soil improvement both stocks biochar permanently in the land and serve to enhance future supplies of agricultural and/or biomass energy raw material, depending on the evolution of relative prices and future decisions on crop selection (Lehmann, 2005/6, Ogawa et al, 2005/6) . Such precautionary investments serve to de-couple short term GHG reductions from longer term capital replacement decisions and ease the short-term versus long-term tensions." (Peter Read, MASSEY UNIVERSITY) The issue is not only to find the right balance between short-term and long-term solutions but also with regard to allocation of resources to climate change issues compared to other issues. The exercise organised by Lomborg in Copenhagen might reflect that later issue but other efforts might have also been made to assess that topic. (Radunsky Klaus, Umweltbundesamt) Suggestion to move section 1.8 to the beginning of the chapter, as this information should be provided at the start of the chapter (which also start of the report) rather than at the end. (Rutu Dave, IPCC WGIII TSU) Section 1.8. I do not think that this section addresses the point. The point is not to remind the reader on how IPCC reports are prepared and approved. It is to summarize the most significant change in AR4 in comparison with TAR. (Philippe Tulkens, TERI School of Advanced Studies) This section contains general description of IPCC and its organisation; that does not seem useful. The rest is not very informative (no reference to the descriptions in Ch 1 of TAR on evolution of assessment) and wrong in not mentioning the strong sectoral focus of AR4 compared to TAR (for reasons of making assessment more user friendly) (Bert Metz, IPCC) suggest "relation to previous assessments' --- changes are actually a very small part of this section (Ian Enting, MASCOS) "these scientists are selected by their governments" => "The authors are nominated by their governments and participating organizations and selected by the relevant working group/Task Force Bureau." It is more accurate and relevant. Also, the Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Noted (will be put more upfront in chapter 1)

Noted, will be considered in the rewrite

See above, 1-545

See above, 1-545

See above, 1-545

Agreed (to be checked)

Page 109 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-550

16

29

16

53

1-551 1-552

A A

16 16

40 40

1-553 1-554 1-555 1-556 1-557

A A A A A

17 17 17 17 18

5 19 26 28 0

17 17 17

41 19 26

23

1-558

19

15

19

15

reference to an academic paper (Jasanoff et.al. 1998) seems irrelevant as the sentence just states the rule of the organization of the IPCC (see p 5 of the IPCC document: http://www.ipcc.ch/about/app-a.pdf ) (Koji Kadono, Global Industrial and Social Progress Research Institute) Last sentence of paragraph is incorrect in the way it describes selection of IPCC authors. The IPCC selects authors; not individual governments. (Spencer Edwards, Australian Greenhouse Office) Where is cost-benefit analysis convered in AR4? (William Pizer, Resources for the Future) between "1966" and ")" insert " - though these findings were controversial in relation to comparisons of the value of a statistical life - as between, for instance, Bangladesh and the USA. This consideration invalidates the application of CBA in the area of climate change since its theoretical basis includes an assumption of equitable, or at least politically mediated, income distribution. It may be noted that the Convention refers to cost effectiveness." (Peter Read, MASSEY UNIVERSITY) Section D covers chapter 11-13 (was change made at approval of AR4 outline) (Bert Metz, IPCC) Miscounted: Replace 'eight' by 'nine' and 'six' by 'seven'. (Leo Schrattenholzer, IIASA) Miscounted: Replace 'six' by 'seven'. (Leo Schrattenholzer, IIASA) suggest "is available" (Peter Read, MASSEY UNIVERSITY) It is worrying that the Executive Summary of the report requires so many pages of references. The Executive summary should be directly taken from the text of the other chapters of this report and could be directly referenced from where it has originated n these chapters. The appearance of references in the Executive Summary clearly suggests that many references have been ignored whilst a few chosen. (Nick Campbell (Batch 2), ARKEMA SA) Refs list. Note that the reference to my paper should reflect that this is now published as Grubb, M. J. (2004). "Technology Innovation and Climate Change Policy: An Overview of Issue and Options." Keio Economic Studies 41(2): 103Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Accepted

Noted (chapter 2 issue) Rejected, too specific an issue

Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted Rejected, chapter 1 is not the summary (references should be pertinent to Article 2)

Accepted

Page 110 of 111

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, First Order Draft

hapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-559

21

17

21

18

1-560 1-561 1-562

A A A

21 23 24

23 34 0

21 23

23 34

1-563

27

1-564

28

132. (Michael Grubb, Cambridge University) The report with the authors stated cannot be found. Should it be instead Interim Report IR-01-051, 'Managing Climate Risk' by Obersteiner, Azar, Kossmeier, Mechler, Mllersten, Nilsson, Read, Yamagata, and Yan? (Kenneth Mllersten, Swedish Energy Agency) 'data', not 'date' (Leo Schrattenholzer, IIASA) 'farewell society' sounds a bit funny. How about 'good-buy society'? (Leo Schrattenholzer, IIASA) Table 1.1 Unit should be clearer (% of total CO2e emissions). The aggregation is puzzling, mixing energy sources (fossil fuel combustion), activities and gases ?? 'Transport' and 'fossil fuel combustion' obviously overlap. Anyway the table does not give more general information than Fig. 1.2 (perhaps derive a Table from it and substitute?) (Frdric Ghersi, CNRS) Figure 1.3 Should mention area concerned (presumably world) (Frdric Ghersi, CNRS) Figure 1.5 Title should not repete legend, must mention the figures are global, base 1 in 1971 (if it is the case indeed). Legend could be sorted according to the identity (CO2, POP, GDP/POP, PE/GDP, CO2/PE). (Frdric Ghersi, CNRS)

Rejected (reference exists)

Accepted Rejected, not clear Accepted (will be redone anyway)

Accepted

Accepted

Expert Review of First-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote Page 111 of 111

Second Order draft Title: Chapter: (Sub)Section Author(s): Introduction Chapter 1

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

Version: File name: Date:

CLAs: H-Holger Rogner (Germany), Dadi Zhou (China) LAs: Rick Bradley (USA), Philippe Crabb (Canada), Ottmar Edenhofer (Germany), Bill Hare (Australia), Lambert Kuipers (Netherlands), Mitsutsune Yamaguchi (Japan) CAs: Nicolas Lefevre (France/USA), Hongwei Yang (China) REs Hoesung Lee (Korea) and Richard Odingo (Kenya) SOD-1 CH1_SOD-V_2 180706 Th.doc 20/07/2006 16:10 Time-zone: CET

Chapter 1

Introduction

10

15

20

25

30

35

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................................. 2 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 4 1.2 Ultimate Objective of the UNFCCC .......................................................................................... 4 1.2.1 Article 2 of the convention ........................................................................................... 4 1.2.2 What is dangerous interference with the climate system?............................................ 5 1.2.3 Issues related to the implementation of Article 2......................................................... 6 1.2.3.1 Sustainable Development ............................................................................ 6 1.2.3.2 Adaptation and Mitigation ........................................................................... 7 1.2.3.3 Inertia ........................................................................................................... 7 1.2.3.4 Irreversibility................................................................................................ 8 1.2.3.5 Risk of abrupt or catastrophic changes ........................................................ 8 1.2.3.6 Uncertainty................................................................................................... 8 1.2.3.7 Public Good ................................................................................................. 8 1.2.3.8 Equity........................................................................................................... 9 1.3 Energy, Emissions and R&D Trends Are We On Track? ....................................................... 9 1.3.1 Last Three Decades ...................................................................................................... 9 1.3.1.1 Energy Supply............................................................................................ 15 1.3.1.2 Energy Intensities....................................................................................... 15 1.3.1.3 Energy Security.......................................................................................... 17 1.3.2 Future Outlook ........................................................................................................... 18 1.3.2.1 Energy Supply............................................................................................ 18 1.3.2.2 Carbon Dioxide Emissions ........................................................................ 18 1.3.2.3 Non-CO2 Gases.......................................................................................... 19 1.3.2.4 Total GHG Emissions................................................................................ 20 1.3.3 Research and Development Needs and Trends .......................................................... 20 1.3.3.1 Research and Development........................................................................ 20 1.3.3.2 Research and Development Expenditures ................................................. 21 1.4 Institutional Architecture .......................................................................................................... 22 1.4.1 UNFCCC, the Kyoto Protocol and the 2005 Montreal CoP-11/MoP-1 (CMP-1) ..... 22 1.4.2 Millennium Development Goals, the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation and other International Fora .............................................................................................. 23 1.4.3 Technology cooperation and transfer ......................................................................... 24 1.5 Changes from previous assessments and roadmap................................................................... 25 1.5.1 Previous Assessments................................................................................................. 25 1.5.2 Roadmap..................................................................................................................... 26 Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 20/07/2006 4:10 PM 1 Chapter 1

Second Order draft

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The ultimate objective of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is to achieve stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner (Article 2). This Chapter places Article 2 of the Convention in the context of the main options and conditions under which the stabilization objective has to be implemented, reflects on past and future greenhouse gas (GHG) emission trends, highlights the institutional mechanisms in place for the implementation of climate change and sustainable development objectives, summarizes changes from previous assessments and provides a brief roadmap for the Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change assessment. Defining what is dangerous interference with the climate system, and hence what are limits to be set for policy purposes is a complex task and can only partially be informed by science, as it inherently involves normative judgments. Our understanding of climate change, its impacts, vulnerability and adaptation derived from assessments of the physical science basis is that, in general, the level of climate change and attendant risks and damages increases with higher greenhouse gas concentrations, sometimes in a non linear way. Decisions made in relation to Article 2 would determine the level of climate change that is set as the goal for policy and have fundamental implications for emission reduction pathways as well as the scale of adaptation required. If warming of 2oC above pre-industrial were deemed to be a limit on global warming, as for example set by the European Union, global emissions would need to peak within the first few decades of the 21st century and reduced to at least 70% below 2000 levels by 2100. At present annual emissions of most GHGs are rising, especially for carbon dioxide (CO2). Current GHG emission trends - 2.4 percent annual growth rate over the last 30 years are projected to continue. Global energy demand and associated supply patterns based on fossil fuels the main drivers of GHG emissions -are projected to continue to grow. As a consequence atmospheric GHG concentrations have increased annually sine the late 1950s by some 0.4 percent reaching 380 ppm in 2004. Without major emissions reductions substantially beyond the Kyoto targets, stabilization is unlikely to occur at concentration levels that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. In the context of climate change mitigation, regional differentiation is important economic development needs, resource endowments and mitigative and adaptive capacities are too different across regions for a one-size fits all approach. Despite numerous mitigation measures already underway by many Parties to the UNFCCC and the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol in February 2005 (all of which are steps towards the implementation of Article 2), these are inadequate for reversing overall GHG emission trends and achieving stabilization of atmospheric GHG concentrations. The impacts of population and economic development continue to eclipse the improvement in energy intensities and decarbonisation. The challenges confronting a reversal of emission trends are numerous including, but not limited to, compliance of emission mitigation measures with Art. 2 conditions of unhindered sustainable economic development, equity and ethics considerations, i.e., common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (Article 3), the inherent inertia of long-lived

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 20/07/2006 4:10 PM

Chapter 1

Second Order draft

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

infrastructures or mitigation versus adaptation while considering the risks of abrupt or catastrophic change, and potential climate irreversibility. Climate change responses are part and parcel of sustainable development and the two can be mutually reinforcing. Mitigation can conserve natural capital and prevent damages to human systems and, thereby, contribute socio-economic development. In turn sustainable development paths can reduce GHG emissions, contributing to the mitigation task and reducing vulnerability to climate change. Projected climate changes can exacerbate poverty and hence undermine sustainable development especially in least-developed countries, which are the most dependent on natural capital. Hence global mitigation efforts can enhance sustainable development prospects in part by reducing the risk of adverse impacts of climate change. Therefore, the main framing issue of this report is mainstreaming climate change mitigation as an integral part of sustainable development. The Chapter closes with a brief synopsis of the changes from previous assessments and a description of the structure of the report. Although the structure of this Report (AR IV) resembles the macro-outline of the Third Assessment Report (TAR), there are distinct differences between them. The AR IV assigns greater weight to (a) a more detailed resolution of sectoral mitigation options and costs, (b) regional differentiation, (c) emphasizing previous and new cross-cutting issues: risks and uncertainties, decision and policy making, costs and potentials, and the relationships between mitigation, adaptation and sustainable development, air pollution and climate, regional aspects and the issues related to the implementation of UNFCCC Article 2, and (d) the integration of all these aspects.

10

15

20

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 20/07/2006 4:10 PM

Chapter 1

Second Order draft

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

1.1

Introduction

10

The assessment Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change is of particular interest to policy makers seeking authoritative, timely information on cost-effective measures to control greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A thorough understanding of future GHG emission ranges, available mitigation options, mitigation potentials and associated costs is especially important for the negotiations on post-Kyoto emission reductions. Given WGIs findings of an upward change in climate sensitivity and increased risk of large scale, non-linear changes, larger emission reductions than those that emerged from the TAR (IPCC, 2001), will likely be required in order to meet the ultimate objective of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This Chapter places Article 2 of the Convention in the context of the main options and conditions under which the stabilization objective has to be implemented, reflects on past and future greenhouse gas (GHG) emission trends, highlights the institutional mechanisms in place for the implementation of climate change and sustainable development objectives, summarizes changes from previous assessments and provides a brief roadmap for the Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change assessment. 1.2 Ultimate Objective of the UNFCCC

15

20

1.2.1 Article 2 of the convention Article 2 of the UNFCCC specifies the ultimate objective of the Convention and states: 25 The ultimate objective of this Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner (UN, 1992). The criterion that relates to enabling economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner has two sides. Projected anthropogenic climate change appears likely to adversely affect sustainable development, with adverse effects tending to increase with higher greenhouse gas concentrations (WGII AR4, Chapter 19). On the other side very costly mitigation measures could have adverse effects on economic development. This tension is what gives rise to the debate over the right scale and balance between climate policy (mitigation and adaptation) and economic growth. The assessment of adaptation potentials in each of the areas mentioned in Art. 2 is likely to be important for a determination of what level of climate change would result in ecosystems, food production or economic development being threatened to a level sufficient to be defined as dangerous. Vulnerabilities to anthropogenic climate change are strongly regionally differentiated, with often those in the weakest position economically and politically being most susceptible to damages (Barnett and Adger, 2003) and WGII, Chapter 19, Table 19.1. Limits to climate change consistent with Art. 2 can be defined with respect to different criteria such as concentration stabilization at a certain level, global mean temperature or sea level rise, according to which prevention of dangerous interference with the climate system can be defined. Whichever

30

35

40

45

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 20/07/2006 4:10 PM

Chapter 1

Second Order draft

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

criterion is chosen its implementation would require the development of consistent emission pathways and levels of mitigation (Meinshausen et al, 2005). 1.2.2 What is dangerous interference with the climate system? 5 Defining what is dangerous interference with the climate system is a complex task and can only par tially be informed by science, as it inherently involves normative judgements (Oppenheimer, 2005). Definitions of danger are recognised has having external and internal dimension: the former depend on expert-determined physical vulnerability, such as disintegration of ice sheets (Oppenheimer and Alley, 2005) or risks of large scale disruptions in the earth system (Friedlingstein et al, 2003; Archer and Buffett, 2005), while the latter focuses on social, cultural and institutional contexts, and social psychology methodologies (Dessai et al, 2004). An interpretation of Art. 2 is likely to rely on political and/or legal judgements that synthesize the two perspectives (Tol and Verheyen, 2004) so as to arrive at politically defined agreements as to what may constitute unacceptable impacts on food production, ecosystems or sustainable economic development. Over the past two decades several expert groups have sought to define levels of climate change that could be tolerable or intolerable, or characterized by different levels of risk. In the late 1980s, the WMO/ICSU/UNEP Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases (AGGG) identified two main temperature indicators or thresholds with different levels of risk (Rijsberman and Swart, 1990). Based on the available knowledge at the time it was argued that an increase of greater than 1.0C above pre-industrial levels may elicit rapid, unpredictable and non-linear responses that could lead to extensive ecosystem damage. A 2C increase was determined to be an upper limit beyond which the risks of grave damage to ecosystems, and of non-linear responses, are expected to increase rapidly. This early work also identified rate of change as being of importance to determining level of risk, which has also been qualitatively confirmed since (Epstein and McCarthy, 2004; Leemans and Eickhout, 2004). Research since that time has tended to confirm the potential for rapid non linear responses for many different ecosystems (Burkett et al, 2005), although the degree of climate change that can bring about such responses varies by system (see Chapter 4 and WGII, Chapter 19). The question remains as to the scale and significance of such ecological risks in relation to the different elements of Art. 2. Large scale risks to ecosystems such as coral reefs also imply risks to hundreds of millions of people dependent on them (Hoegh-Guldberg, 2005). The TAR identified five broad reasons for concern relevant to Art. 2: Risks to unique and threatened systems, risks from extreme climatic events, regional distribution of impacts, aggregate impacts and risks from large scale discontinuities. Subsequently Leemans and Eickhout (2004) have argued that a sixth ground for concern exists, i.e., regional and global impacts on ecosystems. ONeill and Oppenheimer (2002) use a set of criteria related to ecosystems, risk of ice sheet collapse and abrupt changes in ocean circulation that could be defined as dangerous. Mastrandrea and Schneider (2004) assessed in a probabilistic manner the implications of different interpretations of dangerous anthropogenic interference in relation to the above concerns and found that climate policy can substantially reduce the risk of crossing thresholds deemed dangerous. The level of acceptable risk in each case is a matter of policy choice and normative judgement (Oppenheimer, 2005). For example the probability of a shutdown in the thermohaline circulation is currently unknown in a quantitative sense, however if it did happen it would have global consequences (Vellinga and Wood, 2002; Higgins and Vellinga, 2004; Higgins and Schneider, 2005; Levermann et al, 2005). Taking into account uncertainties reducing the risk of this to low levels would require early mitigation (Rahmstorf and Zickfeld, 2005).

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 20/07/2006 4:10 PM

Chapter 1

Second Order draft

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

Whilst the works cited above are principally scientific (expert-led) assessments, there are also several examples of elected officials seeking to define acceptable levels of climate change based on interpretations of scientific findings. In 1996, based on a consideration of the Second Assessment Report (SAR) of the IPCC (IPCC, 1996), the European Unions Council of Environment Ministers (Environment Council) agreed that global temperatures should not be allowed to exceed 2C above pre-industrial levels (CEU, 1996). The EU Environment Council reconfirmed this view in 2005 (CEU, 2005b) and this also was adopted by the 25 Heads of Government of the European Union (CEU, 2005a). To date, the EU is the only region with such a quantified limit. Each of these views has its strengths and weaknesses. The AGGG (Rijsberman and Swart, 1990) and ONeill and Oppenheimer (2002) views have the virtue that they are more or less transparent expert judgements based on the presented analyses. The EU Council has the virtue of a high level political judgement by elected Ministers and Heads of Government with supporting analyses of scientific findings prepared by officials. 1.2.3 Issues related to the implementation of Article 2 There are a core set of issues surrounding the implementation of Article 2 upon whose resolution hinge policy related decision making in relation to the overall level of climate change to be prevented, the scale and rate of emission reductions and the level and character of adaptation responses. These issues include the linkages between sustainable development and climate change, equity, adaptation and mitigation and risk management issues relating to inertia, irreversibility, the risk of abrupt or catastrophic changes and uncertainty. In this section we lead into these issues, most of which are further discussed in Chapters 2, 3 and 11. Decisions made in relation to Article 2 would determine the level of climate change that is set as the goal for policy and have fundamental implications for emission reduction pathways as well as the scale of adaptation required. The emission pathways which correspond to different CO2 stabilization levels and consequential global mean warming are reviewed in Chapter 3 (see Tables 3.3-4 and 3.52). An indication of the different scales of mitigation action can be seen by considering two hypothetical limits in warming: If warming of 2oC above pre-industrial were deemed to be a limit on global warming, global emissions would need to be reduced to at least 70% below 2000 levels by 2100. On the other hand if a higher level of warming such as 4oC were deemed to be a limit, then emissions may not have to peak until well after mid century and could still be well above 2000 levels in 2100. 1.2.3.1 Sustainable Development One of the important contexts in relation to the implementation of Art. 2 is sustainable development, which is recognized as having environmental, economic and social dimensions (see Chapter 2.2). Climate change responses (including mitigation) are part and parcel of sustainable development and the two can be mutually reinforcing (Davidson et al, 2003). Mitigation can conserve or enhance natural capital (ecosystems, environment as sources and sinks for economic activities) and prevent or avoid damages to human systems and, thereby, contribute to the overall productivity of capital needed for socio-economic development including mitigative and adaptive capacity. In turn sustainable development paths can reduce vulnerability to climate change and reduce GHG emissions, contributing to the mitigation task. Projected climate changes can exacerbate poverty and hence undermine sustainable development (see e.g. WGII, Chapters 6, 9.7 and 20.8.3), especially in least-developed countries, which are the most dependent on natural capital

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 20/07/2006 4:10 PM

Chapter 1

Second Order draft

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

(see Chapter 2). Hence global mitigation efforts can enhance sustainable development prospects in part by reducing the risk of adverse impacts of climate change. 1.2.3.2 Adaptation and Mitigation 5 Adaptation and mitigation can be complementary, substitutable or independent of each other (see WGII, Chapter 18). If complementary, adaptation reduces the costs of impacts and thus reduces the benefits of mitigation. Although adaptation and mitigation may be substitutable, they are never perfect substitutes for each other since mitigation will always be required to avoid dangerous climate change. Irrespective of the scale of mitigation measures in the next ten to twenty years, adaptation measures will be required due to the inertia in the climate system. Both adaptation and mitigation depend on capital assets, including social capital, and affect capital vulnerability and GHG emissions (see Chapter 2.6.2). Through this mutual dependence, both are tied to sustainable development (see Chapters 2.6.3, 11.8, 12.2 and 12.3). In terms of the mitigation required to meet the Article 2 objective, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations and in particular of the main greenhouse gas, CO2, requires substantial emission reductions, well beyond those built into existing agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol. The timing and rate of these reductions depends on the level of the climate goal chosen (see Chapter 3.3.5.1). 20 1.2.3.3 Inertia Decisions in relation to Art 2 and on mitigation action need to take account of inertia in both the climate and socioeconomic systems (WGI, Chapter 10 and Chapter 2.3.4). Mitigation actions aimed at specific climate goals would need to take account of the response times of the atmosphere and oceans. A large part of the atmospheric response to radiative forcing changes occurs on decadal timescales but a substantial component is linked to the century time scales of the oceanic response to the same forcing changes (Senior and Mitchell, 2000; Hooss et al, 2001) (WGI, Chapter 10). Once GHG concentrations are stabilized global mean temperature would very likely stabilize within a few decades, though a further slight increase may still occur over several centuries (Hare and Meinshausen, 2005; Meehl et al, 2005) (WGI, Chapter 10). Sea level rise would however continue for many centuries after GHG stabilization due to ongoing heat uptake by oceans and due to the long time scale of ice sheet response to warming (Gregory et al, 2004) (WGI, Chapter 10). There is thus a time lag between the time when mitigation is applied and the achievement of climate goals. The time scales for mitigation are linked to technological, social, economic, demographic and political factors. Inertia is characteristic of the energy system with its long-life infrastructures and this inertia is highly relevant to how fast greenhouse gas concentrations can be stabilized (Chapter 11.6.2 and (Janssen and De Vries, 2000; Unruh and Carrillo-Hermosilla, 2006). Adaptation measures similarly exhibit a range of time scales and there can be substantial lead times required for measures to be implemented and to take effect, particularly when it involves infrastructure (WGII, Chapter 17). Due to inertia in both the climate and socioeconomic systems benefits from mitigation actions initiated now would lead to significant avoided climate change several decades later. Ultimately mitigation options have a greater potential to avoid climate change damages than the adaptation options presently foreseeable (Jones, 2004). Inertia in the system means that mitigation actions need to start in the short term in order to have medium and longer term benefits and to avoid lock in of carbon intensive technologies (Unruh and Carrillo-Hermosilla, 2006; Chapter 11.6.2).

10

15

25

30

35

40

45

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 20/07/2006 4:10 PM

Chapter 1

Second Order draft 1.2.3.4 Irreversibility

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

10

Irreversibility is an important aspect of the climate change issue with implications for mitigation and adaptation responses. The climate systems response to anthropogenic forcing is likely to be irreversible over human timescales (Scheffer et al, 2001) and damages are likely to be irreversible (Leemans and Eickhout, 2004; Thomas et al, 2004; Thuiller et al, 2005; Thuiller et al, 2006). Mitigation and adaptation will often require investment involving sunk (irreversible) costs in new technologies and practices (Section 2.3.2, Chapter 11.6.2, WGII, Chapter 17). Decisions makers will need to take into account these environmental, socioeconomic and technological irreversibilities in deciding on the timing and scale of mitigation action. 1.2.3.5 Risk of abrupt or catastrophic changes Another important issue is the risk or abrupt or even catastrophic change in the climate system. Key vulnerabilities (WGII, Chapter 19.1.2.1) with potentially severe impacts that cannot be ruled out include: the possibility of abrupt climate changes, increases in extreme events, decay or disintegration of the ice sheets with multi-meter sea level rise, a shutdown of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation (Rahmstorf and Zickfeld, 2005) with far reaching, adverse ecological and agricultural consequences (Vellinga and Wood, 2002; Higgins and Vellinga, 2004; Higgins and Schneider, 2005); increases in the frequency of droughts (Salinger, 2005) or a higher intensity of tropical cyclones (Knutson and Tuleya, 2004; Emanuel, 2005; Trenberth, 2005) and the risk of positive feedbacks from warming may cause the release of carbon or methane from the terrestrial biosphere and soils (Shindell et al, 2004; Jones et al, 2005) and oceans (Archer et al, 2004; Archer and Buffett, 2005) which would add to the mitigation required. 1.2.3.6 Uncertainty Uncertainty in knowledge is an important aspect in the implementation of Art. 2 whether it is, assessing future GHG emissions or the severity of climate change impacts and regional changes (Giorgi, 2005; Giorgi and Bi, 2005), evaluating these impacts over many generations, estimating mitigation costs, or evaluating the level of mitigation action needed to reduce risk (Baranzini et al, 2003). Notwithstanding these uncertainties, mitigation will reduce the risk of both global mean and regional changes and the risk of abrupt changes in the climate system. Under uncertainty (see Chapters 2.3. and 2.4), decision making on the implementation of Art.2 needs to incorporates risk management principles. A precautionary and anticipatory risk management approach should incorporate adaptation and preventive mitigation (Obersteiner et al, 2001a, 2001b) based on the costs and benefits of avoided climate change damage (see Chapter 3.5). 1.2.3.7 Public Good One of the important features of the prevention regime against dangerous interference with the climate system is its global public good nature. A regime is a set of shared principles, norms, rules, rights, ways of defining problems and decision-making procedures, all embedded in institutions and infrastructures essentially operating best under cooperation (Parson and Ward, 1998). Climate tends to be overused (excessive GHG concentrations) because of its natural availability as a resource whose access is open to all free of charge. In contrast, dangerous climate system prevention tends to be underprovided. The benefits of avoided climate change are spatially indivisible, freely

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 20/07/2006 4:10 PM

Chapter 1

Second Order draft

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

available to all (non-excludability), irrespective whether one is contributing the regime costs or not. Regime benefits by one individual (nation) do not diminish their availability to others (non-rivalry). Therefore one is unable to enforce binding agreements about them1 (Kaul et al, 1999; 2003) and may result in free riding, i.e., mitigation costs are borne by some individuals (nations) while others succeed in evading them but still enjoy mitigation benefits). The incentive to evade increases with the substitutability of individual mitigation efforts (mitigation is largely additive) and with the inequality of the distribution of net benefits. However, individual mitigation costs decrease with efficient mitigation actions undertaken by others. Because mitigation efforts are additive, the larger the number of participants, the smaller the individual cost of providing the public good, i.e., GHG stabilization. 1.2.3.8 Equity

10

15

20

Equity is an important guiding principle for the implementation of Art.2. Equity is an ethical construct that demands the articulation and implementation of choices about the distribution of rights to benefits and responsibilities for costs resulting from particular circumstances, say climate change, within and among communities including future generations. Climate change is subject to a very asymmetric distribution of present emissions and future impacts and vulnerabilities. Moreover, the costs of future mitigation depend upon the timing of the current mitigation efforts (Chapter 2.7) and equity can be elaborated in terms of distributing the costs of abatement or adaptation, distributing future emission rights, and ensuring institutional and procedural fairness (Chapter 13.3.4.3). Equity exhibits preventative (avoid damage inflicted on others), retributive (sanctions), and corrective elements (e.g., common but differentiated responsibilities) (Ikeme, 2003 and Chapter 2.7), each of which has a place in the international response to the climate change problem (Chapter 13).

25

30 1.3 Energy, Emissions and R&D Trends Are We On Track?

1.3.1 Last Three Decades 35 From the atmospheric point of view it is clear that the total radiative forcing of the Earth' climate s due to increases in the concentrations of the long lived greenhouse gases (CO2, methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O)), and the rate of observed increase in these gases over the past century, are unprecedented in at least the last 20,000 years. The predominant sources of these gases are from the combustion of fossil fuels. A variety of sources exist for determining global and regional greenhouse gas and other climate forcing agent trends. Each source has its strengths and weaknesses and uncertainties. The EDGAR database (Olivier et al, 2005a and 2005b) contains global emission trends by broad sectors from 1970-2004. Marland et. al., (2006) contains carbon dioxide and methane emissions globally. With respect to the gases contained in both databases, they show a similar evolution in emissions. Since 1970 emissions of greenhouse gases (not including ozone depleting substances (ODS) controlled by the Montreal Protocol) have increased by approximately 75%, with CO2 being the largest source

40

45

Resulting in a prisoners dilemma situation because of insufficient incentives to cooperate.

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 20/07/2006 4:10 PM

Chapter 1

Second Order draft

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

having grown by about 87% (Figure 1.1) and representing 75% of total anthropogenic emissions in 2004. Radiative forcing as a result of increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations caused by human activities since the pre-industrial era dominates that of all other radiative forcing agents. With respect to other greenhouse gases, methane emissions rose by about 40% from 1970, with an 84% increase arising from combustion and use of fossil fuels and agricultural emissions remained roughly stable due to compensating falls and increases in rice and livestock production respectively. Nitrous oxide emissions grew by 50% since 1970, mainly due to increased use of fertilizer and the growth of agriculture. Industrial process emission of N2O fell during this period. Use and emissions of all fluorinated gases (including the Montreal Protocol ODS) decreased substantially during 1990-2004. The emissions of one type of the fluorinated gases (HFCs) grew rapidly during this period as they replaced ODS and were estimated to make up about 1.2% of emissions on a 100 year global warming potential (GWP) basis in 2004. Current annual emissions of all fluorinated gases are estimated at 0.68 GtCeq, with HFCs at 0.11 GtCeq. Stocks are much larger and currently represent about 5.7 GtCeq. In some applications, the use of fluorinated gases increases energy efficiency, thereby reducing CO2 emissions. Use of replacements --with often negligible GWP and comparable energy efficiency -- may have a lower climate impact than the use of fluorinated gases, in particular if considered together with energy related CO2 emissions, assuming all gases are eventually emitted.
Global greenhouse gas emissions 1970-2004
50 Pg CO2-eq.

10

15

HFCs, PFCs, SF6

40

N2O other N2O agriculture

30

CH4 other CH4 waste CH4 agriculture

20

CH4 energy 3) CO2 other 2)

10

CO2 deforestation 1) 4) CO2 fossil fuel

0 1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

Data sources: 1970-2000: EDGAR 3.2, EDGAR 3.2 FT 2000; 2001-2004: IEA, USGG, AFEAS, RAND, FAO,

20

25

1) Including biofuel combustion at 10% (assuming 90% sustainable production). 2) Including natural gas venting/flaring 3) Including biofuels 4) For large-scale biomass burning averaged activity data for 1997-2002 were used from GFED. based on satellite data. Note: 100 year GWPs from IPCC 1996 (SAR) were used to convert emissions to CO2-eq. (cf. UNFCCC reporting guidelines). 1 PgCO2eq=1 GtCO2eq. Figure 1.1: Global greenhouse gas trends 1970-2004 The largest growth in CO2 emissions has come from power generation and road transport, with industry, households and the service sector remaining at approximately the same levels for the Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 20/07/2006 4:10 PM 10 Chapter 1

30

Second Order draft

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

1970-2004 period (Figure 1.2). By 2004 CO2 emissions from power generation represented over

Pg CO2
10 9 8

Global CO2 emissions 1970-2004

Electricity plants Industry (excl. cement)

Road transport
7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Residential and service sectors Deforestation1)

Refineries etc.

Other2)

International transport
0 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Data sources: IEA; EDGAR 3.2 and FT2000; USGS, FAO, GFED

1) 2)

Including fuel wood at 10% net contribution For large-scale biomass burning averaged activity data for 1997-2002 were used from GFED. based on satellite data Other domestic surface transport, non-energetic use of fuels, cement production, and venting/flaring of gas from oil production

30% of total anthropogenic CO2 emissions and was by far the most important source. Figure 1.2: Sources of Global CO2 emissions 1970-2004 5 Following the sectoral breakdown adopted in the AR4 (Chapters 4 - 10), in 2004 about 29% of GHG emissions arose from energy supply, about 22% from industry, 23% from agriculture and forestry, 14% from transport, and 12% from residential, commercial and service sectors (see Figure 1.3). These figures should be seen as indicative as some uncertainty remains, particularly with regards to CH4 and N20 emissions (error margin estimated to be in the order of 30% to 50%) and CO2 emissions from agriculture (error margin up to 100%). Since 1970 emissions from the energy supply sector have grown by over 145% while transport emissions grew by over 120% - by far the two sectors with the largest GHG emissions growth. Industry sectors emissions grew by close to 65% while the agriculture and forestry sector saw the slowest growth of 25% between 1970 and 2004.

10

15

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 20/07/2006 4:10 PM

11

Chapter 1

Second Order draft

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

Sectoral breakdown of global greenhouse gas emissions in 2004

PgC eq.
4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0

F-gases N2 O CH4

1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Energy supply1) Transport2) Residential and commercial buildings3) Industry4) Agriculture and Forestry5)

CO2

Source: EDGAR (3.2/FT2000) / IEA (2006)

Note: 100 year GWPs from IPCC 1996 (Second Assessment Report) were used to convert emissions to CO2eq. (cf. UNFCCC reporting guidelines, e.g. 21 for methane and 310 for nitrous oxide)).
1) 2) 3)

Excluding refineries Including international transport (bunkers), excluding fisheries Including fuel combustion in agriculture and forestry and including all waste/wastewater emissions 4) Including refineries 5) Excluding fuel combustion in agriculture and forestry For large-scale biomass burning averaged activity data for 1997-2002 were used from GFED. based on satellite data.

Note: 100 year GWPs from IPCC 1996 (Second Assessment Report) were used to convert emissions to CO2-eq. (cf. UNFCCC reporting guidelines, e.g. 21 for methane and 310 for nitrous oxide)).

10

Note: The uncertainty in the figures is quite large for CH4, N2O and N2O (of the order of 30 to 50%) and in CO2 from Agriculture and Forestry (about 100%) 1) Excluding refineries, coke ovens etc. 2) Including international transport (bunkers), excluding fisheries 3) Including all waste/wastewater emissions 4) Including refineries, coke ovens etc. 5) Including agricultural waste burning and savannah burning For large-scale biomass burning averaged activity data for 1997-2002 were used from GFED. based on satellite data. Figure 1.3: GHG emission by sector (2004) The UNFCCC reporting system for the Annex I parties provide another indication of the role of GHG emission sources. Table 1.1 gives an indication of the relative sources of emissions from the broad source categories in the UNFCCC system, reinforcing the dominant role of fossil fuel combustion and also indicating that transport related emissions are also a substantial source.

15

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 20/07/2006 4:10 PM

12

Chapter 1

Second Order draft

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

Table1.1: Annex I emissions: Average of 1990-2003 Source % of emissions Fossil fuel combustion 62.0% Transport 20.6% Industrial processes 5.9% Agriculture 8.3% Waste 3.1% Other 0.1%
Source: Compiled from UNFCCC Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data (http://ghg.unfccc.int/index.html) Note: Countries with incomplete data series excluded from calculation: Belarus, Lichtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Russian Federation

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 20/07/2006 4:10 PM

13

Chapter 1

Second Order draft

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

On a geographic basis, there are important differences between regions. North America, Asia and the Middle East have driven the rise in emissions since 1972. The former region of the Soviet Union has shown significant reductions in carbon dioxide emissions since 1990 reaching a level slightly lower than the region had in 1972. Developed countries (UNFCCC Annex 1 countries) hold a 20% share in world population but account for 46.4% of global GHG emissions. In contrast, the 80% of people living in developing countries (non-Annex 1 countries) account for 53.6% of GHG emissions (see Figure 1.4).
28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10
Other non-Annex I: 1.9%

Annex I: 46.4 %

Non Annex I: 53.6%

GHG emissions, tCO2eq. per capita

Average Annex I: 14.6 tCO2eg/cap

4 2 0
0

IT Annex I: 9.1%

JANZ: 5.2%

Latin America: 10.2%

USA & Canada: 20.1%

Europe Annex I: 12.0%

Middle East: 4.0%

Average Non Annex I: 4.22 tCO2eg/cap

Centrally Planned Asia: Centrally 15.8% Asia: 15.8% Africa: 8.3% Planned

Other Asia: 13.4%

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

Population (million)
Note: Height of bars gives the average annual emissions of all GHGs in tCO2 equivalent. Width of bars gives the population. Percentages given indicate the fraction of 2003 global emissions attributed to each region.

Figure 1.4: Distribution of regional per capita CO2 emissions over different country groupings in 2003 (adapted from Bolin and Khesgi, 2001 using IEA (2005a) and EDGAR 3.0 database 10 Promotion of energy efficiency improvements and fuel switching are some of the most frequently applied policy measures which result in mitigation of GHG emissions. Although they may not necessarily be targeted at GHG emission mitigation, such policy measures do have a strong impact in lowering the emission level from where it would be otherwise. 15 According to an analysis of GHG mitigation activities in selected developing countries by Chandler et al, (2002), the substitution of gasoline-fuelled cars with ethanol fuelled-cars and conventional CHP plants with sugar-cane bagasse CHP plants in Brazil resulted in an estimated carbon emission abatement of 6.4 MtC in 2000 (compared with the actual emission of 91 MtC in 2000). According to the same study, economic and energy reforms in China curbed the use of low-grade coal resulting in avoided emissions of some 100 MtC (compared with actual emissions of 848 MtC). In India, energy policy initiatives including demand-side efficiency improvements are estimated to have reduced emission by 18 MtC (compared with the actual emission level of 290 MtC). In Mexico, the switch to natural gas, the promotion of efficiency improvements and lower deforestation, are estimated at 10 MtC of emission reductions, compared with actual emissions of 187 MtC. For the EU-25 countries, (2006) provides a rough estimate of the avoided CO2 emissions from public electricity and heat generation due to efficiency improvements and fuel switching. If the efficiency and fuel mix had remained at their 1990 values, emissions in 2003 would have been some 31% above actual emissions. Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 20/07/2006 4:10 PM 14 Chapter 1

20

25

30

Second Order draft

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

1.3.1.1 Energy Supply Global primary energy use almost doubled from 229 EJ in 1971 to 449 EJ in 2003 with an average annual growth of 2.1%/yr over this period. Fossil fuels accounted for 80% of total energy use in 2003 slightly down from the 86% more than 30 years ago mainly due to the increase of nuclear energy. Despite substantial growth of non-traditional renewable forms of energy over the last decade, the share of renewables (including traditional biomass) in the primary energy mix has not changed compared with 1971 (see Chapter 4). 1.3.1.2 Energy Intensities The Kaya-identity (Kaya, 1990) recognizes four aggregate driving forces of CO2 emissions and decomposes emission growth into: a) population growth, b) gross domestic product per capita (GDP/cap), c) energy-intensity (energy per unit of GDP), and d) carbon-intensity (CO2 emissions per unit of energy). Globally, the average growth rate of CO2 emissions between 1973 and 2003 of 1.5% p.a. is the result of (see Figure 1.5): population growth: 1.6% p.a.; GDP/cap2: 1.6% p.a.; energy-intensity: -1.0% p.a.; and carbon-intensity: -0.7% p.a.
2.6 2.4 2.2 Index 1973=100 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6
1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

10

15

GDPppp Energy/GDPppp

CO2 GDPppp/POP

POP CO2/GDPppp

CO2/Energy

20

Note: GDP (PPP) of 1973 and 1974 was unavailable and is therefore estimated by using the growth rate of non-PPP GDP.

Figure 1.5: Gross Domestic Product both in terms of absolute (GDP) and per capita (GDP/POP) measured in PPP (Purchase Power Parity), Population (POP), Energy Intensity (Energy Use per GDP), Carbon Intensity (CO2/Energy Use), and Carbon Dioxide Emissions (from fossil fuel burning, gas flaring and cement manufacturing). Sources: World Bank, 2005; Marland et.al, 2006.
2

Purchasing power parity (PPP) at 2000 prices and exchange rates

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 20/07/2006 4:10 PM

15

Chapter 1

Second Order draft

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

As the decomposition analysis indicates (see Figure 1.6), for the last three decades GDP/capita growth and population growth were the main drivers of the increase in global emissions. Moreover, structural changes of the global energy system were mainly due to the reduced energy intensity. The role of carbon intensity in offsetting emission growth was in fact declining over the last two decades. The reduction of carbon-intensity was strongest between 1973 and 1983 caused by the two oil shocks and approached zero during the 1993-2003 decade. At the global scale, declining carbon and energy intensities could not offset population growth and income effects, and consequently carbon emissions have risen.
2.5 2 1.5

GtCO2

1 0.5 0 -0.5 -1 -1.5 1973-1983 1983-1993 Decade

CO2/Energy Energy/GDP(PPP) GDP(PPP)/POP POP Net change

1993-2003

10 Figure 1.6: Decomposition of CO2 emission growth at global scale, shown for three decades. Sources: World Bank, 2005; Marland et al., 2006.

15

Note: for Transition Countries the time horizon is restricted to 1981-2001. Figure 1.7: Decomposition of absolute change in carbon dioxide emissions during 1971-2001 for the USA, Canada, China, EU (15), Japan, India, Brazil Africa and Transition Countries3. Sources: World Bank, 2004; WRI, 2006.
3

Includes Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Latvia, Romania, and Russian Federation. In some cases when data for 1981 was unavailable the value for 1980 was used.

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 20/07/2006 4:10 PM

16

Chapter 1

Second Order draft

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

At a regional scale, no country except the Transition Countries (refers to 1981-2001 only) from the club of the main emitters (North America, Western Europe, China, Brazil, Japan) has reduced its emission in absolute terms (see Figure 1.7). 5 Decarbonisation was highest in Western Europe, but the effect only led to a reduction in the growth rate of CO2 emissions and not to a reduction of CO2 in absolute terms. The declining energyintensity in Western Europe was mainly induced by a structural change towards less energy intensive production processes (services, information technologies). The reduction of carbonintensity was caused by fuel switching to less carbon intensive fuels, e.g., from coal to gas and oil or from coal and oil to nuclear and hydro for electricity generation. Together with Western Europe, US/Canada and Japan were the only economies that reduced carbon-intensity substantially. In North America, the decreasing energy intensity between 1980 and 1990 was partly an effect of an energy policy started after the two oil crises. Moreover, both oil shocks have accelerated the ongoing structural change towards a service and knowledge-based economy. Despite declining energy intensities in China and India, massive coal and oil use have led to increasing carbon intensities in these countries. In India, traditional biomass is increasingly substituted by coal a development that raised carbon-intensity. Chinas decline in energy intensity is, to a large extent, the result of the closure of numerous small and inefficient factories as well as of foreign direct investments in more energy efficient electricity generation. It appears that rising carbon intensities accompany the early stages of the industrialization process which is closely linked with accelerated electricity generation mainly based on fossil fuels (primarily coal). In addition, the emerging but rapidly growing transport sector is fueled by oil which further contributes to increasing carbon intensities. Stepped-up fossil fuel use, GDP/capita growth, and to a lesser extent population growth, result in the dramatic increase in carbon emissions in India and China. The Transition Countries of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union have suffered declining incomes per capita as a result of the collapse of their economies. As a result total GHG emissions were greatly reduced. However, the continued low level of energy efficiency in using coal, oil and gas allowed only moderate improvements in carbon and energy intensities. Despite of its economic decline, this group of countries accounts for 12 % of global CO2 emissions in 2004. The challenge an absolute reduction of global GHG emissions is therefore quite formidable. It presupposes a reduction of energy and carbon intensities at a faster rate than income and population growth taken together. Admittedly, there are many possible combinations of the four Kaya identity components. However Art. 2 requires the prevention of dangerous interference with the climate system within a timeframe that ecosystems can adapt naturally, ensure food production is not threatened and that enables economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner. And the scope and legitimacy of controlling population development is subject to ongoing debate. Therefore, the remaining two, technology-oriented factors energy and carbon intensities have to bear the main burden. In addition, it is also open to debate in how far different economies at different stages of development are willing and able to reduce carbon and energy intensities to a level which is compatible with Art. 2. 1.3.1.3 Energy Security With international oil prices fluctuating around 70 US$ per barrel (Brent Crude in the first half of 2006 - EIA, 2006) and with prices of internationally traded natural gas, coal and uranium following suit, energy supply security concerns are back on the agenda of many public and private sector

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 20/07/2006 4:10 PM

17

Chapter 1

Second Order draft

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

institutions. Consequently, there is renewed public interest in alternatives to fossil fuels, especially to oil, resulting in new technology initiatives to promote hydrogen, nuclear power and renewables4. However, energy security concerns tend to first of all invigorate a higher reliance on indigenous energy supplies and resources. Regions where coal is the dominant domestic energy resource tend to use more coal, especially for electricity generation, which increases greenhouse gas emissions. In recent years, intensified coal use has been observed in Asian developing countries, North America and some European countries. Energy security is part and parcel of sustainable development and plays a non-negligible role in mitigating climate change. Striving for enhanced energy security can impact GHG emissions in opposite ways. On the one hand, GHG emissions may be reduced by stimulating rational energy use, efficiency improvements, innovation and development of alternative energy technologies with inherent climate benefits. On the other hand, measures supporting energy security may lead to higher GHG emissions due to stepped-up use of indigenous coal or the development of lower quality and unconventional oil resources. Considering the fact that equipping or building coal fired power plants with CO2 capture and storage (CCS) is in its infancy and CCS, at least initially, faces a considerable cost premium and alternatives to fossil fuels can not yet meet the demand for secure and affordable energy supplies, the conventional coal combustion is likely to dominate in the short to medium run. 1.3.2 Future Outlook 1.3.2.1 Energy Supply

10

15

20

25

30

There are a variety of projections of the energy picture for the coming decades. They differ in terms of their modeling structure and input assumptions, in particular about the evolution of policy in the coming decades. For example, the IEAs World Energy Outlook 2005 (IEA, 2004; IEA, 2005a) and the U.S. Energy Information Agencys International Energy Outlook (EIA 2005) have a set scenarios and yet organizations project continued dependence on fossil fuels (see Chapter 4 for past global energy mixes and future energy demand and supply projections). Should there be no change in energy policies, and most certainly there will be, the energy mix supplied to run the global economy of 2025-30 timeframe will essentially remain unchanged with about 80% of energy supply based on fossil fuels. In other words, the energy economy may evolve, but not radically change unless policies change. According to the IEA and EIA projections, coal (1.5% - 2.5% p.a.), oil (1.0% - 2.0% p.a.) and natural gas (1.9% 3.0% p.a.) all continue to grow in the period up to 2030. Among the non-fossil fuels, nuclear (0.4% - 1.0% p.a.), hydro (1.8% p.a.), biomass and waste including non-commercial biomass (1.3% p.a.) and other renewables (5.7% p.a.)5 also continue to grow over the projection period. New renewables growth while robust starts from a relatively small base. Sectoral growth in energy demand is principally in electricity generation and transport sectors. Together their share of global energy will reach 60% by 2030. 1.3.2.2 Carbon Dioxide Emissions

35

40

45 Global growth in fossil fuel demand has a significant effect on energy related carbon emissions growth better than 50% growth in the respective forecast periods of the EIA and IEA. Both project
4 5

For example, International Partnership for a Hydrogen Economy and the Asian-Pacific Partnership EIA reports only an aggregate annual growth rate for all renewables between 1.5% and 3.0% p.a.

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 20/07/2006 4:10 PM

18

Chapter 1

Second Order draft

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

at least an annual growth rate of 1.6% in the absence of additional policies (see Figure 1.8). According to IEA projections, emissions will reach 10.4 GtC in 2030, an increase of 4.1 GtC over the 2002 level. 5 As the bulk of energy demand growth occurs in developing countries, the emissions growth accordingly is dominated by developing countries. They represent more than two thirds of IEA projected increase in global energy related emissions. Developing countries, which accounted for 36% of total emissions in 2002, will notably overtake OECD as the leading contributor to global emissions in the early 2020s.
50 45

CO2 emission in GtCO2

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1971 2002 2010 2020 2030

1971

OECD (IEA) Developing Countries (IEA) Economies in Transition (IEIA)

2002

2010

Economies in Transition (IEA) OECD (EIA) Developing Countries (EIA)

2020

2030

10

Figure 1.8: CO2 projections (Sources: IEA, 2004; IEA, 2005a and EIA, 2006 The higher global growth rate of natural gas demand is reflected in CO2 emissions projections. The IEA projects the share of total energy related emissions accounted for by gas to increase from 21% in 2002 to 24% in 2030 while the share of coal and oil both drop by approximately 2%, to respectively 36% and 39% of total. At the global level, sectoral distribution of emissions is projected to remain relatively stable. Heat and power generation will continue to be the main source of energy related emissions, accounting for 44% of the total by 2030, followed by the transport sector (23%), and industry (15%). 1.3.2.3 Non-CO2 Gases Fluorinated gases Predicting overall environmental impacts is complicated by the fact that several major applications retain the bulk of their fluorinated gases during their respective lifecycles, resulting in the accumulation of significant stocks which need to be responsibly managed when these applications are decommissioned. Evaluating emission scenarios and their environmental impacts is therefore a complex task, involving parameters such as economic growth, technology selection, regional climatic variation, and emission factors for the operational phase and at end-of-life for the different Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 20/07/2006 4:10 PM 19 Chapter 1

15

20

25

Second Order draft

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

application sectors considered. A comprehensive review of such assessments was published in an earlier IPCC study (IPCC, 2005). Chapter 3 also details results of long-term greenhouse gas emissions scenarios. It points to the work done in the context of EMF 21. According to the various baseline scenarios in this study, emissions of fluorinated gases will range between 0.44 GtCeq to 0.79 GtCeq (average of 0.57 GtCeq) in 2050. On average, this represents close to a three fold increase from 2004 values. Methane Atmospheric concentrations have increased throughout most of the 20th century, but appear rather stable over the last 5-10 years. So far it is believed that this stabilization is the result of land-use changes. Agriculture and forestry developments are assessed in Chapters 8 and 9 concerning their impact on the methane sink/source balance and mitigation strategies. The same applies to waste handling (Chapter 10). EMF 21 baseline scenarios for Methane show a range of between 1.88 GtCeq and 3.82 GtCeq in 2050 with an average value of 2.84 GtCeq. This represents on average a 48% increase compared to 2004 data. Nitrous oxide Atmospheric concentrations have been continuously increasing, however, with at a small annual growth rate. Industrial sources, agriculture and forestry developments are assessed in this report concerning their impact on the nitrous oxide sink/source balance and mitigation strategies. According to the EMF study, baseline Nitrous Oxide emissions will range between 0.52 GtCeq to 1.82 GtCeq (average of 1.23 GtCeq) for 2050 - a 17% rise on average compared to 2004 levels 1.3.2.4 Total GHG Emissions It appears from business as usual scenarios that GHG emissions will continue to rise. Even alterative scenarios that account for policies currently under discussion show global emissions rising. From an emissions perspective it appears we are not on track in meeting the objectives of Art.2. 1.3.3 Research and Development Needs and Trends

10

15

20

25

30

35 1.3.3.1 Research and Development Technology research and development hold the key for altering the emission trends shown in the previous sections. In the absence of measures fostering the development of climate friendly technologies and/or lack of incentives for their deployment, however, it is a priori not obvious in which direction. Because of the longevity of energy infrastructures (lock-in effect) development and diffusion of technological systems may take many decades, near-term - not long term - technology investment decisions determine the direction of long-term development of the energy system (Gritsevskyi and Nakicenovic, 2002). Generally speaking, it would be economically impossible, without technology research, development, demonstration, deployment and diffusion (RDDD&D) and Induced Technology Change (ITC), to stabilize GHG concentration at a level that would prevent DAI with the climate system. A recent international modeling comparison exercise (Edenhofer et al, 2006) has shown that

40

45

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 20/07/2006 4:10 PM

20

Chapter 1

Second Order draft

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

ITC has not only the potential to reduce mitigation costs substantially but it is also essential to stabilize concentration levels of CO2 avoiding dangerous climate change. However, RDDD&D alone is insufficient, i.e. effective climate policies are also required (Baker et al, 2006) and the addition of many new technologies reduction of net emissions or stabilization of CO2 concentration may not necessarily occur without an explicit limit on emissions (Edmonds, 2004). There are various types of technologies including but not limited to: solar, wind, nuclear fission and fusion, geothermal, biomass, fuel cells, clean fossil technologies including carbon capture and storage, hydrogen production from non-fossil energy sources and energy efficiency improvements throughout the energy system, especially at the end use side - industry, commercial, transport and household that can play significant roles in mitigating climate change (Nordhaus, 2002; Pacala and Socolow, 2004; Akimoto et al, 2005). Some of them are in their infancy and require public RDDD&D support, while others are more mature and need only market incentives for their deployment and diffusion. Some of them may also need persevering efforts for public acceptance (Tokushige et al, 2006) as well as the resolution of legal and liability issues. 1.3.3.2 Research and Development Expenditures As Figure 1.9 demonstrates, the most rapid growth in energy related technology R&D was after the oil price shocks of the 1970s. There is no evidence yet of a similar response from the latest price surges although it may be premature for that response to appear in the data. It is clear, however, that a technology R&D response to the challenge of climate mitigation has not occurred. Energy technology R&D has remained roughly constant over the last 15 years as climate change has become a focus of the international policy development. The lack of an increase in R&D funding suggests we are not on track in terms of developing the technologies that will fuel a transition to a steady state concentration level while simultaneously meeting our energy security and economic objectives.
Billion
25,000 70

10

15

20

25

RD&D budget vs. Crude Oil Prices

all data are in 2004 real USD 20,000

JAN 06 avg.

60

50

15,000 40

30 10,000

20 5,000 10

0
1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006

Conservation Nuclear Fusion

Fossil Fuels Power & Storage technologies

Renewable Energy Other

Nuclear Fission Real Crude Oil Prices

30

Figure 1.9: Oil prices and energy related R&D budgets. Source: IEA, 2006

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 20/07/2006 4:10 PM

21

Chapter 1

Second Order draft

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

International cooperation in the field of technology research and development may leverage otherwise sub critical national R&D budgets. Several international partnerships have been created in support of the development of cleaner technologies (see Section 1.4.3). 5 1.4 Institutional Architecture

1.4.1 UNFCCC, the Kyoto Protocol and the 2005 Montreal CoP-11/MoP-1 (CMP-1) 10 The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was adopted in 1992 at the Rio Earth Summit with entry into force in March 1994. As of May 2004, the Convention has been ratified by 188 countries (out of the 191 UN member states)6. The Conference of the Parties (COP) that has met yearly since 1995 is the supreme body of the Convention (Art. 7.2). UNFCCC pursues its major objective (Section 1.2.1) on the basis of several guiding principles laid down in other articles of the Convention: Equity, i.e. common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities that assign the lead of the mitigation process to developed countries (Art. 3.1), and taking the needs and special circumstances of developing countries into account, especially the ones most vulnerable to adverse effects of climate change (Art. 3.2, Art. 4.9 and 4.10). Precautionary principle, which says that where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures, taking into account that policies and measures to deal with climate change should be cost-effective so as to ensure global benefits at the lowest possible cost (Art. 3.3). Sustainable development promotion and taking a comprehensive policy approach by including climate change into relevant development, social, economic, and environmental policies (Art. 3.4, Art. 4.1). Development and transfer of relevant environmentally sound technologies by Annex II countries (mainly OECD countries listed in Annex II of the Convention) to developing countries (Art. 4.5), contribution to the full cost of national communications from developing countries (Art. 4.3) and assistance to Parties most vulnerable to adverse effects of climate change in meeting costs of adaptation to those adverse effects (Art. 4.4). Commitment by Annex I countries - with some flexibility for non-Annex II countries (Art. 4.6) - to adopt policies and measures aimed at returning, individually or jointly, their GHG emissions to earlier levels by the year 2000 (Art. 4.2)7. The Kyoto Protocol (KP) to the UNFCCC was adopted by consensus in 1997 at COP-3. Ratification required that 55 UNFCCC parties, representing collectively at least 55% of the 1990 Annex 1 countries CO2 emissions, ratify the Protocol (Art. 25.1). It entered into force on 16 February 2005. As of February 2006, it was ratified by 161 nations (Australia, Croatia and the United States, parties to UNFCCC, did sign but did not ratify), representing 61.6 % of the 1990 CO2 emissions. The main dispositions of KP are: COP meetings will also serve as the Meeting of the Parties (MOP) for the Protocol. Parties to the Convention that are not Parties to the Protocol will be able to participate in Protocol-related meetings as observers (Art. 13). Each Party, listed in Annex B of the Protocol, is assigned a legally binding quantified GHG emission limitation measured in CO2 equivalents. Parties included in Annex B are expected to
6 7

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/kyoto_protocol/application/pdf/kpstats.pdf with some flexibility for non-Annex II countries (Art. 4.6)

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 20/07/2006 4:10 PM

22

Chapter 1

Second Order draft

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

10

15

20

25

30

reduce their GHG emissions (i.e. the six gases listed in Annex A of the Protocol) by at least 5 per cent below 1990 levels in the commitment period 2008 to 2012 (Art. 3.1) and to make demonstrable progress towards this goal by 2005 (Art. 3.2). Economies in transition may chose a base period other than 1990. (Art. 3.5, 3.7). For three GHGs the base year is 1995 (Art. 3.8). So-called Kyoto flexibility mechanisms allow Annex B countries to obtain credits for emissions reductions achieved outside their national borders. These mechanisms are required to be supplemental to domestic action, which is expected to be a significant element of the effort (Art. 6.1 (d), Art. 17, CMP 18). The first one is an international emission trading system in Assigned Amount Units (AAUs). The second one is the acquisition of Emission Reduction Units (ERUs) from other Annex B Parties for Joint Implementation projects (Art. 6). The third one is the acquisition of Certified Emission Reduction Units (CERs) for projects undertaken as of year 2000 in developing (non-Annex 1) countries under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) in order to further sustainable development (Art. 12). The last flexibility mechanism allows the acquisition of Emission Removal Units (RMU) from carbon sinks in Annex B countries (Marrakech Accords). The 2001 COP-7 Marrakech Accords, adopted by the Montreal CMP 1 as the Kyoto rulebook, provide for businesses, non-governmental organizations, and other entities to participate in the four mechanisms, under the authority and responsibility of governments. A set of procedures for emission monitoring, verification and compliance have been agreed at CMP1 under Art. 5, 7 and 8 and Art. 18. Annex I countries must keep a registry of their AAU, ERU and CER holdings. A CDM registry is maintained and an International Transactions Log (ITL) will be opened and maintained for all the above holdings by the Secretariat (CMP 1). The final status of the KP compliance procedures have been agreed to at CMP 1 and the compliance system began operating as of March 2006. According to Art. 3.9, the Parties to the Protocol shall initiate the consideration of post-Kyoto emission limitations at least seven years before the end of the first commitment period, i.e., by 2005. A new working group on the commitments of Annex I countries beyond 2012 was set up at CMP 1 which met in Bonn in May 2006 and agreed to negotiate binding targets for a second commitment period. A dialogue under the guidance of the COP, and taking the form of an open and non-binding exchange of views and information in support of enhanced implementation of the Convention was set up in Montreal (CMP 1) and held its first meeting in Bonn.

1.4.2 Millennium Development Goals, the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation and other International Fora 35 In 2000, Member States of the United-Nations adopted the Millennium Declaration (UN, 2000a) with eight Millennium Development Goals (MDG). These address developing countries special needs, and constitute a concerted attack on poverty and the problems of illiteracy, hunger, discrimination against women, unsafe drinking water, health and a degraded environment (UNDESA, 2004). MDG # 7 requires the integration of the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programmes and reversal of the loss of environmental resources. This reinforces Art. 4.7 of UNFCCC, which states that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of developing countries. In response to such challenges, the World Summit on Sustainable Development developed the Johannesburg Plan for Implementation (JPOI), which explicitly commits the signatories to
8

40

45

All CMP.1 decisions can be found at http://unfccc.int/documentation/decisions/items/3597.php?dec=j&such=j&volltext=/CMP.1#beg

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 20/07/2006 4:10 PM

23

Chapter 1

Second Order draft

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

10

responsible and equitable management of the earths resources as part of the broader effort to achieve the MDGs (UN, 2002b). Building on Agenda 21 (UNCED, 1992), the Plan privileges the first MDG, i.e. poverty reduction (Art. 6) through, among others, combating desertification and mitigating the effects of future droughts and floods (Art. 6.l), and improved access to environmentally sound energy services (Art. 8). Climate change mitigation may help reduce the future need to combat the effects of droughts and floods, facilitating the implementation of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (see Chapter 12 for the interaction between sustainable development and climate change). The Marrakech Accords and the Monterrey Consensus on financing MDGs (UN, 2002c) are reaffirmed, as well as the need to provide technical and financial assistance and capacity building to developing countries (Art. 36, c). Art. 103.f re-affirms the precautionary principle following UNFCCC Art. 3.3 which offers yet another argument in favor of climate change mitigation. The Commission on Sustainable Development has adopted an integrated approach to energy for sustainable development, industrial development, air pollution/atmosphere, and climate change for its 2006/2007 cycle9. It has emphasized at its 9th session the central role of access to environmentally sound, socially acceptable and economically viable energy, including energy efficiency and renewable energy, and of energy technology transfer for sustainable development and poverty eradication (decision 9/1)10. Other international fora, such as the U.N. General Assembly (A/60/L.1, 200511), the G8 Dialogue on Climate Change, Clean Energy and Sustainable Development (Gleneagles, 2005), OECD (2005), WTO (Doha Development Agenda), which pursues trade liberalization, important for technology transfers (see section 1.4.3), IEA (2003), the World Bank (Sperling, 2003), and more regional ones (including regional banks) such as the EU, the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development, for transferring and deploying clean technologies and building up human and institutional capacity, etc. are important to further the agenda for sustainable development and climate change (see Chapter 13). 1.4.3 Technology cooperation and transfer

15

20

25

30

Effective and efficient mitigation of climate change depends on the rate of diffusion of new as well as existing technologies within and between countries, especially between developed and developing countries but also between developing countries themselves. To share information and development costs internationally, there exist several examples of international cooperation for RDDD&D, such as the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF), the International Partnership for Hydrogen Economy (IPHE), Generation IV International Forum (GIF), the Methane to Markets Partnership and the Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP). Their fields range from basic R&D and market demonstration to barrier removals for commercialization/diffusion. In addition, there are 40 implementing agreements facilitating international cooperation on RDDD&D under IEA (International Energy Agency) auspices, covering all the key new technologies of energy supply and end use with the exception of nuclear fission (IEA, 2005b). Regional cooperation may be effective as well. Asia-Pacific Partnership of Clean Development and Climate (APPCDC), which was established by Australia, China, India, Japan, Korea and the
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/csd11/CSD_mulityear_prog_work.htm http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/ecn172001-19e.htm 11 Integrated and coordinated implementation of and follow-up to the outcomes of the major UN conferences and summits in the economic, social and related fields
10 9

35

40

45

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 20/07/2006 4:10 PM

24

Chapter 1

Second Order draft

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

United States in January 2006, aims to address increased energy needs and associated challenges, including air pollution, energy security, and climate change, by enhancing development, deployment, and transfer of cleaner, more efficient technologies. In September 2005, EU concluded agreements with India and China respectively, aiming to promote the development of cleaner technologies (India) and low carbon technologies (China). There exist also bilateral sector-based cooperation agreements. One example is the Japan/China agreement on energy efficiency in the steel industry concluded in July 2005 (JISF, 2005). As energy efficiency varies greatly throughout various sectors, these sector-based initiatives for promoting technology cooperation may be an effective tool for technology transfer and mitigating GHG emissions. 1.5 Changes from previous assessments and roadmap

10

15

1.5.1 Previous Assessments The IPCC is both an intergovernmental organization (IGO) and a scientific and technical assessment organization. The IGO meets formally to develop and approve the overall work plan, to review and accept technical reports, and to approve line by line summaries for policy-makers. The reports are written and reviewed by scientists and technical experts from around the world, including academics and NGO and industry representatives. Scientists are proposed by their governments and selected by the Working Group Task Force. (www.ipcc.ch/about/app-a.pdf, Jasanoff and Wynne, 1998) The IPCC was set up in 1988 by UNEP and WMO with three working groups: to assess available scientific information on climate change (WGI), to assess environmental and socio-economic impacts (WGII), and to formulate response strategies (WGIII). The First Assessment Report (FAR) (IPCC, 1991) dealt with the anthropogenic alteration of the climate system through CO2 emissions, potential impacts, and available cost-effective response measures in terms of mitigation, mainly carbon taxes without much concern for equity issues (IPCC, 2001, WGIII, Chapter 1). For the Second Assessment Report (SAR), in 1996, Working Groups II and III were reorganized (IPPC, 1996). WGII dealt with adaptation and mitigation. WGIII dealt with the socio-economic cross-cutting issues related to costing climate changes impacts and providing cost-benefit analysis (CBA) for decision-making. Preparation of the SAR formally included NGO and government policy representatives to help overcome the divide between science and policy and help build a shared transparent consensus. The socio-institutional context was emphasized as well as the issues of equity, development, and sustainability (IPCC, 2001, WGIII, Chapter 1) For the TAR (IPCC, 2001), Working Groups II and III were again reorganized to deal with adaptation and mitigation respectively. The concept of mitigative capacity was introduced and sustainability concerns moved to the center (IPCC, 2001, WGIII, Chapter 1). Four cross-cutting issues were identified: costing methods; uncertainties; decision analysis frameworks; and development, equity and sustainability (IPCC, 2000). The Fourth Assessment Report (AR IV) summarizes the information contained in previous IPCC reports, including the IPCC special reports on Carbon Capture and Storage, on Safeguarding the

20

25

30

35

40

45

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 20/07/2006 4:10 PM

25

Chapter 1

Second Order draft

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System, published since TAR, and assesses the scientific literature published since 2000. Although the structure AR IV resembles the macro-outline of the TAR, there are distinct differences between them. The AR IV assigns greater weight to (a) a more detailed resolution of sectoral mitigation options and costs, (b) regional differentiation, (c) emphasizing previous and new crosscutting issues: risks and uncertainties, decision and policy making, costs and potentials, and the relationships between mitigation, adaptation and sustainable development, air pollution and climate, regional aspects and the issues related to the implementation of UNFCCC Article 2, and (d) the integration of all these aspects. 1.5.2 Roadmap This report assesses options for mitigating climate change. It has four major parts, A-D. Part A includes Chapter 1, an introduction, and Chapter 2, on framing issues. Chapter 2 introduces the reports cross-cutting themes, listed above, and outlines how these themes are treated in subsequent chapters. It introduces important concepts (e.g. cost-benefit analysis and regional integration) and defines important terms used throughout the report. Part B has one chapter, Chapter 3. It summarizes long-term mitigation scenarios and gaps between various baseline scenarios and different atmospheric GHG stabilization levels. It pays particular attention to the literature on criticism of the IPCC SRES baselines. It discusses driving forces for GHG emissions and mitigation in the short- and medium-terms, and emphasizes the role of technology relative to social, economic and institutional inertia. It examines the relation between adaptation, mitigation and avoided climate change damages in the light of decision-making regarding atmospheric GHG concentrations (Art. 2 UNFCCC). Part C has seven chapters which assess in sequence mitigation options in different sectors. Chapter 4 addresses the energy supply sector, including carbon capture and storage. Chapter 5 addresses transport and associated infrastructures; Chapter 6 the residential, commercial and service sectors; Chapter 7 the industrial sector including internal recycling and reuse of industrial wastes; Chapters 8 and 9 the agricultural and forestry sectors including land use and biological carbon sequestration; and Chapter 10 waste management, post-consumer recycling and reuse. These seven chapters use a common template and cover all relevant aspects of GHG mitigation, including costs, policies, technology development, technology transfer, system changes and longterm options. They provide the integrated picture that was absent in the TAR. Where supporting literature is available, they address important differences across regions. Part D has three chapters (11 to 13) focusing on major cross-sectoral considerations. Chapter 11 assesses the aggregated short/ medium term mitigation potential, macro-economic impacts, economic instruments, technology development and transfer, and cross-border influences (or spillover effects). Chapter 12 links climate mitigation with sustainable development, and assesses the GHG emission impacts of implementing the Millennium Development Goals and other sustainable development policies and targets. Chapter 13 assesses domestic climate policy instruments and the interaction between domestic climate policies and various forms of international cooperation and reviews climate change as a global commons issue in the context of sustainable development objectives and policies. It summarizes relevant treaties, cooperative development agreements, private-public partnerships and private sector initiatives and their relationship to climate objectives.

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 20/07/2006 4:10 PM

26

Chapter 1

Second Order draft

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

References
Akimoto, K., Homma, T., Kosugi, T., Li, X., Tomoda, T. and Fujii, Y.. 2005, Role of CO2 Sequestration by Country for Global Warming Mitigation After 2013, In: Rubin, E.S., Keith, D.W., and Gilboy, C.F. (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies: Vol. I, Peer Reviewed Papers and Overviews, 911-920. Archer, D., and B. Buffett, 2005: Time-dependent response of the global ocean clathrate reservoir to climatic and anthropogenic forcing. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 6 Archer, D., P. Martin, B. Buffett, V. Brovkin, S. Rahmstorf, and A. Ganopolski, 2004: The importance of ocean temperature to global biogeochemistry. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 222(2), pp. 333-348. Baker, T., Pan, H., Kohler, J., Warren, R. And Winne, S. 2006, Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change by Inducing Technological Progress: Scenarios Using a Large-Scale Econometric Model, In: Hans Joachim Schellnhuber (editor in chief) Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, Cambridge University Press 361-371 Baranzini, A., M. Chesney, and J. Morisset, 2003: The impact of possible climate catastrophes on global warming policy. Energy Policy, 31(8), pp. 691-701. Barnett, J., and W. Adger, 2003: Climate dangers and atoll countries. Clim. Change, 61(3), pp. 321-337. Burkett, V.R., D.A. Wilcox, R. Stottlemyer, W. Barrow, D. Fagre, J. Baron, J. Price, J.L. Nielsen, C.D. Allen, and D.L. Peterson, 2005: Nonlinear dynamics in ecosystem response to climatic change: Case studies and policy implications. Ecological Complexity, 2(4), pp. 357-394. CEU (Council of the European Union), 1996: Climate Change - Council conclusions 8518/96 (Presse 188-G) 25/26. VI.96.. http://ue.eu.int/newsroom/LoadDoc.asp?BID=89&DID=43617&from=&LANG=6. CEU (Council of the European Union), 2005a: Presidency Conclusions Brussels, 22 and 23 March 2005 - IV. CLIMATE CHANGE, European Commission, Brussels, Belgium. http://www.eu2005.lu/en/actualites/conseil/2005/03/23conseileuropen/ceconcl.pdf CEU (Council of the European Union), 2005b: Climate Change: Medium and longer term emission reduction strategies, including targets. Council conclusions Union, European Commission, Brussels, Belgium.. http://ue.eu.int/uedocs/cmsUpload/st07242.en05.pdf Davidson, O., K. Halsnaes, S. Huq, M. Kok, B. Metz, Y. Sokona, and J. Verhagen, 2003: The development and climate nexus: the case of sub-Saharan Africa. Climate Policy, 3(Supplement 1), pp. S97-S113. Dessai, S., W. N. Adger, M. Hulme, J. Turnpenny, J. Kohler, and R. Warren (2004), Defining and Experiencing Dangerous Climate Change, Climatic Change, 64, 11 Edenhofer, O., Lessmann, K., Kemfert, C., Grubb, M., Koehler, J., 2006: Induced Technological Change: Exploring its Implications for the Economics of Atmospheric Stabilisation: Synthesis Report from the Innovation Modelling Comparison Exercise. In Edenhofer, O., Carraro, C., Khler, J., Grubb, M., 2006, Endogenous Technological Change and the Economics of Atmospheric Stabilisation. The Energy Journal, Special Issue Edmonds, J. 2004, Climate Change and Energy Technologies, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 9(4), 391-416 EEA (European Environment Agency ) 2006: EN09_EU-25_Policy_effectiveness (Underpinning Energy and Environment indicator fact-sheets for Energy and environment in the European Union Tracking progress towards integration, EEA Report No 8/2006), http://reports.eea.europa.eu/eea_report_2006_8/en/factsheets/EN09_EU25_Policy_effectiveness.pdf, EEA (accessed July, 2006)

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 20/07/2006 4:10 PM

27

Chapter 1

Second Order draft

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

EIA (Energy Information Administration), 2006a: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/crude1.html, U.S. Department of Energy. Washington, DC 20585 EIA (Energy Information Administration), 2006b: International Energy Outlook 2006. DOE/EIA0484(2006), www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/index.html. U.S. Department of Energy. Washington, DC 20585 Emanuel, K., 2005: Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30[thinsp]years. Nature, 436(7051), pp. 686-688. EMF (Energy Modeling Forum), 2004: Energy Modeling Forum Study 21. http://www.stanford.edu/group/EMF Epstein, P.R., and J.J. McCarthy, 2004: Assessing Climate Stability. Bull. Amer. Meteorol. Soc., 85(12), pp. 1863-1870. Friedlingstein, P., J.L. Dufresne, P.M. Cox, and P. Rayner, 2003: How positive is the feedback between climate change and the carbon cycle? Tellus Ser. B-Chem. Phys. Meteorol., 55(2), pp. 692-700. Giorgi, F. (2005). "Climate Change Prediction." Climatic Change 73(3): 239-265. Giorgi, F., and X. Bi (2005). "Regional changes in surface climate interannual variability for the 21st century from ensembles of global model simulations." Geophysical Research Letters 32(13) Gleneagles, 2005: The Gleneagles Communique http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/PostG8_Gleneagles_Communique,0.pdf, G8 Gleneagles, 2005. Gregory, J.M., P. Huybrechts, and S.C.B. Raper, 2004: Climatology - Threatened loss of the Greenland ice-sheet. Nature, 428(6983), pp. 616-616. Gritsevsky, A., and Nakicenovic, N. 2002, Modelling uncertainty of induced technological change. In: Grubler, A., Nakicenovic, N., Nordhaus,W.D. (eds.).Technological change and the environment,. Resources for the Future, 251279. Hare, W.L., and M. Meinshausen, 2005: How much warming are we committed to and how much can be avoided? Climatic Change, accepted Higgins, P.A.T., and M. Vellinga, 2004: Ecosystem responses to abrupt climate change: Teleconnections, scale and the hydrological cycle. Clim. Change, 64(1-2), pp. 127-142. Higgins, P.A.T., and S.H. Schneider, 2005: Long-term potential ecosystem responses to greenhouse gas-induced thermohaline circulation collapse. Global Change Biology, 11(5), pp. 699-709. Hoegh-Guldberg, O., 2005: Low coral cover in a high-CO 2 world. J. Geophys. Res., 110(C9), pp. 1-11. Hooss, G., R. Voss, K. Hasselmann, E. Maier-Reimer, and F. Joos, 2001: A nonlinear impulse response model of the coupled carbon cycle- climate system (NICCS). Clim. Dyn., 18(3-4), pp. 189-202. IEA (International Energy Agency), 2003: Energy to 2050 Scenarios for a Sustainable Future. Paris, France. IEA (International Energy Agency), 2004: World Energy Outlook 2004. Paris, France. IEA (International Energy Agency), 2005a. World Energy Outlook 2005: Middle East and North African Insights, Paris, 2005 IEA (International Energy Agency), 2005b. Energy Technologies at the cutting edge. Paris, France. IEA (International Energy Agency), 2006. R&D Statistics Database, http://www.iea.org/Textbase/stats/rd.asp Ikeme, J. 2003: Equity, Environmental Justice and Sustainability: Incomplete Approaches in Climate Change Policies, Global Environmental Change, 13, 195 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on climate Change), 1991: The First Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 20/07/2006 4:10 PM

28

Chapter 1

Second Order draft

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on climate Change), 1996: The Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. IPCC, 2000: Guidance papers on the Cross Cutting Issues of the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC. R. Pachauri, T. Taniguchi and K. Tanaka (eds.) IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. IPCC, 2001: Climate Change 2001: Mitigation - Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on climate Change), 2005: Special Report on Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System: issues related to Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Janssen, M.A., and B. De Vries, 2000: Climate change policy targets and the role of technological change. Clim. Change, 46(1-2), pp. 1-28. Jasanoff, S. and B. Wynne, Science and Decision-Making 1998: c.1 in Rayner, S. and E. Malone, ed., Human Choice and Climate Change, Vol. I, Batelle Press 1998. JISF, 2005; Japan Iron and Steel federation (http://www.jisf.or.jp/en/activity/050715.html) Jones, C., C. McConnell, K. Coleman, P. Cox, P. Falloon, D. Jenkinson, and D. Powlson, 2005: Global climate change and soil carbon stocks; predictions from two contrasting models for the turnover of organic carbon in soil. Global Change Biol, 11(1), pp. 154-166. Jones, R., 2004: Managing Climate Change Risks. The Benefits of Climate Change Policies: Analytical and Framework Issues. Corfee-Morlot, J. OECD, Paris. Kaul, I., I. Grunberg, and M.A. Stern,1999: Global Public Goods, Oxford University Press 1999 Kaul, I., P. Conceiao, K.,Le Gouven, and R.U. Mendoz, 2003: Providing Global Public Goods, Oxford University Press, 2003 Kaya Y, 1990: Impact of Carbon Dioxide Emission Control on GNP Growth: Interpretation of Proposed Scenarios. Paper presented to the IPCC Energy and Industry Subgroup, Response Strategies Working Group, Paris. Knutson, T.R., and R.E. Tuleya, 2004: Impact of CO2-induced warming on simulated hurricane intensity and precipitation: Sensitivity to the choice of climate model and convective parameterization. 18, 3477-3495pp. Leemans, R., and B. Eickhout, 2004: Another reason for concern: regional and global impacts on ecosystems for different levels of climate change. Global Environmental Change Part A, 14(3), pp. 219-228. Levermann, A., A. Griesel, M. Hofmann, M. Montoya, and S. Rahmstorf, 2005: Dynamic sea level changes following changes in the thermohaline circulation. Clim. Dyn. Marland, G., T.A. Boden, and R. J. Andres. 2006. Global, Regional, and National Fossil Fuel CO2 Emissions. In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A. Mastrandrea, M.D., and S.H. Schneider, 2004: Probabilistic Integrated Assessment of "Dangerous" Climate Change. Science, 304(5670), pp. 571-575. Meehl, G.A., W.M. Washington, W.D. Collins, J.M. Arblaster, A. Hu, L.E. Buja, W.G. Strand, and H. Teng, 2005: How Much More Global Warming and Sea Level Rise? Science, 307(5716), pp. 1769-1772. Meinshausen, M., W.L. Hare, T.M.L. Wigley, D. van Vuuren, M.G.J. den Elzen, and R. Swart, 2005: Multi-gas emission pathways to meet climate targets. Clim. Change, Accepted, pp. 50. Nordhaus, D. 2002, Modeling Induced Innovation in climate-Cjange Policy, In: Grubler, A., Nakicenovic, N., Nordhaus,W.D. (eds.).Technological change and the environment,.Resources for the Future, 182209.

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 20/07/2006 4:10 PM

29

Chapter 1

Second Order draft

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Obersteiner, M., C. Azar, P. Kauppi, K. Mollersten, J. Moreira, S. Nilsson, P. Read et al (2001a). "Managing Climate Risk." Science 294(5543): 786b Obersteiner, M., K, Riahi, C. Azar, R. Mechler, Managing Climate Risk (2001b). International Institute for Applied System Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria. IR-01-051, http://www.iiasa.ac.at OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), 2005: Bridge Over Troubled Waters: Linking Climate Change and Development. S. Agrawala (ed). Paris, France. Olivier, J.G.J., T. Pulles and J.A. van Aardenne (2005a) Part III: Greenhouse gas emissions: 1. Shares and trends in greenhouse gas emissions; 2. Sources and Methods; Greenhouse gas emissions for 1990 and 1995. In: "CO2 emissions from fuel combustion 1971-2003", 2005 Edition, pp. III.1-III.37. International Energy Agency (IEA), Paris. ISBN 9 92-64-10891-2 (paper) 92-64-10893-9 (CD ROM) (2005). Olivier, J.G.J., Van Aardenne, J.A., Dentener, F., Pagliari, V., Ganzeveld, L.N. and J.A.H.W. Peters (2005b) Recent trends in global greenhouse gas emissions: regional trends 1970-2000 and spatial distribution of key sources in 2000. Env. Sc., 2 (2-3), 81-99. DOI: 10.1080/15693430500400345. http://www.mnp.nl/edgar/global_overview/ O'Neill, B.C., and M. Oppenheimer, 2002: CLIMATE CHANGE: Dangerous Climate Impacts and the Kyoto Protocol. Science, 296(5575), pp. 1971-1972. Oppenheimer, M., 2005: Defining Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference: The Role of Science, the Limits of Science. Risk Anal., 25(6), pp. 1399-1407. Oppenheimer, M., and R.B. Alley, 2005: Ice sheets, global warming, and Article 2 of the UNFCCC. Clim. Change, 68(3), pp. 257-267. Pacala, S. and Socolow, R. (2004), Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies, Science Vol. 305, 968-972 Parson, E.A. and H. Ward, 1998: Games and Simulations, in S. Rayner and E. Malone, Eds., Human Choice and Climate Change, Vol. 3, c.2, 105-140, Battelle Press. Rahmstorf, S., and K. Zickfeld, 2005: Thermohaline circulation changes: A question of risk assessment - An editorial review essay. Clim. Change, 68(1-2), pp. 241-247. Rijsberman, F.J., and R.J. Swart (eds.), 1990: Targets and Indicators of Climate Change. Stockholm Environment Institute, 1666pp. Salinger, M., 2005: Climate variability and change: Past, present and future - An overview. Clim. Change, 70(1-2), pp. 9-29. Scheffer, M.S., S. Carpenter, J.A. Foley, C. Folke, and B. Walker (2001), Catastrophic Shifts in Ecosystems, Nature, 413, October, p. 591 Senior, C.A., and J.F.B. Mitchell, 2000: The time-dependence of climate sensitivity. Geophys. Res. Lett., 27(17), pp. 2685-2688. Shindell, D.T., B.P. Walter, and G. Faluvegi, 2004: Impacts of climate change on methane emissions from wetlands. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31(21) Sperling, F., 2003. Ed. Poverty and Climate Change: Reducing the Vulnerability of the Poor through Adaptation, report by the African Development Bank, UK Department for International Development, Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (Germany), Ministry of Foreign Affairs-Development Corporation (Netherlands), OECD, UNDP,UNEP and World Bank, 2003. Thomas, C.D., A. Cameron, R.E. Green, M. Bakkenes, L.J. Beaumont, Y.C. Collingham, B.F.N. Erasmus, M.F. de Siqueira, A. Grainger, L. Hannah, L. Hughes, B. Huntley, A.S. van Jaarsveld, G.F. Midgley, L. Miles, M.A. Ortega-Huerta, A.T. Peterson, O.L. Phillips, and S.E. Williams, 2004: Extinction risk from climate change. 6970, 145-148pp. Thuiller, W., S. Lavorel, M.B. Araujo, M.T. Sykes, and I.C. Prentice, 2005: Climate change threats to plant diversity in Europe. PNAS, pp. 0409902102. Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 20/07/2006 4:10 PM 30 Chapter 1

Second Order draft

Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

10

15

20

25

30

Thuiller, W., O. Broennimann, G. Hughes, J.R.M. Alkemade, G.F. Midgley, and F. Corsi, 2006: Vulnerability of African mammals to anthropogenic climate change under conservative land transformation assumptions. Global Change Biology, 12(3), pp. 424-440. Tokushige, K., Akimoto, K. and Tomoda, T. 2006, Public Acceptance and Risk-benefit Perception of CO2 Geological Storage for Global Warming Mitigation in Japan, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. forthcoming Tol, R.S.J., and R. Verheyen, 2004: State responsibility and compensation for climate change damages - a legal and economic assessment. Energy Policy, 32(9), pp. 1109-1130. Trenberth, K., 2005: Uncertainty in hurricanes and global warming. Science, 308(5729), pp. 17531754. UN (United Nations), 1992: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, United Nations, New York. UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development), 1992; Agenda 21, A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I & II) http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/ UN (United Nations), 2000a; United Nations Millennium Declaration, A/Res/55/2 September 18, 2000 UN (United Nations), 2002b. Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, A/CONF.199/20. UN (United Nations), 2002c. Monterrey Consensus, A/CONF.198/11. http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/aconf198-11.pdf UNDESA (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs), 2004: United Nations Millennium Development Goals: Progress Report, UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs and the UN Department of Public Information - DPI/2363, October 27, 2004). Unruh, G.C., and J. Carrillo-Hermosilla, 2006: Globalizing carbon lock-in. Energy Policy, 34(10), pp. 1185-1197. Vellinga, M. and R.A. Wood, 2002: Global climatic impacts of a collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation. Clim. Change, 54(3), pp. 251-267. World Bank, 2004: World Development Indicators. The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA. WRI (World Resources Institute), 2006: Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT) 3.0. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC., USA. http://cait.wri.org/

Do Not Cite or Quote Revised on 20/07/2006 4:10 PM

31

Chapter 1

INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE

WMO UNEP

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Expert/Government Review of the Second-Order Draft

Chapter 1

Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote Page 1 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

1-1

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-2 1-3

A A

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

1-4

Most of this Introduction Chapter is a model of lucidity and pertinence, in sharp contrast to the SPM. Those responsible for the high quality of this chapter could well be asked to re-write the SPM. (Ian Cook, United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority) Generally this chapter is well written and relatively easy to understand (David Jackson, McMaster University) Please see my Commentary titled "Addressing Potential Abrupt Climate Change" which does not fit into this Excel spreadsheet box. I have accordingly asked Dave Rutu to circulate it to lead authors. It draws attention to a body of peer reviewed and gray literature which appears to have been overlooked in the SOD, although it was brought to attention previously in my comments on the FOD. The main point is that the literature mostly treats atmospheric CO2 as a flow pollution problem, to be addressed through a reduction in emissions. However CO2 is not a noxious gas, and therefore atmospheric CO2 is an excess stock problem with several possible answers. It is technologically much easier to extract CO2 from the atmosphere by land use improvements that increase biotic absorption and yield biomass fuels (defossilization) than it is do without any fuel other than hydrogen (decarbonisation). In this Chapter the matter can be dealt with most simply by references to "emissions reductions" being replaced by references to "net emissions reductions" with a brief additional sentence to explain why. Although the best reference is Read and Parshotam (2006) this is still 'gray' and a sufficient basis for the suggested amendments to this Chapter is Read and Lermit (2005) and Read (2006). Additionally, the Executive summary refers to "previous and new cross cutting issues" (p3 line 18-19) but no new cross cutting issues are listed at p25 line 45. Unless the issues that are formally to be treated as cross cutting is determined by IPCC Bureau decisions (e.g. IPCC 2000, but surely that's a bit out of date by now?), or by other higher authority, I think that the increasing need to address Abrupt Climate Change should be treated as a new cross cutting issue and provide some wording for inclusion at line 46 on p25. If this wording is not adopted, I suggest the words "previous and new" should be deleted from p3, line 18 (Peter Read, Massey University) Please see my Commentary titled "Addressing Potential Abrupt Climate Change" which does not fit into this Excel spreadsheet box. I have accordingly asked Dave Rutu to circulate it to lead authors. It draws attention to a body of peer reviewed and gray literature which appears to have been overlooked in the SOD, although it was brought to attention previously in my comments on the FOD. The main point Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Noted - thank you but thank you - no

Noted

Rejected: Too complex to explain and also ambigous

Cross-cutting themes to be checked (Holger)

Same as previous comment

Page 2 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-5 1-6

A A

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

1-7

1-8

is that the literature mostly treats atmospheric CO2 as a flow pollution problem, to be addressed through a reduction in emissions. However CO2 is not a noxious gas, and therefore atmospheric CO2 is an excess stock problem with several possible answers. It is technologically much easier to extract CO2 from the atmosphere by land use improvements that increase biotic absorption and yield biomass fuels (defossilization) than it is do without any fuel other than hydrogen (decarbonisation). In this Chapter the matter can be dealt with most simply by references to "emissions reductions" being replaced by references to "net emissions reductions" with a brief additional sentence to explain why. Although the best reference is Read and Parshotam (2006) this is still 'gray' and a sufficient basis for the suggested amendments to this Chapter is Read and Lermit (2005) and Read (2006). Additionally, the Executive summary refers to "previous and new cross cutting issues" (p3 line 18-19) but no new cross cutting issues are listed at p25 line 45. Unless the issues that are formally to be treated as cross cutting is determined by IPCC Bureau decisions (e.g. IPCC 2000, but surely that's a bit out of date by now?), or by other higher authority, I think that the increasing need to address Abrupt Climate Change should be treated as a new cross cutting issue and provide some wording for inclusion at line 46 on p25. If this wording is not adopted, I suggest the words "previous and new" should be deleted from p3, line 18 (Peter Read, Massey University) The chapter was improved. (Alexander Golub, Environmental Defense) Uncertainty needs prominence. The recent surge in oil prices, climate change will find its solution itself. However, this will bring forward coal etc forward. Therefore there are many new challenges that need to be brought forward. A new sub-section on 1.3 could be included in this area. (Expert Review Meeting Paris, IPCC) the high confidence argument should be put into footprint context and institutional architecture should include the markets. The institutional architecture is very descriptive and could be more specific including how this architecture is actually working. (Expert Review Meeting Paris, IPCC) Policymakers are looking of cost of mitigation, which is not properly represented in the report. There must be literature available. What are the costs of adaptation versus mitigation. The costs currently seem to be underrated. (Expert Review Meeting Paris, IPCC) Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Noted

TIA will have a new section on this

ACC: Will be rephrased and parts moved to Chapter 13

Noted General comment of no immediate relevance to Chapter 1`

Page 3 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

1-9

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-10

Approach to technology seems to be dominating.There seems to be an overemphasis on R&D. The precision of definition needs to be improved. A systems approach needs to be adopted. (Expert Review Meeting Paris, IPCC) Although SOD draft of Chapter 1 is greatly improved compared to the FOD, my overall reaction to the SOD is one of great disappointment. The human race is at a critical juncture with regard to the global warming issue, and there is not time to wait until AR5 in order to give policy makers a clear message. Avoidance of serious ecological and other consequences of global warming requires meaningful constraints on global CO2 emissions by 2020 (a meaningful constraint, for example, would be to return emissions by 2020 to the level they will have reached by 2010). I have read most of the SOD chapters of WG1 and of WG2, and it is critical that the introductory chapter of the WG3 report draw this information together in the discussion of Article 2 of the UNFCCC in order to present the case that very stringent and rapid reductions in CO2 emissions are likely required if policymakers wish to comply with Article 2. Having presented this case, Chapter 1 should then go on to state that the purpose of WG3 is to explain to policymakers the range of technical and planning options and policy tools available to achieve the deep reductions in GHG emissions that the science of Working Groups 1 and 2 indicates will very likely be needed. However, this is not even one of your stated purposes! The science of global warming, summarized by WG1, is stronger than ever, and clearly shows that the climate sensitivity is within the long-standing consensus range of 1.5-4.5 K and possibly much larger. It is also very clear from WG2 that the temperature limits of 1-2 K global mean warming, as originally proposed by the AGGG in the 1980s, represent reasonable upper limits to the allowable temperature change. From this it immediately follows that we have already exceeded, or will soon exceed, the CO2 concentration that violates Article 2 of the UNFCCC (the argument can be presented more formally, in risk terms, as I do in my more detailed comments below). This is a vitally important message that needs to be conveyed to policymakers with great urgency, but it is to be found nowhere in any of the three WG reports of AR4! If this and some of the deficiencies in other chapters are not corrected, AR4 (and especially WG3) will likely go down in history as a monumental failure, at a critical time in the history of the global warming problem, to tell policy makers, forthrightly, what they need to be told. Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Noted General comment of no immediate relevance to Chapter 1`

REJ: outcome too policy prescriptive no consensus on DAI Needs to reflect accurately WG1 and WG2 Text will reflect the impact of delayed action

Page 4 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-11

1-12

1-13

1-14

1-24

1-25

1-1

(Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) This chapter is greatly improved from FOD. The descriptions in SOD have been changed to be restrained and neutral ones. I would like to deeply appriciate all of the authors in this difficult chapter for their devoted and good jobs. (Keigo Akimoto, Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth (RITE)) In the first eight pages exists reiterate references at the work developed by WG II in their different Chapters. Maybe preferable to support the work in elements obtained by different Chapters of WGIII, because this Introduction would collect the main findings obtained by WGIII Chapters. Take into account that if this way is repeated by others WG of AR4, will restrict Report credibility. (CRISTOBAL FELIX DIAZ MOREJON, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT) Overall a well-written chapter, however some issues concering capacity building, energy secuity can be added into the chapter (Rutu Dave, IPCC WGIII TSU) It does not reflect the discussion regarding the importance of technologies in each chapter. (Government of Japan) Nowhere in this chapter is the standard IPCC methodology on likelihood and uncertainty used. Instead generalisations such as "it is clear", "impossible" and "will" are substituted. In addition the authors should review the chapter to ensure that their use of terms such as "likely" and "very likely" accord with the IPCC methodology. (Government of Australia) It is identified that the WG3 report is of particular interest to policymakers seeking authorative information on mitigation measures. The introduction would benefit from greater emphasis on this aim/objective . An overarching section on the policy and technical context of mitigation and the rationale behind the report should be included up front, for example before discussion of Article 2 of the Convention. In addition the introduction would benefit from section 1.5.2 (i.e 'Road Map') being positioned closer to the front of the chapter. (Government of Australia) In several places in Chapter 1, WG3 duplicates the assessment functions that are properly the mandate of WGI and WG2. In doing so, different literature reference sets are used and the findings of WG3 do not always correspond with WGI and Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Noted

Accepted more reference to other WGs and cut down of references

Noted energy security is included capacity building not space considerations REJ: this is not a summary. Road map provides some of the requested information ACC needs to be made consistent - often unintentionally as the terms are used in a colloquial way (Holger)

Partially accepted emphasis will be added (Holger) Road map will probably stay at the end

Accepted

Page 5 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-2

1-15

1-16

1-17 1-3

A B

1 2

1 1

1 3

1 22

1-4

17

28

1-18

18

18

WG2. WG3 should confine itself to summary statements using the findings of WG1 and WG2. (Government of Australia) Chapter 1 seems to over-reach in drawing conclusions/findings on various topics that really can only be based on assessments that come in later chapters. The authors should carefully review the content to ensure that Chapter 1 serves only as a chapter to provide scene setting for development throughout the report. Several comments are provided on specific points in Chapter 1 where this issue arises. (Government of Australia) I suggest that the message from Chapter 1, p.4, l. 8-11 'Given WGIs findings of an upward change in climate sensitivity and increased risk of large scale, non-linear changes, larger emission reductions than those that emerged from the TAR (IPCC, 2001), will likely be required in order to meet the ultimate objective of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)' deserves to appear in the Executive Summary (Manfred Treber, Germanwatch) Most of the emission levels in this report are give in terms of tCO2-eq. At many points in this chapter, emission levels are given in tC-eq. These should be converted to tCO2 or the values in tCO2 given as supplemental information, to allow comparison with other information. (Lenny Bernstein, L. S. Bernstein & Associates, L.L.C.) please ignore (Steve Sawyer, Greenpeace International) The Executive Summary of this chapter reads more like an introduction, and does not contain the critical findings that are outlined in the rest of the chapter. The authors should redraft this section to highlight the findings rather than the structure of the chapter. (Government of Australia) The discussion of dangerous anthropogenic interference (DAI) in this paragraph does not include references to the discussion of impacts and key vulnerabilities in WG2. For consistency in the presentation of DAI across the AR4 the authors should include a brief discussion of WG2. (Government of Australia) I suggest to add: Defining what is dangerous anthropogenic interference......, because is the man the main responsible of the negative situation. Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Accepted

Noted

Accepted will be made consistent with TSU ruling

Noted

Accepted will be done (Holger)

Partially accepted reference will be made (Bill) Discussion of WG2 not task of Chapter 1 Accepted - Done

Page 6 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-19 1-20

A A

2 2

20 23

2 2

23 25

1-21

25

1-22

25

25

1-23

25

28

(CRISTOBAL FELIX DIAZ MOREJON, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT) This is such a weak and self-evident statement that it is meaningless. (Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) Rewrite the sentence commencing on line 23 as follows: EMISSION REDUCTION PATHWAYS WILL DEPEND ON decisions made in relation to Article 2 TO determine the level of climate change that MAY SERVE as the goal for policy AS WELL AS the scale AND TIMING of adaptation THAT MAY BE IMPLEMENTED TO COPE WITH CURRENT CLIMATE, CLIMATE VARIABILITY OR CLIMATE CHANGE . [Note: Inserts are shown in UPPER CASE; deletions are not shown.] There should be explicit recognition that, depending on what aspects determine whether climate change is dangerous, adaptation may either increase the stabilization level or postpone its attainment. Either would decrease the costs of reducing emissions. See Goklany (2000a, 2003, 2005a). References: (1) Goklany, IM. 2000a. Potential Consequences of Increasing Atmospheric CO2 Concentration Compared to Other Environmental Problems. Technology 7S: 189-213. (2) Goklany, IM. 2003. Relative Contributions of Global Warming to Various Climate Sensitive Risks, and Their Implications for Adaptation and Mitigation. Energy & Environment 14: 797-822. (3) Goklany, IM. 2005a. A Climate Policy for the Short and Medium Term: Stabilization or Adaptation? Energy & Environment 16: 667-680. U.S. Government (Government of U.S. Department of State) Replace "emission reduction" with "net emission reduction, i.e. emission reduction minus increase in biotic absorption" (Peter Read, Massey University) Replace "emission reduction" with "net emission reduction, i.e. emission reduction minus increase in biotic absorption" (Peter Read, Massey University) This statement is wrong. See my comment to page 6, lines 31-35. (Danny Harvey, University of Toronto)

Rejected not self-evident to many

Rejected - 1. suggested text changes the meaning but accept the timing of adaptation 2. point is biases as the issue can be both ways 3. No reference in exec summary

Rejected see 1-3

Rejected see 1-3

Note text will be cross-checked and made consistent with WGIII Chapter 3 As the feasibility, scale and timing of adaptation required - Done Accepted second sentence will be added (Holger)

1-24

25

28

This description is not sufficient. We recommend to replace "If warming of 2oC above ... below 2000 level by 2100" with TS P6, L32-35, If warming of 2oC above pre-industrial were deemed to be a limit on global warming, global emissions would need to be reduced to at least 70% below 2000 levels by 2100. On the other Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Page 7 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-5

25

28

1-25

27

28

1-26 1-6

A B

2 2

28 28

0 1

0 35

1-27

30

35

1-28 1-29 1-30

A A A

2 2 2

33 33 34

2 2 0

33 33 0

1-31

34

34

hand if a higher level of warming such as 4oC were deemed to be a limit, then emissions may not have to peak until well after mid century and could still be well above 2000 levels in 2100. (Government of Japan) Chapter 1 does not present an analysis of the range of emissions pathways to achieve specific temperature outcomes associated with stabilisation concentrations. Either delete sentence or express idea at this point in only a qualitative way. Topic is best summarised in the relevant Chapter. (Government of Australia) The text gives the wrong impression that the 2 degrees target can still be met by emission reduction. However, given the already existing high concentrations of GHG in the atmosphere and the most recent results with regard to the climate sensitivity it seems to be likely that such threshold has already been passed and that only so called overshooting scenarios would allow to meet such goal. (Government of Austria) add "be", "be reduced" (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) The Executive Summary should include a statement on what are the current total global emissions of CO2-e (i.e. all sources/ all gases). (Government of Australia) It would help the reader to, in addition to pointing out 380 ppm, that ghg emissions have increased 75% since 1970 (from page 9). Even though this is pointed out in the summary for the policymaker, its so significant that its worth repeating to bring home the point that emissions have exploded in recent years. U.S. Government (Government of U.S. Department of State) As a CONSEQUENCE, ATMOSPHERIC (Joe Asamoah, International Energy Foundation) CO2 rather than GHG (twice on the same line). (Government of France) We know that the CO2 concentration variates of several ppm during the year due to the vegetation cycles. Is it more precise to write '... reaching 380 ppm CO2 as yearly average in 2004.' ? (Manfred Treber, Germanwatch) Erratum: to change "anually sine the late" for "anually since the late" (Flix Hernndez, Economa y Geografa. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Rejected this is to set the backdrop for the report, introduced from Chapter 3

Rejected this statement is not correct at present plus range 2-4o given (see A 1-24)

Accepted - Done Accepted will be included (Holger)

Accepted will be included (Holger)

Accepted - Done Accepted - Done

Rejected concentrations are usually given as annual averages Accepted - Done

Page 8 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-32 1-33 1-34 1-35

A A A A

2 2 2 2

34 35 35 35

2 0 2 2

34 0 35 37

1-7

35

35

1-36

38

38

1-37

41

44

1-38

45

45

1-39

47

48

Cientficas (IEG-CSIC)) The word "Sine" may be replaced by "since". (Government of Pakistan) Replace "emissions" with "net emissions" (Peter Read, Massey University) Replace "emissions" with "net emissions" (Peter Read, Massey University) In light of my overview comment and my comments to page 4, lines 46-48, this statement is far too weak. It needs to be strengthened, pointing out (among other things) that representation of the science of WG1 and WG2 in terms of probability distribution functions for climate sensitivity and for the global mean temperature change beyond which unacceptable harm occurs, respectively, indicates that we now already violate, or will soon violate, Article 2 of the UNFCCC. This follows from the formal analysis presented in Harvey (2006a) and discussed at length in my later comments. (Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) This WGIII report (see for example, SPM, p8, lines 3-4) points out that major emissions reductions will require an effective global response. Mention here in Ch.1 of 'Kyoto targets' is somewhat misleading since that approach only applies to Annex 1 Parties. Rephrase to: '...beyond the current commitments in the Kyoto Protocol...' (Government of Australia) I suggest to add: ......important - economic development reached and needs,.... (CRISTOBAL FELIX DIAZ MOREJON, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT) It is suggested that the following rewrite be used: The numerous mitigation measures already underway . . .(all of which are steps towards implementation of Article 2) are inadequate for reversing . . .concentrations. U.S. Government (Government of U.S. Department of State) I suggest to add: economic development, and inadequates production and consumption patterns, continue to eclipse... (CRISTOBAL FELIX DIAZ MOREJON, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT) Suggest delete word "unhindered" in line 47. The relevant Art 2 condition to be complied with is "sustainable economic development", not "unhindered sustainable economic deveopment". If avoiding dangerous interference implies some (limited) Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Accepted - Done See comment 1-21 See comment 1-21 Partially Accepted text revised to reflect deep cuts DONE

Accepted Done

Rejected Does not add any value

Accepted Done

Rejected comment does not add any value

Accepted - use precise language of article 2 (Bill)

Page 9 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-40

1-41

1-42

1-43 1-44 1-45

A A A

3 3 3

6 6 8

0 3 3

0 6 10

hindrance to development, so be it. (Ralph Chapman, Victoria University of Wellington) I suggest to add: ......the risks of abrupt or catastrophic change including the terrible results over the life and development in any countries, and potential...... (CRISTOBAL FELIX DIAZ MOREJON, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT) Change to Properly designed climate change response can be part and parcel of sustainable development. As the Chapter 12, Pg 55, lines 4-5 points out: Possible side effects of mitigation policies can either be positive or negative with respect to the promotion of sustainable development. Climate change mitigation can be the cause of other environmental problems, and development that is sustainable in many other respects may increase GHG emissions. The rest of the paragraph is correct in that it uses the verb can to describe the relationship. (Lenny Bernstein, L. S. Bernstein & Associates, L.L.C.) Change to Properly designed climate change response can be part and parcel of sustainable development. As the Chapter 12, page 55, lines 4-5 points out: Possible side effects of mitigation policies can either be positive or negative with respect to the promotion of sustainable development. Climate change mitigation can be the cause of other environmental problems, and development that is sustainable in many other respects may increase GHG emissions. The rest of the paragraph is correct in that it uses the verb can to describe the relationship. U.S. Government (Government of U.S. Department of State) add "to", "contribute to" (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) In TURN, SUSTAINABLE (Joe Asamoah, International Energy Foundation) Rewrite the sentence starting with Projected climate change as follows: IN THE SHORT-TO-MEDIUM TERM, SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT CAN ENHANCE MITIGATIVE CAPACITY AND THE CAPACITY TO COPE WITH BOTH CURRENT CLIMATE AND CLIMATE CHANGE, WHILE IN THE LONG-TERM projected climate changes MIGHT exacerbate poverty and hence undermine sustainable development especially in least-developed countries, which are the most dependent on natural capital. [Note: Inserts are shown in UPPER CASE; deletions are not shown.] U.S. Government (Government of U.S. Department of State) Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Rejected Not IPCC language style

Accepted Done

Identical comment as 1-41.

Accepted Done Accepted Done

Rejected Time scale can be both short and long term

Page 10 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

1-46

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

11

11

1-47

12

1-48

18

1-49

18

18

1-8

18

21

1-50

19

22

1-51

1-52

The statement that "Hence global mitigation efforts can enhance sustainable development prospects in part by reducing the risk of adverse impacts of climate change" needs augmenting. Suggest add: "Mitigation actions can also go beyond avoiding adverse impacts; effective mitigation measures can provide positive cobenefits such as improved health outcomes." (Ralph Chapman, Victoria University of Wellington) Append to the end of this paragraph, the following: so that social, economic and environmental well;-being is optimized. U.S. Government (Government of U.S. Department of State) IF suggested addition at page 25, line 46 is not accepted, THEN delete "previous and new" (Peter Read, Massey University) IF suggested addition at page 25, line 46 is not accepted, THEN delete "previous and new" (Peter Read, Massey University) Use of both semi-colons and commas in phrasing of element (c) would make text easier to understand. (Government of Australia) The clause while the carbon intensity of energy did not change much should be changed to read while the rate of reduction in the carbon intensity of energy has fallen dramatically Rationale: Review of figure TS4 shows that the rate of improvement in the carbon intensity of energy has diminished sharply, and that emission growth in the 1993-2003 period would be virtually identical to that in the 1973-1983 period had the rate of carbon intensity improvement remained unchanged. U.S. Government (Government of U.S. Department of State) I suggest to change: particular by main or principal in order to emphasize the importance (CRISTOBAL FELIX DIAZ MOREJON, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT) "cost-effective measures" is very limitted way of using phrase in this context. We have to take into consideration of , not only "cost", but much more broad and wide concept such as "social, economic, cultural and bio-physical aspects, etc." for policy makers. Following may be alternative expressions, for example: i.e. instead of "cost-effective measures", No.1, "the socio-economic optimum measures incuding cost-effeciveness", or more broadly,No.2, "the optimun measures for Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Accepted - Done

Partially accepted maximized instead of optimized - Done Accepted - Done

Accepted - Done

Accepted needs to be done plus Biomass and others added (Holger) Cannot find this in text

Accepted - Done

Noted

Page 11 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-53

1-9

1-10

11

1-54

1-55

1-11

11

1-12

13

14

1-56

15

15

1-57

17

socio-economic, cultural and bio-physicla and processes including costeffectiveness". (Susumu Nakamaru, Sun Management Instutute) please add: '... mitigation potentials and associated costs as well as costs of impacts from climate change ...' (Manfred Treber, Germanwatch) Post-Kyoto' is too narrow a reference to context of the WGIII report. Rephrase as: 'important to support negotiations on future global emissions reductions.' (Government of Australia) Final sentence attempts a partial integration across WGI and WGIII findings that is more appropriate to a discussion to be developed in the AR4 Synthesis Report. As drafted, the sentence fails to begin with a focus on the core 'stabilisation of concentrations' focus of Article 2. Propose deleting the sentence. (Government of Australia) after "emissions" insert "and/or increases in biotic absorption (hereafter referred to as "net emissions reductions")" (Peter Read, Massey University) after "emissions" insert "and/or increases in biotic absorption (hereafter referred to as "net emissions reductions")" (Peter Read, Massey University) Insert after non-linear changes, the following: more effort is needed to develop response strategies, including more effective adaptation and vulnerability-reduction and/or U.S. Government (Government of U.S. Department of State) Rephrase to avoid policy prescription of 'has to be'. Suggest: 'and conditions for implementing the atmospheric concentration stabilisation objective'. (Government of Australia) I propose to chane greenhose gas (GHG) for GHG (Flix Hernndez, Economa y Geografa. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientficas (IEG-CSIC)) It should be noted as well that Article 3 advises that Parties should be guided by the principles listed, notably principle 1 that highlights the basis of equity and common but differentiates responsibilities and respective capabilities of developing country Parties. (Valentin Bartra, Instituto Andino y Amaznico de Derecho Ambiental) Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Partially accepted mitigation potential included Accepted

To be checked (Bill)

See 1-21

See 1-21

Rejected Too policy prescriptive

Accepted - Done

Accepted - Philippe

Page 12 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

1-58

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

17

17

It should be noted as well that Article 3 advises that Parties should be guided by the principles listed, notably principle 1 that highlights the basis of equity and common but differentiates responsibilities and respective capabilities of developing country Parties. (Valentin Bartra, Instituto Andino y Amaznico de Derecho Ambiental) Substitute most for many U.S. Government (Government of U.S. Department of State) Some explanation of the link between DAI and the three subsidiary conditions should be given right after this paragraph. This is explained in Harvey (2006a) as follows, and I recommend incorporating the key points here: By speaking of adaptation to climatic change, it is implied that the ultimate climatic change (related to the chosen GHG stabilization levels) is small enough and hence benign enough that adaptation is possible in the first place. The three subsidiary conditions (allowing ecosystems to adapt, maintaining food production, and enabling sustainable economic development) are restrictions on the rate at which non-dangerous greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations are reached. They are related to that fact that climatic change that is not harmful (that is, sufficiently limited that adaptation is possible), were it to occur slowly, could be highly disruptive (harmful) if it were to occur too fast. These conditions thus set a constraint on rates of allowable GHG emissions, while the overall goal of capping GHG concentrations at non-dangerous levels largely represents a constraint on cumulative CO2 emissions. REFERENCE: Harvey, L.D.D. 2006a. Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference, Dangerous Climatic Change, and Harmful Climatic Change: Non-Trivial Distinctions with Significant Policy Implications. Climatic Change (accepted). (Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) What you have said is, strictly speaking, correct and does acknowledge that Article 2 may require that we accept slower economic development (and restraints on economic growth) in exchange for the benefits of reduced damages (which are both economic and non-economic) resulting from reduced climatic change. However, this is not how this part of Article 2 is usually interpreted it has frequently been interpreted, perhaps self-servingly, as saying that there should be no restriction on economic growth. Thus, some elaboration of what Article 2 does and does not say Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

See I-57

1-13 1-59

B A

4 4

21 31

4 0

21 0

Not found in text TIA -Will be dealt with as indicated 1-xxx (Bill) Legal interpretation unclear

1-60

33

38

Noted

REJ: This is just one interpretation of Art2 thus not acceptable as definitive

Page 13 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

is required. Also and this needs to be explained as I do below the tension is more apparent than real. Thus, please point out that it may very well be that in order to have truly sustainable economic development, development will need to proceed more slowly than under a path that ultimately is not sustainable, and that Article 2 only requires the chosen GHG concentrations to enable sustainable development, NOT that they be such that there is no slowing down of economic growth. That being the case, there is no tension (in Article 2) between enabling economic growth on the one hand and protecting ecosystems and food-producing systems on the other hand. If anything, Article 2 requires that emission constraints begin sooner rather than later since, as shown by Kallbekken and Rive (2006), greater rates of emission reduction are required the later the emission reductions begin, if a given concentration ceiling is to be observed (the paper by Kallbekken and Rive (2006) absolutely must be cited and the key arguments highlighted here). Since, as explained in my comment to pg 4, line 31, the reference to adaptation of ecosystems represents a constraint on the rate of change of climate, which in turn requires early rather than later emission reductions consistent with a given concentration ceiling, which in turn allows more gradual rates of reduction in emissions, there is in fact little or no conflict between the first two and the third subsidiary conditions. REFERENCE: Kallbekken, S. and N. Rive. 2006. Why delaying climate action is a gamble, in Schellnhuber, H.J., Cramer, W., Nakicenovic, N., Wigley, T., and Yohe, G. (editors), Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 311-315. (Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) On the other SIDE, VERY costly (Joe Asamoah, International Energy Foundation) I suggest to add: ......very costly mitigation measures, or inactivity in decisions making and taking of adequate measures, could have.... (CRISTOBAL FELIX DIAZ MOREJON, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT) Suggest add the following at the end of the paragraph: "However, the choice is not a simple trade-off between mitigation and economic growth. Too little mitigation for the sake of short-term growth may limit long-term economic development." (Ralph Chapman, Victoria University of Wellington) Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote Page 14 of 68

1-61 1-62

A A

4 4

36 36

4 4

36 36

Accepted - Done REJ: this is not the point made here

1-63

37

38

Noted we refer to the synergy between mitigation and SD later

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

1-64

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

38

1-65

38

38

1-66

40

45

1-67

42

42

1-14

43

after "growth" insert "However, synergy between sustainable development and net emissions reductions can arise when the latter is achieved through increased biotic absorption." (Peter Read, Massey University) after "growth" insert "However, synergy between sustainable development and net emissions reductions can arise when the latter is achieved through increased biotic absorption." (Peter Read, Massey University) This paragraph is incorrect in suggesting that the reference to adaptation refers to the level of climate change rather that the rate of climate change. This paragraph can be deleted, in light of the explanation of the meaning of the reference to adaptation of ecosystems given in my comment to line 31. To repeat, in speaking about adaptation of ecosystems, it is implicitly assumed that climatic change is small enough that meaningful adaptation is even possible, and the requirement that ecosystems be allowed to adapt is an even more stringent restriction on allowable emissions because it requires that climatic change that, in equilibrium would be benign, must be slow enough that adaptation has time to occur. (Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) Climate change will affect not only " economic development" ,but also, "social development". In this context, It is appropriate that "economic development" is to be replaced by "socio-economic development" for icluding much broder concept. (However, "economic development" may be cited from Articl 2 of the UNFCCC.) Taking appropriate balance between preserving ecosystem and economic development is very important, of cource, but sometimes we have learned from our historical experiences, some of the policy makers utilize this "balance" as an "excuse" not taking appropriate measures in timely manner, which may lead the unfavourable situation worse. (Susumu Nakamaru, Sun Management Instutute) (1) Insert the following reference after dangerous: Goklany (2000a). (2) Add the following new sentence after the period on line 43: Complicating such assessment is that adaptive capacity is a function of a number of factors including economic development, technological change, and human and social capital all of which should be enhanced over time, if the storylines embodied in the SRES scenarios are to be trusted (Goklany 2005c, 2006a). References: (1) Goklany, IM. 2005c. Is a Richer-but-warmer World Better than Poorer-but-cooler Worlds? 25th Annual North American Conference of the US Association for Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

See 1-21

See 1-21

Partially accepted rate of change included Done

Rejected: Not language of Art 2

REJ: reference inappropriate New sentence not fully correct therefore too complicated

Page 15 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

Energy Economics/International Association of Energy Economics, September 2123, 2005. (2) Goklany, IM. 2006a. Integrated Strategies to Reduce Vulnerability and Advance Adaptation, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development. Mitigation and Adaptation Response Strategies for Global Change, forthcoming. U.S. Government (Government of U.S. Department of State) The ending bracket appearing after "2003" should be moved to the end of the line. (Government of Pakistan) This sentence seeks to summarise a point brought out in the WGII report that is relevant in setting scene for the WGIII report. Hence, it seems inappropriate to seemingly introduce/rely upon additional literature (Barnett & Adger). Suggest text should simply present finding of WGII, and not attempt to add to WGIII task. (Government of Australia) This statement is not correct. Article 2 calls for stabilization of GHG concentrations at a level that prevents dangerous anthropogenic interference (DAI) in the climate system, period. Dangerous climatic change (DCC) is something altogether different, and the distinction between the two is quite important, as explained in Harvey (2006a). Sea level rise is again something else quite different, and one does not have the freedom (under Article 2) to choose the point within the cause-effect chain to focus attention. Rather, effort must be directed at GHG concentrations. As explained in Harvey (2006a), Dangerous anthropogenic interference (DAI) in the climate system is a set of increases in GHGs concentrations that has a non-negligible possibility of provoking changes in climate that in turn have a non-negligible possibility of causing unacceptable harm to humans, human societies, or natural ecosystems. Dangerous climatic change is a change of climate that has a non-negligible possibility of causing harm to humans, human societies, or natural ecosystems. If DAI is defined at the level of temperature changes (contrary to what Article 2 clearly says), then one needs to know what the correct climatic sensitivity is in order to determine the allowable GHG emissions. However, if DAI is defined at the level of GHG concentrations (as in Article 2), then one need only determine a plausible upper limit to the climate sensitivity in order to determine the concentrations that constitute DAI, and hence to determine what the global emissions targets should be. Uncertainty in climate sensitivity causes the GHG concentration limits needed to prevent DAI to be more stringent than the concentration limits associated with, say, a best guess or middle estimate of climate Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote Page 16 of 68

1-68 1-15

A B

4 4

45 45

4 4

45 45

Accepted - Done Accepted - done

1-69

46

48

Partially accepted reference to climate changed deleted Its one of several interpretations in the literature no consensus so far

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

sensitivity. That is, uncertainty leads to lower allowable GHG concentrations. Another way in which the distinction between DAI and DCC is important is that changes in ocean chemistry (through the absorption of anthropogenic CO2) represent interference in the climate system (or, at least, in the broader Earth system) independently of the change in climate and hence independently of the climate sensitivity. By reading Article 2 as referring to DCC instead of DAI, a whole dimension of adverse impacts associated with CO2 emissions is bypassed (and the potential impacts associated with even a steady doubled CO2 concentration are indeed very severe!). The text should be revised to make the above points. Having done that, it is then necessary to introduce the inputs needed for a determination of what CO2 concentration constitutes DAI. This also provides an opportunity, so far missing from WG3, of synthesizing the information from WG1 and WG2 and incorporating this synthesis into the WG3 report. Two initial inputs are required in order to determine the allowable equivalent CO2 concentration, as explained in Harvey (2006a): (i) the climate sensitivity, which links concentrations to longterm global mean temperature change, and (ii) a threshold global mean temperature change, beyond which unacceptable impacts occur. In practice, the climate sensitivity is unknown but can be replaced with a probability distribution function (pdf) of climate sensitivity (the pdf gives the probability of the true climate sensitivity falling within various intervals). Similarly, the impacts associated with a given global mean temperature change are uncertain and, as well, there will be disagreement as to how large the impacts should be before they are unacceptable. Thus, a single temperature threshold for unacceptable warming can be replaced with a pdf for the temperature threshold. Having cast the climate sensitivity and temperature threshold in probabilistic terms, a third input is required in order to determine the maximum allowable GHG concentrations: the maximum acceptable probability of provoking impacts that had been previously deemed to be unacceptable. The greater the impacts chosen in step two to represent unacceptable damage, the lower this threshold probability should be. The most important output from WG1 is the pdf for climate sensitivity, and the various chapters (Chapter 8, Table 8.8.1; Chapter 9, Sections 9.6.2 and 9.6.3; Chapter 10, Sections 10.5.2 and 10.5.4) of WG1 support a pdf with 5-95% confidence limits of 2-5 K, with some evidence indicating even higher 95% limits. The WG2 report can be summarized by the pdf for the threshold of unacceptable warming; the evidence summarized in Chapter 4 supports a pdf with 5-95% Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote Page 17 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

confidence limits of 1-2 K (see Table 4.2). Given the magnitude of the impacts to be avoided, and that the risks in question are involuntary risks imposed on others, it is argued in Harvey (2006a,b) that the acceptable probability of incurring these impacts should be quite low on the order of 1-10%. Given risk thresholds of 110%, and using a number of pdfs for climate sensitivity and the harm temperature threshold that are consistent with WG1 and WG2, respectively, Harvey (2006a,b) has shown that the maximum acceptable CO2 concentrations range from substantially less than the current concentration (380 ppmv) to no more than about 440 ppmv, depending on the chosen pdfs and risk threshold, and depending on future radiative forcing by non-CO2 GHGs. This is a significant new finding, not available at the time of the TAR, that should be emphasized here: the work of WG1 and WG2, combined with explicit consideration of morally defensible risk thresholds, implies that the current CO2 concentration may already violate Article 2 of the UNFCCC. REFERENCES: Harvey, L.D.D. 2006a. Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference, Dangerous Climatic Change, and Harmful Climatic Change: Non-Trivial Distinctions with Significant Policy Implications. Climatic Change (accepted). Harvey, L.D.D. 2006b. Allowable CO2 Concentrations Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change as a Function of the Climate Sensitivity PDF. Environmental Research Letters (submitted). (Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) criterion is CHOSEN, ITS (Joe Asamoah, International Energy Foundation) Singular 'criterion' (p5 line 2) seems too narrow - could be multiple 'criteria'. (Government of Australia) add hyphen: "par-tially" (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) recognized AS having (Joe Asamoah, International Energy Foundation) Please check the grammar of this sentence. (Government of Pakistan) "as" may be replaced by "has". (Government of Pakistan) Replace has with as. U.S. Government Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

1-70 1-16 1-71 1-72 1-73 1-74 1-17

A B A A A A B

5 5 5 5 5 5 5

1 1 6 8 8 8 8

5 5 5 5 5 5 0

1 1 7 8 12 8 0

Accepted - Done Accepted - Done Accepted - Done Accepted - Done Accepted - Done Accepted - Done Accepted - Done

Page 18 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-75

12

15

(Government of U.S. Department of State) As noted in my comment to page 4, lines 46-48, the interpretation of Article 2 requires 3 distinctly different inputs: (i) a pdf or pdfs of climate sensitivity; (ii) a pdf of the threshold for global mean temperature change beyond which unacceptable impacts occur; and (iii) the maximum allowed probability of incurring impacts previously determined (in step (ii)) to be unacceptable. Step (i) is largely a scientifically determined input; step (ii) involves both scientific assessments subject to uncertainty and a subjective political/cultural/ethical judgment of what is acceptable damage or harm, and step (iii) is largely an ethical determination related to the imposition of involuntary risks on others, but is not independent of step (ii) (the greater the harm associated with the temperature threshold, the smaller the probability of incurring this harm that should be allowed). Some references to the ethical dimensions of step (iii) should be added, such as Brown (2003) and Toon (2003). Tonn (2003) suggests three different acceptable probabilities for three different categories of impacts: one in a million for substantial regional economic, political, and/or biological impacts, one in one hundred million for severe global economic, political, and/or biological impacts, and one in ten billion for extinction of humans. The impacts discussed in WG2 and used as the basis for the pdf for the upper limit on acceptable warming (step ii) would fall in Tonns first or second category, and Tonn bases his one-in-a-million threshold for the first category on the rule of thumb used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in the US, such that individuals should not be involuntarily subjected to a risk of death with a chance greater than one in a million. If the impacts to be avoided (step ii) involve the death of 1 million people during the lifetime of 10 billion (a conservative estimate it could be much worse), then the allowable probability of incurring these impacts should not be more 1% if the average risk of death is not to exceed 1 in one million (in my own papers, referenced in other comments, I considered risks of 10-25% and still find that we already violate or are close to violating Article 2 that is, the current or soon-to-bereached GHG concentrations constitute DAI).. REFERENCES: Brown, D.A. 2003. The importance of expressly examining global warming policy issues through an ethical prism, Glob. Env. Change 13, 229-234. Tonn, B.: 2003, An equity first, risk-based framework for managing global climate change, Glob. Env. Change 13, 295-306. Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Accepted : ethical Rejected: Science informs about Art 2 but does not decide on Art 2

Page 19 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-76

12

32

1-77

14

15

1-78

21

33

1-79

27

30

1-80

31

32

1-18

31

32

1-19

34

48

(Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) It could be helpful to draw in this section some up-to-date scientific information from Schneider, Stephen H. and Janica Lane (2006), An Overview of Dangerous Climate Change, in Schellnhuber, Hans Joachim, Wolfgang Cramer, Nebosja Nakicenovic, Tom Wigley and Gary Yohe (Eds), Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, and other papers in this volume. (Cdric PHILIBERT, International Energy Agency) As pointed out in Harvey (2006a), the three subsidiary conditions listed in Article 2 (avoiding adverse impacts on ecosystems, food production, and on sustainable socio-economic systems) need not be regarded as the only three areas of harm to be avoided. Rather, these three areas are singled out in Article 2 because the impacts are sensitive to rates of climatic change as well as to the absolute or final climatic change (associated with stabilized GHG concentrations). There are many other harmful impacts through which higher GHG concentrations could be regarded as DAI, such as significant damage to existing physical infrastructure or to assets of cultural or historical significance, the loss of which might be inconsequential to ecosystems, food production, or economic sustainability. (Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) The most important point that should be made, and is not made, is that research subsequent to the work of the AGGG has broadly confirmed the proposed 1 2 C warming limits. This is clearly seen from the summary table (Table 4.2) in Chapter 4 of WGII, which should be referenced here. (Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) Is the description of "see Chapter 4" correct? If correct, please describe the section. (Keigo Akimoto, Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth (RITE)) "Large scale risks to ecosystems such as coral reefs also imply risks to hundreds of millions of people" seem to unnecessarily fear people. Is coral reefs an appropriate example here? (Koji Kadono, Global Industrial and Social Progress Research Institute(GISPRI)) Final sentence introduces a selected, highly specific point in what is otherwise a paragraph discussing very general matters. Assessment of coral reef impacts is the task of WGII, not WGIII. And identifying one form of impact (coral reefs) but not a myriad of other possible impacts seems unbalanced. (Government of Australia) The paragraph should include some description of how adaptation should be Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

To be checked (Bill)

Noted: Although valid point, space limitations do not allow a full analysis of all aspects of Art 2

Rejected: Reference to WGII Chapter 4 already included

Accepted

Accepted list of key vulnerabilities relevant to Art 2 will be included (Bill)

Accepted see 1-80

Accepted see 1-80

Page 20 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-81

40

48

considered in any discussion of what may be considered as DAI with the climate system. (Government of Australia) The bottom-line results of Harvey (2006a,b) should be summarized here, namely, that incorporation of climate sensitivity pdfs consistent with WG1 and of harmthreshold pdfs consistent with WG2, combined with an allowable probability of incurring harm previously determined to be unacceptable of 10% or even 25%, leads to the conclusion that we ALREADY violate, or are very close to already violating, Article 2 of the UNFCCC. One of the issues that has arisen during the last 5 years with regard to WG1 is the possibility (according to some analyses) of a climate sensitivity much greater than the upper limit of 4.5 C that had been accepted for so long. However, figure 4 of Harvey (2006b) shows that the allowable CO2 concentration is not significantly reduced as the 95th percentile of the pdf for climate sensitivity increases from 4.5 C to 8 C. Even for a 95th percentile at 2.5 C (i.e., a highly optimistic assumption concerning climate sensitivity), the allowable CO2 concentration is only 290-470 ppmv for allowable risks of noncompliance of 1-10%, and that assumes that non-CO2 GHG forcing can be reduced to half of its present value. This raises another point that needs to be emphasized in the discussion of Article 2, namely: that stringent reductions in nonCO2 GHG forcing are required ALONG WITH (not instead of) stringent reductions in CO2 emissions. REFERENCES: Harvey, L.D.D. 2006a. Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference, Dangerous Climatic Change, and Harmful Climatic Change: Non-Trivial Distinctions with Significant Policy Implications. Climatic Change (accepted). Harvey, L.D.D. 2006b. Allowable CO2 Concentrations Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change as a Function of the Climate Sensitivity PDF. Environmental Research Letters (submitted). (Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) I propose to add a note with examples of global consequences (el Nio.) (Flix Hernndez, Economa y Geografa. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientficas (IEG-CSIC)) Final sentence goes beyond scope of WGIII discussion - commentary along this line is the business of WGII. Note that the statement in this sentence does not align with WGII conclusions. Delete final sentence. Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

REJECTED already violated is the reviewers opinion

1-82

45

45

REJ done earlier

1-20

47

48

Check with WG 2

Page 21 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-21

47

48

1-22

1-83

1-23

1-24 1-25

B B

6 6

3 8

0 6

0 13

1-84

10

14

(Government of Australia) Eliminate the last sentence. First, this sentence assumes that the risk is not low. That needs to be proven; see above comment. Second, it assumes that the consequences will be drastic. Third, it assumes that the likelihood and consequences of a shutdown would be what drives the timing of mitigation; but we dont know that either. U.S. Government (Government of U.S. Department of State) This paragraph sets out "several examples" of elected officials seeking to define acceptable levels of climate change. The only examples given are in the EU. The authors should review the literature for a wider regional/country range of examples - or results in line with the final sentence (line 8). (Government of Australia) I suggest to eliminate: of elected officials remaining as ....several examples seeking to define.... because after stay clear that are elected officials (CRISTOBAL FELIX DIAZ MOREJON, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT) Perhaps the EU Council of Ministers has a rational basis for its 2 degrees limit, but it is not evident in any of the citations provided (1.e., CEU 1996; CEU 2005a, 2005b). None of these documents provide a risk-benefit assessment of the consequences (both positive and negative) of actions designed to meet such a goal. It should be noted in the text here that the 2 degree goal is an expression of a political goal that has yet to be justified on the basis of a science-based risk assessment. Accordingly, add just ahead of the sentence commencing with To date on line 8, the following sentence: However, the EU has not provided a comprehensive risk assessment of the social, economic and environmental consequences of adhering to such a goal either for its member countries or the rest of the world. U.S. Government (Government of U.S. Department of State) Insert partly between based and on. U.S. Government (Government of U.S. Department of State) Why is there no mention of various international partnerships (e.g., Methane to Markets, APP, etc) here? Also, a broader point should be made that this paragraph is too Kyoto-centric and does not reflect the many other actions being taken around the world, like APP and M2M. U.S. Government (Government of U.S. Department of State) Though it indicates "each of these views has its strengthes and weaknesses", the Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

See I-20

ACC

See I-22

REJ Source of political decision is not IPCC afair

REJ EU use the language REJ mentioned later in the chapter section 1.4.3 Also, not relevant here.

ACC to modify sentence

Page 22 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-26

10

14

1-85

11

1-86

14

1-87 1-88 1-89 1-90 1-91 1-27

A A A A A B

6 6 6 6 6 6

18 18 18 20 20 26

0 6 6 0 6 6

0 21 18 0 20 28

text does not mention weaknesses. Need to elaborate on it. (Koji Kadono, Global Industrial and Social Progress Research Institute(GISPRI)) This para is difficult to comprehend when read in context of rest of 5.1.2.2. What does 'these views' refer to? Paras on pp5-6 cover a number of points and views not simply the 3 referred to in final para. (Government of Australia) Harvey (2006a,b) should be referenced here, along with AGGG and ONeill and Oppenheimer (2002). (Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) The implication is given that the answer to the question "What is dangerous interference.." is the EU's answer-if so, this should be explicitly stated. (David Jackson, McMaster University) substitute "is" for "are", "There is" (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) Surely this sentence can be reworded in a way that is easier to read and more direct! (Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) The sentence needs to be rephrased. (Government of Pakistan) Replace "emission" with "net emission" (Peter Read, Massey University) Replace "emission" with "net emission" (Peter Read, Massey University) Rewrite the sentence commencing on line 26 as follows: EMISSION REDUCTION PATHWAYS WILL DEPEND ON decisions made in relation to Article 2 TO determine the level of climate change that MAY SERVE as the goal for policy AS WELL AS the scale AND TIMING of adaptation THAT MAY BE IMPLEMENTED TO COPE WITH CURRENT CLIMATE, CLIMATE VARIABILITY OR CLIMATE CHANGE . [Note: Inserts are shown in UPPER CASE; deletions are not shown.] Rationale: There should be explicit recognition that, depending on what aspects determine whether climate change is dangerous, adaptation may either increase the stabilization level or postpone its attainment. See Goklany (2000a, 2003, 2005a). References: (1) Goklany, IM. 2000a. Potential Consequences of Increasing Atmospheric CO2 Concentration Compared to Other Environmental Problems. Technology 7S: 189-213. (2) Goklany, IM. 2003. Relative Contributions of Global Warming to Various Climate Sensitive Risks, and Their Implications for Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

TIA rewrite sentence.

TIA rewrite sentence.

REJ not strictly correct

ACC ACC AZC See 1.-21 See 1.-21 Partially ACC See 1-20

Page 23 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

Adaptation and Mitigation. Energy & Environment 14: 797-822. (3) Goklany, IM. 2005a. A Climate Policy for the Short and Medium Term: Stabilization or Adaptation? Energy & Environment 16: 667-680. U.S. Government (Government of U.S. Department of State) Replace "emission" with "net emission" (Peter Read, Massey University) Replace "emission" with "net emission" (Peter Read, Massey University) After required, add and of the magnitude of losses for which meaningful adaptation is not possible. The point is that there were be some changes to which species and ecosystems will NOT be able to adapt (they will become extinct instead), and these changes and the associated failures to adapt will be larger the greater the allowed GHG concentrations. (Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) These examples of "hypothetical limits" should be deleted as they do not incorporate the range of values provided in Chapter 3 and do not add to the discussion of Article 2 in this chapter. (Government of Australia) The statements here are scientifically indefensible they are simply wrong and must be changed. The equivalent CO2 concentration allowed for a given temperature limit (such as 2 C) depends on the climate sensitivity; there is no single allowed concentration. Climate sensitivity now is increasingly represented by a pdf, not by a single value. As discussed in WG1, and in my comments to pages 4 and 5, some work suggests 95th percentiles for climate sensitivity as high as 6 8 C. Even if the climate sensitivity is only 4 C, to limit warming to 2 C requires no more than the equivalent of a 50% CO2 increase (0.5 x 3.75 W/m2 forcing = 1.87 W/m2 forcing), a GHG forcing level that has ALREADY been exceeded. If 4 C warming is allowed and climate sensitivity is 4 C, then a CO2 doubling equivalent is allowed, which requires stabilizing CO2 at no more than 450 ppmv, which in turn requires near zero emissions by 2100. This is basic climate science, and is well established, so the statement that emission could be well above year 2000 emissions in 2100 is without any scientific foundation. The whole discussion needs to be reformulated in probabilistic terms, or at least has to consider a couple of different climate sensitivities, and has to be consistent with well established carbon cycle modeling results (which the current discussion is not). Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

1-92 1-93 1-94

A A A

6 6 6

27 27 28

0 6 0

0 27 0

See I-21 See I-21 ACC

1-28

30

35

1-95

31

35

REJ this section is discussing issues related to implemented and we need examples to show consequences therefore we chose these. Number to be checked. REJ the premise is wrong... This is only an example. Its not a full blown analysis. We will add a sentence on climate sensitivity.

Page 24 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-29

46

47

1-30

46

1-96

49

49

1-97

49

1-98

(Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) Modify the sentence starting on line 46 as follows: In turn sustainable development paths can reduce vulnerability to PROBLEMS CAUSED BY climate change and reduce GHG emissions, AND BROADLY INCREASE ADAPTIVE AND MITIGATIVE CAPACITIES (GOKLANY 2003a, 2005a, 2006a). [Note: Inserts are shown in UPPER CASE; deletions are not shown.] References: (1) Goklany, IM. 2003a. Relative Contributions of Global Warming to Various Climate Sensitive Risks, and Their Implications for Adaptation and Mitigation. Energy & Environment 14: 797-822. (2) Goklany, IM. 2005a. A Climate Policy for the Short and Medium Term: Stabilization or Adaptation? Energy & Environment 16: 667-680. (3) Goklany, IM. 2006a. Integrated Strategies to Reduce Vulnerability and Advance Adaptation, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development. Mitigation and Adaptation Response Strategies for Global Change, forthcoming. U.S. Government (Government of U.S. Department of State) Change to Properly designed climate change response can be part and parcel of sustainable development . As the Chapter 12, page 55, lines 4-5 points out: Possible side effects of mitigation policies can either be positive or negative with respect to the promotion of sustainable development. Climate change mitigation can be the cause of other environmental problems, and development that is sustainable in many other respects may increase GHG emissions. The rest of the paragraph is correct in that it uses the verb can to describe the relationship. U.S. Government (Government of U.S. Department of State) I suggest to change least-developed countries by developing countries, because this is a category of United Nations that includes only a group of developing countries, and not taking into account other more vulnerables as small developing islands (CRISTOBAL FELIX DIAZ MOREJON, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT) I suggest to add in the end: .....which are the most dependent on natural capital and have smaller financial resources possibilities (CRISTOBAL FELIX DIAZ MOREJON, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT) after change add , as well as by reducing reliance on imported and increasingly expensive non-renewable energy sources. This point should be added because the import bill for oil at $70/barrel and likely more costly in the future could become a Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

REJ changes the meaning of the sentence which we believe is the best formulation.

ACC

ACC change to developing co0puntries.

ACC See I-96

REJ Not necessary true. Prices go and prices down. So says history.

Page 25 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-31

19

1-99

19

1-100

1-101

1-102

1-103

1-104

10

1-105

11

significant break on economic development. (Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) Section 1.2.3.2 adds little that cannot be incorporated in the discussion of DAI at page 5 and should be deleted. (Government of Australia) Subsection 1.2.3.2 on Adaptation and Mitigation needs more detail brought in from WG 2 if the issues of substitutibility and/or complementarity are to be adequately addressed. Alternatively, begin the second sentence (in line 7) "If complementary, it is possible to argue under certain cost-benefit assumptions, that adaptation reduces...." In line 9, insert "on current pathways" between "since" and "mitigation" and remove the quotes around "dangerous". (Pat Finnegan, Grian) I suggest to add: ......and thus reduces the expected benefits of mitigation measures (CRISTOBAL FELIX DIAZ MOREJON, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT) I suggest to add: ...... Reduces the cost effects of impacts... (CRISTOBAL FELIX DIAZ MOREJON, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT) after substitutable add up to a certain point, because adaptation and mitigation clearly are NOT substitutable at some point (for example, when the changes are large enough to drive species to extinction). (Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) replace the word dangerous (which is in quotes) with harmful, because Article 2 nowhere refers to dangerous climate change, it refers to dangerous anthropogenic interference in the climate system and, as explained in Harvey (2006a) and in my comment to page 4, lines 46-48, the distinction between the two is important. (Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) I propose to change "dangerous" climate change for "dangerous" irreversible climate changes (Flix Hernndez, Economa y Geografa. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientficas (IEG-CSIC)) "see WGII, chapter 18" - this is unhelpful to the reader who won't necessarily have a copy of Chapt 18 at hand and even if it is, shouldn't be distracted by the need to look it up. Give a sentence or two illustrating the main point in addition to the Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

REJ part of the agreed outline

REJ But reference to other chapters already included.

REJ would make the formulation to complex.

REJ would make the formulation to complex

ACC

TIA will use DIA

TIA will use DIA

REJ - cannot find

Page 26 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-106 1-107 1-108 1-32

A A A B

7 7 7 7

16 17 17 21

7 0 7 7

16 0 17 48

1-109 1-33

A B

7 7

26 26

0 7

0 33

1-110 1-111 1-112 1-34

A A A B

7 7 7 7

43 44 46 46

7 7 7 7

43 44 46 46

1-35

46

48

citation. (David Jackson, McMaster University) In the first sentence in line 16, insert "degree of" between "the" and "mitigation". (Pat Finnegan, Grian) Replace "emission" with "net emission" (Peter Read, Massey University) Replace "emission" with "net emission" (Peter Read, Massey University) Section 1.2.3.3 on Inertia should also include a paragraph discussing the inertia in the infrastructure of energy systems, and how this can impact upon emissions reductions. (Government of Australia) delete "changes"1 (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) This series of sentences relates to topics which are within the scope and mandate of WGI. WGIII should state the key relevant findings of WGI needed to develop the WGIII storyline on mitigation. It is not appropriate for WGIII seemingly to extend the findings of WGI by selective addition of references pertaining to WGI topics. (Government of Australia) socioeconomic SYSTEMS, BENEFITS (Joe Asamoah, International Energy Foundation) ULTIMATELY, MITIGATION (Joe Asamoah, International Energy Foundation) The sentence defining "inertia" should come at the beginning of the Section 1.2.3.3. (Government of Pakistan) Reference here to 'the system' is unclear. Line 43 begins this para by reference to 'climate and socio-economic systems'. (Government of Australia) Modify the sentence starting with Inertia as follows: ON ONE HAND, inertia in the system SUGGESTS that mitigation actions SHOULD start in the short term in order to have longer term benefits and to avoid lock in of carbon intensive technologies (Unruh and Carrillo-Hermosilla, 2006; Chapter 11.6.2). ON THE OTHER HAND, SOME ANALYSIS BASED ON GLOBAL CLIMATE IMPACT ASSESSMENTS INDICATE THAT FOR THE NEXT SEVERAL DECADES, DAMAGES FROM CLIMATE-SENSITIVE PROBLEMS (WHICH WOULD Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

ACC See I-21 See I-21 REJ already included.;

REJ the system responses to forcing changes ACC

ACC ACC REJ we are not defining inertia here and we dont have the space to do sol ACC

REJ This changes the balance and is not clearly true.

Page 27 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-113

48

1-114

48

48

1-36 1-37

B B

8 8

5 5

8 0

5 0

INCLUDE PROBLEMS CAUSED BY CURRENT CLIMATE AND CLIMATE VARIABILITY AND, THEREFORE, NECESSARILY EXCEED PROBLEMS CAUSED BY CLIMATE CHANGE ALONE) WOULD BE REDUCED MUCH MORE COST-EFFECTIVELY THROUGH EFFORTS TO REDUCE VULNERABILITIES TO THESE PROBLEMS THAN THROUGH DIFFERENT STABILIZATION SCHEMES. THIS SUGGESTS THAT THERE IS A WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY OF AT LEAST THREE DECADES OR SO TO RESEARCH AND DEVELOP TECHNOLOGIES THAT WOULD MITIGATE EMISSIONS MUCH MORE COST-EFFECTIVELY THAN IS FEASIBLE TODAY (GOKLANY 2005a). THIS SUGGESTION IS REINFORCED BY OTHER ANALYSIS, BASED ON OTHER GLOBAL CLIMATE IMPACTS ANALYES USING SRES SCENARIOS, WHICH INDICATES THAT WELLBEING IS NOT NECESSARILY LOWER UNDER THE WARMER SCENARIOS COMPARED TO THE COOLER SCENARIOS (GOKLANY 2005c). [Note: Inserts are shown in UPPER CASE; deletions are not shown.] Reference: (1) Goklany, I.M. 2005a. A Climate Policy for the Short and Medium Term: Stabilization or Adaptation? Energy & Environment 16: 667-680. (2) Goklany, IM. 2005c. Is a Richer-but-warmer World Better than Poorer-but-cooler Worlds? 25th Annual North American Conference of the US Association for Energy Economics/International Association of Energy Economics, September 2123, 2005. U.S. Government (Government of U.S. Department of State) Add "While this is most evident in relation to precautionary action against the threat of abrupt climate change, it is fortunate that such action, involving increased use of biomass raw material as a substitute for fossil fuels - 'defossilizing' rather than 'decarbonising' - involves relative minor adaptation of existing infrastructure." (Peter Read, Massey University) Add "While this is most evident in relation to precautionary action against the threat of abrupt climate change, it is fortunate that such action, involving increased use of biomass raw material as a substitute for fossil fuels - 'defossilizing' rather than 'decarbonising' - involves relative minor adaptation of existing infrastructure." (Peter Read, Massey University) Insert "some" before "damages are likely to be irreversible". (Government of Australia) Insert some before damages on line 5. U.S. Government (Government of U.S. Department of State) Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

REJ covered later in the chapter

REJ covered later in the chapter

TIA will use many TIA will use many

Page 28 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

1-115 1-38

A B

8 8

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

8 13

0 8

0 24

1-39

14

24

1-40 1-116 1-117 1-118

B A A A

8 8 8 8

14 16 21 24

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

1-119

24

24

1-41

24

24

correct "decisions": "decision" (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) Section 1.2.3.5 should do more than merely list possible abrupt climate changes but should discuss how the risk of such change can be incorporated into policy responses to Article 2. (Government of Australia) This paragraph on abrupt/catastrophic changes is another example of WGIII duplicating assessment activity that is properly the mandate of WGII. The para should be rewritten to identify the relevant findings of WGII. (Government of Australia) Replace or with of. U.S. Government (Government of U.S. Department of State) "increases in extreme events" content? (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) change of to that (Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) Add "Until the last few years, the threat of abrupt climate change has not been distinguished from the general issue of mitigation greenhouse levels. However it has recently been addressed in a two stage strategy that involves low cost precautionary measures that enable subsequent implementation of a high cost rapid response in the event that abrupt climate change is shown to be imminent (Read and Lermit, 2005)" (Peter Read, Massey University) Add "Until the last few years, the threat of abrupt climate change has not been distinguished from the general issue of mitigation greenhouse levels. However it has recently been addressed in a two stage strategy that involves low cost precautionary measures that enable subsequent implementation of a high cost rapid response in the event that abrupt climate change is shown to be imminent (Read and Lermit, 2005)" (Peter Read, Massey University) The statement that a catalogue of abrupt/catastrophic risks 'would add to the mitigation required' is loose. A scientific viewpoint around this point would best be developed in the AR4 Synthesis Report. The core thrust of the WGIII Chapters is upon the mitigation task needed to achieve indicative atmospheric concentration levels. In deciding upon what constitutes a 'safe' concentration level, Governments would presumably take into account levels that would lead to abrupt/catastrophic Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

ACC REJ already there

TIA checking with WAG2 and remove references.

ACC ACC add to glossary. ACC REJ space limitation

REJ space limitation

TIA checking with chapters 2 ande 3.

Page 29 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-120

26

38

risks - so in that sense there is no 'additional' mitigation task in reaching the selected concentration level. (Government of Australia) This section should be entirely deleted, or else it needs to be entirely rewritten. The first paragraph, with a lot of words, adds nothing of value except to state the obvious that, if we reduce emissions, there will be less climatic change! The second paragraph tries to justify the use of CBA in a precautionary, risk-averse framework. In reality, uncertainty and risk are already well incorporated in the pdfs for climate sensitivity and for the threshold in the change in global mean temperature deemed to cause impacts that are unacceptable, and in the maximum allowable probability for incurring impacts that had previously been deemed to be unacceptable (see comment to page 5, lines 12-15). That is, uncertainty is well represented in the framework set up by Harvey (2006a) and explained in my comments to page 4, lines 46-48. Article 2 is a fiduciary trust framework (certain assets are to be preserved for future generations, not based on supposed monetary costs or values, but because of their inherent value), not a CBA framework, so the reference to CBA analysis is without justification (Brown (1992) distinguishes these two frameworks). Also, what does CBA the supposed economic valuation of species and ecosystems lost due to climatic change have to do directly with uncertainty? If you want to say something about risk management, you should at least reference Harvey (1996a,b), who casts both the potential costs of both action and of nonaction in terms of risk. REFERENCES: Brown, P.G. 1992. Climate change and the planetary trust. Energy Policy 20, 208222. Harvey, L.D.D. 1996a. Development of a risk-hedging CO2 emission policy: Part I: Risks of unrestrained emissions, Climatic Change 34, 1-40. Harvey, L.D.D. 1996b. Development of a risk-hedging CO2 emission policy: Part II: Risks associated with measures to limit emissions, synthesis, and conclusions", Climatic Change 34, 41-71. (Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) Discussion on uncertainty is patheticly short here. Basing on the costs and benefits a precautionary approach seems an oxymoron: a precautionary approach is warranted as costs and benefits are not known with certainty, thus a full-fledged cost benefit analysis is not achievable. Of course, however, costs incurred must be Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

TIA will be rewritten

1-121

26

38

TIA will be more uncertain.

Page 30 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-122 1-123 1-124

A A A

8 8 8

28 36 38

0 0 0

0 0 0

1-125

40

11

1-126

42

12

1-127

44

1-128

44

44

proportionate to the risks incurred - that's slightly different. This discussion must be expanded by mentioning that an array of new literature has considered with policy instruments could better cope with the many uncertainties surrounding the climate change conversation. (chapter 13) (Cdric PHILIBERT, International Energy Agency) delete comma at the end of the line (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) "incorporate" instead of "incorporates" (Government of Pakistan) Suggest add to the end of this paragraph: "The combination of uncertainty, largemagnitude consequences and likely irreversibility argues for a particularly cautious approach." (Ralph Chapman, Victoria University of Wellington) What is described in this paragraph is correct. However, the global public good nature of the climate system also implies that especially industrialized countries are using the intrinsic capacity of the earth to absorbe CO2, and are not paying for it. This is also free riding and can not be separated from the (absence of) willingness of (developing) countries to contribute to mitigation. This should also be acknowledged in this paragraph. (Gert de Gans, Kerkinactie / ICCO) Public Good At any case climate is a impure public good due to co- benefits. I remember only one literature reference on Public Goods Theory in CH 1 when earlier comments. If authors insist on PGT, also in Ch 1, then I suggest to look at a sound theoretical perspective, compare: 3) Dubin J.A., Navarro P. ( 1988 ) . How Markets for Impure Public Goods Organize. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 4, 217- 242. 4) Kotchen Mathew J. (2005). Impure Publics Goods and the Comparative Statics of Environmental Friendly Comsumption. Journal of Environmental economics and Management, 49, 281-300. (Juan F Llanes-Regueiro, Havana University) after "problems" insert " - e.g. treating CO2 as a flow pollution problem rather than as an excess stock of a natural non-noxious component of the atmosphere - " (Peter Read, Massey University) after "problems" insert " - e.g. treating CO2 as a flow pollution problem rather than as an excess stock of a natural non-noxious component of the atmosphere - " (Peter Read, Massey University) Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

ACC ACC We are uncertain about this claim and to ACC would be irreversible at this point so we take precautionary approach and REJ not always true REJ too much detail

Will check.

REJ not true.

REJ not true

Page 31 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

1-129

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

47

1-42

47

47

1-43

47

1-44 1-45

B B

8 8

49 49

8 9

49 5

1-141

1-46

"Climate is overused.." This sentence doesn't make sense - substitute "atmosphere" for "climate" (David Jackson, McMaster University) The authors need to rephrase the phrase "Climate tends to be overused", as it makes little sense. (Government of Australia) This sentence is incorrect and does not make sense. The problem is not that the climate is overused there are many uses of the climate that will not have a detrimental impact but that the implications of changing the chemistry of the atmosphere and oceans through emissions of CO2 and other GHGs are insufficiently accounted for in economic behavior. Unlike say an open-access fishery, which is non-excludible but which can be depleted and therefore entails a measure of rivalry, the climate is a full public good both non-excludible and nonrival. The economic problem represented by climate change stems from the nature of GHG emissions as an externality in economic transactions; this should not be confused with the tragedy of the commons problem associated with open-access resources the use of which degrades the value of the resource. U.S. Government (Government of U.S. Department of State) Meaning of 'underprovided' is unclear. (Government of Australia) The sentence starting with The benefits of avoided climate change is overly simplistic and misleading. Because climate change is heterogeneous from location to location, the benefits of reducing it will vary from place to place. It will also, for any location, vary over time. In fact, unless climate change is excessive, there some will be winners while others will be losers. (See Goklany 2006a). In fact, according to the TAR, at low-to-moderate levels of climate change, global GDP may be boosted. This sentence needs to be substantially modified to address these issues. Reference: Goklany, IM. 2006a. Integrated Strategies to Reduce Vulnerability and Advance Adaptation, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development. Mitigation and Adaptation Response Strategies for Global Change, forthcoming. U.S. Government (Government of U.S. Department of State) In the NOTE 1 in the end of the page to include: ......insufficient incentives to cooperate or egoist national interests. (CRISTOBAL FELIX DIAZ MOREJON, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT) Rewrite to include a few words: irrespective OF whether one is contributing TO. Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

TIA use the expression climate system

TIA use the expression climate system

TIA use the expression climate system

ACC - rewrite. To protection is under provided TIA add expression In general;

REJ no added value and not IPCC language

ACC

Page 32 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-47

1-48 1-49 1-130

B B A

9 9 9

7 10 15

9 0 9

8 0 24

1-131

15

28

1-50

15

15

1-1

15

28

1-51

16

16

1-52

19

20

U.S. Government (Government of U.S. Department of State) Is the statement 'one is unable to enhance' too categorical? It will depend presumably on the nature of and what is meant by 'binding agreements'. It also assumes that enforcement is an 'all' or 'non' situation. (Government of Australia) Its not clear what point the first sentence is trying to make. U.S. Government (Government of U.S. Department of State) Rephrase, using the sentence on Chapter 1, p.7, line 6 in place. U.S. Government (Government of U.S. Department of State) The impact of climate change for some regions/nations may be a net improved climate. Therefore, in regions with cold climates global warming may be viewed by some sectors as a positive development. This perceived inequity in impacts may also effect the degree of urgency ascribed to mitigation measures. (David Jackson, McMaster University) The equity principle does not only apply to costs resulting from climate change. It should also be expressed in terms of using the intrinsic capacity of the earth to absorbe CO2, and sharing this volume among all world inhabitants on a per capita basis. (Gert de Gans, Kerkinactie / ICCO) The authors should explain upon what basis "equity is an important principle for the implementation of Article 2". (Government of Australia) Though this refers forward to Chapters 2 and 13, it should nevertheless here clarify the distinction between consequentialist, procedural, and rights-based ethical framings. It could usefully note that economic analysis pertains mainly to the first. (Government of UK) Is 'demands' too strong a term when discussing factors around the concept of 'equity'? (Government of Australia) In line 20, after depend add the following: among numerous other things. The net costs also depend on the rate of technological change and the discount rate employed. These may be more important than the timing of current mitigation efforts. U.S. Government (Government of U.S. Department of State) Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

ACC to rewrite therefore it is difficult to enforce binding commitments nOn line 5 add others may succeed TIA will be clarified by Philippe REJ unable to find NOTED

TIA not enough space to cover all perspectives on equity.

Bill will investigate and share the sentence.

Rejected Reference is madxe to Chapter 2 & spacew considerations

REJ ethical principles are strong statements.

TIA will rewrite to accommodate the point although in better English

Page 33 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

1-53 1-132

B A

9 9

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

21 29

9 0

21 0

1-133

29

29

1-134

32

32

1-135 1-54

A B

9 9

33 35

9 9

33 39

1-136

38

1-137

38

38

1-138 1-139 1-140

A A A

9 9 9

43 44 44

0 0 0

0 0 0

Should be a new sentence. (Government of Australia) maintaining that every molecule of greenhouse gases emitted in any time or geographical space is equal. The causal relationship and its accumulation in the atmosphere continues regardless the strict adherence of the principles set forth in article 3 of the Convention (UN 1992). (Valentin Bartra, Instituto Andino y Amaznico de Derecho Ambiental) maintaining that every molecule of greenhouse gases emitted in any time or geographical space is equal. The causal relationship and its accumulation in the atmosphere continues regardless the strict adherence of the principles set forth in article 3 of the Convention (UN 1992). (Valentin Bartra, Instituto Andino y Amaznico de Derecho Ambiental) Energy Emissions and R&D trends. Before reviewing the last three decades I recommend a small paragraph on was happened before, specially after SWW. (Juan F Llanes-Regueiro, Havana University) Please replace the title of 1.3.1 section with "Last Three Decades Review" (Government of China Meteorological Administration) The paragraph overly simplifies. CH4 and N2O are not primarily due to combustion of fossil fuels, and CH4 concentration is not increasing at the present time. It should be noted that the rate of increase in CH4 concentrations has apparently slowed substantially in recent decades. U.S. Government (Government of U.S. Department of State) The increases in CO2 and CH4 are in fact unprecedented in at least the last 650,000 years, this being the age at the bottom of the latest ice core from Antarctica. A reference should be provided to Fig 6.3, Chapter 6, WG1, AR4. (Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) I suggest to add: ......sources of these gases are mainly from the combustion..... (CRISTOBAL FELIX DIAZ MOREJON, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT) add: ".. global greenhouse gas emissions .." (Jos Olivier, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP)) correct to: "et al." (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) delete "and methane" (Marland only reports CO2 emissions) Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

ACC REJ cannot find

REJ cannot find

REJ space constraint

ACC Check with WG 1 (Bill)

Check sources (Bill)

REJ We have made this point already. See next sentence. ACC ACC ACC

Page 34 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-142

10

10

1-143 1-144

A A

10 10

4 10

0 10

0 19

(Jos Olivier, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP)) Please check the figure of 87% with the data from IEA. according to the IEA data, the growth rate of CO2 emissions was about 77% from 1971-2003. (Government of China Meteorological Administration) Replace 84% by 85% (to avoid a suggestion that the data is very precise). (Jos Olivier, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP)) This is confusingly written and the values used seem strange. These are addressed specifically below: (Archie McCulloch, Marbury Technical Consulting)

Rick will check.

ACC Accepted. All fluorinated gases include HFCs and the Montreal Protocol gases as well as PFCs and SF6, as in the figure 1-1. The Special Report does not consider PFCs and SF6 which are no replacements and this will be made clear when values are referenced. . (Lambert to provide alternative text) Accepted - Delete about and give a reference. (Lambert to provide reference) Rejected There is no mistake made here. The commenter is confused by the use of GtCeq, whereas the Special Report consistently used GtCO2eq. It is proposed to convert the GtCeq back to GtCO2eq (with a reference to Special Report) and it is also proposed to put in the Figure 1-1 GtCO2eq rather than Pg CO2eq, because this is not used in the text. Partially Accepted - Banks will be used, because the word stock has another meaning; The sentence should read Banks of all fluorinated gases considered in the Special Report are much larger .21.2 GtCO2eq, with HFCs at 1.1 Gt CO2eq. Accepted: as mentioned above, rewrite necessary as suggested above. (Lambert)

1-145

10

12

10

12

1-146

10

13

10

The value of "about 1.2%" is spuriously accurate and should be quoted as "about 1%". (Archie McCulloch, Marbury Technical Consulting) Estimated annual emissions of all fluorinated gases (0.68GtCeq) and that of HFCs (0.11GtCeq) seem to be too small, compared to the figures in IPCC/TEAP Special Report on "Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System: Issues Related to Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons", where the annual emissions of CFCs, HCFCs, HFCs and PFCs in 2002 are estimated to be about 2.5GtCeq per year, and the annual emission of HFCs in 2002 are estimated to be about 0.4GtCeq per year. The figures should be further addressed. (Government of Japan) The word Banks must be substituted for the word Stocks. These have specific meanings and the value quoted represents the bank in use. Furthermore, if it is to be quoted at all, the bank should be the 1.1 Gt CO2 eq of HFCs currently in systems. The materials last mentioned in the preceding sentence are HFCs and it is not clear that the current text refers to all fluorocarbons, not just HFCs. (Archie McCulloch, Marbury Technical Consulting) The SROC reports current emissions of CFCs, HCFCs, HFCs and PFCs as 2.53 Gt CO2 eq and, while this equates roughly to the 0.68 Gt Ceq quoted here (actually 0.69), there is no reason to change the units - these should be Gt CO2 eq throughout (see the y-axis scale on Figure 1.1). In addition, the switch from discussing HFCs in Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

1-147

10

14

10

15

1-148

10

14

10

14

Page 35 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-149

10

14

10

the first part of this paragraph, to discussing all fluorinated gases, needs either to be made much clearer or not discussed at all, particularly since Figure 1.1 does not include CFCs and HCFCs. (Archie McCulloch, Marbury Technical Consulting) Estimated stocks (5.7GtCeq) seem to be too small, compared to the figures in IPCC/TEAP Special Report on "Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System: Issues Related to Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons", where the banks of CFCs, HCFCs, HFCs and PFCs in 2002 are estimated to be about 21GtCeq per year. The figures should be further addressed. (Government of Japan)

1-150

10

15

10

19

1-151

10

19

10

These sentences are prolix and unclear. What seems to be intended is: In some applications, the use of fluorinated gases increases energy efficiency, thereby reducing CO2 emissions. Provided that they confer comparable energy efficiency, non fluorocarbon replacements, which often have negligible GWPs, may have a lower climate impact. (Archie McCulloch, Marbury Technical Consulting) In terms of the overall trend of global greenhouse gas emissions, greenhouse gases which are not covered by the Kyoto Protocol, including CFCs, HCFCs and halons which are covered by the Montreal Protocol and have considerable contribution to global emissions should be addressed and added to Figure 1.1. This would aid in understanding the objective trend. (Government of Japan)

Rejected - There is no mistake made here. The commenter is confused by the use of GtCeq, whereas the Special Report consistently used GtCO2eq. It is proposed to convert the GtCeq back to GtCO2eq (with a reference to Special Report) and it is also proposed to put in the Figure 1-1 GtCO2eq rather than Pg CO2eq, because this is not used in the text. (Lambert) Accepted It should at least be mentioned n some cases , the use of HFCs (replacing ODS) increases.. Use of other replacement gases with often.. Partially Accepted This can be resolved by either removing the last part (HFCs etc. from the graph) or by making it more clear in the text. The suggestion by the commenter is difficult to realise because there is no good reference for the emissions data 1970-2004 .(check for consistency with response in SPM) Accepted

1-152

10

20

10

24

1-153

10

20

10

24

1-154

10

21

10

22

To place more clear as a Note, indicating that belong to Figure 1.1 in small letther that text (CRISTOBAL FELIX DIAZ MOREJON, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT) Notes appearing with Figure 1.1 should be in the same format as with other Figures appearing in the text. (Government of Pakistan) The definitions of 2) and 3) should be interchanged (Government of France) Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Accepted

ACC

Page 36 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

1-155

10

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

27

1-156

10

29

10

30

1-55

10

30

10

30

1-157

11

11

1-158 1-159 1-160

A A A

11 11 11

2 4 6

0 11 11

0 4 11

1-161

11

11

1-162

11

11

1-56

11

11

11

The information contained in Figure 1.1 may be supplemented with a table showing the yearly values for all the emissions. (Government of Pakistan) Households emissions are not stable; see what is said in chapter 6; take care not sending a missleading message to policy makers. (Jacques Rilling, CSTB Building Research Center) It would be useful to make clear here that emissions from industry, households and services relates to direct emissions. A different picture emerges if analysed in terms of indirect emissions accounting for consumption of electricity by those sectors. (Government of Australia) Figure 1.2 - To place in the point 1), 2), a title as NOTES (CRISTOBAL FELIX DIAZ MOREJON, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT) line 2 has to be placed above the inserted figure (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) The caption of Figure 1.2 should appear before the part of the text in line above it. (Government of Pakistan) We know from the Special Report on Aviation and the Global Atmosphere that contrails have a higher warming effect (in the RFI metrics) than the CO2 from aircraft. Therefore the contrails should be mentioned in a subchapter that reports on the greenhouse gas emissions although we have methodological problems to 'translate' the contrail effect to the GWP metric. Suggestion: insert in line 7: " ... 14% from transport (but without including the warming effects of contrails and cirrus clouds from aviation), and 12% ..." (Manfred Treber, Germanwatch) Needs be more explicit on "energy supply": energy-related emissions account for 85 of CO2 emissions and probably more than 60% of overall emissions of GHG. What's meant here is probably the energy sector that includes heat and power and refineries. Please follwo figure 1.2 more closely in this text. (Cdric PHILIBERT, International Energy Agency) The rationale for adding energy supply and energy demand as a basis for percentages estimates is unclear. Explicit the content of the energy supply sector, transport, buildings,... (Government of France) The authors should include the error ranges for the sectoral breakdown of GHG Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

REJ space constraint

Partially accepted sentence noting annual variability ACC will be accommodated with a sentence

\REJ these help explain the graph

ACC ACC Partially ACC will add \sentence about indirect gases not covered (Bill)

TIA drafting will be more careful.

Replace energy supply with energy industry

REJ Not available.

Page 37 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-163

11

1-164 1-165

A A

11 12

13 1

11 0

13 0

1-166

12

1-167

12

12

12

1-168

12

12

10

1-169 1-170 1-171 1-172

A A A A

12 12 12 12

1 1 3 3

12 0 0 12

12 0 0 3

emissions in 2004, as the presentation implies a certainty about emission sources that does not currently exist. (Government of Australia) it is said that 12% of the emissions come from buildings, when it is said in chapter 6 and others that bldgs emissions account for 33%; we need to make this self consistent. (Jacques Rilling, CSTB Building Research Center) Since 1970, EMISSIONS (Joe Asamoah, International Energy Foundation) Fig. 1.3 same remark as for page 11, line 6-11: Please add to footnote 2) "Including international transport (bunkers), excluding fisheries, but neglecting the warming effects of aviation contrails and cirrus clouds" (Manfred Treber, Germanwatch) Fig 1.3.: I have the impression that the more common and popular unit for emissions from energy use is CO2 (and not C). Is it possible to choose 'Pg CO2 eq' as the unit of the y axis and multiply the numbers by 44/12? (Manfred Treber, Germanwatch) This figure needs to be modified to include F-gas emissions from the transport and building sectors. Chapter 5, Pg. 11, lines 4-6, indicates that F-gases account for between 1.4 and 8.9% of total GHG emission from the transport sector. Chapter 6, Pg. 4, lines 8-9, indicates that halocarbons emissions from the building sector are estimated at 1.5 GtCO2-eq. These are non-trivial amounts. Also, since Figure 1.2 is given in Pg CO2-eq, it would help comparison to convert this figure to the same basis. (Lenny Bernstein, L. S. Bernstein & Associates, L.L.C.) It is repeated in relation with Notes that are written in black letters after the Figure (CRISTOBAL FELIX DIAZ MOREJON, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT) Note text appears twice, within and bellow the figure (Government of Spain) The information contained in Fig 1.3 may be supported with table. (Government of Pakistan) delete "N2O" double (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) To change the word graphics by figures, because figure is only one Figure 1.3 Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

REJ we are covering direct emissions.

ACC REJ not including indirect effects, but will clarify this in text or caption.

ACC

Needs to be checked

Accepted -Done Accepted - Done Rejected Space limitation Accepted - Done

Page 38 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-173 1-174 1-175

A A A

12 12 12

4 4 5

0 0 12

0 0 9

1-176

12

12

1-177

12

12

1-178 1-179

A A

12 12

14 14

0 0

0 0

1-180

12

15

12

17

1-57

12

16

12

16

1-181 1-58

A B

13 13

0 0

13 0

0 0

(CRISTOBAL FELIX DIAZ MOREJON, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT) "agriculture" and "forestry" not with capital letters (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) "about 100%" ? (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) The Notes provided below in lines 5-9 are repetition of notes appearing earlier under the figure. (Government of Pakistan) Figure 1.3 {same as Figure TS.2} The bars in this figure should be consistent with the sectoral chapters 4-10 and contain numbers consistent with the sectoral chapters. For example, waste is entirely missing from this figure (except as added to Note 3.) Also, Note 3 is shown with bar for "buildings" but pertains to agriculture and forestry...Misplaced?/Needs clarification. (Jean Bogner, Landfills +, Inc) Fig 1.3 Emissions of Fgases from buildings are not mentionedwhile they are said being 60% of total in TS page 53.Needs to be modified. (Jacques Rilling, CSTB Building Research Center) Pls. explain what group "Annex I parties" comprises. (Jos Olivier, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP)) Also more stringent energy standards for buldings and appliances may be required to guarantee that energy efficiency in this sector will be implemented instead of being more or less ignored by builders and users. (Jos Olivier, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP)) I would add a remark that an importance difference between Annex I emissions and other regions is that not only CO2 from deforestation is more important, but also that CH4 and N2O are relatively more important than in Annex I. The EDGAR 3.2 FT2000 data provides the support for this statement. (Jos Olivier, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP)) Phrase 'the UNFCCC system' is loose. Table 1.1 only describes Annex 1 countries emissions pattern. (Government of Australia) Please check the source under the table1.1. (Government of China Meteorological Administration) Table 1.1 only presents a limited picture of emissions sources as it is based only on Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Accepted - Done Accepted - Done To be checked

Accepted - Done Consistent with Chapters 4-10 except for waste & landfill. Will be checked if further split is possible Strange allocation of emissions from fuel combustion in agriculture & forestry NEEDS TO BE CHECKED See 1-167 Needs to be checked

ACC put in glossary

Noted (could not find where this comments relates to on line 14) Belongs in buildings chapter ACC delete Table 1.1 and associated text

See 1-180

See 1-180 See 1-180

Page 39 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-182

13

13

1-183

13

1-184 1-203

A A

13 14

11 0

0 14

0 0

1-185

14

14

1-186

14

14

1-59

14

14

10

1-60

14

14

Annex 1 averages. The authors should also pair this Table with a similar table on global average sectoral emissions. (Government of Australia) Table 1.1. a) Confusing to have catagory for "fossil fuel combustion" since this would also be the major emissions source in the underlying "transport" and "buildings" catagories. Need to be specific about what is included in this category. b) How were the years "averaged" for this table? Please explain briefly or add notes to table... (,) Table: pls. be more specific: is "fossil fuel combustion" only stationary? does "transport"include international transport? why are not the same categories used as in fig. 1.3? (Jos Olivier, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP)) Footnote: the authors' names are written "Liechtenstein" and "Luxemburg" (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) Fig 1.4 - to change Distribution of regional per capita CO2 emissions....by Distribution of regional GHG emissions, tCO2eq. per capita over different.... (CRISTOBAL FELIX DIAZ MOREJON, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT) It might be useful to add information how the share between Annex I and nonAnnex I countries has changed between 1973 and 2005, especially since this whole section focuses on trend information. A static snapshot about the present is much less informative. The information could be readily derived from the underlying data sources. (Andy Reisinger, TSU IPCC Synthesis Report) Its difficult to understand that Middle East and not Europe or some other region have driven the rise in emissions since 1972. Would you please explain or provide some data? (Juan F Llanes-Regueiro, Havana University) The discussion of regional per capita CO2 emissions needs to include a discussion on the importance of national circumstances on per capita emission rates. (Government of Australia) There are some inconsistencies in dates and time periods in the SOD. Recommend focusing on 1970 as a baseline year as much as possible to ensure comparability. IPCC should provide a justification (such as availability of data) for using other baseline years (1972, 1973,). This comment applies to SPM, TS, Chapter 1, and Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

See 1-180

See 1-180

See 1-180 Rejected For consistency Units are not in caption text

Will consider if space considers. (Holger)

To be checked Rejected space limitation Rejected space limitations

Accepted Justification: Data availability, decadal presentation determined by latest available data, etc. Will do our best to make

Page 40 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-187 1-188 1-189

A A A

14 14 14

2 5 5

14 14 14

4 5 6

1-61

14

14

1-190

14

1-62

14

14

1-191 1-192 1-193 1-63

A A A B

14 14 14 14

9 12 12 15

0 0 14 14

0 0 13 25

Chapter 7. U.S. Government (Government of U.S. Department of State) Why referring to 1972m not to 1970 as is done in previous sections. (Jos Olivier, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP)) why but. (Juan F Llanes-Regueiro, Havana University) I suggest to change.....the 80% of people living... for ..... the 80% of World population living....... (CRISTOBAL FELIX DIAZ MOREJON, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT) Figure 1.4: the country groupings used in this figure should be explained (for example why were Australia and New Zealand paired with Japan). In addition a list of the countries included in each group (such as "Centrally Planned Asia") should be included. (Government of Australia) Figure 1.4. The meaning of "JANZ" and "IT Annex" is not clear in this figure. The acronyms are not reader-friendly and there are no references to this terminology elsewhere in the SPM. Additionally, the difference between "Centrally Planned Asia" and "Other Asia" is not explained. Including separate designations for major emissions emitting countries, particularly for Japan, is suggested. (Government of Japan) P14, lines 1 - 6 appropriately discuss aggregate regional emissions patterns but no explanation is provided as to why Fig 1.4 is inserted utilising a regional per capita emissions metric. And if it is relevant, why are not other regional metrics discussed, for example an economic intensity indicator (eg emissions/unit GDP), or emissions by land area (emissions/Mha)? (Government of Australia) Pls. replace by:".. EDGAR 3.2 database" (Jos Olivier, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP)) which should be that (Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) Please replace "GHG" with "carbon dixide". (Government of China Meteorological Administration) It is probably too simplistic to categorically and singularly use these developing Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

base years consistent Accepted lets try to use 1970 20% of population are responsible for 46% of emissions, small pop but large emissions Accepted - Done

Accepted See SPM

Se 1-61

ACC other metrics will be added to chapter

Accepted - Done Accepted - Done Rejected text is correct

Page 41 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-194

14

16

14

30

1-195 1-196 1-64

A A B

14 14 14

16 17 17

14 0 14

16 0 19

1-197

14

26

1-65

14

26

14

26

1-198

14

27

1-199

14

27

country initiatives as GHG mitigation activities: the reasons for a country taking any one of these measures are severalfold (and possibly not with an original, primary intention of climate change benefit). The paragraph would be more accurate if it made this point in the context of how economic and sustainability measures can combine and deliver a climate benefit. As an example box 12.1 (chapter 12, pages 13 and 14) makes the point that the policy of promoting fuel efficiency in the case of Brazil was not motivated by a desire to curb climate change, while Chapter 13 (page 5 lines 38-42) notes that most significant emissions reductions in both developed and developing countries occurs not because of climate drivers but because of actions to address energy security and other needs. The authors need to ensure that this is reflected in this discussion. (Government of Australia) Please exchange the paragraph from line 16 to 25 with the paragraph form line 27 to 30 (Government of China Meteorological Administration) Chandler et al is missing in reference list (Government of Finland) correct to: "et al." (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) It would be helpful to make clear whether emissions saving quoted for Brazilian case study is based only on analysis of direct emissions (from cars and industry/electricity); or whether it encompasses the net atmospheric benefit from a life cycle perspective (eg emissions from production and use of fertiliser to grow sugar cane). (Government of Australia) Reference appears to be missing here. (Kelly Sims Gallagher, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University) The authors need to include a reference before "(2006)", for the sentence to make sense. (Government of Australia) I do not understand the meaning of '... EU-25 countries, (2006) provides a rough estimate ...' (Manfred Treber, Germanwatch) there seems to be a source citation missing before (2006) Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Accepted - to be redrafted to note that: Both developing and developed countries have taken actions that reduce emissions although the motivation was not only climate This can be significant even though not taken as part of a binding commitment But, this will not be enough to stabilize the GHGs. ACC Accepted Done Accepted - Done

Needs checking with reference by our chair

Rejected Reference at the beginning of paragraph (Chandler at al., 2002)

Accepted - Done

Accepted - Done Accepted - Done

Page 42 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-200 1-201 1-202 1-66

A A A B

14 14 14 14

27 27 27 27

0 14 14 14

0 27 27 30

1-67

14

27

1-204

15

15

1-205 1-206 1-207

A A A

15 15 15

2 4 5

15 15 15

2 4 7

1-208

15

15

1-209

15

(Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) Incomplete citation (Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) Reference to (2006) should be clarified. (Government of Finland) The reference is missing before "2006". (Government of Pakistan) Although the qualifier 'rough estimate' is present, it is very doubtful that the EU example is illustrative of global possibilities due to climate change policies. The EU actions were not linked in 1990 to climate change policy, but were result of political/economic events of German reunification and UK switch to gas. Suggest deleting/reconstructing case example. (Government of Australia) Not sure what is meant by (2006) in the following: For the EU-25 countries, (2006) provides a rough estimate of . . . Do they mean 2006 ghg emissions? U.S. Government (Government of U.S. Department of State) Figure 1.5 :The dashed blue coding is the same for two curves and does not allow to determine which is which. (Government of France) Please integrate this section with the section 1.3.1.3. (Government of China Meteorological Administration) Please replace the "EJ" with "Mtoe". (Government of China Meteorological Administration) In this part, there is a description, " Fossil fuels accounted for 80%". However, how about other items ? It would be helpful to understand situation wholistically, if other items are inserted. i.e. (1) Nuclear energy, (2) Renewable Energy, a) Hydropower, b) Biomass, c) Window power, c) Soler power, e) Geothermal, f) Wave, g)Others such as fuel-battery. Ther is no obstacle to show these data in this paragraph. (Susumu Nakamaru, Sun Management Instutute) Before "2.1%/yr" the word "annual" is already mentioned. Necessary correction may be made. (Government of Pakistan) Fossil fuels now account for a higher % of total energy use than in 2000. Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Accepted - Done Accepted - Done Accepted - Done References for EU reductions will be supplied by Bill.

Accepted Done reference EEA was missing

Accepted will be changed Rejected - Will be rewritten accounting for the effects of high prices. TSU to determine

Rejected the main trends are only shown here for reasons of space limitations Fossil fuel use matters for climate change; Details can be found in Chapter 4 Accepted - Done Rejected data shown here are for 2003

Page 43 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

(Michael Jefferson, World Renewable Energy Network & Congresses) 1-210 A 15 8 15 8 I suggest to add: ......in the primary energy mix almost has not changed... because had their changes. (CRISTOBAL FELIX DIAZ MOREJON, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT) Please change the title of the section 1.3.1.2 "Energy Intensities" with "Carbon Dixide Emission". (Government of China Meteorological Administration) The Kaya identity is simply the product of the four factors list here - why not just say that? (David Jackson, McMaster University) Focus only on technology. There are at least 4 other issues where research is needed: 1) ancillary and co benefits from mitigation, specially in developing countries, 2) an approach to understand and measures of sustainability, specially related to CC, 3) actual factors influencing population growth and transition and 4) the theory and practice of international agreements and cooperation. (Juan F Llanes-Regueiro, Havana University) The Kaya-identity of four factors is one form of decomposition analysis. It would provide more information if the division into five factors were used: CO2/TPES, TPES/FEC, FEC/GDP, GDP/POP, POP (see Luukkanen, J., Vehmas, J., Kinnunen, V., Kuntsi-Reunanen, E. & Kaivo-oja, J. (2005) Converging CO2 Emission to Equal per Capita Levels. Mission Possible? FFRC-Publications 2/2005. Finland Futures Research Centre, Turku School of Economics and Business Administration. Turku. 139 p.) (Government of Finland) The authors should provide a description of why the Kaya identity is a useful tool in terms of energy intensities. (Government of Australia) text of figure 1.5: in the beginning of the text has to be added "Relative change of Kaya factors since 1973:" (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) In Fig1.5, y-axis legend change "Index 1973 = 100" for "Index 1973 = 1.0" (Government of Spain) Figure 1.5. The graphic representation for Energy/GDP and GDP/POP are indistinguishable. The use of more distinctive colours is necessary for Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

possibly updated to 2004 (Rick)

Rejected shares of renewables have not changed (to be checked) (Rick)

1-211

15

11

15

11

1-212

15

13

15

16

Partially accepted Changed to just Intensities TIA Otmar will redraft

1-213

15

13

15

13

Rejected this does not belong to the discussion of the Kaya identity

1-214

15

13

15

18

Reject too complicated for climate people

1-68

15

13

15

13

Rejected text shows how various important intensities explain CO2 emissions

1-215

15

21

Rejected GDP is not a Kaya factor Accepted Will be changed Accepted Will be changed

1-216 1-217

A A

15 15

21 21

0 0

0 0

Page 44 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-218 1-219

A A

15 16

25 4

0 0

0 0

1-220

16

1-221

16

1-222

16

16

10

1-223 1-224

A A

16 16

7 7

0 0

0 0

1-225

16

1-226

16

16

differentiation of data sets. (Government of Japan) correct to: "et al." in the last line of the text of figure 1.5 (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) This paragraph is confusing because the causes of changes in energy intensity and carbon intensity are not explained. The sentence that "The structural changes of the global energy system were mainly due to reduced energy intensity" is illogical. I think what is meant here is that reduced energy intensity was caused by structural changes to the global economy, including a shift towards lighter industry in many industrialized and some developing countries. (Kelly Sims Gallagher, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University) Cause and effect have been reversed here. Also, it is structural changes in the world economy (not in the energy system) that have caused a decrease in energy intensity. (Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) It seems to me important to know how the carbon intensity reduced like this between 1973 and 1983. There must be data for this. The root of this should be reported in the text, so that lessons can be learned on how to repeat it. (Stanley Gordelier, Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD) Figure 1.6 needs to be better explained in the text. Upon some study, it appears that the size of the block is the indicator of the relative weight of the influence of that indicator, but this should be explained in the text. (Kelly Sims Gallagher, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University) it should be "oil price shocks" (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) Carbon intensity has been increasing since 2000 - so it approached zero between 1993 and 2000 only (not in the decade 1993-2003). (Michael Jefferson, World Renewable Energy Network & Congresses) Please make the same order of the main drivers corresponding to their importance as already written in lines 2 and 3: ' ... could not offset income effects and population growth, and ...' (Manfred Treber, Germanwatch) Figure 1.6 (same as Figure TS.4). This figure requires further explanation or simplication or deletion. The y-axis label does not apply to all bars (e.g., population; ratios of indicators). Not clear what the "X" for change is referring to... Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Accepted - Done

Accepted - Done

Accepted Will be changed

Rejected Space limitations and subject matter of Chapter 4

Accepted will be done (Ottmar) Text will be better explained but no change in the graph.

Accepted - Done

Noted / Rejected Figure shown decades

Accepted - Done

Accepted will be explained (Ottmar) See SPM for consistency.

Page 45 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-227

16

16

1-228 1-229 1-230 1-231 1-232

A A A A A

16 16 16 16 16

11 11 11 11 13

0 0 0 0 16

0 0 0 0 0

1-233

17

17

1-69

17

17

1-234

17

(,) Figure 1.6: Is the unit of Y-axis correct? Should you change "GtCO2" to "% per year"? (also the same comment to Figure TS 4 and Figure 1.6) (Keigo Akimoto, Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth (RITE)) year 2005 in text of figure 1.6 correct? (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) text of figure 1.6: what with Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Balkan countries? (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) text of figure 1.6: add "Sub-Saharan", "Sub-Saharan Africa" (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) text of figure 1.6: add ";net change" after "transition countries" (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) Figure 1.7: The decompositon can be done only by growth rate, i.e. % per year. If the decomposition is shown by the absolute CO2 emissions, you must assume some conditions (e.g., the static CO2 emission per capita using the value in 1971 for the contribution by population growth). Depending on the assumptions, the contribution by each decomposed factor is different. You should describe the assumption briefly, or change the absorute emissions to the emission growth rate due to large differences of the contributions in the absorute emissions by the assumptions. (Keigo Akimoto, Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth (RITE)) It should be specified that you are talking about the period 1971-2001. However, I dont think that the failure to reduce emissions over this time period is relevant, as no-one was trying or was required to reduce emissions over this time period. What does matter is whether nations are on track to be successful in reducing emissions as required by the Kyoto Protocol. (Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) Drafting in this para (eg 'the club') is not appropriate to an IPCC report. Suggest redrafting along lines: "the main emitting countrieshave experienced growth in emissions over the past 30 years". (Government of Australia) "club of the main emitters" should be just "main emitters" There is no "club" (David Jackson, McMaster University) Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

ACC - Y-Axis is corrected labelled

Yes year related to the data source Good question - Ottmar? Accepted - Done Reviewer means Fig 1.7 Ottmar is this correct?

Ottmar how should we respond

Noted - Period is correct except where indicated no blame of failure just a statement of facts On track is dealt with elsewhere in the Chapter

Accepted - Done

Accepted - Done

Page 46 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

1-235

17

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

17

1-70

17

17

1-236 1-237

A A

17 17

3 5

17 17

3 10

1-238 1-239

A A

17 17

5 5

0 0

0 0

I suggest to add: India after China, and place Japan before Brazil. (CRISTOBAL FELIX DIAZ MOREJON, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT) Authors need to explain what they mean by "at a regional scale" as they then go on to list regions (North America and Western Europe) and countries (China, Brazil and Japan). (Government of Australia) Please add "carbon dioxide" before "emission". (Government of China Meteorological Administration) No references are provided here for the assertions about the causes of the declines in energy and/or carbon intensity. The sentence that "together with Western Europe, US/Canada and Japan were the only countries that reduced carbon intensity substantially" needs to be clarified. The meaning here is that all of these industrialized countries reduced carbon intensity, but that is not a clear distinction. If these are the "only" economies, which ones are being left out? (Kelly Sims Gallagher, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University) add "strong", "strong reduction" (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) Given the wide disparity in Western Europe between countries, what value is there in lumping them together (eg Spain +67% CO2 since 1990; Germany -15%)? (Michael Jefferson, World Renewable Energy Network & Congresses) This paragraph uses terms that are not defined either in the chapter of the glossary ('decarbonisation'; 'carbon intensity'). Nor is there any table/figure/references to support various findings referring to top ratings of Western Europe, US/Canada, Japan. In line 11, the phrase 'only economies' suggests finding is based upon an analysis of every country in the world, when in fact Figure 1.7 seems to indicate only some countries were included in the analysis. (For example, CO2 intensity in Australia has declined but this is not presented in the same analysis). Para needs to be explicit on whether the commentary refers only to energy sector or to all sources of emissions. (Government of Australia) The reduction of carbon intensity . . . It should be made clear that this is the question of carbon intensity of primary energy use (CO2/TPES) not carbon intensity of economy (CO2/GDP) Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Accepted - Done

Accepted Test changed (DONE)

Accepted - Done

Ottmar how best do we respond. Refernece may be too narrow. Seems to apply to China as well and maybe others. FIX IT! Probably this applies to AI countries.

Ottmar can we say strong

Noted space limitations demand that we restrict the discussion to major emitting countries or regions Check glossary and add if not included Ottmar we got to rephrase this (see comment 1-237 above)

1-71

17

17

14

1-240

17

17

Accepted - Done

Page 47 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-241 1-72

A B

17 17

11 12

0 17

0 12

1-242

17

16

17

25

1-73

17

16

17

16

1-74

17

17

17

17

1-243

17

18

17

20

(Government of Finland) write preferably "USA" (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) The authors should define what "substantially" means in relation to reduced carbonintensities. (Government of Australia) There is considerable debate about the causes of the improvements in energy intensity in China, so it is not appropriate to state that the improvements are only due to closure of small factories (many of which reportedly have reopened anyway) and FDI which apparently brought more efficient technologies (a point which is refuted in my recent book about the auto industry in China entitled "China Shifts Gears: Automakers, Oil, Pollution and Development" (MIT Press 2006). There is considerable evidence that the improvements in energy intensity have been brought about by specific efficiency policies and standards. It is simply incorrect that carbon intensity has risen in China during the past two decades. From 1980-2002, carbon intensity declined dramatically in China largely due to improvements in energy efficiency. There has, however, been a recent worsening of carbon and energy intensity (more intensive) in the past few years, which most analysts have been attributing to weak enforcement of efficiency standards. Correct data are presented on page 16 of Chapter 4. Still, the larger point is correct that carbon intensity in China (and Russia for that matter) is still higher than in most industrialized countries and there is a long way to go. The situation in India is quite different from that of China, so I would not group them together here. India has not had the dramatic improvements in energy or carbon intensity that China has had, largely because India started from a more efficient and lower-carbon base. I'm less familiar with the trends in India but these should be double checked. (Kelly Sims Gallagher, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University) Use of 'massiveuse' is imprecise. What matters for a carbon intensity index is the increase in usage share of high carbon fuels. (Government of Australia) The authors should confirm that they mean "carbon intensities" and not "carbon emissions". (Government of Australia) The decline in energy intensity (TPES/GDP) in China is also to a large extent due to the structural change of economy - shift towards less energy intensive sectors Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Accepted - Done ACC be consistent with SPM and Ottmar.

Accepted text will be revised to reflect review comment (Ottmar)

TIA redraft (Holgar)

Reflected in text = carbon intensities Done

Page 48 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-244 1-245 1-246 1-247

A A A A

17 17 17 17

27 28 28 29

17 0 17 17

27 0 28 31

1-248 1-75

A B

17 17

30 30

0 17

0 30

(see Luukkanen, J., Vehmas, J., Kinnunen, V., Kuntsi-Reunanen, E. & Kaivo-oja, J. (2005) Converging CO2 Emission to Equal per Capita Levels. Mission Possible? FFRC-Publications 2/2005. Finland Futures Research Centre, Turku School of Economics and Business Administration. Turku. 139 p.) (Government of Finland) Please replace "GHG" with "carbon dioxide". (Government of China Meteorological Administration) substitute "decline" for "collapse" (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) As a RESULT, TOTAL (Joe Asamoah, International Energy Foundation) Significant reduction in carbon intensity in former socialist countries started after they overcome economic crisis when recovery growth began. (Alexander Golub, Environmental Defense) delete of (Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) 'Despite .decline' is meaningless. Delete this phrase. (Government of Australia) First sentence 'formidable' presents a tone of defeatism on Article 2 of UNFCCC that is not found in the draft SPM. In addition, the 'therefore' drafting construct links back to preceding paras of Section 1.3.1.2. which address past 30 year patterns (i.e. going back even well before UNFCCC existed) - rest of WGIII report deals with possibilities of climate change responses of the future which are not simply a mirror of the past. (Government of Australia) Should read within a time frame SUCH that ecosystems can adapt naturally, THAT food production is not threatened, and that enables .. However, you should go further and say: Article 2 requires the prevention of dangerous interference in the climate system by limiting GHG concentrations, and achieving these limits within a timeframe such that ecosystems can adapt naturally, that food production is not threatened, and that enables . (Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) Limiting human population should not be dismissed as a means of limiting GHG concentrations, and neither should limiting economic growth once some minimal standard (already reached in developed countries) has been achieved. It is NOT an Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Accepted see 1-242 (Ottmar)

Rejected GHG emissions is correct Accepted changed to downfall Accepted - Done Rejected started with collapse of economies then continued with recovery and new capital stock (Ottmar check please) Accepted - Done Rejected not meaningless But deletion may be considered due to space limitation

1-76

17

33

17

33

Noted it is a formidable task for the future based on past experience Any suggestions for rewording (TEAM)

1-249

17

37

Partially rejected the article 2 principles were dealt with earlier in the Chapter. Suggested text to wordy given space limitations

1-250

17

38

17

39

Page 49 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-77

17

39

17

41

1-251

17

45

1-252

17

45

18

19

issue of controlling population, but rather, one of creating the conditions such that couples desire smaller families, and then giving them the means to control for themselves the number and spacing of their children. There is at present a larger unmet demand for contraceptive services, and this demand will grow if the conditions leading to the desire for smaller families are created. Thus, it is really about a matter of increasing personal choice, not one of government control. Secondly, you (and policy makers and politicians) should face up to the fact that we may very well need to accept smaller economic growth in exchange for avoiding (for example), global ecological catastrophe (which is where we are currently heading, as is clear from WG2). So say what needs to be said. The simple fact is, all four factors in the Kaya identity are important and will probably need to be considered if we are to minimize noncompliance with Article 2. (Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) The following sentence and its explanation should be considered for inclusion in the executive summary: Therefore, the remaining two, technology-oriented factors energy and carbon intensities have to bear the main burden. U.S. Government (Government of U.S. Department of State) This could be a little misleading in terms of the impact of uranium price fluctuations. Firstly, the price of uranium has been at a historic low until the recent rises and more importantly, the cost of uranium is only a few percent (<5%) of the cost of nuclear electricity (note the distinction here between the cost of uranium and the cost of nuclear fuel, which can include ore conversion, enrichment, fuel fabrication, spent fuel treatment and disposal etc; in total these come to more like 15%). Hence the cost of nuclear generated electricity is largely insulated from the cost of the uranium, whereas the cost of gas fired electricity generation is dominated by the cost of gas (about 75%). This is recognized elsewhere in the document, chapter 4, p14, line 20, Conversely, surplus uranium supplies may possibly lower fuel prices, but this represents a relatively low fraction of generation costs compared to fossil fuel power stations. (Stanley Gordelier, Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD) A more general comment, linked to comment above, is the need for consistency through other chapters in WGIII with how both how high [current] oil price, and 'energy security', are dealt with. The areas for consistency should include: definition of the term energy security; common approach to the matter of [current] high oil prices - including reference to the impact of high oil prices on developing Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Rejected as too prescriptive

Noted

Noted correct, but comments does not relate to the text here on resource price increases and the impact on supply security

Accepted add definition of security in glossary

Page 50 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

countries (see references below)- and the description of the linkage of the response to high oil prices and response to climate change. On the latter point, for example in Chapter 1, line 9, the linkage is described as 'non-negligible', whereas in Chapter 3, page 97, line 49, it states 'National policies driven by energy security concerns can, however, have strong alignment with climate goals." For policy makers, it is more relevant to emphasise the strong potential for alignment (renewable/alternative energy, reduced energy intensity, energy efficiency); which is backed up by the previous Ch1 comment noting IMF commentary. On the matter of analytic work around the impacts of high oil prices on developing countries, the IEA, May 2004 'Analysis of the Impact of High Oil Prices on the Global Economy'; and ESMAP (World Bank) "The Impact of Higher Oil Prices on Low Income Countries and on the Poor.", March 2005, ESM299, are useful references. The IEA report states: The adverse economic impact of higher oil prices on oil-importing developing countries is generally even more severe than for OECD countries. This is because their economies are more dependent on imported oil and more energyintensive, and because energy is used less efficiently. On average, oil-importing developing countries use more than twice as much oil to produce a unit of economic output as do OECD countries. Developing countries are also less able to weather the financial turmoil wrought by higher oil-import costs. (p2, Summary). The ESMAP study includes an analysis of 131 countries' vulnerability to oil shocks, looking at oil self-sufficiency (using a ratio of consumption less production to consumption); and find that "Of the group of 47 countries whose per capita income is less than US$2 a day, 9 were self sufficient.and 25 were entirely import dependent." (ESMAP, p 19-20). (Kirsty Hamilton, Chatham House; UK Business Council for Sustainable Energy) Please integrate this section into the section 1.3.1.1. (Government of China Meteorological Administration) You should discuss also the energy security in developing countries, especially in rural areas where majority of population still relies on traditional fuels. E.g. references to IEA Energy Outlook could be added. (Government of Finland) This paragraph is not so much about "energy security" than about "influence of current high oil prices on CO2 emissions" - and that how it should be titled, characterised and slightly expanded to (Cdric PHILIBERT, International Energy Agency) Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Rejected - No contradiction between Chapters 1 and 3. No further text revisions

1-253 1-254

A A

17 17

45 45

17 18

45 19

Rejected see comment 1-205 Partially accepted via definition of energy security and revised text (see 1-255) Holger

1-255

17

47

18

Accepted will be revised (Holger)

Page 51 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

1-256

18

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

18

1-257

18

18

1-78

18

18

1-258

18

1-259

18

18

19

1-79

18

11

18

11

footnote 4: the REN21 (Renewable Energy Policy Network) should also be mentioned here. (Kirsty Hamilton, Chatham House; UK Business Council for Sustainable Energy) I suggest to add: ......biofuel for transport sector. (CRISTOBAL FELIX DIAZ MOREJON, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT) Final sentence comes at the end of a paragraph on energy security. Is it really the case that in regions quoted in final sentence, intensified coal use has been driven by energy security factor in all/any of case examples? (Government of Australia) Substitute "US" for "North America" There hasn't been significantly more coal use in Canada. (David Jackson, McMaster University) Add a sentence recognising that the IMF, since 2004, has advocated the implementation of alternative energy and energy efficiency as a response to high oil prices, as well as enhanced oil production. The reference for this is the Communiqu of the International Monetary and Financial Committee of the Board of Governors of the International Monetary Fund, in its October 2004 Communique, and for example Press Release No. 05/87 April 16, 2005: 4. The Committee notes that conditions in the oil market will remain tight in the medium term, reflecting strong global demand, low excess capacity, and supply concerns even after investments in some countries. It underscores the importance of stability in oil markets for global prosperity, and recognizes the impact of higher oil prices especially on poorer communities. In this context, the Committee calls for efforts to remove disincentives to investment in oil production and refining capacity, and to promote energy sustainability and efficiency, including through new technologies and removing barriers to the development of alternative fuels. In its April 22, 2006 statement (same Committee title) it states even more specifically: "The Committee emphasizes the importance of further [oil] upstream and downstream investment, policies to promote energy efficiency, conservation, and alternative sources of energy." This could be inserted after the sentence ending "unconventional oil resources." in line 15, or at the end of the first paragraph, ending line 7. It is also relevant for section 1.4.2 which includes international institutional references to MDGs. (Kirsty Hamilton, Chatham House; UK Business Council for Sustainable Energy) What defines 'rational energy use'? Do the authors mean 'energy efficiency' (or Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Accepted - Done

REJ too specific, belongs to renewables.

Chair to rephrase

Accepted - Done

Rejected why single out IMF others have done this too, e.g., 2006 EU Green paper

Put in glossary

Page 52 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-260

18

15

1-80

18

15

18

19

1-261

18

16

18

18

1-262 1-81

A B

18 18

25 25

0 18

0 34

1-263

18

28

1-264 1-265 1-266

A A A

18 18 18

28 29 30

0 0 18

0 0 34

similar)? (Government of Australia) Inset after " ..unconventional oil resources' the sentence "For example, the combustion of natural gas for oil sands extraction is the fastest growing source of GHG in Canada." (David Jackson, McMaster University) The authors should delete the last sentence as CCS has little to do with energy security. (Government of Australia) It is more correct to say that alternatives to fossil fuels cannot yet FULLY meet the demand for secure and affordable energy supplies, because of course there are technological options that can do this (e.g. wind, solar, nuclear, efficiency). The point is that there is not one single option that saves the day, and none that can be expanded at a fast enough rate to compensate for increased demand as well as replacement of existing fossil. (Kelly Sims Gallagher, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University) substitute "is" for "are", "There is" (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) Logic of first para hard to follow. Some text missing around 'set scenarios' (lines 28-29); 'and yet' (line 29) doesn't connect to anything; penultimate sentence is meaningless. (Government of Australia) the text should read "the International Energy Outlook of the Energy Information Agency in the USA (EIA 2005) (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) "have a set" content? (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) Replace and yet with , but all scenarios (Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) There are sentences, "Should there be no change in energy policies, ..". Is it possible to show a result of siumulation, i.e. the energy mix data, such as Fossile fuel xx%, Renewable endergy, a)Hydro power y%,b) Biomass z%, ......., Nuclear energy p%, etc. These data will be helpful to examine to chage energy policies. (Susumu Nakamaru, Sun Management Instutute) Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Rejected specifc to a country, but not helpful

REJ citation from Australian White paper on energy security to be added. TIA to be taken up in projections section.

Accepted - Done Accepted Changed (see 1-265)

Accepted - Done

Accepted Changed - DONE Accepted - Done Rejected growth rates are given in next paragraph

Page 53 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

1-267

18

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

31

18

42

1-82

18

31

1-268 1-269

A A

18 18

32 36

0 0

0 0

1-270

18

47

19

1-271 1-83 1-84

A B B

18 18 18

47 47 48

0 18 18

0 47 48

In this part, data is shown only the growth rate of each resource in each year, and as no basic data (absolute volume or figure) is shown for understanding the size of total volume of each item, it is hard to understand each figure. Please indicate the basic data in figure for each, i.e. coal xxtons, oil yytons, etc. (Susumu Nakamaru, Sun Management Instutute) Please remove and most certainly there will be adds unnecessary editorial content. U.S. Government (Government of U.S. Department of State) correct to: "in the timeframe" (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) Unless there is full confidence that ultimately recoverable conventional oil resources are well in excess of 2 trillion barrels, the assumption that oil use will continue to grow at 1% to 2% per annum up to 2030 is very dubious. (Michael Jefferson, World Renewable Energy Network & Congresses) In Line No. 2 while referring to Figure 1.8, emission units used are GtC while in the actual Figure the units used are GtCO2. Necessary adjustment may be made. (,) substitute "above" for "better than" (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) Substitute 'more than' for 'better'. (Government of Australia) Footnote 4: delete "Asian-Pacific Partnership" replace with Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. (Government of Australia) I suggest to revise the descriptions down of Figure 1.8 related with IEA and EIA because they are not clears, maybe had mistakes when they were written (CRISTOBAL FELIX DIAZ MOREJON, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT) "According to IEA projection, emission will reach 10.4 GtC in 2030, an increase of 4.1 GtC over the 2002 level". "In such case, showing data of "in what extent the Global average temperature will increase. " will be helpful to understand the magnitude of the GHG's impact. (Susumu Nakamaru, Sun Management Instutute) I suggest this alternative redaction: The bulk of energy demand growth occurs mainly in any developing countries, and accordingly the emissions growth is Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Rejected space limitation (data in Chapter 4) To be checked (Holger)

Accepted - Done

Accepted - Done Noted data are from referenced sources

Accepted will be revised (Holger)

Accepted changed to more than - Done Accepted - Done Accepted - Done

1-272

19

19

Rejected Reference are correct

1-273

19

19

REJ Would involve new analysis.

1-274

19

19

Rejected suggested text adds no value and increases the word count

Page 54 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-275

19

19

1-276

19

19

1-85

19

19

1-86

19

19

10

1-277

19

10

1-278

19

10

1-279

19

10

dominated by these countries. The total of developing countries represents more than two thirds of IEA projected increase in global energy related emissions, and while they accounted for 36% of total emissions in 2002, will notably.... (CRISTOBAL FELIX DIAZ MOREJON, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT) Please add one paragraph on the more information of energy related emissions in OECD. (Government of China Meteorological Administration) The following is a key point and ought to be included in the SPM, along with Figure 1.8: "Developing countries, which accounted for 36% of total emissions in 2002, will notably overtake OECD as the leading contributor to global emissions in the early 2020s". (Government of Japan) The finding that developing countries will overtake OECD countries in 2020 as the leading contributor to global emissions fails to take into account the recent research on the 'Brazil Proposal", which illustrates that "contributions" to global emissions between developed and developing countries is much closer than that which is implied here. In addition the authors should recognise that projections are not predictions: replace 'will' by 'projected to'. See the presentation provided at the 24th meeting of the Subsidiary Bodies to the UNFCCC on 17 May 2006, by Modelling and Assessment of Contributions to Climate Change (MATCH) and www.matchinfo.net (Government of Australia) Figure 1.8: The legend is confusing. The sources include IEIA Should this be EIA? If so it would be clearer if the IEA sources were listed on the left and the EIA sources were listed on the right. U.S. Government (Government of U.S. Department of State) Figure 1.8 legend what is mean by IEIA? Missing comparison of two bar in diferent time interval. (NOIM UDDIN, Macquarie University, Sydney) Fig. 1.8: Please choose the correct description for the y-axis: 'CO2 emission from energy use in GtCO2' (Manfred Treber, Germanwatch) In Figure 1.8, the legend showing "Economies in Tranistion (IEIA)" should be changed to "Economies in Transition (EIA)". (,) Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

REJ space consideration)

Noted

REJECTED on space considerations

Accepted to change to projected - Done

Accepted legend will be changed (Holger)

Accepted legend will be changed (Holger)

Accepted axis will be corrected (Holger)

Accepted legend will be changed (Holger)

Page 55 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

1-280 1-281 1-282

A A A

19 19 19

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

10 10 12

0 0 19

0 0 18

1-283 1-284

A A

19 19

13 20

19 0

15 0

1-285

19

21

1-286 1-287

A A

19 20

25 2

0 0

0 0

1-87

20

20

1-288

20

20

text of figure 1.8: add "emission" after CO2 (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) Fig 1.8, Explain the meaning of doble bars at 2010-2030 in the figure legend (Government of Spain) As Item No.5 above, only growth rate figure is indicated, and it is not easey to understand whole picture, therefore, it would be helpful to show absolute volume of each item for quick understanding to readers, or alternatively, please indicate the page such data is exhibited . (Susumu Nakamaru, Sun Management Instutute) It would be useful to show this information graphically as well. (Government of Pakistan) This section on non-CO2 gases is very short in view of the significant fraction in total GHG emissions (about 25%) and the various reduction options available for these sources, e.g. CH4 recovery from coal mining, landfills and wastewater treatment, CH4 reduction by utilisation or flaring instead of venting of associated gas in oil production, N2Oabatement in adipic acid and nitric acid production, HFC-23 abatement from HCFC-22 production, PFC reduction from aluminium production, SF6 from magfnesium production, etc. (Jos Olivier, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP)) The order of starting with F-gases is somewhat strange. Suggest to move to the end of section 1.2.2.3. (Jos Olivier, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP)) Change which to that (Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) I assume the reference (IPCC 2005) means the Special Report 'Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System'. Therefore write ' ... earlier IPCC Special Report (IPCC, 2005).' (Manfred Treber, Germanwatch) The authors should describe whether the finding that the increase in F-gases between 2004-2050 takes into account that these gases will be replacing CFCs, which have a much greater GWP than their replacements. Discussion similar to that in the TS at page 2 line 20 could be replicated. (Government of Australia) The values should be quoted in Gt CO2 eq for consistency. (Archie McCulloch, Marbury Technical Consulting) Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Accepted - Done Accepted legend will be clarified (Holger)

Rejected data shown in Fig 1.8 plus space limitations

Rejected data in Figure 1.8 Check with CH 3 whether there is anything more to say Lambert/Holgar) Message isnt coming through. Rewrite to highlight the message. Add role and dynamics of MP gases.

Accepted Will be done (Holger)

Accepted - Done Accepted - Done

See I-84

Accepted Will be done (Holger)

Page 56 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

1-289

20

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

20

13

The rate of increase of atmospheric CH4 fluctuated a lot during the 1990's for reasons not clearly understood (changes in wetland sources? changes in hydroxyl radical sink?). Thus this statement is an oversimplification since the trends are not as simple as suggested and methane has both a large natural source (wetlands) and many anthropogenic sources (rice production, ruminant animals, landfills, coalbed leakages, natural gas leakages, etc.). Suggest adding appropriate references to WGI and to critical literature esp papers by Dlugokencky including Fiore, Horowitz, Dlugokencky, and West: GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33, L12809, 2006. Impact of meteorology and emissions on methane trends, 19902004. (Jean Bogner, Landfills +, Inc) I do not agree with this statement. Reduction of livestock numbers in the former USSR and increased CH4 recovery in coal mining and from landfills also contributed significantly to this stabilisation. See chapter x in Olivier (2002) .. (Jos Olivier, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP)) I suggest to add: ...... This stabilization is mainly the result of land - use changes. ( taking into account that exists other causes) (CRISTOBAL FELIX DIAZ MOREJON, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT) delete "at" after "with" (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) with A SMALL annual (Joe Asamoah, International Energy Foundation) The word "at" appearing after the word "with" may be deleted. (Government of Pakistan) ".. waste and forestry dev. .." (Jos Olivier, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP)) This paragraph presenting a primary conclusion is poorly framed. In line 29, expression 'it appears' is weak - the analytical foundation is clear that BAU produces increasing global emissions. In the second sentence 'policies under discussion' has not been covered in the Chapter - that is a field that unfolds in later Chapters. It follows that the conclusion in the third sentence is not based on any robust analysis in the Chapter. (Government of Australia) correct to: "alternative" Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Checking by Bill)

1-290

20

10

20

11

See I-289

1-291

20

10

20

11

See I-289)

1-292 1-293 1-294 1-295 1-88

A A A A B

20 20 20 20 20

20 20 20 21 29

0 20 20 0 20

0 20 20 0 32

Accepted at deleted - Done Accepted - Done Accepted - Done Accepted - Done

Rejected it is a summary of previous paragraphs

1-296

20

30

Accepted - Done

Page 57 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-297 1-298

A A

20 20

31 34

0 21

0 15

1-299

20

34

20

34

1-300

20

35

21

15

(Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) delete "it appears" (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) This appears to be the only reference to 'technology' in the introductory chapter, I would recommend changing the title of the subheading 1.3.3 to 'Technology Development and Deployment', and the subheading below, 1.3.3.1, to 'Inducing Technology Change'. A very important policy-relevant distinction needs explicitly made in Chapter 1, and reflected in the technology sections in other chapters, between technology 'development' implying new technology (R&D, 'innovation'), and 'deployment and diffusion' of existing or near-commercial technology. A critical factor in this area which also needs explicitly recognised is the importance of investment (across all parts of the technology spectrum from R&D to scaling up deployment), for which policy, and policy design, play a key role - hence the need for precision in definitions. In relation to the latter it would be helpful for policymakers to clarify the connection between assessment of 'technology', and the broader energy or infrastructure policies, referred to in other sections. (Kirsty Hamilton, Chatham House; UK Business Council for Sustainable Energy) The key for altering emissions trends. Emissions increase is due mainly to population growth, its doubtful if only technology will do the job. When you mention GDP per capita, population is involved. (Juan F Llanes-Regueiro, Havana University) It would be useful to better define the different stages of technological innovation here: research, development, demonstration, early deployment, and diffusion. The distinction between the latter two might be thought of as niche deployment (where government often has a role to play to pull or enable technologies to enter the marketplace), and widespread diffusion. Otherwise, what's the difference between deployment and diffusion? The 1997 President's Council of Advisors for Science & Technology (PCAST) study on Federal R&D, coined the acronym: RD3 (research, development, demonstration, and deployment), and this is now frequently used in the literature. The second sentence in this section is a fragment. A more sophisticated discussion of the drivers of energy-technology innovation might be warranted here (see Grubler, Sagar, Holdren, Dooley, Kammen, Margolis to name a few in the field who have written on the subject). In fact, Chapter 2 contains this discussion, so much could be drawn from the end of Chapter 2. (Kelly Sims Gallagher, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University) Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Accepted - Done

Change title to Technology Research , Development and Deployment:: Needs and Trends. Add section on deployment

Noted text says technology is key but other factors plays also a role including population growth

Needs to be checked (TEAM/Mits)

Rejected Sentence is complete

Page 58 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

1-301

20

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

41

20

44

1-89

20

41

20

44

1-302

20

46

20

49

1-90

20

46

20

49

This sentence makes a very important point, but it is quite long and difficult to read. A clearer form would be to state "Because of the longevity of energy infrastructures (including the lock-in effect), it is near-term investment decisions in the development, deployment and diffusion of technology that will determine the long term development of the energy system, and its emissions (G and N, 2002)." Reinforcing this point, is an additional reference from a briefing to policymakers, by the Tyndall Centre research collaboration: "To have the requisite impact in 2050 [on emissions], it is necessary to start directing investment towards low carbon technologies in the immediate and short term from now to 2010, and to persist with such low carbon investments thereafter." Reference: Executive Summary from Kohler, J. et. al., 2005. New Lessons for Technology Policy and Climate Change, Investment for Innovation: a briefing document for policymakers, Tyndall Briefing Note No. 13, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, UK. Available from, URL: www.tyndall.ac.uk. (Kirsty Hamilton, Chatham House; UK Business Council for Sustainable Energy) Final sentence is too simplistic. Near term technology investments are part of the affect on structure of the future energy system - but so too are medium and longterm investment decisions. (Government of Australia) As elsewhere in WG3, you have regarded the solution to the global warming problem as being purely one of technological development. It is amply demonstrated that enlightened (appropriate) urban planning is a critical factor (as I have been trying to get Chapter 5 to acknowledge), as is the need to fully employ existing knowledge when it comes to construction of buildings (as is amply demonstrated in Chapter 6). Thus, with this single-minded focus on technological development as the solution, you are bypassing two critical and potentially important strategies that can contribute to reducing emissions. I have raised these points in my comments to the ZOD and FOD. Why do you persist in deliberately omitting these important areas? (Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) The following section should be considered for inclusion in the Executive Summary: Generally speaking, it would be economically impossible, without technology research, development, demonstration, deployment and diffusion (RDDD&D) and Induced Technology Change (ITC), to stabilize GHG concentrations at a level that would prevent DAI with the climate system. U.S. Government Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Noted adding reference may be considered (Holger) - but space limitations

REJ misses the point again.

Accepted to be accommodated in initial statement.

Noted

Page 59 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-303

20

48

20

48

1-304

21

21

1-305

21

21

10

1-306

21

1-307

21

21

1-308

21

21

12

1-309

21

21

1-310

21

12

1-311

21

19

21

24

(Government of U.S. Department of State) It might be useful to put a brief explanation for ITC here as it may be the first time readers have come across the phrase, and it plays an important role later on. (Kirsty Hamilton, Chatham House; UK Business Council for Sustainable Energy) Suggest sentence is clarified a bit, perhaps: "However, RDDD&D can only occur at sufficient scale if climate policies are adopted to stimulate this process beyond business as usual." (Kirsty Hamilton, Chatham House; UK Business Council for Sustainable Energy) Since energy efficiency improvement is the most important mitigation option, I suggest to start with it, not mention it as the last item here. (Jos Olivier, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP)) Replace solar with active solar energy transformation, passive solar design of buildings and then add Harvey (2006) to the list of references. REFERENCE: Harvey, L.D.D. 2006. A Handbook on Low-Energy Buildings and District Energy Systems: Fundamentals, Techniques, and Examples (2006), James & James, London. 701 pages. (Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) I suggest to add:...... There are various types of technologies associated to different sources of energy, including but not limited to.... (CRISTOBAL FELIX DIAZ MOREJON, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT) Are mixed sources of energy and technologies (CRISTOBAL FELIX DIAZ MOREJON, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT) suggest adding "energy from waste" to this list. This is also a sector with mature technologies for renewable energy production (landfill methane recovery; incineration). (Jean Bogner, Landfills +, Inc) You should also add IEA (2006) Energy Technology Perspectives to the list of references. (Jos Olivier, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP)) It could be mentioned here that the Figure 1.9 gives only public financing of R&D. An estimate of companies R&D financing could be given also. (Government of Finland) Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

glossary (Mits/Ottmar)

Rejected done it See NIKE

Accepted - Done

Rejected too specific for introduction & space limitations

Rejected efficiency improvements are not a source of energy

Noted

Accepted - Done

Accepted will be done (Holger)

ACC)

Page 60 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

1-312

21

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

21

21

25

1-313

21

24

21

24

1-91

21

26

21

28

1-92

21

26

21

26

1-314

21

28

1-93

21

28

21

30

1-94

21

28

Here, ETI is being equated with SPENDING on ETI, and it is not the same thing. Spending on ETI is merely an input to the innovation process, but it does not mean that the output is necessarily correlated with the input. (Kelly Sims Gallagher, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University) After 'development.', insert: 'It is salutary to note that the total annual energyrelated R&D expenditure shown in Figure 1.9 is equal to only one day of consumer spending on the international energy markets!' (Ian Cook, United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority) The authors should rephrase their finding that lack of R&D funding equates to lack of technological development. A lack of R&D funding is only one of many factors that influence technological development (as discussed in later chapters of the WG3 report). (Government of Australia) Language 'we are not on track' is overstated - need to adopt a more measured, scientific form of language, for example: 'suggests that strengthened R & D policies will be needed to '. (Government of Australia) As a fraction of sales, R&D expenditures in energy technology lags other industries. Given the long lead times for R&D and deployment of energy technologies, and the need for very large quantities of new, non-CO2-emitting energy supplies by 2050 (150 EJ/year) and 2100 (500 EJ/year) it is clear that this investment is subcritical. An effort on the scale of the late 1970s, or perhaps even on the scale of the space programs of the 1960s would be more appropriate. Long term, large scale, high risk, high benefit energy research is not rewarded in the private market, and must be supported by governments. The international ITER project, in which China, the European Union, India, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States are joining to demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of fusion energy, is a good example of such investment. (Robert Goldston, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory) Figure 1.9: The authors should confirm that the y-axis represents "Billions" rather than "Millions". (Government of Australia) Recommended addition at the end of the paragraph, before the figure: As a fraction of sales, R&D expenditures in energy technology lags other industries. Given the long lead times for R&D and deployment of energy technologies, and the need for Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Noted text does not imply that spending is automatically increasing output

Get a life.

ACC (Rick) Rephrase to note no change in R&D expenditures in response the growing recognition of the climate change.;

ACC (Rick) Rephrase to note no change in R&D expenditures in response the growing recognition of the climate change.;

Noted Space considerations make it difficult.

Accepted - Indeed, should be Million right RICK?

Noted Space considerations make it

Page 61 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-315

21

30

1-316 1-317

A A

21 21

30 30

0 0

0 0

1-318 1-319 1-95

A A B

21 22 22

30 2 5

0 0 25

0 0 11

very large quantities of new, non-CO2-emitting energy supplies by 2050 (150 EJ/year) and 2100 (500 EJ/year) it is clear that this investment is subcritical. An effort on the scale of the late 1970s, or perhaps even on the scale of the space programs of the 1960s would be more appropriate. Long-term, large scale, highrisk, high benefit energy research is not rewarded in the private market, and must be supported by governments. The international ITER project, in which China, the European Union, India, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States are joining to demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of fusion energy, is a good example of such investment. U.S. Government (Government of U.S. Department of State) It should be clarified that these data are for IEA member countries only, not for the whole world. (Kelly Sims Gallagher, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University) figure 1.9: currency unit? USD/barrel? (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) Update the data on the price of oil at the last possible moment so as to extend the data as far forward in time as possible. (Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) Fig. 1.9, Include units in the y-axis 2 (US$ ?) (Government of Spain) add hyphen "sub-critical" (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) The purpose of section 1.4 is not explained. As currently drafted the section reads as a list of institutional architectures with little or no analysis. In addition subsection 1.4.2 as a discussion of the MEAs that influence sustainable development decision making, falls outside the mandate of the IPCC. Sub-section 1.4.3 on technology seems to be merely an incomplete list of some global and regional technology agreements, which provides no analysis and little guidance for readers. Suggest deletion of entirety of section 1.4. (Government of Australia) 1.4 Institutional Architecture: this part is very long, is important to reduce eliminating so much history that is well known, only the explanation of aspects that are related with WG III: Mitigation (CRISTOBAL FELIX DIAZ MOREJON, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE, Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

difficult. NOTE: Long term, large scale, high risk energy research is not taken up by private markets and must be supported by governments.

Rick its IEA member countries?

Accepted will be added on right Y-axis (Rick/Holger) Accepted data to be updated but not projefted (Holger/Rick) Accepted will be added on right Y-axis (Rick/Holger) ACC

Accepted Under 1.2 mention UNFCCC and its nearly unanimous endorsement. Then the guidling principles are listed. Then in 1.4 Bill, MIts, and Phillipe will rewrite. Phillipe 1.2 sentence, and 1.4.1 1.4.2. MIts does 1.4.3.

1-320

22

22

Refer to 1.95)

Page 62 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-321

22

22

1-322

22

23

32

1-323

22

10

1-324 1-325 1-326 1-327 1-328

A A A A A

22 22 22 23 23

27 28 32 3 5

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

1-329

23

23

1-330 1-331

A A

23 23

29 31

23 0

31 0

TECHNOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT) 1.4 Institutional Architecture. This point would be titled International Framework because all points talk about this matter. Institutional Architectureis referred to Institutions dedicated to climate change matters, if they are enough, overlaps, necessities, and others (CRISTOBAL FELIX DIAZ MOREJON, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT) Please add more information on the demonstrable progress in achieving its commitments under the UNFCCC, the Kyoto Protocol and the 2005 Montreal in the section of 1.4.1. (Government of China Meteorological Administration) UNFCCC was adopted at an INC meeting on ninth of May 1992 in New York (as written in Article 26 of UN FCCC) and then signed in Rio. Therefore change in line 10 ' ... was adopted in 1992 in May in New York and signed at the Rio Earth Summit ... (Manfred Treber, Germanwatch) correct to: "Annex I" (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) see: above (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) see. above (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) correct to: "choose" (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) Replace "emissions" with "net emissions" (it may be noted that RMU's mentioned at line 14 provide an example of the net emissions approach, albeit very limited and tightly constrained by accountability provisions). (Peter Read, Massey University) Replace "emissions" with "net emissions" (it may be noted that RMU's mentioned at line 14 provide an example of the net emissions approach, albeit very limited and tightly constrained by accountability provisions). (Peter Read, Massey University) the last sentence of the paragraph can be deleted, it is a repetition (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) A major shortcoming of the COP series was the great difficulty in obtaining even Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Refer to 1.95)

REJ beyond the chapter and IPCC mandate

Accepted will be corrected (Philippe)

REJ I it is Annex II Noted Noted Accepted - Done REJ too simplistic

REJ too simplistic)

To be checked Philippe??

Page 63 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-96

23

40

1-332

23

45

23

45

1-333

24

14

24

26

1-334

24

19

24

26

1-335

24

30

25

15

1-336 1-337 1-338 1-339 1-340

A A A A A

24 24 24 24 24

34 37 38 38 38

0 24 0 0 0

42 37 0 0 0

token recognition of nuclear fission and fusion as important mitigation technologies, primarily because of the vociferous anti-nuclear interventions by certain NGOs. This should be noted because the present eport correctly highlights the important role of of nuclear technologies in mitigation. (David Jackson, McMaster University) Modify the start of the sentence starting with MDG#7 as follows: MEETING MDG#7 WOULD IN GENERAL require the integration U.S. Government (Government of U.S. Department of State) I suggest to add: -----, the World Summit of Sustainable Development(2002)developed.... (CRISTOBAL FELIX DIAZ MOREJON, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT) I suggest to add: the International Meeting to Review the Implementation of the Action Programme for the Sustainable Development of Small Islands Developing States(2005) (CRISTOBAL FELIX DIAZ MOREJON, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT) I suggest breaking this long sentence into two sentences, in order to make it easier to read and to put the main point up front. For example: Other international fora are important to further the agenda for sustainable development and climate change (see Chapter 13). These include . (Danny Harvey, University of Toronto) It might be useful to include some information on the roles of the UNFCCC and the Kyoto protocol mechanisms, such as CDM, JI and emissions trading, in transferring and diffusing new technologies. (Ellina Levina, OECD) Fairly detailed for this place in the report. Delete or move to chapter 13(?) (Peter Bosch, IPCC TSU) After '(GIF),', insert: 'the ITER fusion energy project,'. (Ian Cook, United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority) (REEEP) and the ITER fusion energy project. (Robert Goldston, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory) After " ..(REEEP)" insert" and the ITER fusion project" (David Jackson, McMaster University) After (REEEP) insert "and the Gleneagles G8 Plan of Action (2005) including the Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Noted and rejected no space for criticizing COP decision here

Accepted - Done

Rejected text is clear as is

REJ too detalied

Accepted - Done

Rejected space limitation

ACC but will not move Accepted - Done Accepted - Done Accepted - Done Partially accepted - Global Bioenergy

Page 64 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-341

24

38

24

38

1-97 1-342

B A

24 24

38 42

0 0

0 0

1-343 1-344

A A

25 25

4 13

0 0

0 0

Global Bioenergy Partnership" and replace " and" in previous line with ", " (Peter Read, Massey University) After (REEEP) insert "and the Gleneagles G8 Plan of Action (2005) including the Global Bioenergy Partnership" and replace " and" in previous line with ", " (Peter Read, Massey University) (REEEP) and the ITER fusion energy project. U.S. Government (Government of U.S. Department of State) Inset as a last line in the paragraph "The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of the United Nation coordinates and promotes international collaboration in the peaceful uses of atomic energy including nuclear power both fission and fusion. The NEA (Nuclear Energy Agency), sister organization of the IEA, performs a similar role for fission in the OECD." (David Jackson, McMaster University) EU cooperation with India and China, missing references (NOIM UDDIN, Macquarie University, Sydney) 1.4.5 Role of the Market Commencement of operations of the European Emissions Trading System in January 2005 with its important results to date, confirm the value of market instruments to advance the ultimate objective of the Convention. (various European references, current ) (Valentin Bartra, Instituto Andino y Amaznico de Derecho Ambiental) 1.4.5 Role of the Market Commencement of operations of the European Emissions Trading System in January 2005 with its important results to date, confirm the value of market instruments to advance the ultimate objective of the Convention. (various European references, current ) (Valentin Bartra, Instituto Andino y Amaznico de Derecho Ambiental) The two paragraphs describing the history of the IPCC are misplaced and should be deleted. (Government of Australia) Please delete these two paragraphs, because it is not necessary to introduce the Mandate of the IPCC in this section. (Government of China Meteorological Administration) The reference "IPPC, 1996" may be corrected to read "IPCC, 1996". Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Partnership added - Done Partially accepted - Global Bioenergy Partnership added - Done Accepted - Done Rejected space limitation

Cite webseite Accepted should be mentioned in 1.4.1.

1-345

25

13

25

13

Same as previous comment 1-344

1-98

25

15

25

27

Accepted 1. para will be deleted

1-346

25

17

25

27

Accepted 1. para will be deleted

1-347

25

35

25

35

Accepted - Done

Page 65 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-348 1-349 1-350 1-351

A A A A

25 25 25 25

39 40 43 46

0 25 0 0

0 40 0 0

1-352

25

46

25

46

1-353 1-354 1-99 1-355

A A B A

25 25 25 25

46 48 48 49

25 25 25 0

46 48 48 0

1-356 1-357

A A

26 26

3 13

26 26

3 48

(Government of Pakistan) substitute "assessment" for "transparent consensus" (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) Please check the sources of "(IPCC, 2001, WGIII, Chapter 1)". (Government of China Meteorological Administration) add comma before "respectively" (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) Add "Additionally, potential abrupt climate change has become sufficiently pressing for it to be treated in the future as a cross cutting issue, although the socioeconomic literature on a precautionary response is still very limited (Obersteiner et al 2001a and 2001b), Read and Lermit (2005) Read (2006a and [2006b - gray as of sept 2006])". (Peter Read, Massey University) Add "Additionally, potential abrupt climate change has become sufficiently pressing for it to be treated in the future as a cross cutting issue, although the socioeconomic literature on a precautionary response is still very limited (Obersteiner et al 2001a and 2001b), Read and Lermit (2005) Read (2006a and [2006b - gray as of sept 2006])". (Peter Read, Massey University) Please check the sources of "(IPCC, 2000)". (Government of China Meteorological Administration) "AR IV" may be replaced by "AR4". (Government of Pakistan) Insert "and" between "Carbon Capture and Storage" and "on Safeguarding" (Government of Australia) the correct name of the Special Report of IPCC on CCS is 'Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage'. Please write this in line 49: ' IPCC special reports on CO2 Capture and Storage, on ...' (Manfred Treber, Germanwatch) Although, the structure OF AR IV (Joe Asamoah, International Energy Foundation) This description of the Working Group III report is exactly how the SPM is structured. An abridged version of this report summary should be included in the SPM as an introductory statement to guide the reader. As it stands, the structure of the SPM is difficult to follow the inclusion of a summary such as this one would Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Accepted Sentence deleted To be checked Philippe/Holger Accepted - Done Rejected not the place to recommend future cross-cutting issues

Same comment as 1-351 - Rejected

Noted Reference is correct Accepted - Done Rejected it is a list and and follows later Accepted - Done

Accepted - Done

Noted

Page 66 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-358 1-359

A A

26 26

15 35

0 26

0 35

1-360 1-361 1-362 1-363

A A A A

26 26 27 27

40 40 7 10

0 26 27 28

0 40 8 5

1-100

27

10

28

improve the readability of the SPM a great deal. (Government of Japan) correct to: "report's" (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) I suggest to add:....., technology transfer, relationship with three dimensions of sustainable development, system changes and...... (CRISTOBAL FELIX DIAZ MOREJON, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT) add hyphen "medium-term" (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) short/MEDIUM (Joe Asamoah, International Energy Foundation) reference of Archer (2005) is incomplete (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) The graph shows GDP losses with different stabilisation targets. This figure as it is constructed now is as if you would compare apples and oranges. The graph is misleading and gives wrong impressions. model results cannot be compared because of the following reasons: 1. different baseline assumptions: IMCP focuses on technological changes which is relevant also for the baseline (TC in baseline), IPCC not. 2. different model parameter assumptions: not only for the baseline, but also for substitution elasticities etc.; 3. different model types: top down models and bottom up models usually show very different results, especially because they differ in type, assumptions and TC; 4.different regional scale of models: in IMCP there are some one region -models (Demeter, Mind) which can hardly compared with the other multi regional models;. as this slide with be used as policy recommendation, it is dangerous to present such kind of overview. As the IMCP study focuses primarily on TC, "benefits" of emissions mitigation as presented by the E3ME model, can only be explained by TCs. It is however, difficult to explain decision maker, why emissions mitigation improves GDP. This is not in line with any IPCC study before; furthermore, it is very confusing to have two AIM studiesAIM A1 PS and AIM-IMCP show very different results: this can be explained, as before, through the treatment of TC in IMCP. It is however very difficult to explain outsiders why this is the case. I would strongly recommend either use only IPCC scenarios or run IMCP models in the IPCC mode. (Claudia Kemfert, German Institute for Economic Research) The graph shows GDP losses with different stabilisation targets. This figure as it is Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Accepted - Done Accepted - Done

Accepted - Done Accepted - Done To be checked and completed Chapter 3 Comment Repeat of comment 1-100 Rejected graph does not belong to Chapter 1

Chapter 3 Comment

Page 67 of 68

IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report, Second-Order Draft

ChapterComment

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page

From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

1-364 1-365 1-366 1-367

A A A A

28 29 29 30

7 46 47 3

0 0 0 30

0 0 0 5

1-368 1-369

A A

30 31

44 4

30 31

47 6

constructed now is as if you would compare apples and oranges. The graph is misleading and gives wrong impressions. model results cannot be compared because of the following reasons: 1. different baseline assumptions: IMCP focuses on technological changes which is relevant also for the baseline (TC in baseline), IPCC not. 2. different model parameter assumptions: not only for the baseline, but also for substitution elasticities etc.; 3. different model types: top down models and bottom up models usually show very different results, especially because they differ in type, assumptions and TC; 4.different regional scale of models: in IMCP there are some one region -models (Demeter, Mind) which can hardly compared with the other multi regional models;. as this slide with be used as policy recommendation, it is dangerous to present such kind of overview. As the IMCP study focuses primarily on TC, "benefits" of emissions mitigation as presented by the E3ME model, can only be explained by TCs. It is however, difficult to explain decision maker, why emissions mitigation improves GDP. This is not in line with any IPCC study before; furthermore, it is very confusing to have two AIM studiesAIM A1 PS and AIM-IMCP show very different results: this can be explained, as before, through the treatment of TC in IMCP. It is however very difficult to explain outsiders why this is the case. I would strongly recommend either use only IPCC scenarios or run IMCP models in the IPCC mode. (Government of Germany) delete text after "30" (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) correct to "Climate-change Policy" (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) delete the double full stop (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) P30 l. 3-5. References to reports that do not exist should be avoided. The authors of the report IR-01-051 Managing Climate Risk are: Obersteiner M, Azar C, Kossmeier S, Mechler R, Mllersten K, Nilsson S, Read P, Yamgata Y, Yan J (2001). See www.iiasa.ac.at/publications (Kenneth Mllersten, Swedish Energy Agency) from which journal is the reference paper of Thomas? (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) if the reference of Tokushige is still forthcoming, it will not have to be cited (Grassl Hartmut, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology) Expert/Government Review of Second-Order-Draft Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Repeat of comment 1-363 Rejected graph does not belong to Chapter 1

Accepted - Done Accepted - Done Accepted - Done To be checked Holger take the IIASA ref

To be checked Bill Ref ok

Page 68 of 68

Final Draft

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

Working Group III contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change
________________________________________________________________________________

Summary for Policy Makers

________________________________________________________________________________

Note:

The content of this Draft should not be cited or quoted, and is embargoed from news coverage

Drafting Authors: Terry Barker (UK), Igor Bashmakov (Russia), Lenny Bernstein (USA), Jean Bogner (USA), Peter Bosch (The Netherlands), Rutu Dave (The Netherlands), Ogunlade Davidson (Sierra Leone), Brian Fisher (Australia), Michael Grubb (UK), Sujata Gupta (India), Kirsten Halsnaes (Denmark), Bertjan Heij (The Netherlands), Suzana Kahn Ribeiro (Brazil), Shigeki Kobayashi (Japan), Mark Levine (USA), Daniel Martino (Uruguay), Omar Masera Cerutti (Mexico), Bert Metz (The Netherlands), Leo Meyer (The Netherlands), Gert-Jan Nabuurs (The Netherlands), Adil Najam (Pakistan), Nebojsa Nakicenovic (Austria/Montenegro), Hans Holger Rogner (Germany), Joyashree Roy (India), Jayant Sathaye (USA), Robert Schock (USA), Priyaradshi Shukla (India), Ralph Sims (New Zealand), Pete Smith (UK), Rob Swart (The Netherlands), Dennis Tirpak (USA), Diana Urge-Vorsatz (Hungary), Zhou Dadi (Peoples Republic of China)

Do Not Cite or Quote

1 of 24

SPM 08/02/2007

Final Draft

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

Contents
A. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 3 B. Greenhouse gas emission trends .................................................................................................. 3 C. Mitigation in the short and medium term (till 2030) ................................................................. 8 D. Mitigation in the long-term (>2030) .......................................................................................... 15 E. Policies, measures and instruments ........................................................................................... 19 F. Sustainable development and climate change mitigation ........................................................ 23 ANNEX 1: Uncertainty representation......................................................................................... 24

Do Not Cite or Quote

2 of 24

SPM 08/02/2007

Final Draft

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

A. Introduction
1. 5 The Working Group III contribution to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) focuses on new literature on the scientific, technological, environmental, economic and social aspects of mitigation of climate change, published since the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) and the Special Reports on CO2 Capture and Storage (SRCCS) and on Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System (SROC). The following summary is organised into five sections after this introduction: Greenhouse gas (GHG) emission trends Mitigation in the short and medium term, at sector level (till 2030) Mitigation in the long-term context (beyond 2030 ) Policies, measures and instruments Sustainable development and climate change mitigation. Standard terms used to describe the uncertainty of the statements made, according to the agreed terminology for the AR4, can be found in Annex 1. References to the corresponding chapter sections are indicated at each paragraph in square brackets. An explanation of terms and acronyms used in this SPM can be found in the glossary to the main report. 20

10

15

B. Greenhouse gas emission trends

2. 25 Without additional climate mitigation and/or appropriate sustainable development policies global GHG emissions will continue to grow over the next few decades. (high agreement, much evidence) Between 1970 and 2004 global GWP weighted emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs and SF6 (greenhouse gases covered by the Kyoto Protocol) have increased by 70% (24% since 1990). CO2, being by far the largest source, has grown by about 80% (28% since 1990) (Figure SPM.1). This has occurred because increases in income per capita and population have outweighed decreases in energy intensity of production and consumption (Figure SPM.2). [1.3] Policies, including those on climate change, energy security and supply, and sustainable development, have led to reductions of emissions compared to the baseline in some regions, but the scale is not large enough to be visible in the historic global emissions trend. [1.3, 12.2] In 2004 developed countries (UNFCCC Annex I countries) held a 20% share in world population and yet accounted for 46% of annual GHG emissions (Figure SPM.3a). Their economies have a lower average GHG intensity (0.68 kg CO2-eq/US$ GDPppp) than those of nonAnnex-I countries (1.06 kg CO2-eq/US$ GDPppp) (Figure SPM.3b). [1.3] Without additional policies global GHG emissions are projected to increase with 25-90% by 2030 relative to 2000. Fossil fuel dominance is expected to continue to 2030 and beyond, hence CO2 emissions from energy use are projected to grow with 40-110% over that period. (Figure SPM.4) Two thirds to three quarters of this increase is projected to come from developing countries, though their average per capita CO2 emissions will remain substantially lower (2.8-5.1 tCO2/cap) than those in developed country regions (9.6- 15.1 tCO2/cap). Since 2000 carbon intensity of energy has been on the rise due to increased use of coal. [1.3]

30

35

40

45

Do Not Cite or Quote

3 of 24

SPM 08/02/2007

Final Draft
5 0 5 0 10
Gt CO2eq

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

HFCs, PFCs, SF6

N2O other N2O agriculture

CH4 waste and other 5 0 10 5 0

30 25 20 15 10

CH4 agriculture CH4 energy3)

CO2 decay and peat5) CO2 deforestation1) 4)

CO2 other2)

CO2 fossil fuel use6)

5 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2004

Figure SPM 1: GWP weighted global greenhouse gas emissions 1970-2004. 100 year GWPs from IPCC 1996 (SAR) were used to convert emissions to CO2-eq. (cf. UNFCCC reporting guidelines). CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs and SF6 from all sources are included
Sources: various, see Chapter 1, Figure 1.1. Notes: 1. Including traditional biomass combustion at 10% (assuming 90% sustainable production). Corrected for 10% carbon of burned biomass that remains as charcoal. 2. Cement production and natural gas flaring. 3. Including from biofuel production and biomass use. 4. For large-scale forest and scrubland biomass burning averaged data for 1997-2002 based on Global Fire Emissions Data base satellite data. 5. CO2 emissions from decay (decomposition) of aboveground biomass that remains after logging and deforestation and CO2 from peat fires and decay of drained peat soils (excluding fossil fuel fires). 6. Fossil fuel use includes emissions from feedstocks.

10

15

Do Not Cite or Quote

4 of 24

SPM 08/02/2007

Final Draft

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

Figure SPM 2: Relative development of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and GDP per capita (GDP/Pop,) measured in PPP (Purchase Power Parity), Population (Pop), Energy Intensity (energy use per GDP), Carbon Intensity (CO2/energy use), and CO2 emissions (from fossil fuel burning, gas flaring and cement manufacturing) for the period 1970-2004
Sources: World Bank, 2005; Marland et al., 2006.

Do Not Cite or Quote

5 of 24

SPM 08/02/2007

Final Draft
CO2eq/US$ GDPppp (2000) kg CO2_eq/US$ GDP_ppp (2000)

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

30 25

Annex I

Non-Annex I

2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0

EIT Annex I: 9.7%

Other non -Annex I: 2.0%

Share in global GDP Annex I non-Annex I 56.6% 43.4%

GHG/GDP kg CO2eq/US$ 0.683 1.055

t CO2_eq/cap CO2eq/cap

20 15
USA & Canada: 19.4%

Average Annex I: 16.1 t CO2eq/cap

EIT Annex I: 9.7%

Other non -Annex I: 2.0 %

Middle East: 3.8%

Latin America: 10.3%

JANZ:5.2%

5 0 0

Non -Annex I East Asia: 17.3%

JANZ:5.2%

0.5 0.0 0

Africa: 7.8%

Average non-Annex I: 4.2 t CO2eq/cap

Middle East: 3.8%

Europe Annex I: 11.4%

10

Latin America: 10.3%

Africa: 7.8%

Non -Annex I South Asia: 13.1%

Non -Annex I East Asia: 17.3%

Non -Annex I South Asia: USA & Canada: 19.4% 13.1%

Europe Annex I: 11.4%

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

Cumulative population in million

Cumulative GDP_ppp (2000) in Billion US$ GDPppp (2000) in billion US$

Figure SPM 3a: Distribution of regional per capita GHG) emissions (all Kyoto gases) over the population of different country groupings in 2004 (adapted from Bolin and Kheshgi, 2001) using IEA and EDGAR 3.2 database information. 100 year GWPs from IPCC 1996 (SAR) were used to convert emissions to CO2-eq. (cf. UNFCCC reporting guidelines) 5

Figure SPM 3b: Distribution of regional GHG emissions (all Kyoto gases) per US$ of GDPppp over the GDP of different country groupings in 2004 using IEA and EDGAR 3.2 database information. 100 year GWPs from IPCC 1996 (SAR) were used to convert emissions to CO2-eq. (cf. UNFCCC reporting guidelines)

10

15

Note: Countries are grouped according to the classification of the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol; this means that countries that have joined the European Union since then are still listed under EIT Annex I. The country groupings are: EIT Annex I: Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Ukraine. Europe Annex II: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom. JANZ: Australia, Japan, New Zealand. Non-Annex I East Asia: Cambodia, China, Hong Kong, Korea (DPR), Laos (PDR), Mongolia, Republic of Korea, Viet Nam. Non-Annex I South Asia: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei, Fiji, French Polynesia, India, Indonesia, Kiribati, Malaysia, Maldives, Myanmar, Nepal, New Caledonia, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Vanuatu North America: Canada, United States of America. Other non-Annex I: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia Herzegovina, Cyprus, Georgia, Gibraltar, Kazakhstan, Kyrgugyzstan, Malta, Moldova, Serbia, Montenegro, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Republic of Macedonia.

Do Not Cite or Quote

6 of 24

SPM 08/02/2007 10:19 AM

Final Draft

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

Figure SPM 4: GHG emission projections 2000-2100 from IPCC SRES and EMF 21. This figure does not show the full range of scenario results since SRES that is covered in chapter 3.2. F-gases include HFCs, PFCs and SF6. 5
Source: IPCC, 2000 and Weyant et al., 200.6

3.

10

15

20

GHG emissions ranges derived from long-term baseline scenarios1 have not changed appreciably compared with the Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES) (25- 135 Gt CO2-eq/yr in 2100, see Figure SPM.4). (high agreement, much evidence) Studies since TAR used lower values for some drivers for emissions, notably population projections. However, for those studies incorporating these new population projections, changes in other drivers, such as economic growth, resulted in little change in overall emission levels. Economic growth projections for Africa, Latin America and the Middle East to 2030 in postSRES scenarios are lower than in SRES, but this has only minor effects on global economic growth and overall emissions. [3.2] Aerosol and aerosol precursor emissions, which have a net cooling effect, are projected to be lower than reported in SRES. [3.2] Evidence from the limited number of new Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) based studies indicates that the choice of metric for GDP (Market exchange rates or PPP) does not appreciably affect the projected emissions, when metrics are used consistently. The differences, if any, are small compared to the uncertainties caused by assumptions on other parameters, e.g. technological change. [3.2]

Baselines do not include additional climate policies above current ones.

Do Not Cite or Quote

7 of 24

SPM 08/02/2007

Final Draft

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

C. Mitigation in the short and medium term (till 2030)

Box SPM 1: Mitigation potential Economic potential, as used in most studies, is the amount of GHG mitigation that is cost-effective for a given carbon price, based on social cost pricing and discount rates, including energy savings, but without most externalities. [2.5] Market potential, as used in most studies, is the actual potential with current conditions and barriers, based on private cost pricing and discount rates, including energy savings, but with barriers limiting actual uptake. [2.5] Estimates for the economic potential can be derived from bottom-up studies or top-down studies. Bottom-up studies are based on assessment of specific mitigation options, covering all sectors, but corrected to avoid double-counting. Non-technical mitigation options, such as life style changes are not included. The aggregation of bottom-up analyses at sectoral and global level is hindered by the lack of harmonization and the lack of full geographic coverage. Topdown studies have limited sectoral and technological detail, but do include the macro economic and systems feedbacks that bottom-up studies lack. Aggregate economic potential estimates from bottom-up and top down are similar, but sector estimates show differences. [3.6, 11.3]

4.

10

15

20

There is a significant economic potential for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from all sectors over the coming decades, sufficient to offset growth of global emissions or to reduce emissions below current levels. (high agreement, medium evidence) In 2030 the economic potential ranges from 9-18 Gt CO2-eq/yr2 relative to a medium emission baseline3 at carbon prices lower than 20 US$/t CO2-eq (15-30% below baseline) to 16-30 Gt CO2-eq/yr at carbon prices lower than 100 US$/tCO2-eq (30-50% below baseline) (see figure SPM.5). [11.3] The most important mitigation technologies for the respective sectors are shown in table SPM.1. Sector contributions and the regional distribution of mitigation potential, as derived from bottom-up studies, are given in figure SPM 6. [4.3, 4.4, 5.4, 6.5, 7.5, 8.4, 9.4, 10.4, 11.3] From bottom-up studies a range of around 6 Gt CO2-eq/yr at net negative costs has been identified. [11.3] The economic potential up to 50 US$/tCO2 is consistent with emission trajectories for stabilisation around 550 ppmv CO2-eq and that up to US$ 100/tCO2-eq for stabilisation between 450 and 550 ppmv CO2-eq. [3.3, 3.6, 11.3] The market potential is much smaller than the economic potential. A mix of policy instruments (see section E) can bridge the gap between market and economic potential. [2.5, 11.3]

2 3

This range represents the results from bottom-up and top-down studies For the assessment of mitigation potential each sector assessment used a mixture of baselines. For comparison with the mitigation potential the sum of the respective baselines is shown in figure SPM.5.For details see TS 11 and chapter 11.3.Top-down models generally used medium baselines The average for those baselines in shown in Figure SPM.5.

Do Not Cite or Quote

8 of 24

SPM 08/02/2007

Final Draft
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2004 Low Mean High
GtCO2-eq

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

US$/tCO2-eq <0 0-20 20-50 50-100

US$/tCO2-eq 0-20 20-50 50-100

Low

Mean

High

Bottom-up 2030

Top-down 2030

Figure SPM 5: Economic mitigation potential in different cost categories as compared to the baseline. For the 2030 bottom-up results the sum of the respective sector baselines, assumed in the calculation of the mitigation potential, was used for comparison. For the top-down studies the average of the baselines reported in Tables 3.13 and 3.14 was used for comparison. The 2004 emissions are from chapter 11.3
Note: Mean, high and low refer to the mean, high and low end of the economic potential range reported.

Do Not Cite or Quote

9 of 24

SPM 08/02/2007

Final Draft

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

Table SPM 1: Estimated global mitigation potential in 2030 compared to SRES B2 or World Energy Outlook (2004) Baselines and mitigation technologies with significant reduction potential for each sector. Total economic potential for costs <100 US$/tCO2-eq is given for end-use sector allocation of emissions
Sector 2030 economic potential at carbon prices < US$ 100/t CO2-eq (Gt CO2-eq/yr) 2.4- 4.7 Mitigation technologies with significant reduction potential currently on the market Mitigation technologies with significant mitigation potential projected to be commercialised before 2030

Energy Supply [4.3, 4.4, 11.3] Transport [5.4]

1.6- 2.5

Improved supply and distribution efficiency, combined heat and power, fuel switching from coal to gas, nuclear power, renewable heat and power (hydropower, solar, wind, geothermal and bio energy), early applications of CCS (e.g. natural gas processing). More fuel efficient vehicles, hybrid vehicles, cleaner diesel, bio-fuels, rapid public transport systems, non-motorised transport

CCS for gas, biomass or coal-fired electricitygenerating facilities, advanced nuclear power, advanced renewables

Buildings [6.5]

5.7- 6.0

Industry [7.5] Agriculture [8.4]

2.5- 5.5

2.3- 6.4

Forestry [9.4] Waste [10.4] Total

1.3- 4.2

0.4-1.0

Efficient lighting, more effective insulation and ventilation, passive solar design for heating, cooling and ventilation, more efficient electrical appliances and heating and cooling devices, alternative refrigeration fluids, recovery and recycle of fluorinated gases from appliances and insulation More efficient end-use electrical equipment, heat and power recovery, material recycling and substitution, control of non-CO2 gas emissions, and a wide array of process-specific technologies Improved crop and grazing land management to increase soil carbon storage; restoration of cultivated peaty soils and degraded lands; improved rice cultivation techniques and livestock and manure management to reduce CH4 emissions; improved nitrogen fertilizer application techniques to reduce N2O emissions; dedicated bio-energy crops to replace fossil fuel use; improved energy efficiency Afforestation, reforestation, forest management, reduced deforestation and degradation, harvested wood product management, use of forestry products for bio-energy to replace fossil fuel use Landfill methane recovery, waste incineration with energy recovery, composting of organic waste, controlled waste water treatment, recycling and waste minimization

Hydrogen powered fuel cell vehicles, second generation biofuels, more efficient aircraft, advanced electric and hybrid vehicles with more powerful and reliable batteries. Integrated solar PV electricity, smart metering, intelligent controls

Advanced energy efficiency, CCS for cement, ammonia, fertilizer and steel manufacture, inert electrodes for aluminium manufacture, Genetic technologies to improve energy crops

Biocovers and biofilters to optimize CH4 oxidation

16.2- 30.3

Do Not Cite or Quote SPM final version 8 Febrincltitle.doc

10 of 24

SPM 08/02/2007 10:19 AM

Final Draft
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
00 <5 <2 <2 <5 00 0 0 0 0 <1 <1

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

GtCO 2-eq

Non-OECD/EIT EIT OECD World total US$/tCO 2 -eq Buildings Industry Agriculture Forestry Waste

Energy supply

Transport

Figure SPM 6: Estimated mitigation potential at sectoral level in 2030 from bottom-up studies, compared to the respective baselines assumed in the sector assessments (see notes) 5
Notes: 1. Mitigation potentials are calculated for a baseline scenario that is for most sectors close to the SRES B2 baseline. For Industry, the SRES B2 baseline was taken; for Energy supply and Transport the WEO 2004 baseline was used; the building sector constructed a separate baseline in between SRES B2 and A1b;for waste SRES A1bdrivers were used; agriculture and forestry used baselines that mostly used SRES B2 drivers. 2. Total figures include only the categories for which data were available. Categories excluded are: non-CO2 emissions in buildings; part of material efficiency options; heat production and cogeneration in energy supply; heavy duty vehicles, shipping and public transport; most high-cost options for buildings; wastewater treatment. The underestimation of the economic potential due to these omissions is in the order of 10-15% (not included in uncertainty bars).

10

15 5. In 2030 macro-economic costs for mitigation in the medium term, consistent with emissions trajectories towards stabilisation around 650 ppmv CO2-eq are 0.2 (-0.6 to 1.2)4% global GDP loss5 compared to the baseline (reduction of the average annual GDP growth rate less than 0.06 percentage points). For trajectories towards 550 ppmv CO2-eq these costs are 0.6 (0-2.5)% GDP loss in 2030 (reduction of the average annual GDP growth rate less than 0.1 percentage points). (high agreement, much evidence) (see Box SPM.2 for the caveats of these results) For trajectories towards stabilisation levels between 445 and 535 ppmv CO2-eq costs are lower than 3% global GDP loss, but the number of studies is relatively small and they generally use low baselines. [3.3] Costs are lower if revenues from carbon taxes or auctioned permits are used to promote lowcarbon technologies or reform of existing taxes. Studies that assume the possibility that climate change policy induces enhanced technological change also give lower costs. [3.3, 11.4, 11.5, 11.6] Some models give positive GDP gains (or negative GDP losses), because they assume that baselines are economically not optimal and that climate change mitigation policies steer economies towards reducing imperfections. [3.3, 11.4] Regional abatement costs are dependent on the assumed emission allowances to regions. However, the assumed stabilisation level and baseline scenario are more important in determining regional costs.[11.4, 13.3]
The median and the 10th to 90th percentile range of the analysed data are given. This is global GDP based on market exchange rates.

20

25

30

35
4 5

Do Not Cite or Quote

11 of 24

SPM 08/02/2007

Final Draft

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

Box SPM 2: Assumptions in studies on mitigation portfolios and macro-economic costs Studies on mitigation portfolios and macro-economic costs assessed in this report are based on a global least cost approach, with optimal mitigation portfolios and without allocation of emission allowances to regions. If regions are excluded or non-optimal portfolios are chosen, global costs will go up. The variation in mitigation portfolios and their costs for a given stabilisation level is caused by different assumptions, such as on baselines (lower baselines give lower costs), GHGs and mitigation options considered (more gases and mitigation options give lower costs), cost curves for mitigation options and rate of technological change.

6. 5

While studies use different methodologies, in all analyzed world regions near-term health benefits from reduced air pollution as a result of GHG reductions can be substantial and may offset a substantial fraction of mitigation costs (high agreement, much evidence). Including co-benefits other than health, such as increased energy security and employment, would further enhance cost savings. [11.8] Integrating air pollution abatement and climate change mitigation policies offers potentially large cost reductions compared to treating the policies in isolation. [11.8] Recent literature confirms the conclusions in TAR on spill over and carbon leakage (medium agreement, medium evidence). Fossil fuel exporting nations (in both Annex I and non-Annex I) may expect, as indicated in TAR, lower demand and prices and lower GDP growth in case of emission abatement policies. The extent of this spill over depends strongly on assumptions related to Annex I policy decisions and oil market conditions. [11.7] Critical uncertainties remain in the assessment of carbon leakage. Most equilibrium modelling support the conclusion in the TAR of economy wide leakage in the order of 5-20%, which would be less if low-emissions technologies are effectively diffused. Findings from sectoral analysis of the effects of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme indicate lower levels of economy wide leakage. [11.7] New energy supply investments in developing countries, upgrades of energy infrastructure in developed countries, and policies that promote energy security, create opportunities to achieve GHG emission reductions6, and to provide co-benefits such as air pollution abatement, balance of trade improvement, wealth creation and employment (high agreement, much evidence). Future energy infrastructure investment decisions (projected investment till 2030 is at least 20 trillion US$7) will have long term impacts on GHG emissions, because long life-times of energy and other infrastructure capital stock means that widespread diffusion of low-carbon technologies may take many decades. Initial estimates for lower carbon scenarios show a large redirection of investment, with net additional investments ranging from negligible to less than 5%. [4.1, 4.4, 11.6] It is often cheaper to invest in end-use energy efficiency improvement than in increasing energy supply to satisfy energy demand. Efficiency improvement has a positive effect on energy security and employment. [4.2, 4.3, 6.5, 7.7, 11.3, 11.8] Renewable energy can have a positive effect on energy security, employment and on air quality. Given costs relative to other supply options, renewable electricity can have a 30See Table SPM.1 and Figure SPM.6. 20 trillion = 20000 billion= 1012.

10 7.

15

20

8. 25

30

35

6 7

Do Not Cite or Quote

12 of 24

SPM 08/02/2007

Final Draft

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

35% share of the total electricity supply in 2030 at carbon prices of US$ 20-100/tCO2-eq. [4.3, 4.4, 11.3, 11.6, 11.8] Due to increased energy security concerns and recent increases in gas prices, there is growing interest in new, more efficient, coal based power plants. A critical issue for future GHG emissions is how quickly new coal plants are going to be equipped with CCS. It depends on economic and technical assumptions whether building CCS ready plants is more cost-effective than retrofitting plants or building a new plant integrated with CCS. [4.2, 4.3, 4.4] 9. The higher the prices of fossil fuels, the more low-carbon alternatives will be competitive, although price volatility will be a disincentive for investors. On the other hand, oil sands, oil shales, heavy oils, and synthetic fuels from coal and gas will also become more competitive as transportation fuels, leading to increasing GHG emissions, unless production plants are equipped with CCS (high agreement, much evidence). [4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5]

10

15 10. The growth of transportation emissions is among the highest of all end-use sectors. Mitigation options are faced with many barriers. (medium agreement, medium evidence). Improved vehicle efficiency measures to a large extent have net negative costs8 due to fuel savings (at least for light-duty vehicles), but the market potential is much lower than the economic potential due to the influence of other consumer considerations. Market forces alone, including fuel costs, are therefore not expected to lead to significant emission reductions. [5.3, 5.4] Biofuels as gasoline and diesel fuel additives/substitutes are projected to grow to 3% of total transport fuel in the baseline in 2030. For carbon prices of 25 US$/tCO2-eq this could increase to about 10%, which includes only a small contribution by biofuels from cellulosic biomass. [5.3, 5.4] Public transport systems and non-motorised transport offer opportunities for greenhouse gas mitigation, depending on local conditions. [5.3, 5.5] Without policy intervention, CO2 emissions from global aviation are expected to rise at around 3-4% per year. Mitigation potential in the medium term is limited to efficiency improvements, which will be insufficient to halt emission growth. [5.3, 5.4] Realising emissions reductions in the transport sector will often be a co-benefit of addressing traffic congestion, air quality and energy security. [5.5] 11. Energy efficiency options for new and existing buildings could significantly reduce CO2 emissions at net negative cost6. Many barriers exist against tapping this potential, but there are also large co-benefits. (high agreement, much evidence) By 2020, about 30% of the projected GHG emissions in the building sector can be avoided at net negative cost. More than half of this potential is in developing countries. [6.4, 6.5] Energy efficient buildings, while limiting the growth of CO2 emissions, can reduce mortality in developing countries, improve social welfare and enhance energy security. [6.6, 6.7] Overcoming the many barriers to realise the economic mitigation potential in the building sector, requires a broad and stronger portfolio of policies; instruments encouraging private initiatives can limit public expenditures. [6.7, 6.8] 12. The mitigation potential in the industry sector6 is dominated by energy intensive industries, of which more than 50% is located in developing countries. International competi8

20

25

30

35

40

45

Net costs are defined as the mitigation costs minus the saved energy costs; net negative costs means benefits.

Do Not Cite or Quote

13 of 24

SPM 08/02/2007

Final Draft

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

10

tion means that costs are very important for mitigation decisions. (high agreement, much evidence) Many industrial facilities in developing countries are new and include the latest technology with the lowest specific energy use. However, many older, inefficient facilities remain in both industrialized and developing countries. Upgrading these facilities can deliver significant emission reductions. [7.1, 7.3, 7.4] Large companies have greater resources, and usually more incentives, to factor environmental and social considerations into their operations than small and medium enterprises (SMEs), but these SMEs provide the bulk of employment and manufacturing capacity in many developing countries. [7.1, 7.3, 7.4] 13. Agricultural practices can make a significant contribution to increasing soil sinks at low costs6 and to bioenergy. (high agreement, much evidence) About 90% of the mitigation potential arises from soil carbon management, which has strong synergies with sustainable agriculture and generally reduces vulnerability to climate change. [8.4, 8.5, 8.8] The net impact of climate change on soil carbon stocks, and hence its impact on long-term mitigation potentials, is uncertain due to several different complex processes with opposing effects. [8.4, 8.5] There is a substantial potential to produce biomass for energy from crop residues and dedicated crops, but the size of its contribution to mitigation depends on how much bio energy could be used in transport and energy supply and on requirements of land for food production. [8.4] 14. Forest sector activities can make a significant contribution to both reducing emissions and to increasing removals by sinks at low costs6, while providing synergies with adaptation and sustainable development. (high agreement, much evidence) Over 65% of the total mitigation potential is located in the tropics and 50% of the total could be achieved by reducing deforestation and forest degradation. [9.4] Climate change will influence carbon mitigation in the forest sector but the magnitude and direction of this impact cannot yet be predicted with confidence. [9.5] Properly designed and implemented forestry mitigation options will have substantial cobenefits in terms of employment, income generation, renewable energy supply and poverty alleviation. This provides opportunities for expanding forestry projects under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). [9.6, 9.7] 15. Post-consumer waste9 is a small contributor to global GHG emissions (<5%), but the waste sector can positively contribute to GHG mitigation at low cost6 and promote sustainable development (high agreement, much evidence). Improved public health and safety, pollution prevention, local energy supply (from landfill gas and incineration), and mitigation of GHG emissions are all important co-benefits of sustainable waste and wastewater management, but financial obstacles exist in many developing countries. [10.3, 10.4, 10.5] 16. Geo-engineering options, such as ocean fertilisation to remove CO2 directly from the air, or blocking sunlight by bringing material into the upper atmosphere, remain largely
9

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Industrial waste is covered in the industry sector.

Do Not Cite or Quote

14 of 24

SPM 08/02/2007

Final Draft

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

speculative and with the risk of unknown side-effects. Reliable cost estimates for these options have not been published. (medium agreement, limited evidence) [11.2]

D. Mitigation in the long-term (after 2030)

5
17. Global emissions must peak and decline thereafter to meet any long-term GHG

10

15

20

concentration stabilisation level. The lower the stabilisation level, the more quickly this peak and decline must occur. Mitigation efforts over the next two to three decades will determine to a large extent the long-term global mean temperature increase and the corresponding climate change impacts that can be avoided. (see Figure SPM.7 and 8) (high agreement, much evidence) Recent studies using multi-gas reduction have explored lower stabilisation levels than reported in TAR. Studies on stabilisation around or below 450 ppmv CO2-eq assume a temporary increase of concentrations above the stabilisation level (so called overshoot scenarios). [3.3] Using the best estimate of climate sensitivity, the most stringent scenarios assessed (stabilising at 445- 490 ppmv CO2-eq) could limit global mean temperature increases to 22.4C above pre-industrial, at equilibrium, requiring emissions to peak within 15 years and to be around 50% of current levels by 2050. Scenarios stabilising at 535-590 ppmv CO2-eq could limit the increase to 2.8-3.2C above pre-industrial and those at 590-710 CO2-eq to 3.2- 4C, requiring emissions to peak within the next 25 and 55 years respectively (see fig SPM.8). Results from studies exploring the effect of carbon cycle and climate feedbacks indicate that the above mentioned temperature ranges might be an underestimate.[3.3, 3.5]

Do Not Cite or Quote

15 of 24

SPM 08/02/2007

Final Draft

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

Figure SPM 7: Emissions pathways of mitigation scenarios for alternative categories of stabilisation targets (Category A1 to E). Pink shaded (dark) give the CO2 emissions for the recent mitigation scenarios developed post TAR. Green shaded (light) areas depict the range of more than 80 TAR stabilisation scenarios (Morita et al., 2001). Category A1 and A2 scenarios explore stabilisation targets below the lowest of TAR. Therefore green striped areas show the TAR range closest to these stabilisation categories.
Source: Nakicenovic et al., 2006, and Hanaoka et al., 2006).

Do Not Cite or Quote

16 of 24

SPM 08/02/2007

Final Draft
Equilibrium global mean temperature increase above preindustrial ( C)

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

10 8 6 4 A1 2 0 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 GHG concentration stabilisation level (ppmv CO2 eq) 1000 A2 C B E D

Figure SPM 8: Stabilisation scenario categories as reported in fig SPM.7 (coloured bands) and their relationship to equilibrium global mean temperature change above pre-industrial, using (i) best estimate climate sensitivity of 3C (black line in middle of shaded area), (ii) upper bound of likely range of climate sensitivity of 4.5C (red line at top of shaded area) (iii) lower bound of likely range of climate sensitivity of 2C (blue line at bottom of shaded area). Coloured shading shows the concentration bands for stabilisation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere corresponding to the stabilisation scenario categories A1 to E as indicated in Figure SPM 7. 18. The range of stabilisation levels assessed can be achieved by deployment of a portfolio of technologies that are commercially available today and those that are expected to be commercialised in coming decades, provided appropriate incentives are in place for investments, cost reduction and further development and deployment of a wide portfolio of technologies. (high agreement, much evidence) The contribution of different technologies to emission reductions required for stabilisation will vary over time, region and stabilisation level. Energy efficiency plays a key role across many scenarios for most regions and timescales. For lower stabilisation levels, scenarios put more emphasis on the use of low carbon energy sources, such as renewable energy and nuclear power, and the use of CO2 capture and storage (CCS). In these scenarios improvements of carbon intensity need to be much faster than in the past. Including non-CO2 and CO2 land-use and forestry mitigation options provides greater flexibility and costeffectiveness. Modern bio energy could contribute substantially to the share of renewable energy in the mitigation portfolio. For illustrative examples see figure SPM.9. Note that the share of low carbon energy options in total energy supply is also determined by inclusion of these options in the baseline. [3.3, 3.4] Investments in and world-wide deployment of low-carbon technologies as well as technology improvements through public and private RD&D are needed for achieving stabilisation targets as well as cost reduction. The lower the stabilisation levels, especially those of 550 ppmv CO2-eq or lower, the larger the numbers of new low-emission equipment and the more RD&D would be needed in the next few decades. [2.9, 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, 4.3, 4.4,4.6]

10

15

20

25

30

Do Not Cite or Quote

17 of 24

SPM 08/02/2007

Final Draft

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

Figure SPM 9: Cumulative emissions reductions for alternative mitigation measures for 2000 to 2030 (left-hand panel) and for 2000-2100 (right-hand panel). The figure shows illustrative scenarios from four models (AIM, IMAGE, IPAC and MESSAGE) aiming at the stabilisation at low (490-540 ppmv CO2-eq) and intermediate levels (650 ppmv CO2-eq) respectively. Dark bars denote reductions for a target of 650 ppmv CO2-eq and light bars the additional reductions to achieve 490540 ppmv CO2-eq. Note that some models do not consider mitigation through forest sink enhancement (AIM and IPAC) or CCS (AIM). BECS stands for bio energy with CCS.
Data source: Van Vuuren et al. (2006); Riahi et al. (2006); Hijioka, et al. (2006); Masui et al. (2006); Jiang et al. (2006).

10

15

20

19. In 205010 global average macro-economic costs for multigas stabilisation at 650 ppmv CO2-eq are 0.5 (-1 to 2)%11 loss of global GDP compared to the baseline (reduction of annual GDP growth rate of less than 0.05 percentage points). For 550ppmv CO2-eq these costs are 1.3 (slightly negative to 4)% (reduction of annual GDP growth rate less than 0.1 percentage points) (See Box SPM.2 for the caveats and paragraph 5 for explanation of negative costs). (high agreement, medium evidence). For stabilisation levels between 445 and 535 ppmv CO2-eq costs are lower than 5.5% GDP loss, but the number of studies is limited and they generally use low baselines. [3.3] For some countries, sectors, or shorter time periods costs could vary considerably from the global and long-term average. [3.3, 13.3] 20. Decision making about the appropriate level of mitigation is part of an iterative risk management process. Cost-benefit comparison (implicit or explicit, and preferably incorporating risk analysis) is one possible tool that considers investment in mitigation and adaptation, the co-benefits of undertaking climate change mitigation and the damages due to climate change. (high agreement, limited evidence) Although there are large uncertainties that make such a comparison incomplete and assumption dependent, estimates of (marginal) carbon prices for even the most stringent of stabilisation pathways assessed (i.e. 550 ppmv CO2-eq and below) indicate that carbon
10 11

25

30

Cost estimates for 2030 are presented in paragraph 5. The median and the 10th to 90th percentile range of the analysed data are given.

Do Not Cite or Quote

18 of 24

SPM 08/02/2007

Final Draft

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

prices are comparable to or lower than the social costs of carbon (or marginal damage costs)12. [1.4, 3.3, 3.5]

E. Policies, measures and instruments

5 21. A positive price of carbon would create incentives for producers and consumers to significantly invest in lower carbon products, technologies and processes. However, additional incentives related to direct government funding and regulations are also important. (high agreement, much evidence) Both sectoral bottom-up and top-down assessments suggest that carbon prices of US$ 20 to 50 per tCO2-eq, sustained or increased over decades, could largely decarbonise power generation and make many mitigation options in the end-use sectors attractive. Reaching such carbon prices by 2020-2030 would be consistent with stabilisation at around 550 ppmv CO2-eq. [3.6, 11.6] Applying an environmentally effective and cost effective instrument mix requires a good understanding of the environmental issue to be addressed, the links with other policy areas and the interactions between the different instruments in the mix. [13.2] Barriers to implementation of mitigation options are manifold and vary by region and sector. They can be related to financial, technical, information and behavioural aspects. [4.5, 5.5, 6.7, 7.6, 8.6, 9.6, 10.5] 22. A wide variety of national policies and instruments are available to governments to create the incentives for mitigation action. Experience from implementation in various countries and sectors shows there are advantages and disadvantages for any given instrument (high agreement, much evidence) Stringency and implementation practices may affect all instruments. General findings about the performance of policies are: [12.2,13.2] Integrating climate policies in broader development policies makes it easier to implement them and to overcome barriers Regulatory measures and standards generally provide some certainty about emission levels. They may be preferable to other instruments when information or other barriers prevent producers and consumers from responding to price signals. Taxes and charges are generally cost effective, but cannot guarantee a particular level of emissions and may be politically difficult to implement. Tradable permits will establish a carbon price. The volume of allowed emissions determines their environmental effectiveness, while the distribution of allowances has implications for competitiveness. Fluctuation in the price of carbon makes it difficult to estimate the total cost of complying with emission allowances. Voluntary agreements between industry and governments are politically attractive, raise awareness among stakeholders, and have played a role in the evolution of many national policies. The majority of agreements has not achieved significant emissions reductions beyond business as usual. However, some recent agreements have accelerated the application of best available technology and led to measurable reductions of emissions compared to the baseline, particularly in countries with traditions of close cooperation between government and industry. Success factors include: clear targets, a base-

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

12

Costs of adaptation and co-benefits of mitigation other than energy savings are not considered for this statement; nor are impacts that have not yet been expressed in monetary terms [WG II, ch 20.6]

Do Not Cite or Quote

19 of 24

SPM 08/02/2007

Final Draft

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

10 15

line scenario, third party involvement in design and review and formal provisions of monitoring. Voluntary actions: Corporations, sub-national governments, NGOs and civil groups are adopting a wide variety of voluntary actions, independent of government authorities, which may limit GHG emissions, stimulate innovative policies, and encourage the deployment of new technologies. By themselves they generally have limited impact at the national or regional level. Financial incentives are frequently used by governments to stimulate the diffusion of new technologies. While economic costs are generally higher than for other instruments, they are often critical to overcome barriers to the penetration of new technologies. Selection of policies is often based on consideration of environmental effectiveness, cost effectiveness, distributional effects (including equity) and institutional feasibility. [13.2] Lessons learned from specific sector application are shown in Table SPM.2

Do Not Cite or Quote

20 of 24

SPM 08/02/2007

Final Draft

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

Table SPM 2: Most important sectoral policies, measures and instruments that have proven to be environmentally effective in the respective sector in at least a number of national cases
Sector Energy supply [4.5] Policies and measures proven to be environmentally effective Reduction of fossil fuel subsidies Taxes or carbon charges on fossil fuels Feed-in tariffs for selected technologies Renewable energy obligations Producer subsidies Mandatory fuel economy and CO2 standards Taxes on vehicle purchase, registration, use and motor fuels, road and parking pricing Influence mobility needs through land use regulations, and infrastructure planning Investment in attractive public transport facilities and non-motorised forms of transport Appliance standards and labeling Building codes and certification Demand side management programmes Public sector leadership programmes, including procurement Incentives for energy service companies (ESCOs) Provision of benchmark information Performance standards Subsidies, tax credits Tradable permits Key constraints or opportunities Resistance by vested interests may make them difficult to implement May be appropriate to create markets for low emissions technologies Partial coverage of vehicle fleet may limit effectiveness Effectiveness may drop with higher incomes Particularly appropriate for countries that are building up their transportation systems. Regular evaluation and updating may enhance effectiveness

Transport [5.5]

Buildings [6.8]

Industry [7.9]

May be appropriate to stimulate technology uptake. Stability of national policy important in view of international competitiveness Predictable allocation mechanisms and stable price signals important for investments May encourage synergy with sustainable development and with reducing vulnerability to climate change, thereby overcoming barriers to implementation Effectiveness depends on investment capital, regulatory and financial incentives, and international cooperation May be appropriate for to stimulate technology uptake

Agriculture [8.6, Financial incentives for improved land 8.7, 8.8] management, maintaining soil carbon content, efficiency in irrigation and use of fertilizers

Forestry [9.6]

Financial incentives to maintain and manage forests (national and international) Land use regulation and enforcement Financial incentives for improved waste and wastewater management, including the CDM Renewable energy incentives or obligations Regulations

Waste management [10.5]

23. Government support through financial contributions, tax credits, standard setting and market creation is important for effective technology development and innovation. Transfer of technology to developing countries depends on investments and enabling conditions (high agreement, much evidence). Public benefits of RD&D investments are much bigger than the benefits captured by the private sector, justifying government support of RD&D. Government funding in absolute

10

Do Not Cite or Quote

21 of 24

SPM 08/02/2007

Final Draft

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

10

terms for most energy research programmes has been flat or declining for nearly two decades (even after the UNFCCC came into force) and is now about half of the 1980 level. [2.7, 3.4, 4.6, 11.5, 13.2] Effective technology transfer requires enabling conditions for investments and technology uptake. Mobilising financing of incremental costs of low carbon technologies is important. International technology agreements could strengthen the knowledge infrastructure. [ 13.3] Financial flows to developing countries through CDM projects are reaching levels of the order of several billion US$ per year13. This is higher than the flows through the Global Environment Facility, comparable to the energy oriented development assistance flows, but at least an order of magnitude lower than total foreign direct investment (FDI) flows. The role of CDM, GEF and development assistance in technology transfer is therefore limited. [13.3] 24. The most notable achievements of the UNFCCC and its Kyoto protocol are the stimulation of an array of national policies, the creation of a global carbon market and the establishment of new institutional mechanisms that may provide the foundation for future mitigation efforts. (high agreement, much evidence) The impact of its current commitment period relative to global emissions is likely to be limited. Its economic impacts on participating countries are likely to be smaller than presented in TAR, that showed 0.2- 2% lower GDP in 2012 without emissions trading, 0.11.1% lower GDP with full emissions trading. [1.4,11.4,13.3] 25. The literature identifies many options for achieving reductions both under and outside the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. Future international agreements would have stronger support, if they are environmentally effective, cost-effective, incorporate distributional considerations and equity, and are institutionally feasible. (high agreement, much evidence) Since climate change is a global problem, approaches that do not include a larger share of global emissions will have higher global costs or be less environmentally effective. [13.3] Expanding the scope of market mechanisms (emission trading, Joint Implementation and CDM) could reduce overall mitigation costs. [13.3] Different approaches to global agreements (targets, sectoral or sub-national agreements, adopting common policies, international technology R,D&D programmes, implementing development oriented actions or expanding financing instruments) can be integrated within an agreement, but comparing such efforts quantitatively would be complex and resource intensive. [13.3] Actions to be taken by participating countries can be differentiated both in terms of when such action is undertaken, who participates and what the action will be. Actions can be binding or non-binding, include fixed or dynamic targets, and participation can be static or vary over time. Decisions on how to allocate states to tiers can be based on formalized quantitative or qualitative criteria, or be ad hoc.[13.3]

15

20

25

30

35

40

13

Depends strongly on the market price that has fluctuated between 5 and 25 US$/tCO2-eq.

Do Not Cite or Quote

22 of 24

SPM 08/02/2007

Final Draft

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

F. Sustainable development and climate change mitigation

26. Making development more sustainable by changing development paths can make a major contribution to climate change mitigation. At the same time there is a growing understanding of the possibilities to choose and implement mitigation options to realise synergies and avoid conflicts with other dimensions of sustainable development. (high agreement, much evidence) Climate change can be considered an integral element of sustainable development policies. National circumstances and the strengths of institutions determine how development policies impact GHG emissions. Changes in development paths emerge from the interactions of public and private decision processes involving government, business and civil society, many of which are not traditionally considered as climate policy. This process is most effective when actors participate equitably and decentralized decision processes are coordinated. [2.2, 3.3, 12.2] There is growing evidence that decisions about macroeconomic policy, multilateral development bank lending, insurance practices, electricity market reform, energy security and forest conservation, for example, which may seem unrelated to climate policy, can significantly reduce emissions. On the other hand, decisions about improving rural access to modern energy sources for example may not have much influence on global GHG emissions. [12.2] Climate related policies such as energy efficiency are often economically beneficial, improve energy security and reduce local pollutant emissions. Other energy supply mitigation options can be designed to achieve also other sustainable development benefits such as avoided displacement of local populations, job creation, and rationalized human settlements design. [4.5,12.3] Reducing deforestation can have significant biodiversity, soil and water conservation benefits, but may result in loss of economic welfare for some stakeholders. Appropriately designed forestation and bio energy plantations can lead to reclamation of degraded land, manage water runoff, retain soil carbon and benefit rural economies, but could compete with land for agriculture and may be negative for biodiversity. [9.7, 12.3] There are good possibilities for reinforcing sustainable development though mitigation actions in the waste management, transportation and buildings sectors. [5.4, 6.6, 10.5, 12.3] Making development more sustainable can enhance both adaptive and mitigative capacity and reduce both vulnerability to climate change and emission levels. Synergies between mitigation and adaptation can be identified, such as biomass production, land management, energy use in buildings and forestry. In other situations, there may be trade-offs, such as increased GHG emissions due to increased consumption of energy related to adaptive responses. [2.5, 3.5, 4.5, 6.9, 7.8, 8.5, 9.5, 11.9, 12.1].

10

15

20

25

30

35

Do Not Cite or Quote

23 of 24

SPM 08/02/2007

Final Draft

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III

ANNEX 1: Uncertainty representation

5 Uncertainty is an inherent feature of any assessment. The fourth assessment report clarifies the uncertainties associated with essential statements. Fundamental differences between the underlying disciplinary sciences of the three reports make a common approach impractical. The likelihood approach applied in "Climate change 2007, the physical science basis" and the confidence approach used in "Climate change, impacts adaptation, and vulnerability" are less appropriate in this volume as human choices are concerned, while each of the other approaches was also considered to provide insufficient characterization of the specific uncertainties involved in mitigation. In this report a two-dimensional scale noting the relative level of expert agreement on the respective statements in light of the underlying literature (in rows) and the amount of scientific/technical evidence (in columns) on which the findings are based, are used (see Table SPM.A.1).

10

15

20

Table SPM A.1: Qualitative definition of uncertainty High agreement, limited evidence Medium agreement, limited evidence Level of agreement (on a statement) Low agreement, limited evidence High agreement, medium evidence Medium agreement, medium evidence Low agreement, medium evidence High agreement, much evidence Medium agreement, much evidence Low agreement, much evidence

Amount of evidence (theory, observations, models)

Because the future is inherently unpredictable and this report tries to assess mitigation potential and costs for 30 to 100 years ahead, scenarios, i.e., internally consistent images of different futures - not prediction of the future to come, have been used extensively in this report to handle this unpredictability. 25

Do Not Cite or Quote

24 of 24

SPM 08/02/2007

INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE

WMO UNEP

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working group III Government Review of the Final Draft SPM

Comments Batch A, B and C combined SECTION A, B and C with co-chairs responses (April 26, 2007)

Comments of Governments and Organisations on the WGIII SPM

This file includes co-chairs proposals for processing. Yellow marked numbers have been agreed with CLAs of respective chapters already.

Government Review of Final Draft SPM Confidential, Do Not Cite or Quote

Batch A, B,C, April 26, 2007

Page 1 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments GENERAL COMMENTS When quoting the TAR as a frame of reference, please consider highlighting the data or claims to which is being compared to provide some scope. (Government of Canada) We think that is important the inclusion of a paragraph on gaps in knowledge and future research needs as an important part of an SPM. (Government of Cuba) We thank WG III, the WG III TSU, and the author team, for their efforts in producing this final draft SPM. We feel that overall, the document is very good. (Government of New Zealand) We have a concern that the document is more complex than it needs to be. While the detailed information may be useful for some specialist readers it detracts from the readability of the SPM as a whole. We would support any moves to simplify the document, in particular by moving non-essential material to footnotes or to references to the main report, and by simplifying figures. (Government of New Zealand)

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-1

Only feasible in some cases

SPM-2

Reject; see TS

SPM-3

Thank you

SPM-4

Simplify where possible

Page 2 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments Throughout the SPM, stabilization of C02 equivalent concentrations is now used. In some cases, C02 eq, C02 only, "TAR ppm" are used together. This will be very confusing for policy makers. We believe a box is needed to clearly guide policy makers from the transition from C02 only, to C02 eq. It needs to be made clear that the studies are now considering all gases and that TAR scenarios included only C02...and, for example, a TAR 650ppm equates to a much higher C02eq scenario. In Figure SPM7 in particular, a much smoother means of making the transition to thinking in terms of C02eq needs to be made. (Government of Canada) This version of the SPM includes a large amount of valuable information. However, the language still requires much refining and greater consistency in this document, in order to avoid confusion for policymakers. (Government of Canada) This report I believe fails to bring to policymakers' attention the fact that most analyses suggest that cost-control measures could prove rather useful in facilitating the adoption of emission reduction targets by a greater number of countries, and by facilitating the adoption of relatively more ambitious targets than in their absence. Specific writing suggestions at the end of these comments. (International Energy Agency) There is insufficient information of how the timing of reductions might affect mitigation costs. (Government of Canada) There is a huge difference between the estimated mitigation potential in this SPM and the one released in 2001. The TAR came up with 3.6-5 Gt CO2eq/yr in 2020 while the current

Considerations by the writing team OK, add box and make sure units are used consistently FOR DISCUSSION Holger to produce a box

SPM-5

SPM-6

See #A4

SPM-7

See detailed comment

SPM-8

See detailed comment

SPM-9

Misunderstanding; will be clarified in para 4 with bullet on TAR comparison

Page 3 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments report provides an estimate between 16 to 30 Gt CO2eq/yr in 2030. This difference is rather huge and represents a significant advance in comparison with the TAR, and should be explained somewhere in the text. Note that at the final meeting of IPCC WGI in Paris this year some governments wished to see the IPCCs current findings well linked to the work done by the IPCC before (means the TAR, etc.). Another important thing, which I noticed, is that Buildings seems to become the priority sector to address in the nearest future in terms of mitigation measures and actions. As it can be seen from Table SPM 1 and Figure SPM 6 this is the sector which would secure the biggest gains at reasonable cost. If the case, it should have a serious impact on development policies in future. The IPCC should stress on that in section C.4 (optional). (UNEP) The SPM for this WG seems to have more jargon and acronyms than those of other WGs. Although a list of acronyms are provided in a glossary, all should be defined at least the first time they are used in the SPM especially since this should be a stand alone document (and perhaps the only one policy makers read). A few examples are provided in specific comments. (Government of Canada) The SPM discusses the cost of CO2 mitigation, but there is a conspicuous lack of a corresponding estimate for the cost of not doing anything to mitigate GHG emissions. While the literature is still evolving in this area, it is important to at least qualitatively compare mitigation costs with the economic costs of not doing anything. (Government of United States of America) The SPM contains 26 headline statements that seems to be

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-10

In printed booklet specific glossary will be added; some terms can be simplified and in some cases explanations can be given

SPM-11

Para 20 SPM is on that (WG II stuff), but US wants to delete the relevant text there (see #A771); regarding that comment: text of bullet in para 20 can be improved in response to the comment Reject; to cumbersome to do that now
Page 4 of 183

SPM-12

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments excessive. The authors should think about consolidation of some of them or (maybe) reorganization of the text as a whole (optional). Compare, the IPCC WGI SPM contains 12 headline statements. (UNEP) The report is coherent and well written, and provides a good coverage of the salient features of WGIII Report. (Government of Pakistan) The normal practice of IPCC SPMs should be followed and therefore all references to literature sources in and below captions to graphs should be removed , apart from references to the AR4-WG3 chapters. This includes language as 'adapted from ...' in Figure SPM.3. (European Community) The Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment on behalf of the Cuban Government appreciate the efforts undertaken and evidence provided by the International Group of Experts of WG III of the IPCC for this sound and accurate report on mitigation that is crucial to promote fair international efforts to address the climate change causes. The SPM provided the writing team highlights the main issues related to the mitigation efforts. There is good news to know that an important economic potential for low term emissions reduction already exists, and that efforts towards levels not higher than 550 ppm are not prohibitive from the economic point of view for the international community. Despite this, we acknowledge with deep concern that at present, emissions from Annex 1 countries continue to rise. Cuba, as a SIDS, has the same problems and risks than other isolated countries. Impacts as sea level rises, temperature

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-13

Thank you

SPM-14

OK, remove literature references, but retain reference to section, figure)

SPM-15

Thank you

Page 5 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments and global pollution increases, and negative effects from strong natural disasters (as more intense hurricanes and hard floods and droughts), among others, are valid for our country too. For this reason are executed our established Mitigation and Adaptation Programmes. Our country has low levels of GHG emissions, but nevertheless realize many actions in order to reach high levels of energetic efficiency, working in different fronts: improving the efficiency of and decentralizing- electricity generation, mainly based on fossil fuels; increasing renewable energy share; modernizing electro domestic appliances in homes; utilizing more efficient electric light bulbs; changing the kitchens from LPG and kerosene to electricity; among other measures which help to reduce the consumption of fuels and electricity, and GHG emissions too. (Government of Cuba) The IPCC seems to be confident of utility of nuclear power and advanced nuclear power. At least this is the impression coming from table SPM 1 where nuclear is listed among mitigation technologies available and those to be introduced. Given continuous political debate (for example the recent EU summit which discussed the future energy policy and climate change mitigation measures) and significant controversy related to the nuclear energy, the IPCC might wish to make a special reservation on the use of the term nuclear power in the mitigation context (optional). (UNEP) Stabilising long-term greenhouse gas concentrations at around 450 ppmv CO2 eq. gives a 50 % chance to limit global mean temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels. In order to achieve this,

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-16

Reject, nuclear is treated as one of the mitigation options in the report

SPM-17

This is done in chapter 3 and reflected in para 17 of the SPM

Page 6 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments global greenhouse gas emissions should peak within the next 15 years and decrease by up to 50% by 2050 compared to 1990. This requires very significant worldwide changes in current emission trends. The window of opportunity to reach this ambition level is closing fast. The report therefore should present objectively the recent research (in comparison to the TAR) that addresses the mitigation pathways that can attain this 2C target. This is crucial to give policy makers a correct estimate of the achievability of this ambition level. (European Community) Results and conclusions presented in this document will undoubtedly serve to broaden the range of information available to policy makers already involved in the subject and to introduce to those that will become involved in the subject from now onwards. (Government of CHILE) Reduction of climate change risks by mitigation should be mentioned earlier. (Government of Austria) R&D is considered a specific policy option within the TS and the individual chapters, but is not discussed as an important policy option in the SPM. Insert text from lines 29 to 36 of TS page 93. See also Table TS 19. (Government of United States of America) It seems that the document is missing the implications of potential positive feedback loops that may cause efforts to stabilize at higher atmospheric concentrations to be fruitless (e.g. feedbacks such as the release of CH4 from arctic bogs). A notable exception is the reference to the inability to determine how agricultural and forest sinks may react to higher CO2 concentrations.

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-18

Thank you

SPM-19

Specific suggestion?

SPM-20

is covered in para 23 and 22

SPM-21

Reject, Issue is covered in paragraph 23 (and also in para 18 and 22)

Page 7 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments (Government of Canada) It is welcome that only statements of a high confidence have been included. (Government of Austria) It is noted that the SPM does not address gaps in knowledge and needs for additional research. (Government of Austria) It is not stated the cut-off date for documents included in this section. (Government of CHILE) It is implicit in the stabilization modeling that advanced technologies will be available in the future to facilitate achieving long-term climate goals. However, there is no discussion in the SPM of the role of advanced technologies and operational changes and the R&D efforts required to develop them. Consider incorporating elements from the discussion on TS page 23 line 11. (Government of United States of America) Is suggested to include a Glossary (Government of Austria) In order to keep consistency with other IPCC working groups' reports, please replace "ppmv" with "ppm" in this report. (Government of China) For GDP, it is suggested to use GDP(MER) instead of GDP(PPP) or at least use both of them (add footnote) in the whole report. There are two reasons. First, GDP(MER) has still been widely used in the current economic activities. Second, the estimations of GDP(PPP) are made by different agencies based on different data sources. Therefore, there are great differences between estimations. (Government of China)

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-22

Thank you

SPM-23

Is left to TS, because no short summary possible Reject, not done in previous IPCC reports either Is covered in para 18

SPM-24

SPM-25

SPM-26 SPM-27

A A

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

For freestanding publication of SPM separate Glossary will be included; Accept: use ppm as this is the IPCC standard

SPM-28

Accept: a footnote to address this point has been added in paragraph B3. .

Page 8 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments Even with explanations in the Annex it would help the readability if abbreviations would be explained at first instance of introduction. Examples GWP, GHG, CCS, UNFCCC, GDP, NGO. (European Community) Due to the format chosen of setting 26 points along the document, each with a single concept to communicate, it is difficult to identify at a glance which are the key conclusions and which are less fundamental. Such a format weakens the goal to put across in a simple way a few powerful messages for policy makers and it also makes difficult for this document to become a communication friendly tool, able to target a range of policy makers, not only to those more familiar with the subject of mitigation and climate change. (Government of CHILE) Comment: we suggest to annex a table summarizing where available information per country such as population, GDP per capita, emissions, emissions per capita, emissions per unit GDP, mix of used energy sources (with %), baseline projections for each of these, emission caps (KP), etc. (Government of Netherlands) Comment: the SPM has greatly improved in content and presentation compared to the SOD. (Government of Netherlands) Bioenergy and biofuels should be one word in all instances. This should apply further to the sections of the report and the technical summary. (Government of Canada) As suggested in the draft, a sentence on developing country challenge is absolutely necessary. (Government of Japan) Although there is Annex I, it is still not very easy for

Considerations by the writing team OK, will be written in full (with acronym) first time

SPM-29

SPM-30

Reject; headline statements for each section are limited

SPM-31

Reject, impossible

SPM-32

Thank you

SPM-33

OK

SPM-34

UNCLEAR; what is the suggestion?

SPM-35

OK, Annex I will be elaborated on the

Page 9 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments policymakers to understand the uncertainty representation in SPM. It is necessary to clearly describe the process of the uncertainty estimation for each major conclusion in SPM, for example, in which situation "high agreement" can be achieved and what it does mean. (Government of China)

Considerations by the writing team terminology used DISCUSS if properly applied Authors shall check this and return to TSU (RD) if the rule of evidence and agreement has been applied in the same manner. Breakout group to discuss further Reject, no space for local examples without creating unbalance; see main report

SPM-36

SPM-37

SPM-38

SPM-1

Although it is acknowledged that this SPM should cover conclusions useful for the overall world, a few local examples may help to point out some specific features, drawing also attention to local policy makers. (Government of CHILE) A whole point stating key updates of this document in comparison with the TAR, would be an asset of this Summary. (Government of CHILE) A stable climate is a global public good. So is energy efficiency -- the benefits from an isolated investment in energy efficiency are fuel savings, the benefits of many similar investments are reduced fuel volumes and costs, as a lower global demand depresses costs. Hence the importance of coordinating the worldwide efforts for energy savings. Shouldn't this figure out in this SPM? I' m sure it's burried somewhere in this report. (International Energy Agency) Throughout the SPM the authors provide percentiles for projected changes in emissions, and for mitigation potentials. It would be useful for policy readers if the raw figures for these percentile changes were also included to allow a more clear comparison. (Government of Australia)

Reject, TAR comparisons are made where relevant (and will be improved in a number of cases; see other suggestions) Reject, point is made in para 8, second bullet

See specific comments

Page 10 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments Throughout the SPM figures and tables are used that are drawn from the body of the report, yet in the SPM there is no reference to where those figures can be found in the body of the report, this should be rectified. (Government of Australia) The SPM of the report contains 25 propositions. Each comes with a two dimensional qualification - agreement and evidence. The degree of agreement is understandable. However, it is difficult to understand how can one assert that there is "much/less evidence" in support of a proposition as most of the WG3 findings relate to future outcomes. Hence we do not possess any meaningful 'evidence' on future events that are inherently uncertain. We suggest that a further qualification be attached to the term evidence such as 'indicative evidence' or 'level of understanding' to present a clearer picture of the uncertainty typology for readers. (Government of Australia) The SPM is the only one part of the WG3 report that will be read by many people. However, currently it is too technical for many policy makers and assumes too much knowledge, in particular a number of the figures need to be reviewed to present a clearer message for policy readers. (Government of Australia) Whole document: BECS and BECCS are both used as abbreviations for bio-energy with CCS. BECS seems to be the most common. (Government of Belgium) The titles under the figures could be made easier to read and perceive by dividing the text in a title and explanations, limitations etc. The title should stand in a separate line and the rest of the text could have smaller letters, (Government of Norway)

Considerations by the writing team OK, add references

SPM-2

SPM-3

Reject, our terminology is in agreement with IPCC guidance on uncertainties

SPM-4

See # A4

SPM-5

Use BECS

SPM-6

OK, this model will be followed systematically (as already done in several cases)

Page 11 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments Information given in the glossary is important for the readability of the SPM, e.g. terms like EMF21, carbon price, PPP, TPES etc. should be explained. For some of these terms it may be beneficial to explain them in the SPM-text as well. (Government of Norway) The UK thanks IPCC WGIII for the enormous amount of work in preparing the draft AR4 and offers these comments on the Policymakers Summary. The report sets out a very useful summary of findings in key areas and is an excellent factual resource. The text is concise which aids readability for an expert audience, we appreciate the clear diagrams provided in the SPM. However, we would like to make a number of general suggestions regarding presentation and structure of the SPM, which we think would make it more accessible to a non-technical audience and bring out some of the key conclusions. We also note that there is an uneven treatment of quantification in the bold headings and suggests that quantification of key points is made. (Government of UK) It would be helpful also to highlight what is new in this assessment compared to previous ones. In particular it would be helpful to highlight where the evidence is reducing uncertainty and whether trends are emerging. This could be done by adding some text describing briefly what the main advancements since TAR in the introduction or by introducing a box. The text should include the fact that multigas stabilisation scenarios are now available in the literature, for example: "New multigas stabilization scenarios represent a significant change in the new literature compared to TAR that focused mostly on CO2 emissions. They also explore lower levels and a wider range of stabilization than in TAR." (Executive summary of Ch.3,

Considerations by the writing team OK

SPM-7

SPM-8

Thank you; quantification not always possible or desirable for headline

SPM-9

OK, where useful and feasible

Page 12 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments line 9-13) (Government of UK) It is a big problem that Figures require color print to be intelligible. Most of the readers, especially outside the rich countries, may not have access to color printers. (Government of Sweden) In several places, add "annual" to clarify that annual emissions are referred to. (Government of Sweden) General comment: There is a risk that much of what is being said will raise more questions than answers. Perhaps, the reason for this is that the SPM relies too much on modeling studies (which are complex and difficult to comprehend) and too little on back of the envelope calculations which offer clearer and reproducible information. Perhaps it would be more illustrative to rely more on technological data (e.g., in line with the Socolow & Pacala paper in Science), i.e., include tables on the potential of wind, of biomass (how many hectares of land for a car depending on the biomass source) etc. And then give qualitative statements on how economic considerations might change the result. The focus would then be more on what one learned from advanced modeling exercises rather than primarily reproducing the data that emerged from such scenarios. (Government of Sweden) General comment: The summary tends to provide information in such a way that it provides a sense of what can be found in the relevant chapters in the Fourth Assessment Report, but fails to summarize the important issues in a clear and purposeful manner. For example, the value and necessity of early action in terms of mitigation and adaptation strategies for stabilizing GHG concentrations at

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-39

OK, will be checked for final publication

SPM-40

See specific proposals

SPM-41

Reject, report is based on bottom-up technological studies and top-down models

SPM-42

Reject, issue of early action is in para 17 (headline and second bullet)

Page 13 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments lower levels and the problem of inertia and lock-in effects are clearly reflected in many of the chapters (and the TAR) and yet the issue of early action and the promotion thereof is completely omitted in the SPM. Early action is of crucial importance for addressing climate change, and it should be included in the SPM. See, for example, Ch. 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 4.1, 9.5, 11.6, 12.2 (Government of Sweden) General comment: Lifestyle choice and change, consumption patterns, attitudes, cultural beliefs, behavioral change, individual and collective change, personal responsibility, ethical attitudes , education and awarenessraising are not referred to throughout the SPM. These wider social and cultural factors are, in addition to policy instruments and technological innovation, critical for addressing climate change in an integrated manner. We suggest that a comment on these aspects be inserted at the end of E. Policies, measures and instruments. (Government of Sweden) General comment: Although the authors have managed to summarize a broad and complex literature we would like to raise some doubts concerning the usefulness to policy makers of the SPM in its current form. In many places, especially at the end, there are vague and sometimes trivial statements. In other places, text as well as figures, the information must be rather incomprehensible to someone who is not already quite familiar with scenario-work, modeling, and previous debate on climate policy. Figures need comments and explanations. The SPM lacks the sense of urgency which, given the data presented, should be there in terms of policy making. It also fails to pinpoint the difficulties and challenges facing policy makers. What is it that needs to be done, not least in terms of policy, in order to

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-43

Reject, SPM box 1 explains that Nontechnical mitigation options, such as lifestyle changes are not included in the mitigation potential estimates

SPM-44

OK, text will be clarified and simplified where possible. On the issue of low level stabilisation scenarios: that issue is clearly dealt with in para 17 and referred to in para 4

Page 14 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-1

SPM-2

reach low carbon concentrations A1 and A2 scenarios consistent with a +2 degC target?. (Government of Sweden) Although the difference between the uncertainty Thank you representation levels between WGs I and II and WG III has been noticed earlier, at this stage it seems useful to mentioned that the information given in Annex I: Uncertainty representation, is very clear and has our support. The figures chosen are clear, meaning what they aim at. Although in some instances the issues dealt with in this document are controversial, they are presented with information about their complexities, then giving a sense of authenticity to the phrase / sentence involved. Specific comments will show the aim of this general comment. (Government of Argentina) There should be more references to the relationship between Reject, adaptation is covered in adaptation and mitigation as, for example, mitigation, paragraph 14 and 26 vulnerability and adaptation relationships (Chapter 2), the interaction between mitigation and adaptation, in the light of climate change impacts and decision making under long run uncertainty (Chapter 3), etc. (Government of Spain) Reject, Introduction should be kept as short as possible and sector organisation is self evident

PARAGRAPH A1 SPM-45 A 3

19 Please add to the introduction: "Given that mitigation options vary significantly with economic sectors, it was decided to use the economic sectors to organise the material on short to medium term mitigation options. Contrary to what was done in the Third Assessment Report, all relevant aspects of sectoral mitigation options, such as technology, cost, policies etc., are discussed together to provide the user with a comprehensive discussion of the sectoral mitigation options." (TS, p.3)

Page 15 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-46

SPM-10

SPM-11

SPM-47 SPM-48

A A

3 3

7 7

0 3

(Government of Finland) 19 Comment on Section A: Section A should give some general background and also the objective of SPM to the reader. "The main aim of this report is to assess options for mitigating climate change. Several aspects link climate change with developmental issues and the climate change mitigation policies with other policies and decision making" (First sentences of the Technical Summary, slightly modified) (Government of Finland) 7 Suggest that it would be useful to define "mitigation" in the SPM. (Government of UK) 7 Suggest that the inclusion of the SRCCS and SROC at this point in the introduction could confuse some policy readers unfamiliar with the work of the IPCC, as the sentence seems to infer that only literature since the publication of the special report sin 2005 has been included in the WG3 report. The sentence should end after "(TAR)", and a new sentence could be drafted to state "The Working Group 3 contribution also draws upon and updates the information contained in the IPCC Special Reports on CO2 Capture and Storage (SRCCS) and on Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System (SROC)". (Government of Australia) 0 The abbreviation SROC does not match the preceding text. (Government of Nepal) 7 The acronym "SROC" stands for "Special Report on Ozone and Climate". Please replace "SROC" by the correct acronym of "Special Report on Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System". (Government of Pakistan)

Reject, the mandate of WG III is already given

See glossary

Reject, because we do not summarise Special Reports

Reject, SROC is the accepted abbreviation See #A47

Page 16 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments TAR has an introductory section here describing context. Suggest including a similar section before going into the details. (Government of UK) Should be anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (UNEP)

Considerations by the writing team Reject, TAR has similar introduction as here

SPM-12

SPM-49

10

SPM-50

11

SPM-13

11

SPM-51

12

SPM-14

12

SPM-15

13

SPM-52

16

SPM-53

16

11 This sentence should be changed to the following: at the sector level (until 2030). (Government of Japan) 11 Suggest redrafting to "Mitigation in the short and medium term, across different economic sectors" (Government of UK) 12 Suggest to remove the word "context" from this line, to be consistent with previous one and with the title of the section. (Government of Mexico) 12 Delete "context" as this does not reflect the heading of section D, and is superfluous. (Government of Australia) 13 Suggest redraft to "Polices, measures and instruments to deliver mitigation" (Government of UK) 19 The explanation in Annex 1 is useful. However, reference to the difference in uncertainty statements might be useful here, as opposed to solely in the Annex. Suggested text: "...for the AR4, and which are different for WG3 from the terminology used in WG1 and WG2, can be found in Annex 1." (Government of Canada) 17 Suggest adding a few words to end of sentence: "can be

Reject also predominantly anthropogenic some GHG emissions may have come from natural sources which though statistically insignificant cannot be separated out See B13 for better text

OK

OK

See #A51

OK

see B16

see B16
Page 17 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments found in Annex 1 of this document." (Government of United States of America) It needs to be more clearly (and less defensively) articulated at this point that the WG3 report uses a different metric to describe uncertainty, than that featured in the other WG reports. Suggest that this sentence is deleted and replaced with the following drawn from Annex 1: "In this WG3 report a two-dimensional scale noting (a) the relative level of expert agreement on the respective statements in light of the underlying literature; and (b) the amount of scientific/technical evidence on which the findings are based, is used (see Annex 1). This approach differs from the characterisation of uncertainty in the WG1 and WG2 reports because fundamental differences between the underlying disciplinary sciences of the three reports make a common approach impractical." (Government of Australia) In order to provide more clarity, please modify this line according to the explanation on the annex I of the SPM WG III. (. , according to the agreed terminology for the AR4 for the WG III,.) (Government of Spain) Comment: the use of square brackets for referencing source paragraphs in the underlying chapters is inconsistent with the WG1 SPM, that uses square brackets for uncertainty ranges and braces "{}" for referencing (Government of Netherlands) It must be possible to read the SPM as a free standing publication. Because of that a glossary must be available in the SPM, or abbreviations inserted in a footnote. The reader (policy maker) should not have to go to the full report to find out the meaning of a particular abbreviation or colloquial

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-16

16

17

OK (covers also A52, 53)

SPM-3

16

17

Reject, there was only a general guidance note on uncertainty

SPM-54

18

18

Reject, Will be coordinated in final publication

SPM-55

19

19

See #A26

Page 18 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments term (Government of Sweden)

Considerations by the writing team

PARAGRAPH B2 SPM-17 B 3

21

SPM-56

23

Nowhere in the text of section B is there a clear statement of what the figures for the emissions of each of the GHGs were in 1970 and what they were in 2004. We suggest that this is important information for policy makers and should be included in the text (rather than as an additional figure) of the section. Even a footnote along the lines of Chapter 1, footnote 1 (page 3) would be of help for policy readers. (Government of Australia) 23 What is the situation regarding non-KP GHGs, such as HCFCs? (Government of Nepal)

See #A69

SPM-57

23

SPM-58

23

SPM-59 SPM-60

A A

3 3

23 23

0 0

24 What does the term additional in the title refer to? It may be advisable to drop it. (Government of Nepal) 24 Suggest to insert a comma between the words "policies" and Reject, good English "global". (Government of Mexico) 0 Should be without additional mitigation measures Reject, policies also applies here (UNEP) 0 Section B.2: There is no discussion of the observed Ok , ad sentence suggested in B32 difference in growth of emissions across sectors. Some such as power generation and road transport - have seen

OK, add text as new bullet (after first): The emissions of ozone depletion substances (ODS) under the Montreal Protocol but not covered by the Kyoto Protocol have declined significantly throughout the 1990s and continued after 2000 albeit at a slower pace. By 2004 the CO2eq of the emissions of these gases amounted to 25% of their 1990 value. Reject, is needed because there is already some mitigation ongoing

Page 19 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-61

23

large increases in emissions, while others - such as residential and commercial buildings - have seen little change in emissions. Suggest including text from Chapter 1, p. 13, lines 11 - 14. (Government of United States of America) 24 Please replace "additional climate mitigation" with Reject, "additional GHG mitigation". Remove "appropriate" - it climate mitigation is an doesn't add to the sentence and is vague and value laden. accepted term Replace "sustainable development policies" with "energy appropriate is needed because and economic policies" to be consistent with rest of not all SD policies will reduce document. GHG emissions (Government of United States of America) SD policies is used throughout the report; no reason to replace it here 24 delete "and/or appropriate sustainable develpment policies", as this would imply that just with appropriate sustainable development policies global emissions would be stabilised or reduced, or that they are equal in significance with additional mitigation policies, whereas the underlying material shows that even optimistic baseline scenarios do not lead to a stabilisation or decrease in emissions within a few decades. The possibility implied here that SD policies can also reduce emissions is acknowledged in Chapter but is not unambigous eg see Ch12 ES pages 5" there is a growing understanding of the possibilities to choose mitigation options and their implementation in such a way that there will be no conflict with other dimensions of sustainable development; or, where trade-offs are inevitable, to allow rational choices to be made. The sustainable development benefits of mitigation options vary within a sector and over regions (high agreement/much evidence):..etc". Over the Reject, chapter 12 makes the case that well chosen SD policies (that is why the word appropriate is there) can reduce emissions; the paragraph does not speak about stabilisation. Also SRES B1 to A1T demonstrates the value of this issue.

SPM-65

23

Page 20 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments recent period evidence tends to conflict with the statement as written. (Government of Germany) and beyond should be added to this sentence so that it reads as follows: global GHG emissions will continue to grow over the next few decades and beyond. (Government of Japan) The inclusion of the statement about sustainable development is confusing and weakens the key point of the heading that without further mitigation emissions will continue to grow. Suggest deletion of "and/or appropriate sustainable development policies". (Government of Australia) The first sentence at dot point 4 (line 40) makes the point of this headline statement much more clearly than the present construction. Suggest this sentence is deleted and replaced with "Without additional climate mitigation policies global GHG emissions are projected to increase by 25-90% between 2000-2030". (Government of Australia) Suggest that Section 2 focus only on current and historical emissions and Section 3 on projections. Specific suggestions: a) The headline and final bullet from Section 2 could be moved to Section 3, also suggest adding to the current headline "...over the next few decades. BAU policies would be likely to imply higher stabilisation levels and greater risks of dangerous climate change."; b) the first bullet "Between 1970 and 2004..." could become the headline message of Section 2; c) the final sentence of the fourth bullet "Since 2000 carbon intensity..." should be left in this section as a stand-alone bullet; (Government of UK)

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-66

23

24

SPM-18

23

23

Reject, as is clear from fig 4 in some baseline scenarios (i.e. without climate policy) emissions will decline in the second part of this century See #A65

SPM-19

23

23

Reject, headline covers historic and period till 2030; bullet point only future

SPM-20

23

46

Reject, para 2 is limited to 2030; para 3 is covering period to 2100; moving around last bullet of para 2 would mean to loose headline of para 3 which is important given the SRES criticism

Page 21 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-21

23

SPM-29

23

23 Suggest redraft "Without additional climate change See #B20 mitigation..." (Government of UK) See other comments 16 Time is coming to refer to the important and urgent tool to bring the wide variety of policies and instruments to implementation. The outreach activity to be implemented by IPCC and non-governmental groups, shall bring this policies and tools to factual application. On page 3 paragraph 25, it is said that net GHG emissions have increased, in spite of the fact that energy intensity of production and consumption has decreased. It would be worthy to highlight that the decrease in net emissions are due not only to the increase in population and income per capita, but also is a consequence of the stability observed in de intensity carbons indicator (TonCO2/tep) between the years 1970 and 2004, as can be seen on the figure on page 5 of the SPM. The following formula shows the net emissions dependency on these four variables. AS a consequence, there should be some paragraph making reference to this situation. Also, on page 3 paragraph 35, emissions per capita belonging to 2004 should be included when speaking about emissions per GDP unit. This would allow a better comprehension of the imbalance of GHG emissions between Annex 1 and non Annex 1 countries. En Figure on page 4, we suggest including an adittional one which would contain the aggregate of GHG emissions in percentual terms. The evolution of this structure for the years 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2004), will show the stability of the weight of agricultural and deforestations emissions vis a vis the weight of emissions coming from the fossil fuels burning. (Government of Argentina)
Page 22 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team OK

SPM-22

24

SPM-23

24

SPM-24

24

SPM-67

26

SPM-68

26

SPM-69

26

25 Since this is the first time uncertainty representation ("high agreement, much evidence") is mentioned, we think that a reference to annex 1 should be included. (Government of Norway) 24 Insert "significantly" after "continue to grow". Explanation: in line 40-41 it is stated that global GHG emissions are projected to increase with 25-90% by 2030 relative to 2000. This significant increase should be reflected in the main message, giving it a clear meaning. (Government of Norway) 25 Explain the uses of 'agreement' and 'evidence' the first time they are used. Also, why this this different to WG1? (Government of UK) 26 Write out "GWP". Also, specify which GWPs are being used--100 yr. Is it really necessary to use GWPs? They are not really needed for Figure SPM. 1. It would be useful to say something about the fact that they are not used by climate models in the Notes of Figure SPM 1. (Government of United States of America) 26 This paragraph is not particularly clear or well written. 1) Please change to read "Between 1970 and 2004, annual global GWP weighted emissions of CO2, CH4" 2) "global GWP weighted emissions" is not consistent with C02eq used elsewhere and will be confusing for policy makers. Suggest use C02eq throughout and explain details in a box as suggested in our general comments. (Government of Canada) 31 The inclusion of all specific GHGs here creates the impression that all GHG emissions are increasing. However, the International Aluminum Institute (2006) (http://www.worldaluminium.org/iai/publications/documents/pfc2004.pdf)

OK

See #B22

See #A69 (in box)

See #69

OK,

replace first sentence by bolded text and refer to Box 1 (new). Box to describe how CO2 eq is calculated
Page 23 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments shows a decrease in PFCs from the aluminum industry, a major source of these emissions. Olivier et al. (2005) (can be found here: http://www.mnp.nl/edgar/Images/Olivier2005FT2000-NCGG4-Utrecht_tcm32-22124.pdf) also show that while SF6 is still rising, PFCs have levelled off and started decreasing. Suggest changing text to: "Between 1970 and 2004, emissions of greenhouse gases controlled by the Kyoto Protocol, weighted by their global warming potential (GWP), have increased by 70%, from 28.7 Gt to 49 Gt of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2-eq)." Next line: The emissions of these gases, including CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs and SF6, have changed at different rates, with CO2, the largest source, having grown by about 80%..." (Government of Canada) The first occurrence of GWP should have the full firm as it is an unusual term (Government of Nepal) Suggest to substitute formulas by words: "carbon dioxide, " (Government of Mexico) Suggest to insert a comma between "2004" and "global" (Government of Mexico) It would be helpful to put the emissions growth rates in context by stating yearly increase. In Chapter 1 this is stated as "Over the last three decades, GHG emissions increased by an average of 1.6% per year with CO2 emissions from fossil fuels use growing at 1.9% per year." This also provides comparison with GDP growth, given in SPM Fig 2, and hence conveys any energy intensity improvements. (Government of United States of America) It could be useful to also mention here the increase in percent since 1990 as this is a common reference year.

Considerations by the writing team replace second sentence as suggested

SPM-70

26

See #A69 (in box)

SPM-71

26

26

Reject, too cumbersome

SPM-72 SPM-73

A A

3 3

26 26

3 3

26 31

Reject, good English Reject, text will become too cluttered; main report for more detail

SPM-74

26

26

Reject, is done

Page 24 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments (Government of Germany) Despite the glossary, certain key acronyms should be described or at least written out in full to make the read easier and more understandable - GWP is one of those termsplease define. (Government of Canada) An explanation of the acronym GWP is required. Adding this as a footnote on this page is suggested. (Government of Japan) Despite the term GWP appearing in the glossary, due to its importance for section B we suggest that the term have an explanation footnoted in the actual text of the SPM. Suggest a footnote be inserted stating: "Global Warming Potential (GWP) is a way of measuring the radiative forcing effect of a unit of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, and takes into account the differing lifetimes of the gases in the atmosphere and their effectiveness in absorbing infrared radiation". (Government of Australia) Define GWP (Government of Norway) It is not clear from this paragraph whether the stated finding about relative trends in income per capita/population and energy intensity are true globally - would it be possible to clarify this here? For example, say in all non-Annex 1, most Annex 1, if true? (Government of UK) As it is the firt time that GWP appears in the text , please detail the acronym (Government of Spain) ,,,,,,,2004 Global Warming Potencial (GWP). (Government of Argentina) For grammatical correctness delete "have".

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-75

26

26

See #A69

SPM-76

26

26

See #A69

SPM-25

26

26

See #A69

SPM-26 SPM-27

B B

3 3

26 26

0 3

0 30

See #A69 See # B30

SPM-4

26

26

OK

SPM-5 SPM-28

C B

3 3

26 27

0 3

0 27

See C4 See #A69

Page 25 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments (Government of Australia) Suggest deleting being by far the largest source and adding content to the end of the sentence , increasing its share of GHG emissions from xx% in 1990 to xx% in 2004. (IPIECA (Non-Governmental Organisation)) This sentence as currently drafted is difficult to understand. Suggest it is altered to read "CO2 emissions are the largest source of this emissions growth, and have grown by about 80% since 1970 (28% since 1990) (Figure SPM.1)" (Government of Australia) The formulation of this sentence, albeit correct, is unfortunate since it implies that emissions reductions will require reductions in economic and population growth. In contrast [12 ES, P4, L31]: "GHG emissions are influenced by, but not rigidly linked to economic growth: policy choices make a difference." (Government of Sweden) Please replace "increases in income per capita" with "increases in economic growth", and "outweighed" with "outpaced", as you are comparing growth rates. (Government of United States of America) It is proposed to change this point with a new redaction: Between 1970 and 2004 global GWP weighted emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs and SF6 (greenhouse gases covered by the Kyoto Protocol) have increased by 70% (24% since 1990). CO2, being by far the largest source, has grown by about 80% (28% since 1990) (Figure SPM.1). The persistence of unsustainable production and consumption patterns, mainly in industrialized countries, plus increases in income per capita and population, have outweighed decreases in energy intensity of production and consumption

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-77

28

28

Reject, no good reason to change

SPM-29

28

29

See # A69

SPM-78

29

30

Reject, that is not what sentence says

SPM-79

29

30

Reject, sentence is phrased in net differences, not in growth rate terms

SPM-80

29

30

Reject, statement is on global averages and report lacks basis to state reasons for certain regions

Page 26 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments (Government of Cuba) This sentence needs to more clearly explain the link between the drivers of emissions growth and reduction, and the observed emissions growth. "CO2 emissions growth has occurred because at the global scale, declining carbon and energy intensities (which reduce emissions of CO2) could not offset rising incomes and population growth (both of which increase CO2 emissions)" (Government of Australia) The current total value of GHG emission should be mentioned somewhere here. The reader should have a reference starting point. It would be useful if it was stated both as CO2 and as C.That also goes for a number stating the current concentrations of all GHGs in the atmosphere in terms of CO2-eq. (Government of Sweden) Please also add reference to the fact that changes in carbon intensity of the energy mix have an influence in overall emissions, not only energy intensity. (European Community) Energy intensity has not decreased everywhere. For example in Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean it has been levelling off since early 90s (see the UN Statistical Division data). The wording should therefore be decreases in energy intensity in most regions. (UNEP) Please explain "energy intensity of consumption" here or below figure SPM 2 (Government of Norway) The reference to baseline is inadequate. Once policies are implemented, the resulted path is the baseline. Comparison to a non existent past path is no useful.

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-30

29

31

OK, use at the global scale and the reversed order to modify sentence. Move last sentence from 4th bullet here and modify: After a limited decline in carbon intensity till 2000, it has risen due to increased use of coal.. (also including #B55) See #A69

SPM-81

30

32

SPM-82

30

30

Reject, as is clear from fig 2 carbon intensity changes have had no major effect Reject, this is a global statement (see also#80)

SPM-83

30

SPM-31

30

OK, in caption fig SPM2; use definition in glossary See A62

SPM-6

30

35

Page 27 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments (Government of Argentina) The authors should include a further dot point in this section explaining the key components of the emissions increase. Chapter 1 (page 12, lines 11-15) has a sentence that could be inserted here: "The largest growth in CO2 emissions has come from power generation and road transport, with industry, households and the service sector remaining at approximately the same levels for the 1970-2004 period (Figure 1.2)." (Government of Australia) How can a baseline be identified for historical emissions? These are observed emissions; there is no counterfactual available for comparison. (Government of Nepal) Please modify this paragraph. It is clearly demonstrated in 12.2 that several energy policies (both on demand and supply side) undertaken since the energy crises in the 20th century can have a substantial impact on the development of emissions pathways (see for instance boxes 12.1 and 12.5). If mixes of these policies would have been implemented on a global scale than this would have made a substantial difference: Policies, including those on climate change, energy security and supply, and sustainable development, have led to reductions of emissions compared to the baseline in some regions. But the implementation on a global scale of such type of policies is not large enough to be visible in the historic global emissions trend. (European Community) Comment: what is "important" is subjective, rather use "substantial" (with significant commercial potential at the moment or before 2030)

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-32

31

31

OK, add, but no figure

SPM-62

32

35

Reject, baselines were drawn up in the past and now we can see emissions are below these See #A91

SPM-84

32

34

SPM-85

32

32

UNCLEAR; the word important is not in line 32

Page 28 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments (Government of Netherlands) Comment: the Montreal Protocol is not mentioned as probably the single most effective means to have curbed GHG-emissions so far; after "climate change," we suggest to insert "ozone depletion," (Government of Netherlands) This dot point needs to be restructured to highlight its findings more clearly suggest the following: "In some regions there has been a reduction in emissions, when compared to the baseline. These reductions are a result of policy action in the areas of climate change, energy security and supply and sustainable development, however, the scale of these reductions is not large enough to be visible in the historic global emissions trend." (Government of Australia) Clarify what" emissions compared to the baseline" means. (Government of UK) Suggest to add the acronym "GHG" before the word "emissions". (Government of Mexico) Replace "compared to the baseline" with "compared to projections without these policies". See Section 1.3. (Government of United States of America) Include in 2003 after emissions (Government of Nepal) "baseline" - what baseline? (Government of Sweden) The authors need to provide in a footnote a more accessible and clearly understandable definition of "baseline" than that which currently appears in the Glossary. It should be borne in mind that the SPM will be read by policy makers not directly involved in climate change and aware of the field's

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-86

32

32

Reject, these statements are on Kyoto gases only

SPM-33

32

35

OK, covered by improvement in A88 and A90

SPM-34 SPM-87

B A

3 3

32 33

3 3

32 33

See # A88 OK

SPM-88

33

33

OK

SPM-89 SPM-90 SPM-35

A A B

3 3 3

33 33 33

3 3 3

33 33 33

Reject, this statement is not tied to a particular year See #A88 See #A88

Page 29 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments jargon. (Government of Australia) The conclusion that the "scale is not large enough to be visible in the historical global emissions trend" is not accurate. Replace with "reductions have not been sufficient to counteract the overall growth in emissions". (Government of United States of America) Mention which GHGs (Government of Nepal) "but the scale is not large enough to be visible in the historic global emissions trend"; this statement is technically right, but does it contain a particular message that can be more outspoken, e.g. with reference to particular targets or required reductions? (Government of Belgium) Either the comparison of energy intensity should be dropped, or we should include the current comparison of per capita emissions as well. (Government of Nepal) This bullet overstates the higher emission per capita without providing sufficient context, and also understates the beneficial impacts of lower energy intensity. Comparative energy use is influenced by differences among regions in population size and growth and levels and efficiency of economic development. The phrase " and accounted for..." is overly subjective without providing necessary context. Suggest change to SPM and TS (page 7 line 1): "In 2004 developed countries (UNFCCC Annex I countries) held a 20% share in world population, yet accounted for 46% of annual global GHG emissions.....". Suggest also to add the sentence: Differences among regions population size and growth and levels and efficiency of economic development

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-91

34

34

OK

SPM-92 SPM-36

A B

3 3

34 34

3 3

34 34

Reject, details to be found in report See #A91

SPM-63

36

39

Reject, both per capita and per unit of GDP emissions are mentioned (and also reflected in fig 3) See #A98 on yet Reject scrapping intensity numbers

SPM-93

36

39

Page 30 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments create differences in energy use among regions. (Government of Canada) Please use "UNFCCC Annex 1" and "non-Annex 1 countries" and not "developed" and "developing countries" in this context, so it is clear that this refers to a specific political grouping of countries established under the UNFCCC in 1990. If a certain level of development is sought as a benchmark for grouping countries, please use a specific per capita income level (e.g., World Bank high income countries vs other countries). (Government of United States of America) Please also express emission intensity in total GHG emission per capita (tCO2-eq/capita). (European Community) It is suggested to add some words at the beginning of this bullet: According to ORNL database information, from preindustrial era to 1950 and from 1950 to 2000, developed countries accumulatively accounted for 95% and 77% GHG emissions from fossil fuel use respectively. (Government of China) It is not so sure if the sources of numbers "46%" and "20%" is reliable, please give a note to illustrate. Suggest to add descriptive words of uncertainty or specify data sources. To our understanding, IEA only provides CO2 data, while EDGAR could provide data for all greenhouse gases. It seems not proper to put these two different data series together. (Government of China)

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-94

36

36

OK, delete developed countries

SPM-95

36

39

Reject, numbers on emissions per capita can be found in fig 3 Reject, these numbers are not in the report

SPM-96

36

36

SPM-97

36

39

Reject, numbers are correct

Page 31 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team OK, delete yet REJECT deletion of second sentence, because that is clearer than reworded sentence UNCLEAR what is meant with actual averages

SPM-98

36

SPM-99

36

SPM-37

36

SPM-38

36

SPM-100 A

37

SPM-101 A

38

OK, replace annual by global (annual is not needed since 2004 is mentioned) 39 The inclusion of PPP here is confusing because the standard OK, add footnote (see also point A28)
Page 32 of 183

39 If this sentence is kept, it will need to include percent of production and delete "yet," so that the sentence would read: "UNFCCC Annex 1 countries held a 20% share in world population, xx% in gross world product, and 46% of global emissions." This would render the second sentence in the paragraph on intensity unnecessary. If the intensities are discussed, ensure that they are actual averages across countries rather than simply ratios of total emissions to GDPpop. (Government of United States of America) 39 Comment: this bullet suggests that all non-Annex I countries have per capita GHG emissions below all Annex I countries, which is incorrect; we suggest to add as the second sentence to this bullet "A number of non-Annex I countries however have per capita GHG emissions above the average of the Annex I countries that ratified the Kyoto Protocol" (Government of Netherlands) 39 The authors need to explain the basis upon which they have decided that the most effective discussion of emissions trends is through the UNFCCC AI/non-AI divide (e.g. is it because the assessed literature uses this divide, or is it for other practical reasons?). There does not seem to be a scientific basis for this distinction, and it seems that the authors may be implicitly making political judgements. (Government of Australia) 36 The authors need to delete the word "yet" as it implies a value judgement. (Government of Australia) 37 Suggest to add the word "global" before " GHG emissions" (Government of Mexico)

Graph will become very cluttered; OK to add note to caption that countries is groups do have different GDP, emissions and incomes

Reject, is the most neutral way of comparing rich and poor countries

See #A98

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments is US$/GDP. The point of using PPP in this context is not very clear. Please clarify in footnote. (Government of Canada)

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-102 A

38

SPM-103 A

38

SPM-39

38

SPM-40

38

SPM-104 A

40

38 An explanation of ppp (i.e. as used in CO eq/US$GDPppp) is required. Adding this as a footnote on this page is suggested. (Government of Japan) 38 Although reference is made above to the glossary to the main report for an explanation of terms, we believe it would be useful to include in the SPM a brief explanation of CO2eq, at least, as a footnote. (Government of New Zealand) 38 The authors need to insert the word "however" after "Their economies" to more clearly articulate that lowering GHG intensities is away to reduce emissions growth. (Government of Australia) 0 Since this is the first time GHG intensity is mentioned, we think that the term should be explicitly explained here ("energy use per GDP" according to figure SPM 2). To enhance readability, we propose that the difference between non-Annex-1 countries and Annex-1 countries is referred to only in relative terms (percentage). (Government of Norway) 44 This information concerning the contribution of developed and developing countries to present and future GHG emissions should be complemented with the contribution of these groups of countries to the cumulative (historical) emissions. According to international CC statistics, provided by WRI, the developed countries accounted for 76% of cumulative (1850-2002) CO2 emissions, with the remaining 24% corresponding to the developing countries. (Reference: WRI Report. Navigating the Numbers. Greenhouse Gas

See #A101

See point #A69 and new box to be added

OK

OK, replace by energy use per unit of GDP

Reject, these data not available in report (see also A96)

Page 33 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments Data and International Climate Policy, 2005). Rationale: The historical perspective is very relevant when dealing with the contribution to present GHG concentrations. (Government of Cuba) The word with should be removed from this sentence. (Government of Japan) The phrase "increase with 25 - 90%" may be replaced by "increase by 25 - 90%". (Government of Pakistan) Suggest to delete the word "with" at the end of line 40, and in line 43 (Government of Mexico) Replace "with" with "by". (International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)) add "mitigation" after additional (Government of Germany) 25-90% and 40-110% are large ranges. Please add a sentence about why the range is so large, e.g. what are the common characteristics for low-end estimates and high-end estimates across the models? The recent literature suggests some expert consensus regarding possible baselines which narrows the range (for example, EMF-21). It would be more useful for policymakers to discuss this narrower range and the characteristics of those baselines. (Government of United States of America) 1)Change to "increase 25-90%". Perhaps useful to state the increase in GtC C02eq (from xxGtC to xxGtC) and put percentages in brackets. 2) 25%-90% is a huge range. Is there not greater certainty in projections to 2030? (Government of Canada) "Without additional policies" are not clear enough. Suggest to add after "Without additional policies" as follow

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-105 A SPM-106 A

3 3

40 40

3 3

40 41

OK See #A105

SPM-107 A

40

43

See #A105

SPM-108 A SPM-109 A SPM-110 A

3 3 3

40 40 40

3 3 3

40 40 42

See #A105 Reject, can also be SD policies Ok, add consistent with the range of SRES scenarios at the end of the first sentence. EMF21 scenarios to be taken out of fig 4, because message is wrong and inconsistent with chapter 3 evaluation of baseline literature (see also )

SPM-111 A

40

41

See #A105 and #A110; reject absolute numbers (they are in fig 4)

SPM-112 A

40

40

Reject, is already implied it could be technology policies; purpose of this

Page 34 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments ",including technology policies, ". (Government of Japan) "which policies have taken into consideration to come up with 25-90%" (Government of Mauritius) "are projected to increase with " should read "are projected to increase between " (Government of New Zealand) The first part of this sentence directly repeats the bolded headline, we therefore suggest its deletion. (Government of Australia) The authors need to make it clear that the metric used in this dot point (i.e. CO2 emissions) differ from the preceding (and subsequent) points, which dealt with CO2-eq. This change is important and may be otherwise missed by policy readers. (Government of Australia) Editorial: "projected to increase BY 25-90%", not "WITH 25-90%" (Government of Australia) This paragraph should make clear on what the projections are based - i.e. state that the SRES scenarios are used (if this is the case) (Government of UK) Suggest this bullet point is placed in section 3 as it is on future emissions (see comment 3 23 3 46) (Government of UK) replace "with" with "by" (Government of UK) Suggest replacing start of the sentence with Fossil fuels currently contribute xx% of global energy supply, and are expected to still contribute xx-xx% in 2030. With increasing energy demand, CO2 emissions from energy use

Considerations by the writing team para is not to discuss mitigation policies See #A105

SPM-113 A

40

42

SPM-114 A

40

40

See #A105

SPM-41

40

40

Reject, this sentence is more specific

SPM-42

40

46

Reject (see also box to be added on CO2eq). Is also stated CO2 from energy use, so little chance of confusion See # A105

SPM-43

40

40

SPM-44

40

44

See # A110

SPM-45

40

46

Reject, see earlier UK remark

SPM-46

3 3

40 41

3 3

40 42

See # A 105 OK, See #A119

SPM-115 A

Page 35 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments (IPIECA (Non-Governmental Organisation)) Change "Fossil fuel dominance" to "The contribution of fossils fuels to global energy supply". (Government of United States of America) Suggest redraft to "The dominance of fossil fuel as a primary energy source is expected" (Government of UK) The phrase "to grow with 40 - 110%" may be replaced by "to grow by 40 - 110%". (Government of Pakistan) Replace "with" with "by". (International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)) Proposed Revision "Fossil fuels (oil, coal, natural gas) are projected to maintain their predominant position in the global energy mix to 2030 and beyond," Note that the SPM and TS never actually define what a fossil fuel is. (Government of Canada) Insert "fossil" in front of "energy". (Government of United States of America) Define specific years rather than stating "over that period" in reference to the projected growth from 2030 to "beyond". (Government of United States of America) "are projected to grow with " should read "are projected to grow between " (Government of New Zealand) Delete "with" and replace with "by between". (Government of Australia) The listing of 'ranges' for comparison of Annex I and nonAnnex I countries is misleading. Either a global number including all countries in each category should be used, or the full range should be included; in fact, the use of both would be instructive. 4 of the top 5 leading countries in

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-116 A

41

41

OK, See #A119

SPM-47

41

See #A110

SPM-117 A

42

42

OK

SPM-118 A SPM-119 A

3 3

42 42

3 3

42 42

See #A117 Ok, but without bracketed text

SPM-120 A SPM-121 A

3 3

42 42

3 3

42 42

Reject, not needed here OK, add between 2000 and 2030 after Co2 emissions See #A117

SPM-122 A

42

42

SPM-48

3 3

42 43

3 1

42 46

See A117 Reject, numbers are correct; they are derived from SRES marker scenarios

SPM-123 A

Page 36 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-124 A

43

SPM-125 A

43

SPM-126 A

43

emissions/capita are non-annex I countries (and 5 of the top 10), and all of these and many others are well above the 'top' of the range of 5.1 t/CO2/cap indicated here. Likewise, there are more than 90 (NINETY) countries below the 'bottom' of this range of 2.8 t/CO2/cap. Also, for Annex I, the United States, Australia and Canada are well above the 'top' of the range of 15.1 tCO2/cap. These are not models, these are actual results, given the vagaries of reporting, and the use of this 'range' is fundamentally misleading. Data from http://cait.wri.org for 2003 CO2/capita data accessed 5 April 2007 (Greenpeace International) 44 Please use "UNFCCC non-Annex 1 countries." Some countries where emissions growth rates are expected to rise quickly will by 2030 have larger per capita incomes than many developed countries in 1990. Highlighting an average per capita income for all developing countries is not a meaningful statistic, as it does not account for large and growing differences between lower and higher income countries among Non-Annex 1 Parties. (Government of United States of America) 45 Please clarify if the increase refers to CO2 or all gases, and indicate over what years these increases are expected to occur. (Government of United States of America) 45 Please be more explicit about how per capita CO2 emissions are projected to change over time for Annex 1 and nonAnnex 1 countries. For example, if the non-Annex 1 countries are expected to account for 2/3 to 3/4 of all the increase in (fossil) energy usage from 2000 to 2030, is it likely that per capita CO2 emissions could actually go down (from roughly 3.2 in 2004 to 2.8 tCO2/cap, the low end of

OK, replace by non-Annex-I Reject the point on per capita income (there is no mention of that)

Reject, it is stated that it is for CO2

Reject, numbers are ok

Page 37 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments the range provided above) in 2030? Is projected population growth in developing countries responsible for this anomaly (i.e., is population growth expected to grow faster than energy demand)? (Government of United States of America) "whether the developing countries mentioned here include EIT and developing countries" (Government of Mauritius) Suggest replacing "grow with" with "increase by" (Government of UK) This is one example where it needs to be clarified that ANNUAL emissions are referred to. (Government of Sweden) Replace "though" with "while". (Government of China) Remove "though their" on line 44. An alternative sentence(s): "Two thirds to three quarters of this increase (CO2 or all gases?) is projected to come from non-Annex 1 countries. Non-Annex 1 country average per capita CO2 emissions will remain substantially lower" (Government of United States of America) Line 44 after "developing countries" Add: "The increase in population growth and GDP per capita is a major contributor to GHG emission growth." [as per TS page 6 lines 23-25 and Figure TS3] (Government of Canada) Delete "will" which is categorical and replace with "are projected to". (Government of Australia) Suggest move reference to Figure SPM.4 up to line 41 at the end of the first sentence. (Government of UK)

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-127 A

43

44

See #A124

SPM-49

3 3

43 44

3 3

43 45

See # A117 Reject, no confusion possible

SPM-128 A

SPM-129 A SPM-130 A

3 3

44 44

3 3

44 44

OK See #A130

SPM-131 A

44

44

Reject, text becomes very cluttered if we add this.

SPM-50

44

44

OK

SPM-51

44

44

OK

Page 38 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team Reject, English language

SPM-132 A

45

SPM-133 A

45

SPM-134 A SPM-135 A

3 3

45 45

0 3

SPM-52

45

SPM-64

46

SPM-136

46

SPM-137 A

46

45 Suggest to substitute "those" by "that". This refers to average per capita (Government of Mexico) 45 Please include projected changes in emissions per unit GDP for both developing and developed countries. (Government of United States of America) 0 Add in some rapidly developing countries after coal. (UNEP) 46 The lower range of CO2 per capita for developed countries (9.6 t CO2 per capita) seem to indicate that this covers scenarios that see emission per capita decrease in developed countries by 2030 compared to 2000. If so, then it could be worthwhile to indicate also per capita CO2 emissions in 2000. (European Community) 45 It is unclear whether the bracketed figures are the average per capita range currently, or what it is expected be in 2030. (Government of Australia) 46 Delete the last line pertaining to coal how is conclusive? The period is too short for trends, what about changes in carbon intensity prior to 2000? Is there equal level of confidence for all of these bullets? (Government of Nepal) 0 It would be more appropriated if it is mentioned which region or industry is most responsible for the increased use of coal and this trend will be continued or stabilized at certain level. (Government of Korea) 46 It seems there is no relationship between this sentence and the above mentioned contents , so it is suggested to delete this sentence. (Government of China)

Reject, not needed here

Reject, no need to single out countries Reject, numbers ok (some AnnexI numbers go down )

OK, add by 2030

Reject, fig 2 shows the trend and the upward shift after 2000 is a policy relevant fact

Reject, Report does not have the data for that

Sentence moved, see #B30

Page 39 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team Reject, these data are not in the report

SPM-138 A

46

SPM-53

46

SPM-54

46

SPM-55

46

46 Is it possible to add numbers about energy efficiency and carbon intensity for both developed and developing countries? (Government of Netherlands) 46 It is unclear where this finding is drawn from in the body of the report. Section 1.3 does not make this claim as starkly as is presented. In addition as other statistics in this section note whether they are based on global averages or a developed/developing country distinction, this also needs to be made clear for this point to logically continue the story presented. (Government of Australia) 46 "Since 2000 carbon intensity of energy has been on the rise due to increased use of coal"; this is not easily observed from figure SPM 2, where this statement refers to (see comments on figure SPM 2, page 5, line 5)) (Government of Belgium) 46 replace "been on the rise" with "risen" (Government of UK) 0

See #B30

See #B30

Ok, but see # B30

FIGURE 1 SPM-139 A

SPM-140 A

Figure SPM-1: This is a very good and explanatory figure. OK, add cumulative numbers at top of However, it might be useful to have a cumulative figure graph representing the sum total data for Gt CO2 eq for 1970 to 2004. Also, the text in the Technical Summary, page 3, line 42, or Ch. 1, p. 3, lines 48-49, would also be useful here: "From 1970-2004, emissions of greenhouse gases covered by the Kyoto Protocol have increased approximately 70% (from 28.7 GtCO2eq to 49 GtCO2eq and 24% from 1990......". [Text from Technical Summary, pg. 3, lines 4243] GtC change per gas is also useful. (Government of Canada) Figure SPM-1: Footnotes in the figure should be ordered OK
Page 40 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments sequentially, and that order should be also used in the footnote descriptions below. (Government of Canada) Figure SPM-1: comment to the third graph (CH4): the emissions reported here are notcontained in chapter 9 Forestry, they are from figure 1.1 in chapter 1. it is unclear and not explained in chapter 1 as well what is the correct definition of deforestation as according to footnote 5 part of the emissions from deforestation are included not under "deforestation" but under "decay and peat". this leads to confusion as deforestation is defined differently in both chapters. emissions from deforestation amount according to line 8 page 3 of chapter 9 to 5.8 GtCO2/yr whereas in SPM1 to 2,5GtCO2/yr only. Please clarify! (Government of Germany)

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-141 A

Reject/Accept: the difference in chapter 9 (forestry) and chapter 1 numbers come from our present EDGAR approach of CO2 emissions from forests, we use the methodology of the 1996 IPCC guidelines, using the default factors/ fractions suggested there. This method assumes that the above ground biomass only a fraction is burned/ removed (i.e. 50% of the carbon is released in the year of deforestation (cf FAO figures) and that the remaining fraction decomposes in the next 10 year, each year 10% of the original remaining biomass. Although this is not the exactly the LULUCF definition, but a more practical one from the perspective of global atmospheric modelling. See #A140

SPM-142 A

SPM-143 A

Figure SPM 1: To improve readability, please re-number the footnotes so that they are in numerical order. (Government of United States of America) Figure SPM 1: Footnote 4 include large-scale clearing by burning biomass. This is not necessarily true. In many countries timber is harvested for commercial export, leading to GHG emissions. Can GHG emissions from deforestation be separated from biomass burning, etc.? (Government of Nepal)

Accept: suggested made in new footnote 5 (previous footnote 4) CHECK if data available

Page 41 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team See #A139

SPM-144 A

SPM-57

SPM-58

SPM-59

SPM-60 SPM-61

B B

4 4

0 0

0 0

SPM-56

Figure SPM 1, please add totals for each of the years (perhaps just as figures in the explanation), please also add % contribution of each source (Government of Netherlands) 0 Figure SPM 1: Clearly the most important part of this figure is the graph on CO2 it should be given greater prominence than at present (for example it could appear at the top of the other graphs or to one side). In addition the inclusion of the grey bars is confusing and should be deleted. (Government of Australia) 0 We propose that the denotation on the y-axis is changed to "GtCO2eq/yr". (Government of Norway) 0 Please consider expanding the figure with bars showing total emissions for each year (Government of Norway) 0 The light grey bars are confusing; suggest deletion. (Government of UK) 0 Fig SPM1: Uncertainty bars would help to show that estimates for some gases are more accurate than others. Note 5: The contribution from deforestation and peat soils is highly uncertain. The sum of these is near the upper end of the range for LUC CO2 given in WG1 SPM (pg2) which is 1.8 to 9.9 GtCO2. A cross reference to WG1 chapter 2.3 and 7.3 could help here. (Government of Belgium) 15 The presentation of these figures needs to be improved. Currently it is unclear that the description and explanation for the inclusion of the figures is on page 3. It would be of assistance to policy readers if the dot points explaining the figures appeared on the same page as the figures themselves. (Government of Australia)

Reject, is clear enough

OK

Reject, not needed for SPM (we need to keep figures simple) OK Reject: CO2 numbers from decay are indeed correct (double checked) and uncertainty bars are difficult due to the differentiation in the data collection methods. CHECK numbers on CO2 from decay and see if uncertainty bars are possible Will be considered in final lay out

Page 42 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments Suggest to include words "Global Warming Potential" before acronym (GWP) (Government of Mexico) Figure SPM1: suggest including information on sectors (see e.g. TS2a) (Government of Germany) Replace "Figure 1.1" by "Figure 1.1a" as per label of the Figure in chapter 1. (Government of Pakistan) What is meant by "traditional biomass combustion at 10%"? (Government of Norway) Process emissions from Steel are not included in overall CO2 process emissions? Similarly Figure 1.1 in Chapter 1 is confusing, including steel and other non energy use of fossil fuels in deforestation emissions? (European Community) Add "emissions" after Including (Government of Norway) (Footnote 3) Suggest redraft "Including emissions from biofuel" (Government of UK) The meaning of this sentence seems unclear and should be clarified (Government of Norway)

Considerations by the writing team Ok, modify text and refer also to box as suggested by #A69 Reject, becomes too detailed for SPM; is in TS OK

SPM-145 A

SPM-146 A

SPM-147 A

SPM-62

4 4

8 10

4 4

8 10

OK, clarify (Jos) Ok, add this to note #2 Check with BM as this was deleted in current footnote 6.

SPM-148 A

SPM-63 SPM-64

B B

4 4

11 11

4 4

11 11

OK See #B63

SPM-65

12

13

OK, clarify- Not done

FIGURE 2 SPM-149 A

SPM-150 A

In the caption of Figure SPM 2, "Energy" and "Emission OK intensity" may also be mentioned. (Government of Pakistan) Figure SPM-2: The labelling of these curves (on the right OK, improve hand side of the figure) is not clear. What does "TPES" mean next to the two energy curves? The labells are also not consistent with the figure caption below.
Page 43 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments (Government of New Zealand) Figure SPM-2: Should include in caption all of the information shown and the significance of the concepts such as energy intensity, TPES, etc. Need a comma after "Relative development of gross Domestic Product (GDP)," (Government of Canada) Figure SPM 2: TPES should be explained. (Government of Sweden) Figure SPM 2: Global CO2 per capita needs to be included in this figure for completion (Government of Nepal)

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-151 A

OK

SPM-152 A SPM-153 A

5 5

0 0

0 0

0 0

OK

SPM-66

SPM-154 A SPM-67 B

5 5

2 2

5 5

5 6

Reject; CO2 and population are close together so CO2 per capita would follow same line and would make figure unreadable Figure SPM 2: two comments on this figure (that is Reject, we had such a figure in the technically OK): 1) for a summary for policy makers, this SOD and that was heavily criticised. graph contains too many curves, while there is some Figure makes a differences between redundancy in the information provided - recommended is to primary elements (solid lines) and limit the number of curves to the 5 variables of the Kaya relative elements (dotted lines) identity; 2) the impact of the 4 explanantory components of the Kaya identity is not very obvious from the graph because every curve shown follows the own trend with the interactions among the variables left unclear - recommended is a graph in first differences, or picturally more informative: differences over 5-year periods from 1970 to 2004, giving 7 results; although the latter option is sensitive to the choice of base-years and time-intervals (why exactly the 2 subperiods of one decade of our calendar?) the changing impact of the 4 components over time on the change in emissions is more visualized. (Government of Belgium) Include the word "Global" in the figure caption OK (Government of Switzerland) Figure SPM 2 comment: (A) Change "PURCHASE Power (A) see # A156
Page 44 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-68

5 5

2 2

5 5

6 5

SPM-155 A

SPM-156 A

(B) Reject, for inter country Parity" to "PURCHASING Power Parity" for consistency. In comparisons PPP basis is best ; addition, (B) the explanation for this figure needs to include becomes too confusing for a qualification somewhere explaining that the possible fall in SPM to explain that emissions intensity is highly dependent on underlying growth and exchange rate assumptions. The reason for this is that a fall in emissions intensity of world GDP (irrespective of the exchange rate used in the aggregation) could be misleading to readers. Under unchanged technologies relatively faster economic growth in developing countries may increase emission intensity of the world GDP, but under PPP aggregation, for example, the GDP of the developing countries will be further scaled up which may end up lowering the emission intensity of the world GDP. This will be so if the exchange rate conversion effect (which does not impact on actual emissions) dominates the economic growth effect (which impacts on emissions) on the emission intensity of the world GDP. This is an unavoidable problem and a qualification to this effect, that it should be read with care, would enhance the quality of the reporting. (Government of Australia) The term "Energy (TPES)" should be explained. See # A152 (Government of Norway) This caption for Figure SPM-2 is not consistent with the OK, improve labelling of the curves. Does "GDP" in the caption refer to the curve labelled "Income (GDP-ppp)"? The "Energy" curve is not mentioned in the caption. "Carbon Intensity (CO2/energy use)" is used in the caption but "Carbon intensity (CO2/TPES)" by the curve. (Government of New Zealand) "Figure SPM 2" "PPP stands for Purchasing Power Parity OK rather than Purchase Power Parity" (Government of Mauritius)
Page 45 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments State that these are global averages. E.g. redraft as "Global average values for Relative development of Gross" (Government of UK) Suggest to invert words and acronym to: "Purchase Power Parity (PPP)" (Government of Mexico) "Purchase Power Parity" should be "Purchasing Power Parity" (and possibly all in lower case, if lower case is used to label the figure). (Government of New Zealand) Define the term PPP in order to make the Figure SPM 2 more understandable for non-economists.Define the term TPES.. (Government of Norway) References are given for source but SPM does not have a section with cited references (Government of Nepal) In line 1 of legend of Figure SPM 3a, the end bracket after GHG may be removed. (Government of Pakistan) In Figure SPM 3a, the red line denoting the average per capita GHG emissions for Non-Annex I countries should be marked in such a way that it does not give an impression as if it is only for Africa and South Asia. (Government of Pakistan) In figure SPM 3, "USA and Canada" appaear as a region, but in the notes that region is called "North America" (Government of Mexico) Figure SPM-3a: The text label "Other non-Annex 1" on the 5th bar is not able to be easily read, and we suggest it is removed from the bar and placed nearby, as in Figure SPM-

Considerations by the writing team OK- Not done now

SPM-69

SPM-157 A

See #156

SPM-158 A

See #156

SPM-70

See # A152 and A156

SPM-159 A

OK, but add reference {fig.1.5} instead; NOTE: SPM references are now missing in figure 1.5 OK

FIGURE 3 SPM-160 A

SPM-161 A

OK, extend the line: New bar for average has been added

SPM-162 A

OK, replace by North America in the figure: Not done Holger action? OK, improve

SPM-163 A

Page 46 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments 3b. The division into Annex 1 and Non-Annex 1 areas on the figure, using the dashed lines, is confusing and a better way of marking this division should be found. (Government of New Zealand) Figure SPM-3a and 3b: Please define Middle East in the note as done for other regions including a list of countries in this geographic region. (Government of Canada) Figure SPM.3 and Note: Please include all EU27 Member States in Emission from Europe Annex I (Figure and note are confusing with one referring to Europe Annex I and the other to Europe Annex II. Add country list for Middle East to the Note and replace USA and Canada with North America in the figure. (European Community) Figure SPM 3a/b, comment: the figures suggests that countries within each of the groupings have comparable per capita and per PPP GHG emissions, which is not correct; we suggest to add to each of the groupings a bar indicating the distribution between the countries within each of the groupings (Government of Netherlands) Figure SPM 3a and b: as for Figure SPM2 the phrase "CO2 emissions (from fossil fuel burning, gas flaring and cement manufactoring)" should be included to make clear that CO2 emissions from deforestation and peat as in SPM1 are excluded here. (Government of Germany) Figure SPM 3:It is not clear what countries are included in the figure as "Latin America". Does that include the Caribbean? (Government of Mexico)

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-164 A

OK, add

SPM-165 A

Reject, as stated UNFCCC classifications are used; OK to change Europe Annex II into Europe Annex I and USA and Canada into North America

SPM-166 A

See # A99

SPM-167 A

CHECK (HHR says peat is not included, but it needs to be checked if other land use is)- what is outcome?

SPM-168 A

OK, add

Page 47 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments In Figure SPM 3a and 3b, the descriptions in dark background colour bars, like the one for JANZ, are not legible. These may better be made identical to those in Figures TS 4a and TS 4b. (Government of Pakistan) Figure SPM 3a: The authors should also include a figure showing total GHG emissions per region not just per capita and GDP emissions. (Government of Australia) Figure SPM 3a: The authors need to include an explanation of what the percentiles on each of the graph bars present. In addition this figure needs to more clearly state that the selected regions are grouped by their status as either A1 or NA1, and that they are ordered by descending per capita emissions. (Government of Australia) Figure SPM 3: The authors need to consider whether the use of this figure in the SPM is necessary. It is presented in a complicated manner and does not provide significantly more information than that which is included in the text at page 3 (lines 36-39). (Government of Australia) Title of both SPM 3a and 3b is better to put "in 2004" at front, or to read: "Year 2004 distribution of ... Etc. (Government of Belgium) Fig SPM 3: Very useful histograms. Could be useful to add lines showing the 1990 levels to show the change (as this is the base used by UNFCCC). Why do bars overlap slightly? (Government of Belgium) Fig 3b; in the figure the year 2000 is used while the subtitle reads "in 2004"

Considerations by the writing team OK, improve

SPM-169 A

SPM-71

Reject, too much for SPM

SPM-72

OK, add to caption

SPM-73

Reject, others like it

SPM-74

OK

SPM-75

OK, to repair overlap (not intended) Reject 1990 data (not in report)

SPM-76

OK, modify to make clear that this is year 2000 US$- Not clear
Page 48 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments (Government of Norway) Figure SPM 3a In the Y axis of figure SPM 3a says (2000) and it must say (2004) (Government of Argentina) regional per capita GHG emissions (all Kyoto gases). (a parentesis exceeds) (Government of Argentina) Figure SPM 3a/3b. The note on country grouping is confusing. (Government of Spain) Title should say "Europe Annex I" instead of "Europe Annex II" (Government of Mexico) correct: Europe Annex I (NOT "Annex two") (Government of Germany) Annex II should read Annex I (Government of Belgium) The text reads Europe Annex II while in figure 3a and 3b "Europe Annex I" is used (Government of Norway) Turkey: It is suggested to verify the actual status of this country under the UNFCCC - see decision COP/6 (Government of Austria)

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-7

SPM-8

OK, 2000 is only referring to $, but will be changed to avoid misunderstanding OK

SPM-9

Ok, will be modified as requested by others See #A165

SPM-170 A

SPM-171 A SPM-77 SPM-78 B B

6 6 6

7 7 7

6 6 6

7 7 7

See #A165 See #A165 See #A165

SPM-172 A

SPM-173 A

SPM-174 A

10

If the accronym is "JANZ" then the explanation should be "Japan, Australia, New Zealand, in that order, not "Australia, Japan, New Zealand" (Government of New Zealand) 10 Please delete "Hong Kong", which is a part of China.

CHECK;( the note will change to Annex I; as far as I know Turkey did not ratify the UNFCCC because they are listed as Annex I) Turkey has ratified the KP and it came into force in May 2004, however data on this is not available, therefore is negligible OK, modify

OK
Page 49 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-79

13

SPM-175 A

14

SPM-10

14

(Government of China) 13 delete because "North America" is not used in the figures; USA and Canada are mentioned as such (Government of Belgium) 14 The word "Kyrgugyzstan" may be replaced by "Kyrgyzstan". (Government of Pakistan) 14 Please remove Gibraltar on the list of "Other non-Annex I Countries". (Government of Spain) 0 Figure SPM-4: Should the vertical axis be labelled as "Gt CO2eq / year", not "Gt CO2eq"? (Government of New Zealand) Figure SPM-4: introduces new scenario results (EMF-21). Some information about this group of scenarios and how they compare to the SRES is important for policy makers. Also inclusion of the lines TS page 9 lines 6-8 "For 2100, the SRES range (a 40% decline to 250% increase compared to 2000) I s still valid. More recent projections tend to be higher: increase of 90% to 250% compared to 2000." in the Figure SPM4 caption would be useful. It is interesting to note that some of the EMF scenarios include climate policy and still result in higher emissions. Inclusion of Figure 3.9 from underlying chapter 3 would be useful to show relation between the SRES and EMF-21 group of scenarios. (Government of Canada) Figure SPM-4: How significant is the fact that "this figure does not show the full range of scenario results since SRES"? If significant, an explanation should be included. (Government of Canada) Figure SPM-4: as for Figure SPM2 the phrase "CO2

Reject, see #A165

OK

OK

FIGURE 4 SPM-178 A

OK- still Gt CO2eq/year!

SPM-179 A

See #A177 OK, revision of figure by deleting EMF21 scenarios. Instead one should to add bars for 5, 25, median, 75, 95 percentile of the emissions of the full literature as assessed in Chapter 3.3. Add remark in caption that post-SRES baseline

SPM-180 A

OK, see #A177

SPM-181 A

Reject, SRES scenarios include all

Page 50 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments emissions (from fossil fuel burning, gas flaring and cement manufactoring)" should be included to make clear that CO2 emissions from deforestation and peat as in SPM1 are excluded here. (Government of Germany) Figure SPM-4: A sentence or two to explain the SRES and EMF scenarios and their purpose (to illustrate a range of GHG outcomes based upon an assumed series of drivers or parameters (population, GDP, etc., etc.) over various time periods) would be helpful as neither the SPM nor TS do so. Most policy makers will not read Chapter 3. (Government of Canada) Figure SPM 4: Explain EMF 21 and what the acronyms MES, MIT,IPAC etc mean. (Government of Sweden) Figure SPM 4: A box should be added clearly defining each scenario. Draw from the box used to describe the SRES scenarios in the SPMs for the WG1 and WG2 reports, but include descriptions of all scenarios used in this SPM. (Government of United States of America) Figure SPM 4: 19 models were used in EMF-21. The notes should also describe how the 6 models presented here were chosen and how representative they are of the 19. Also, a note is needed about the SRES scenarios presented. Are these the marker scenarios? How representative are they of the 40 SRES scenarios, or at least the 26 harmonized scenarios? (Government of United States of America) Fig SPM 4, comment: suggest to have an identical order of scenarios for all three years. (Government of Netherlands) fig. SPM4 We propose that the denotation on the y-axis is

Considerations by the writing team land-use emissions, although it is not known to what extent peatland emissions are included (OK, to add a note to figure caption)- Not needed in new graph? See # A176 and #A177

SPM-182 A

SPM-183 A

See #A177

SPM-184 A

See #A176

SPM-185 A

See #A177 and A176

SPM-187 A

Reject, would make it more difficult to see the high and the low See # A178
Page 51 of 183

SPM-81

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments changed to "GtCO2eq/yr". (Government of Norway) Figure SPM 4 would be easier to understand as a line graph of total emissions vs time for different scenarios. It could be improved if the order of the scenarios on the x-axis were consistent between years (understand though that this loses the decending order) (Government of UK) Include the word "Global" in the figure caption (Government of Switzerland) The authors need to provide some information on the EMF21 scenarios and state why they have been used as the comparator for the SRES. (Government of Australia) Fig.SPM 4 caption. Explain, at least in a footnote, the meaning of EMF 21and the characteristics of the corresponding scenarios (Government of France) Title of SPM 4 is not very clear for a non-inside reader; should be rephrased. Also instead of "2000-2100" it is better to use "2000; 2030; 2100" because the provided data are discrete. (Government of Belgium) We propose that the text is changed to "GHG emission baseline scenarios" to make it more in line with the text in line 7. (Government of Norway) The abbreviation EMF 21 should be explained (Government of Norway) It is suggested to substitute "since SRES by after 2001"? (Government of Austria) It is not clear whether the phrase "full range of scenario

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-82

Reject, because emphasis is here on range, not on dynamics over time

SPM-188 A SPM-80 B

7 7

1 1

7 7

4 5

OK- Not done See #A177

SPM-186 A

See #A176

SPM-83

OK- Not done

SPM-84

OK- Not done

SPM-85

7 7 7

2 3 3

7 7 7

2 3 3

See #A177 See #A177 See #A177

Page 52 of 183

SPM-189 A SPM-190 A

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments results since SRES" refers to post-SRES scenario results or the results of SRES scenarios. This may please be clarified. (Government of Pakistan) Editing: replace "is" with "are". (Government of Australia) We suppose that F-gases does not include CFCs, HCFCs and other F-gases than those mentioned. If this is the case we propose that the sentence is changed to "F-gases are HFCs, PFCs and SF6." (Government of Norway) Please, add to the Caption of the Figure SPM 4: Variations between emission projections reflect alternative development pathways in respect to population, technology, governance and economy. (Government of Finland) The figure "200.6" may be written as "2006". (Government of Pakistan) space between 200 and 6 to be removed (Government of Austria) Correct the date of the Weyant reference: 2006 (Government of Switzerland) 200.6 should be replaced by 2006 (Government of Nepal) For clarity purposes, it would be usefull to intoduce explanations on the "long-term baseline scenarios" in the form of a short table - or a footnote (Government of Switzerland) Figure SPM 4 does not support the statement and seems to suggest the conclusion that GHG emissions ranges have changed appreciably. The low end of the SRES scenarios in 2100 is not reflected in the EMF-21 models presented. Also,

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-86 SPM-87

B B

7 7

3 3

7 7

3 4

Reject, sentence will be deleted OK

SPM-191 A

See #A176

SPM-192 A SPM-193 A SPM-194 A SPM-195 A

7 7 7 7

5 5 5 5

7 7 7 0

5 5 5 0

OK See #A192 See #A192 See #A192

PARAGRAPH B3 SPM-196 A 7

Reject, not clear what the added value is; SRES box will be added

SPM-197 A

See #177 (EMF data to be removed from fig 4)

Page 53 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-88

SPM-89

this comparison is a bit arbitrary for two reasons: (1) the SRES and EMF-21 scenarios presented in Fig. SPM 4 are a small subset of the scenarios in those exercises and it is not clear that they are representative, and (2) unlike SRES, the EMF-21 exercise was not designed to span a range of possible baseline futures. Arguably, the EMF-21 results with their "modeler choice" baselines suggests a level of expert agreement that 2100 emissions are expected to be more than that suggested by SRES A1T, B1, B2, and A1B. This movement away from low SRES emissions in 2100 is a significant point worth making. (Government of United States of America) 22 The authors need to address the criticisms that have been made of the SRES in a more open and transparent manner. At present it seems that the SPM downplays the SRES criticisms, especially when it comes to questions of population and economic growth projections. A more transparent method to deal with these criticisms would be for the authors to take a "twin-track" approach where they present both the SRES scenarios and the criticisms of those scenarios as valid differences of opinion. The authors need to avoid giving the impression that the validity of the AR4 rests on readers agreeing with the authors views on MER/PPP. One way to do this is to focus on concentrations rather than emissions. Specific suggestions follow. (Government of Australia) 7 In the headline statement the authors need to note that there is some uncertainty with baseline emissions scenarios. Suggest that the headline statement is reworked to incorporate the following: "Although significant uncertainty exists about future baseline emissions levels (in the absence of additional policies), the overall likely range has not changed appreciably since the SRES used in the TAR".

Reject, these are the conclusions from a comprehensive review of the literature, including the criticisms

Reject, baseline scenarios are specifically used to deal with inherent uncertainty about the futuer. The wide range of baseline emissions reflects that

Page 54 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-91

SPM-92

SPM-93

SPM-94

SPM-95

SPM-96

SPM-11

SPM-97

SPM-98

(Government of Australia) 9 We think that this main message might be of limited interest to policy makers. A message focusing on the differences between the different scenarios, as well as changes in assumptions, might be more useful. (Government of Norway) 8 The term "appreciably" may not be well known to nonnative English speakers. Please consider an alternative term. (Government of Norway) 7 To clarify suggest redrafting to "The ranges of more recent GHG emissions scenarios, which exclude climate policies, are comparable to those included in the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios." (Government of UK) 8 See comment (3, 23, 3, 46) - suggest replacing the headline message with line 40 to 46 on page 3. The current headline would become the first bullet point of Section 3 (Government of UK) 7 It would be helpful to introduce a box explaining the SRES scenarios, in line with WG1 SPM (WG1 SPM page 18). (Government of UK) 22 It would be helpful to add a graph on emissions projections by sector at global and regional level, also to support section 10 on page 13. (Government of UK) 7 Footnote: be more specific about "current ones "(year, period,) (Government of Spain) 8 Figure SPM 4 indicates that the emission range should be 25-140 Gt CO2-eq? (Government of Norway) 9 The authors need to review their confidence finding - its

Reject, this is relevant in light of the SRES criticisms

See #B93

OK

Reject, see above

OK, See also # A176,A177

Reject, additional text inserted on sector contributions in para 2

See B90

Reject, EMF21 to be taken out (see other comments) and range is range of SRES markers Reject, high agreement is what report
Page 55 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments seems the statement of "high agreement" may implicitly fail to reference the SRES criticisms. Suggest that "medium" agreement may be more appropriate. (Government of Australia)

Considerations by the writing team says, reflecting that writing team is in full agreement with this conclusion from the assessment. In addition, there is a totsl of 9 studies that were assessed to reach this conclusions. Therefore, much evidenceapplies In order to avoid misunderstanding, rephrase first part to be Evidence from PPP based studies Reject; is clear from fig 4

SPM-198 A

10

SPM-199 A

10

SPM-200 A

10

22 This section is missing the key message that under baseline projections the accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere is projected to continue for the coming century. Are there changes in the assumptions on economic growth for China and India? This is of more relevance than the projections for the regions given here. Are there changes for other regions? It seems more important to indicate many new studies since the SRES do not project baselines within the lower range of the SRES results. This has a considerable consequence on projected temperature increases by the end of the century (this should be flagged as WG I used also the lower range of SRES scenarios to estimate temperature changes). (European Community) 15 Paragraph 3 switches from "post-SRES" to "since TAR" and OK, SRES in all cases back to "SRES" again. Unless the authors are prepared to explain the difference, suggest using one or the other. Also, identify the year the SRES was issued so readers know the time frames for "SRES" and "since SRES". (Government of United States of America) 15 It is important that the SPM makes clear that the relationship Reject, text is not suggesting that between economic growth and emissions can differ from country to country. This paragraph appears to carry the implication that there is a universal relationship between

Page 56 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments each driver and emissions. However each country may have quite different drivers for emissions and in some cases population growth may be less important, and economic growth more important, than in others. (Government of New Zealand) "Is it possible to provide information on those parameters which have large uncertainties" (Government of Mauritius) Define TAR. (Government of Norway) These two sentences substantially overlap and are therefore somewhat repetitive. Suggest eliminating the more detailed second sentence on economic growth projections or consolidating the information into one sentence. (Government of United States of America) term "post-SRES scenarios" is misleading here, as this is used in TAR for stabilisation scenarios. (Government of Germany) Please clarify the term "post-SRES scenarios" (Government of Spain) Suggest this sentence be modified to read: "Representation in long-term scenarios of aerosols and aerosol precursor emissions (e.g., SO2, BC and OC), which have a net cooling effect, has improved since SRES. A general finding is that these emissions are projected to be lower over the long term compared to SRES." Note the word "net" because BC has a warming effect. (Government of United States of America) The authors should reference the findings of WG1 on the cooling effect of aerosols. (Government of Australia) Suggest inserting a bullet point to clarify that the underlying

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-201 A

10

23

Reject, scenarios are a way to deal with uncertainties Reject, already done in para 1 Reject second sentence is on population. Third sentence is on economic growth

SPM-99

7 7

10 11

0 7

0 15

SPM-202 A

SPM-203 A

13

14

OK, add baseline after post-SRES

SPM-12

7 7

13 16

7 7

14 17

See A203 OK

SPM-204 A

SPM-100 B

16

17

OK, see #A204,

SPM-101 B

16

16

UNCLEAR what is meant

Page 57 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-205 A

18

SPM-206 A

18

drivers of emissions do indeed matter - this could be related to the SRES scenarios (Government of UK) 22 This paragraph must be rather incomprehensible to nonexpert policy makers who have not followed this 2-3 year old debate and may not be familiar with PPP and market exchange rates. (Government of Sweden) 22 It may be helpful to add at the end of this bullet point, the statement: "PPP is considered a better approach especially when being used for welfare and/or income comparisons across regions." (Government of New Zealand)

Reject, too politically important for those that have been involved in the debate

SPM-207 A

18

SPM-102 B

18

22 Comment: although we recognize discussions about the GDP metric have been fierce and in fact detrimental to the support for a previous IPCC report, we doubt a caveat statement like this merits being taken up in the SPM. (Government of Netherlands) 22 In this dot point, the authors need to be more explicit about the SRES criticisms. Suggest that this point be redrafted along the following lines drawn from Chapter 3 (page 22): "Although there has been significant debate about the choice of metric for GDP, the available evidence indicates that the differences, between projected emissions using MER exchange rates and PPP exchange rates are small in comparison to the uncertainties represented by the range of scenarios and the likely impacts of other parameters and assumptions made in developing scenarios, e.g., technological change".

Reject, not consistent with chapter 3.3. PPP is the better measure of national (not regional) welfare differences. In the context of emissions scenarios, however, it is not clear which of the both metrics would be more accurate as a metric for measuring economic activity. See #A205

OK, add before first sentence: There has been debate about the choice of metrics for GDP (Market Exchange Rates (MER) or Purchasing Power Parity (PPP). The next sentence then slightly modified: Evidence . New PPP based studiesthe choice of exchange rate in measuring GDP does not ..consistently. (as suggested in A208)

Page 58 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-103 B

19

SPM-208 A SPM-209 A

7 7

20 20

0 7

SPM-210 A

22

SPM-90

24

(Government of Australia) 20 The term "appreciably" may not be well known to nonnative English speakers. Please consider an alternative term. (Government of Norway) 0 The word 'metric' is unfamiliar (Government of Nepal) 20 The differences between GDP PPP and GDP MER, are these differences in a certain direction, if so, please mentioned. This needs to be clear also for those not directly involved in these modelling exercises. For policymakers this is not transparent if not explained. (European Community) 22 It is suggested to substitute "technological change" by "rate of technological change" (Government of Austria) 0 Footnote 1: Do current policies include the Kyoto protocol, EU Emissions Trading Scheme, etc.? Please clarify, in consultation with creators of these scenarios (Government of Belgium)

Reject, not too difficult

Ok, change to the choice of exchange rate in measuring GDP Reject, TS and chapter 3 have more detail

Reject, it is more than the rate, it is also the nature of technological change the resolution of the models is too coarse to clarify this. Some of the more recent ones might include Kyoto, but certainly not all. Change sentence to clarify that the sentence is giving a definition of baselines and not trying to make a quantitative statement what present policies are included. OK, Change sentence footnote added into: Baseline scenarios in the literature do notinclude additional climate policies above current ones. Some do include Kyoto Protocol. OK, draw from WG 1 and 2 boxes

SPM-176

25

(footnote 1) Itd help to understand if the concept and explanation of the Baseline scenarios as an annotate is added. (Government of Korea)

Page 59 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-177 A

25

Footnote #1: Please clarify because some EMF scenarios are OK, EMF21 scenarios to be removed; said to include some climate policies. Also, please use the see # A110 quote form WGI page 18 SRES box, "The SRES scenarios See also #A176 for SRES explanation do not include additional climate initiatives, which means that no scenarios are included that explicitly assume implementation of the UNFCCC or the emissions targets of the Kyoto Protocol. " (Government of Canada) Box SPM-1: As the SPM will be used by a range of policy makers it would be useful to clarify some of the terms used here. The differences between "social cost pricing" and "private cost pricing" could be made clearer, as could "without most externalities" (perhaps in this case by adding "i.e. assuming some actions/activities do not carry costs"). It is not sufficiently clear what is being referred to by "...barriers limiting actual uptake." (Government of New Zealand) Box SPM 1: The SPM is comparing apples to oranges at the moment in the comparison of bottom-up estimates for a given carbon price to top-down estimates required for achieving reduction quantity targets over time. These estimates are not directly comparable. Had the top-down models run carbon price paths (vs. quantity targets) the estimates would have been more comparable to the bottomup estimates. However, estimates from carbon prices provide information on the amount of mitigation available at a carbon price. Estimates from quantity target scenarios provide information on the amount of mitigation actually utilized in the least-cost portfolio of options in a particular period. The former is economic potential and the later is competitive potential. The top-down estimates used in the OK, try and improve clarity of box

BOX 1 SPM-213 A

SPM-214 A

DISCUSS Accept and following action taken: Important: The notion of competitive potential is not covered in the report, nor was it raised during the review process In trying to solve this it might help if we more precisely explain the two methods: T/D potentials, given the way models work, are giving something below economic potential. B/U potentials are also not true economic potential because 1) a number of studies do include barriers; 2) many studies are incomplete in
Page 60 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments SPM are definitely not estimates of the amount of mitigation received for a given carbon price, i.e., they are not estimates of economic potential as currently defined in the box. The carbon price derived from stabilization scenarios reflects the amount of mitigation required to be on the stabilization path, where the carbon price is endogenous and represents the marginal cost of the last option that had to be adopted to be on the stabilization path in that period. Meanwhile, the definition of market potential in the box is currently limited to implementation costs and barriers and represents a bottom-up implementation potential concept. We believe the box really needs to define this other conceptcompetitive potentialto clarify these distinctions and establish the relationship between the two types of potential reflected in the bottom-up and top-down estimates represented in the SPM. We propose the following changes to the current text in the box: 1. Define competitive potential: Competitive potential is defined as the amount of GHG mitigation that is competitively selected to minimize costs for achieving a defined mitigation goal (e.g., emissions cap or stabilisation target). Analyses of this type are referred to as cost-effective analyses, in that they identify the most cost-effective combination of options for achieving the pre-defined goal. 2. Revised definition of economic potential: Economic potential, as used in most studies, is the amount of GHG mitigation that is economical for a given carbon price, including energy savings or crop yield changes, but without externalities or market feedbacks. A few additional comments and questions: 1. What is social cost pricing? 2. covering all sectors suggests that all bottom-up studies cover all sectors. However, just the opposite is truemost

Considerations by the writing team terms of options, sub sectors and regions. We might also use TAR box spm2 that that says differences between T/D and B/U analyses have been reduced. We could present numbers more separated

Page 61 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments are sector (and location) specific. 3. The economic feedbacks such as input re-allocations within periods and across time, investment decisions over time, trade effects, and comparative production and mitigation advantages, as well as biophysical system dynamics are incredibly important parts of estimating global potential. The text here inappropriately plays down the importance. The SPM should instead be encouraging modeling that endogenizes important relationships between technologies, markets, regions, and time periods. 4. Given the bottom-up consistency issues with baselines and the different kinds of potential being estimated, the similarity between the bottom-up and top-down global estimates of potential is purely coincidental and should not be considered validation of either estimate. (Government of United States of America) Box SPM 1: The definition refers to a given "carbon price". Given that certain policies (e.g., tax credits) can place a value on carbon, but not a market price per se, suggest changing this to "carbon value". (Government of United States of America) Box SPM 1: Do the top-down models also include aspects such as life-style changes (considered as a non-technical mitigation option)? (Government of Nepal) Box SPM 1: Consider putting the caveat in Box SPM 2 on p 12 here so that it is before paragraphs where it is relevant. Also, a box that explains for the lay person the basics of models and what they do and don't account for would be far more useful here than this box. Something should be said about assumptions about technological change and deployment as well as net costs. There is nothing in any of

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-215 A

Reject, carbon price is the word used in the report, OK to explain in box that carbon price can also mean implicit or shadow carbon price, OK, change text to make clear that this applies to both top down and bottom up studies Reject putting box 2 in box 1, because Box 2 is meant to discuss cost estimates and the influence of model assumptions OK to take into account in box 2 reformulation- Monique confirms that no caveat included in Box 2
Page 62 of 183

SPM-216 A

SPM-217 A

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments the statements in this document about distribution of costs, which is one of the key political issues associated with the transition to a low carbon economy. (Government of United States of America) Box SPM 1 : replace at the end of the first two paragraphs, 2.5 by 2.4 (Government of France) Average for those spacelines is shown instead of in shown in footnote 3 (Government of Austria) Box SPM1: Definitions provided are not exactly in line with underlying chapters - and those are most transparent. Therefore replace current definitions with: "Economic potential is theoretically defined as the amount of GHG mitigation that is cost-effective for a given carbon price, taking into account both market and non-market social costs and benefits, using social discount rates. This therefore includes valuation of externalities, but does not assume that underlying consumer preferences are changed. However, in most studies, energy savings are included, but externalities are excluded [2.4]." "Market potential is defined as the amount of GHG mitigation that might be expected to occur under forecast market conditions, including policies and measures in place at the time based on private costs and discount rates. Therefore it assumes current market prices, barriers, hidden costs, etc remain in place, and a zero carbon price [2.4]." (Government of UK) Box SPM 1: add the words "and changes in production and consumption patterns" after "Non-technical mitigation options, such as life style changes" (Government of Germany)

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-218 A

OK

SPM-219 A

UNCLEAR

SPM-104 B

Reject, too technical for SPM, see #A213 For discussion- what has been the result of discussion. Think we should reject as originally suggested

SPM-223 A

OK, but then replace life-style changes- In new text deleted

Page 63 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments Box on economic and market potential is too technical for policy makers and its varied use in the text is confusing. Further, the term "mitigation potential" as introduced in footnote 3 might be confused with either "economic potential" or "market potential" used elsewhere, although they are not the same thing. For "economic potential" we suggest using "opportunity for cost-effective reductions" or "potential for cost-effective mitigation"...? The Term "market Potential" is not really explained well, the current description makes it sound like a "business as usual" scenario of implementing simply what exists, which is not what we think was meant. (Government of Canada) Box SPM 1: The authors should include a note in this box setting out that economic potential is generally the potential most analysed in the SPM and WG3 report. (Government of Australia) Box SPM 1: Definition of "Market Potential" - insert "GHG mitigation" before "potential" for clarity and consistency with the definition above. (Government of Australia) Box SPM 1: Definition of "Market Potential" - Delete "as used in most studies" as this unnecessarily complicates the definition. In addition, replace "with" with "under" for grammatical completeness and delete "including energy savings" as it seems odd to include energy savings when not all emissions are connected to energy use. (Government of Australia) Box SPM 1: Definition of "Economic Potential" - the definition in Chapter 2 (page 33) is much clearer, we suggest that the authors use that definition as a replacement for the current version in the SPM.

Considerations by the writing team OK, take into account when reformulating box 1, See also # A212 Accept: Do believe this has been taken into account

SPM-224 A

SPM-105 B

OK- Footnote not there

SPM-106 B

OK- we still need to add GHG

SPM-107 B

OK, to add where applicable after energy savings- not added Reject deletion of as used in most studies in light of para 2 definition

SPM-108 B

See # B104

Page 64 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments (Government of Australia) Box SPM 1: Definition of "Economic Potential" - Delete "as used in most studies" as this unnecessarily complicates the definition. In addition, delete "including energy savings" as it seems odd to include energy savings when not all emissions are connected to energy use. (Government of Australia) Economic potential, according to Box SPM 1, is without most externalities. Is this true for Figures 5 and 6? How much bigger would potentials be if sulfur dioxide reductions, indoor air-pollution, energy security and other aspects were properly accounted for? It should be noted that a more integrated approach would result in greater potentials. Where is the link to Chapter 12? Are the macro economic cost estimates [P11, L16-22] without most externalities, and if so how? What is the value of this information? (Government of Sweden) Section C: This section is far too technical to be understood by policy makers. For example, non-economists will not understand the difference between economic and market potential based on the description, as they will not understand the economic jargon of social cost pricing and discount rates and market cost pricing and discount rates. This needs to be explained in layman's terms. (Government of United States of America) Section C: There are fundamental issues in this section (noted below), and we therefore propose a restructuring of the section. We suggest that the section start with the topdown global estimates of mitigation potential for different price ranges, including a figure and discussion of the

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-109 B

OK, to add where applicable after energy savings Reject deletion of as used in most studies in light of para 2 definition

PARAGRAPH 4 SPM-212 A 8

15

OK, add sentence on impacts of including externalities in potential estimates in box 1 (if supported by chapter 2/11)- Not included in new text, do not know reason for rejecting comment For discussion

SPM-220 A

15

Box 1 to be simplified

SPM-221 A

15

DISCUSS, see #A214 restructuring would be virtually impossible at this stage

Page 65 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments sectoral global estimates available in Chapter 3, and a discussion of the limitations of top-down models given their more aggregate representation and current handling of implementation issues. This could be followed by a discussion of the bottom-up sectoral estimates and sector specific technologies for the various 2030 price ranges given by the stabilization studies, where the bottom-up estimates give a sense of the mitigation and technologies we might see implemented for a given carbon price (Table SPM 1 and Figure SPM 6 and the sector specific paragraphs on pp 12-14), while the top-down estimates give a better feel for the mitigation we will see. 1. The aggregation of the sectoral bottom-up analyses to generate global estimates of potential The current bottomup literature does not offer studies that were designed for consistent aggregation in order to provide global estimates of mitigation potential. The fact that the global estimates of mitigation potential from bottom-up aggregation and the top-down estimates are similar is a coincidence and not an analytically robust result. The top-down studies were designed to provide global estimates of mitigation potential, though with aggregated technological and regional representations, and, given what is currently available, should be the main literature used to inform policy-makers about global mitigation potential. 2. The mixture of sector baselines (see Footnote 3), which runs across studies within sectors as well as across sectors, illustrates a key reason why aggregation of the bottom-up studies is highly problematic. The summing of the bottomup baselines is troubling since each emissions baseline represents different economies with different prices, technologies, trade, demographics, etc. Also, which sectoral baselines are being summed? Are the sectoral baselines

Considerations by the writing team

Page 66 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments assumed in the sector chapters of AR4 the same as the baselines assumed by the individual studies used by the sector chapter assessments? Our sense is that they are not, which raises the question of which baselines were summed and, regardless of the answer, raises significant consistency issues for bottom-up global sectoral estimates. 3. The bottom-up and top-down estimates are not comparable. They were constructed for very different policy relevant questions. Bottom-up estimates provide an estimate of the maximum amount of mitigation that is economical for a given sector/location/technology at a given carbon price. The top-down estimates here (from stabilization runs), provide estimates of the amount of mitigation that is cost competitively utilized (i.e., cost-effective) for achieving a given long-term climate stabilization goal. The bottom-up estimates provide a partial equilibrium boundary of sorts for the top-down estimates on a detailed sector/location/technology basis for a constrained economic environment (e.g., prices, trade, input supply fixed). Note, that the stabilization sectoral results from Tables 3.13 and 3.14 can be quite different from the bottom-up estimates both higher or lowerfor a given carbon price range. These are important differences that should be presented and discussed in the SPM. The top-down models could have been run with carbon prices, with or without market and environmental dynamics, to make a more direct comparison to these bottom-up estimates. 4. The GDP loss numbers in this section are from the topdown stabilization scenarios, but, given the format of this section could easily be interpreted as corresponding to the bottom-up mitigation potential estimates created on the previous pages. The link between the GDP loss numbers and the bottom-up estimates is weak to non-existent. This is very

Considerations by the writing team

Page 67 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-222 A

15

SPM-225 A SPM-226 A

8 8

5 5

8 8

misleading. (Government of United States of America) 2 Section C: There are a number of key points from Chapter 11 that should be reflected in the SPM. Prior to explaining sector-by-sector findings (paragraphs 8-15) the following point should be made: "No one sector or technology can address the entire mitigation challenge. All main sectors contribute to the total. In the lower-cost range and measured according to end-user contribution, electricity savings in buildings and agriculture have the largest potential for reductions. By emission source contribution, energy supply has the largest potential for reductions." (see lines 15-20, p. 4, ES of Chapter 11) (Government of United States of America) 7 Very important statement. It should stay as it is. (Government of Germany) 22 Section C.4: [A] Shorten declarative statement to: The economic potential for mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions is estimated and varies depending on modeling assumptions about the value of carbon. The market potential is less. Reserve statements about quantities and value judgments about significance to the bullets that follow, which provide the appropriate defining context for each. Insert new bullets, after 1st bullet, as follows: [B] "The economic potential for GHG mitigation by 2030 at carbon values below 20 US$/t CO2-eq/yr is considered to be sufficient to slow significantly future growth in global GHG emissions. The market potential is less." [C] The economic potential for GHG mitigation by 2030 at carbon values between 20 US$ and 100 US$/t CO2-eq/yr is estimated to be sufficient to reverse future growth in GHG emissions, such that GHG emissions in 2030 could be

OK, bring this into para 4, second bullet, but it is confusing to mix enduse allocation and point-of-emission allocation. Reformulate proposal to No one sector total. In the cost range <$20/t CO2eq electricity savings in the buildings sector has the biggest potential, followed by fuel shifts in the electricity supply sector and various options in the transport and agriculture sector (see fig SPM6). Thank you Reject, would make very weak headline statement and fig 5 clarifies the impact vis a vis current levels sufficiently. Repetitive mention of market potential is overdone Ok to include short sentence on market potential in headline

Page 68 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-227 A

SPM-228 A

reduced below current levels. The market potential is less." (Government of United States of America) 22 Is there equal confidence in all the statements under this section? Prima facie, that does not seem reasonable (Government of Nepal) 5 Delete "significant". (Government of China)

Reject, there is equal agreement and evidence for all elements DISCUSS, see #A229 significant could be deleted if the last part of the sentence stays- Last part of sentence has stayed and significant has not been deleted OK, GHG everywhere, but first time use full text with abbreviation- already done in paragraph B2 Ok, will be taken into account when modifying box 1- Accept it is done, therefore highlight yellow

SPM-110 B

SPM-13

SPM-229 A

SPM-111 B

The authors need to standardise the use of "GHG" or "greenhouse gas" emissions throughout the SPM. (Government of Australia) 15 In Box SPM1 is remarkable the absence of development, in the methodological approach, in relation to the third Assessment Report. The approach is identicall. There exist no reference in the literature to a most dynamic approach to tecnological development and potential of implementation of new technologies?. The background, based in Static Costbenefit Analysis, is the only existent instrument that can be use to estimate potentials? (Government of Argentina) 7 Delete "sufficent . levels.". Reason:(1)baseline used in Fig SPM5 is not representative of the baseline shown in Fig SPM4. If other baselines are used, it may not be able to reduce emissions below current levels;(2) current emission shows an increasing trend, and the experience of efforts made by Annex I does not support this possibility. (Government of China) 6 Insert "the expected" before "growth of global emissions". (Government of Australia)

DISCUSS, see also USA comments (..), China comment #A228 and UK comment #B113- Has not been deleted and do not know why

Still discussion about the word projected- The word projected has been added in the text but unsure about
Page 69 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-112 B SPM-113 B

8 8

6 6

8 8

SPM-230 A

SPM-231 A

SPM-114 B

SPM-232 A

SPM-233 A

this comment. 6 Delete "or" and replace with "and possibly". DISCUSS, See #A229, B113- or is still there (Government of Australia) 7 Suggest delete after comma - this is redundant if mitigation DISCUSS, see also USA comments is defined (see comment 3,3,3,7); suggest adding last bullet (..), China comment #A229 to header so that both economic potential and market Ok to insert the market potential bullet potential are mentioned. The new header would read "There in the header- done is a significant economic potential for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from all sectors over the coming decades. The market potential is much smaller than the economic potential. A mix of policy instruments (see section E) can bridge the gap between market and economic potential." (Government of UK) 7 One could add a bullet saying "Bottom up studies find Reject, is already in 3rd bullet significant potential to reduce emissions at no costs or economic gains in 2030 of xx Gt (xx%below baseline)" (Government of Germany) 7 Indicate the range ot carbon prices for which the statement is Reject, this is already in first bullet valid, i.e." for a carbon price in the range of a few tens US dollars" (Government of France) 7 We propose changing text to "to reduce global emissions Reject, given uncertainty about below current levels". Additionally, should "current levels" baseline this cannot be justified be specified? (Government of Norway) 8 We have doubts about the level of agreement here. Please Reject, this is a solid conclusion from specify. the chapters (Government of China) 10 This statement is not clear. Presumably the "15-30% below Ok,on first point: rephrase;- The baseline" refers to the "9-18 GT CO2eq/yr" and not to the suggested rephrasing is not in the C4 "20 US$/tCO2eq" is is placed next to. Reword along the text
Page 70 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments lines "In 2030 the economic potential ranges from 9-18 Gt CO2eq/yr relative to a medium emission baseline (15-30% below baseline) at carbon prices lower than 20 US$/tCO2eq ...". The statement still lacks some clarity however: how are these reductions to be compared (in percentage terms) with reductions relative to 1990? (Government of New Zealand) It's not evident if the 16-30 Gt are additional to the 9-18 Gt or cumulative and how these ranges were derived from Fig SPM 5 (Government of Canada) Insert after potention for the mitigation of GHG Emissions (Government of Austria) I understand this sentence to mean that the range 9-18 GtCO2-eq/yr^2 corresponds to the price range 0-20 US$/tCO2-eq, and the range 16-30 Gt CO2-eq/yr^2 corresponds to the price range 0-100 US$/tCO2-eq. That interpretation assigns two different economic potentials to the price of 0 US$/tCO2-eq. Explanation and clarification are needed. (International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)) Also present the range for emissions reductions at costs < 50 USD/tCO2-eq. The relevance hereof can be found in line 18. (European Community) A note (and reference to Section 3.6.2.2 in Chapter 3) should be added here (or to the caption of Figure SPM 5) about the fact that the statistical numbers are being used. The first bullet references Figure SPM.5 and footnote 2 with regard to the range of mitigation potential from top-down and bottomup estimates for various carbon price ranges. However, the top-down estimates reported in SPM 5 (low, mean, and

Considerations by the writing team Reject 1990, because text would become too cluttered

SPM-234 A

11

OK: clarify by rephrasing

SPM-235 A

SPM-236 A

10

OK, replace full text with GHG abbreviation- why full text of GHG abbreviation already given earlier? See #233; it is everything that is economic at 20 and 100; no discrepancy- explained in text and there is no discrepancy

SPM-237 A

10

OK, add

SPM-238 A

11

DISCUSS (ch 3) The statistical analysis in 3.6.2.2 is sound and numbers can be quoted. A note can be added to explain the difference between carbon price in a BU and TD setting

Page 71 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-115 B

SPM-116 B

high) are the statistical estimates of emissions reductions derived in Chapter 3 from stabilization scenario results. The specific numbers used in Fig. SPM 5 only apply to the specific prices of $20 and $100 (see page 111 in chapter 3) and not the price ranges. The top-down low, mean, and high results for the $0-20 price range are more like 2, 8, and 15 respectively (estimating from Figure 3.40 on page 110). The authors should refer to this range instead or describe the numbers as the statistically expected reductions for $20. (Government of United States of America) 11 This dot point is confusing as it mixes the ranges presented OK, TD and BU will be treated in from both top-down and bottom-up studies and footnote separate bullets number 2 does not explain this clearly and misleads readers into assuming the range for each type of study is identical. We suggest that this dot point is replaced with the construction at Chapter (page 27): "At 2030, for carbon prices <20 US$/tCO2-eq the economic potential ranges are 10-17 GtCO2-eq/yr for bottom-up versus 9-18 GtCO2-eq/yr for top-down studies. For carbon prices <100 US$/tCO2-eq the ranges are 16-30 GtCO2-eq/yr and 17-26 GtCO2-eq/yr for bottom-up and top- down respectively. At the sector level, however, there are larger differences between bottomup and top-down studies". (Government of Australia) 11 We think that this sentence would be more readable if it was See # B115 split into two sentences as follows: "In 2030 the economic potential ranges from 15-30% below baseline at carbon prices lower than 20 US$/tCO2-eq to 30-50% below baseline at carbon prices lower than 100 US$/tCO2-eq. This corresponds to reductions of 9-18 Gt CO2-eq/yr and 6-30 Gt CO2-eq/yr respectively (see figure SPM.5)." (Government of Norway)
Page 72 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments The range on Figure SPM 5 looks more like 9-15 Gt CO2 rather than 9-18 Gt CO2 (Government of UK) Identify that these results are from bottom up studies. Suggest for clarity redraft as "Global mitigation potential varies depending on cost. At a cost of 20US$ per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent emitted, emissions could be 9 to 18 GtCO2 per annum lower by 2030 than they would otherwise have been. When this cost rises to 100US$ global mitigation potential increases to 16-30 GtCO2" (Government of UK) Editing: replace "emission baseline" with "emissions baseline". (Government of Australia) Explain and examplify the term "Carbon price". (Government of Norway) The most important mitigation "technologies", please replace the word "technologies" by "(technical) measures". (European Community) Comment: what is "important" is subjective, rather use "substantial" (with significant commercial potential at the moment or before 2030) (Government of Netherlands) Comment: is seems strange to have a bullet only refering to a table without further content; we would suggest rephrasing the bullet to "For all major sectors several mitigation technologies with significant reduction potential are currently on the market, and other technologies are expected to be commercialised before 2030 (see Table SPM 1)." (Government of Netherlands) The authors need to explain how they have determined what "the most important" mitigation technologies are: (e.g. is it

Considerations by the writing team Ok, figure will be checked (after modification)- Understand that figure 5 is correct now? See #B115

SPM-117 B

SPM-118 B

11

SPM-119 B

OK- text is re-phrased, such that these words are no longer together OK, but do that in box 1 Reject, accepted terminology in main report Reject, does not work in conjunction with mitigation technologies

SPM-120 B SPM-239 A

8 8

9 12

0 8

0 12

SPM-240 A

12

12

SPM-241 A

12

12

Ok, will be changed according to #A222

SPM-121 B

12

12

OK, modify to ..technologies with the largest potential

Page 73 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments based purely on the size of the mitigation contribution, or are other factors taken into account?) (Government of Australia) Suggest put "economic" before "sectors" (Government of UK) This sentence is correct but fails to convey the policy challenge of realizing mitigation options with a net negative cost to society. The chapter [11] puts great emphasis on the need for clearer, more predictable, longer term and more robust policies than current ones [11 ES, p 6]. (Government of Sweden) This may be one of the most important findings in this subsection. It should be elevated in the subsection to the second bullet, and should read: "Within the economic potential of 9-18 GT CO2e/yr that can be achieved, bottomup studies indicate that 5-7 GT CO2e/yr of GHG reductions can be achieved at net negative costs." (Government of Canada) This is unclear: Rewrite to say "Bottom-up studies suggest that mitigation opportunities yielding net negative costs have the potential to reduce emissions by about 6 Gt Co2-eq/yr." Also, explain how net negative costs are possible - what leads to such opportunities? (Government of United States of America) Strike the word "a range" and insert in its place "an estimated range". (Government of United States of America) Please check the data of 6GtCO2-eq, it seems overestimate the mitigation potential at net negative costs comparing with the results from the TAR. (Government of China)

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-122 B SPM-242 A

8 8

12 16

8 8

12 17

OK- economic not found in text now OK, add some words to indicate policy challenge- cannot find a policy sentence

SPM-243 A

16

17

Ok, move it up (otherwise too lengthy) For text see #A244

SPM-244 A

16

17

OK Still to be discussed

SPM-245 A

16

17

Drop the word range

SPM-246 A

16

16

CHECK numbers (ch 11) Ok, add a bullet stating that mitigation potential in AR4 is LOWER than TAR due to better information (and add a column to table 1)
Page 74 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team OK, see#243

SPM-247 A

16

SPM-248 A

16

SPM-249 A SPM-250 A

8 8

16 16

8 8

SPM-123 B

16

SPM-14

16

SPM-251 A

18

SPM-252 A

18

17 Move bullet up to position just before preceding bullet, starting with "The most important [change to significant] mitigation technologies " (Government of United States of America) 17 If the bottom-up studies identify a mitigation potential of 6 Gt CO2eq/year at net negative cost, what are the factors that prevent this potential from being realized? (Government of Nepal) 16 Add percentage (about 10% of baseline!!). (European Community) 16 A year should be given. If the year is 2030, this line would be at odds with my interpretation above of lines 8-10 on the same page (which is anyway problematic). I'd recommended either working out a consistent number to use in both places, or explaining the difference. (International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)) 17 Suggest redraft to read "Bottom-up studies indicate that a global mitigation potential of about 6 GtCO2 exists globally at net negative cost." (Government of UK) 17 Please include the reference to the percentage ( aprox. 912% below baseline??) (Government of Spain) 20 Translating $50/tCO2 into $/liter gasoline, $/kWh electricity for a typical coal plant, etc. would be useful. (Government of United States of America) 20 There are a number of problems with this sentence, primarily the lack of context. (1) Using the phrase up to implies that a figure less than that cited (e.g., $50/tCO2-eq) could achieve the emissions trajectory given as an example, but presumably not $0. Either provide the potential range of carbon prices to

Ok, see #242

OK, add % compared to baseline and current, as for other bullets OK, add 2030

See #A244

See A249

Reject, this information is not available in report Discuss; this bullet needs to be rephrased based on TD results

Page 75 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-253 A SPM-254 A

8 8

18 18

8 8

achieve the given trajectories for stabilization or provide the range of GHG concentration for the up to $50 and $100/tCO2-eq carbon prices and associated trajectories. (2) The overall impression the authors leave is that these economic potentials ultimately would be consistent with a stabilization trajectory beyond 2030, when this is clearly not the case. (3) Are they any results for other models for 550 to 650 ppmv? The next paragraph (5) leads its discussion of cost based on a 650 ppmv trajectory, so it would be useful if there were a sentence on results for 650 ppmv. Suggest adding: (1) the appropriate CO2 price range; (2) the phrase out to 2030 at the end of the sentence, and (2) a new sentence stating: These economic potentials are not necessarily consistent with the long-term stabilization trajectories for a concentration range of from 450 to 550 ppmv CO2-eq. (Government of United States of America) 19 Same presentation of units (USD/tCO2-eq.) OK, change (European Community) 20 Is this economic potential up to $ 50/tCO2 or $50/tCO2-eq? See #A252 There should be consistent reporting in this section with regard to carbon prices, corresponding mitigation potential, and corresponding stabilization targets. For example, it is said that a target price of $50/tCO2 will give stabilization at 550 ppmv (is this interpretation correct?); however, there is no mention of the corresponding economic mitigation potential. Similarly, the first bullet states that prices lower than $20/tCO2-eq will provide an economic mitigation potential of 9-18 Gt CO2-eq/year; but what will this range correspond to in terms of stabilization targets? (Government of Nepal)
Page 76 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team See A252

SPM-255 A

18

SPM-256 A

18

SPM-124 B

18

SPM-125 B

18

SPM-126 B

18

SPM-257 A

21

SPM-258 A

21

20 Delete this bullet, or give the economic potential ranges for 50US$/tCO2-eq in line 8-11of page 8. (Government of China) 18 "50 US$/tCO2" may be written in the same format as used in lines 9, 10, 16 and 19. (Government of Pakistan) 18 The authors should include the range of economic potential for prices <50 US$/tCo2-eq (i.e. 14 to 25 GtCO2-eq.) to allow some comparison with the figures quoted above in the first dot point. (Government of Australia) 20 To make this message more comprehendable, we propose that a reference is made to known concentrations (for example pre-industrial levels) og expected temperature increases. (Government of Norway) 20 Suggest redraft for greater clarity to read "The economic mitigation potential available at a carbon price of up to $50USD per tonne of CO2-eq emitted would be sufficient to stablise atmospheric CO2 at 550ppmv. The corresponding carbon price for stablisation in the range 450ppmv 550ppmv would be between $50US and $100USD per tonne CO2-eq emitted" - if this is what is meant. (Government of UK) 22 To be coherent with [11] this needs to be rephrased and also be explicit about the need for new and more stringent policy. (Government of Sweden) 22 This should be the first bullet under the bolded text to be clear that the economic potential estimates in Fig. SPM 5, Table SPM 1, and Fig SPM 6 all over-estimate the abatement potential for any given carbon price. (Government of United States of America)

See #A252

See #A252

See A252

See A252

UNCLEAR what the request is

OK, moved to headline

Page 77 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team Reject, report has no basis to make statements about that

SPM-259 A

21

SPM-260 A

21

SPM-127 B

21

SPM-128 B

21

SPM-261 A

22

SPM-262 A

23

22 It is reasonable for the market potential to be lower than the economic potential, but there needs to be some indication of how much lower that might be. (Government of Nepal) 22 Add: "policy instruments ARE NEEDED TO OVERCOME BARRIERS AND TO bridge the gap" (Government of Canada) 21 If possible the authors should provide figures for the market potential, if this is not possible it should be explained why, and on what basis they have determined that policy instruments can bridge the gap between market and economic potentials. (Government of Australia) 21 Suggest clarify to read "Because of the differences in investment criteria and the effect of barriers identified in Box SPM1, the market potential is much smaller than the economic potential." (Government of UK) 0 Section 4.: add: "These estimates do not include, however, potential emission reductions resulting from changes in production and consumption patterns. For example switching from car transport to public transport (and freight from road to rail), energy management approaches in industry and a decrease in suburbanisation trends would contribute to significant further reductions in emissions. These reductions should be addressed in detail in future reports." (Government of Germany) 23 Comment: is seems strange to have no reference in the text to figure SPM 6; we suggest to add a bullet reading: "Bottom-up studies for the major sectors estimate substantial mitigation potentials in 2030 at different carbon prices. For

DISCUSS, see #A229 and B112, 113

See #A259

DISCUSS, see #A229 and B112, 113

Reject, this is in box 1

Ok, See #A222

Page 78 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments waste, transport and buildings a very large potential is available at prices below 20 USD. For industry the larger share of the mitigation potential however is available between 20 and 50 USD. Across cost categories the potential for agriculture and forestry in 2030 is relatively large in developing countries (see Figure SPM 6)." (Government of Netherlands) footnote 3: Insert space after SPM.5 (Government of Austria) Footnote 3: More needs to be said to describe the "mixture of baselines." The mixture of sector baselines which runs across studies within sectors as well as across sectors, illustrates a key reason why aggregation of the bottom-up studies is highly problematic. The summing of the bottomup baselines is very unsatisfying since each emissions baseline represents different economies with different prices, technologies, trade, demographics, etc. Also, what is a "medium baseline"? It would seem to be more appropriate to use a median baseline for the top-down models (an actual baseline that isn't influenced heavily by literature that is exploring upper or lower boundaries). (Government of United States of America) Footnote 3: in shown' should be replaced by 'is shown' (Government of Nepal) Figure SPM-5: This figure has caused a lot of confusion. We presume it shows, not the 'economic mitigation potential' as stated in the caption, but rather, at the level of each coloured band, the 'total global emissions assuming the full economic mitigation potential [at the indicated price] is realised'. A colour key could be used to explain that the numbers in the middle of the bars refer to the carbon price. It is not even

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-211 A SPM-263 A

8 8

25 25

0 0

0 0

Editing point DISCUSS Fall back might be to show SRES B2 and A1B in figure together with top down and bottom-up mitigation potential

SPM-264 A FIGURE 5 SPM-265 A

26

OK

OK, figure will be redrafted (high and low bar only) and clarity improved (see also DISCUSSION in #A263) Maybe show SRES B2 and A1B baselines

Page 79 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments currently clear, without reference to the text on page 8 lines 8 - 11, that the "US$/tCO2eq" above the bars refers to these numbers. It should not be assumed that those trying to understand the figure will have read the preceding text. Please note however that Fugure SPM-5 has the potential to be a very useful figure, and should not be omitted because of difficulties in making it clear. (Government of New Zealand) Figure SPM-5: Should the vertical axis be labelled as "Gt CO2eq / year", not "Gt CO2eq"? (Government of New Zealand) Figure SPM-5: Please increase the scale. Note that the 2004 total emissions looks lower in Figure SPM 5 (around 44 GT CO2e) than in Figure SPM 1 (around 50 GT CO2e). Showing the actual numbers for these emissions would help clear up this discrepancy. (Government of Canada) Figure SPM-5: It would be welcome if the bottom-up and top-down approach would have the same baseline. (Government of Austria) Figure SPM 5: What is the number of studies, based on which low, mean and high values have been computed? Do low and high refer to minimum and maximum, respectively? Why is the width of the mean column greater than the other two? [This is an important figure and needs to be examined carefully (Government of Nepal) Figure SPM 5: Delete this figure. Reference directly Tables 3.13 and 3.14. Given the significant analytical consistency issues associated with aggregation of the bottom-up literature estimates to the global scale, these numbers are not robust enough to be meaningful and should not be presented

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-266 A

OK

SPM-267 A

OK, explain why 2004 number here is different from SPM 1 (in caption); increase scale somewhat; if baselines are replaced by SRES (see #A265) then maybe 2004 to be dropped see # A263 and A265

SPM-268 A

SPM-269 A

See #A265; detail on number of studies cannot be given in SPM, this is in chapters

SPM-270 A

Reject deletion; figure is valuable for policy (and appreciated by others) Caption to explain better the use of baselines Chapter references to be added
Page 80 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments as such for policy makers. If the authors wish to give an estimate of global potential, they should rely on the studies designed to estimate global potential. Furthermore, the bottom-up and top-down estimates should not be compared as they are here since they were designed to inform different questions. Most, if not nearly all, of the bottom-up studies used were not designed to estimate global potential and the top-down studies used here were not run with a carbon price trajectory to estimate the global mitigation potential for a given carbon price (they estimate the mitigation required in 2030 for long-run stabilization, which is not the same thing). (Government of United States of America) Figure SPM 5 is too complicated to understand the exact meaning. It can be simplified to help understand. (Government of Korea) Figure SPM 5 is hard to understand (Government of Netherlands) Delete Fig SPM5. Reason: 1)baseline emissions for 2030 is not representative as compared to Fig SPM4, and thus the message can be misleading;2) the current state does not support such a conclusion. (Government of China) The explanation of the difference in the baselines for the top-down and bottom-up studies should be further explained if this table is to be included. (Greenpeace International) Table SPM 5, comment: it would be usefull to add percentages to the b-u and t-d mitigation potential projections. (Government of Netherlands) Figure SPM5, it is not evident from the explanation of the Figure whether the differences in width of the columns

Considerations by the writing team

DISCUSS the criticism about incomparability of TD and BU and how to redraw figure (showing SRES B2 and A1B as lines or bars) in 2030 together with T/D and B/U mitigation potential bars might work)

SPM-271

See #A265, A270

SPM-278 A SPM-279 A

9 9

0 0

0 0

0 0

See # A265, A270 Reject deletion; DISCUSS, see also USA and Greenpeace comments

SPM-272 A

Ok, add further explanation (see#A270)

SPM-273 A

Reject,already in text of para 4

SPM-274 A

See #A265

Page 81 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments presented in this Figure reflect a particular feature, or it is just an issue of presentation of data. (Government of CHILE) Figure SPM 5: The authors should make it clear that the GtCO2-eq notation is per year. (Government of Australia) Figure SPM 5: This figure can be improved because it suggests some relations that are not there, e.g. The sizes of the columns of the two wide bars are different but there is no meaning for it, exept a graphical one (?). It is recommended to set the LEGEND of the 'Economic mitigation potentials at US$/tCO2-eq' separately from the bars for the four types <0; 0-20; 20-50; 50-100, and to make all 7 bars of the diagram of equal width. On top of the three columns one should mention the 3 Gt numbers that correspond with the three ceilings of the columns. At the bottom (abscissa) it is best to put the dates 2004 / 2030 / 2030 on the same line; the 2030's followed by 'bottom-up' and 'top-down', and to have the names 'low/mean/high' mentioned in the bars (of equal width). Title of figure SPM 5 reads difficult, and can be reformulated shorter and clearer. (Government of Belgium) We do not see how figure SPM 5 reflects the range of 16-30 Gt CO2-eq/yr at carbon prices lower than 100 USD$/tCO2eq stated in line 10 on page 8 and the total of table SPM 1. Consider to ajust figure SPM 5 to reflect the numbers quoted more exactly. (Government of Norway) Figuer SPM5: The inclusion of "low", "mean" and "high" makes the figure confusing. We propose to remove these bars. (Government of Norway)

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-129 B

OK

SPM-130 B

See#A265, A270

SPM-131 B

See #A265, A270

SPM-132 B

See #A265, A270

Page 82 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team See #270

SPM-275 A

SPM-276 A SPM-277 A

9 9

3 3

9 9

SPM-133 B

SPM-134 B

10

This caption for Figure SPM-5 is not adequate to explain what is being shown in the figure. We presume the figure shows, not the 'economic mitigation potential' as stated in the caption, but rather, at the level of each coloured band, the 'total global emissions assuming the full economic mitigation potential [at the indicated price] is realised'. (Government of New Zealand) 7 Include the word "Global" in the figure caption (Government of Switzerland) 3 Explicit that the vertical axis represents the emissions not the mitigation potential (Government of France) 4 Suggest adding a reference to where the bottom-up results come from in the main report (Government of UK) 10 The authors need to consider whether to provide an explanation as to why top-down studies cannot provide a range for economic potential <0 US$/tCo2-eq. (Government of Australia) 0 Table SPM-1: Transport: We question whether hydrogen fuel-cell powered should be listed in the column with significant mitigation potential before 2030, considering chapter 5, page 51, lines 8-14. Certainly not the same potential as nuclear, CCS, advanced energy efficiency. (Government of Canada) Table SPM-1: This table has several errors and typos, and needs better formatting. (Government of Canada) Table SPM-1: Row 6 (Agriculture): The table gives the misleading impression that agricultural mitigation is relatively straightforward across agriculture as a whole: it

OK OK, modify caption

OK

OK, add this in caption

TABLE 1 SPM-280 A

10

CHECK suggestions (all sector chapters)

SPM-281 A

10

SPM-282 A

10

CHECK typos; UNCLEAR what is meant with reformatting Still under discussion if there is indeed significant economic mitigation potential now for livestock methane
Page 83 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments does not distinguish adequately the difficulties, and the lack of an economic mitigation potential, for ruminant methane emissions from pastoral agriculture. (Government of New Zealand) Table SPM-1: Row 4 (Buildings), Column 4: Smart metering and intelligent controls are being deployed now why are they being rejected as technologies that can make a difference before 2030? (Government of New Zealand) Table SPM-1: Row 1, Column 1: This column caption should read "2030 economic mitigation potential " (not "..economic potential") to make the meaning clearer to those looking at the table out of context, as a stand-alone table. It then becomes clear that 'bigger is better' in that column. (Government of New Zealand) Table SPM-1: How is "significant" defined here - X megatonnes, or XX% probability of reductions (and on what order)? And why is it "significant reduction potential" in column 3, and "significant mitigation potential" in column 4. (Government of Canada) Table SPM-1: Given that this table lists both strategies and technologies (e.g. afforestation and reforestation are not technologies, they're management strategies), it is suggested that the title of this column be changed to "Mitigation technologies and strategies with significant reduction potential currently on the market" (Government of Canada) Table SPM1 could include in the second column also the reduction below baseline of the particular sector. (Government of Germany) TABLE SPM1 COMMENT: Is it clear that the set of options

Considerations by the writing team emissions

SPM-283 A

10

CHECK suggestions (all sector chapters)

SPM-284 A

10

OK, but say 2030 total economic mitigation potential(ch 4)

SPM-285 A

10

OK, change to Mitigation technologies with the largest reduction potential..

SPM-286 A

10

OK

SPM-287 A

10

SPM-288 A

10

Reject, data on reduction below baseline not easily available for all sectors OK, add footnote to column 2 heading:
Page 84 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments summed do not overlap (eg are not double counted) in the energy supply area for biomass, agriculture and forestry sectors? This is not entirely clear from Chapters 4, 8 and 11 and may affect the estimates for forestry in partcular (Government of Germany)

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-289 A

10

SPM-290 A

10

Based on end-use allocations of emissions, meaning that emissions of electricity use are counted towards the end-use sectors and not to the energy supply sector. Double counting has been eliminated by calculating energy supply mitigation potential after allowance for end-use sector energy efficiency measures and by counting bioenergy only in the end-use sector. Add this last sentence also as a footnote to the bioenergy entries in the rows on Agriculture and forestry. Delete text on end-use allocations from caption TABLE SPM1 COMMENT: FORESTRY The reduced Reject, impossible to indicate the deforestation and degradation potential are by far the largest magnitude of individual technologies source of mitigation potentialk within the forestry sector and it would be highly policy relevant to indicate this in the text (Government of Germany) Table SPM-1 - Transport: One of the greatest sources of CHECK suggestions (all sector mitigation potential in transport in many developed chapters) countries is integrated land-use planning/smart growth planning, with consideration for energy consumption and the needs of individuals. Given that there is potential for redesigning some elements of some neighbourhoods in the 23 year span that remains to 2030, this should be included. Ch. 5 also covers land use planning well, on pp. 39-40 and 61-63. Please add "land-use planning" to the "Mitigation technologies and strategies with significant reduction potential currently on the market" column under transport. (Government of Canada)
Page 85 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments Table SPM-1 - Industry: It is questionable whether CCS would be feasible for a large portion of the cement industry. For example, there are only 2 plants in Alberta (of the 16 in Canada) which could perhaps use it, due to the distance to acceptable geological formations for sequestration. Also, cement sells for 100US$/tonne or less. The background information provided by in Ch. 7 (Anderson and Newell 2004) estimates the cost of CCS for cement at between US$180-915/t CO2. (Government of Canada)

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-291 A

10

SPM-292 A

10

SPM-293 A

10

SPM-294 A

10

Reject. Chapter 7 cites references indicating that it would be feasible to apply CCS to cement kilns. Obviously, the technology would have to be evaluted on a site specific basis, but the comment that only 2 of 16 Canadian plants are close to acceptable geological formations cannot be generalized. Cost is a concern with all applciation of CCS, and the technology will be applied only if there is an appropriate cost of carbon Table SPM-1 - Industry: Given that the underlying text (Ch. Reject, the most right hand column is 7, pg. 26, lines. 19-24) hedges on the possibility of inert covering technologies with significant anodes in the aluminum industry within the next 15-20 POTENTIAL by 2030, i.e these are years, and since the capital cycle in the aluminum industry is technologies that than are 20-30 years, replacements in existing plants (if technically commercially available AND could be possible) are unlikely. We question the inclusion of inert applied at a substantial scale if the anodes for the aluminum sector as a mitigation technology carbon price allows. that can contribute to "significant mitigation potential", as the technology is likely 20-25 years away, and will take time to become integrated fully into the industry. (Government of Canada) Table SPM-1 - Energy supply and transport: First and OK, bioenergy and biofuels second rows - choose a consistent way of stating "bioenergy/bio energy/bioenergy" and "bio-fuels/biofuels". We suggest bioenergy and biofuels. (Government of Canada) Table SPM.1: Agriculture (post 2030): The chapter OK to replace genetic technologies addresses more options to improve energy crop yields. Why . By suggested wording is this focus on genetic technologies only? Change into: "Improvement of yields of energy crops"
Page 86 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments (European Community) Table SPM.1, Total: Remove the totals. Sector estimates cannot be added to a total given their different underlying assumptions. Also, how do these results compare to topdown sector mitigation estimates? (Government of United States of America) Table SPM.1 - Sector estimates should not be added to a total given the large inconsistencies in their different underlying assumptions suggest removing total line. (Government of United States of America) Table SPM 1; Sector Buildings (row 4), column 3 "Mitigation technologies with significant reduction potential currently on the market". Comment: Most of these are very high-tech applications, except passive design. Most of the additional energy use in the world by 2030 and therefore emissions will occur in developing or transition-economy countries. Big part of their energy-related emissions will still in 2030 originate from heating, cooling and food-preparing purposes of residential buildings. The technologies to reduce these emissions will not be high-tech, but merely low-tech products, such as passive design for heating, cooling and lighting, solar-cookers and high-efficiency stoves (last two technologies that help mitigation by slowing down the deforestration), all technologies that are currently on the market. Also, daylighting technologies are totally missing from the list. Proposal: add "daylighting, solar cookers and high-efficiency stoves" to this box. (Government of Finland) Table SPM 1:at the line "energy supply", in the last column, add a footnote after "advanced nuclear power". The footnote would be : "complete realisation of the back end fuel cycle of the actual nuclear power fuel cycle for the actual power

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-295 A

10

SPM-296 A

10

DISCUSS in light of other US comments Totals can be removed here, because already in paragraph 4, but NOT because they cannot be added See #A295

SPM-297 A

10

10

CHECK suggestions (all sector chapters)

SPM-298 A

10

10

Reject, too detailed

Page 87 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments plants" (Government of France) Table SPM 1: What are the sources for this table? Sources need to be mentioned. Is this a synthesis across a number of bottom-up studies? Is there a specific quantitative interpretation of significant reduction potential? Is this consistent across the sectors and the different mitigation options? Is this the only criterion used for select technologies for inclusion in the Table? (Government of Nepal) Table SPM 1: Transport emission reduction potential seems very low, considering the rapid growth of this sector. Is this partially due to the chosen approach in the chapter? If so, please provide footnote to table. (European Community) Table SPM 1: row 4, column 3: Delete "and insulation." Fluorinated gas recovery from insulation is not cost effective. (Government of Japan) Table SPM 1: Industry: chapter has not looked at material substitution other than replacement of clinker in cement making. Please be specific. The AR4 has not considered material efficiency options other than recycling for a few bulk materials and cement making, while the TAR has a very rough estimate only. (European Community) Table SPM 1: Industry: CCS is only considered for ammonia, hydrogen production, cement and iron making (in this order). (European Community) Table SPM 1: After "passive", add "and active". (Ref.

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-299 A

10

10

Sources are mentioned in first column; CHECK cut-off level for each of the sector chapters

SPM-300 A

10

CHECK suggestions (all sector chapters)

SPM-301 A

10

CHECK suggestions (all sector chapters)

SPM-302 A

10

Reject, chapter has suffiecient coverage of materials efficiency to keep this in the table

SPM-303 A

10

OK, The comment is correct about the industries, but the order should not be important. Delete fertilizer and change steel to iron. CHECK suggestions (all sector
Page 88 of 183

SPM-304 A

10

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments Philibert, C. BARRIERS TO TECHNOLOGY DIFFUSION: THE CASE OF SOLAR THERMAL TECHNOLOGIES, COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT(2006)9, IEA) (Government of Japan) Table SPM 1: 1) Are the technologies positioned in order of priority in the third and forth columns? Does the most important one come first or there is no ranking? Suggest ranking mitigation technologies if possible (optional). 2) What is the difference between improved energy efficiency and advanced energy efficiency? (UNEP) Table SPM 1. To be fair, on the transport sector, modal shifts and ways of reducing transport work (mobility management) should be mentioned both in "current" and "before 2030" (a general problem with the table is the sole focus on technologies). District heating is important enough to deserve mentioning under Energy Supply. (Government of Sweden) Table SPM 1, Transport: This table is mainly based on mitigation technologies; however, policies to ease congestion and operational measures to enhance efficiencies for all modes (as well as air traffic management for aviation) could be important and should be included in this table. Note that efficiencies are later discussed on SPM page 12, lines 34-36. (Government of United States of America) Table SPM 1, Transport: There are more efficient aircraft available now which could replace older models, as well as projected more efficient aircraft. Hence "more efficient aircraft" should be considered under both categories. (Government of United States of America)

Considerations by the writing team chapters)

SPM-305 A

10

CHECK suggestions (all sector chapters); no ordering of impact meant

SPM-306 A

10

Reject, falls under CHP

SPM-307 A

10

OK, change column heading to mitigation technologies or practices

SPM-308 A

10

CHECK suggestions (all sector chapters)

Page 89 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments Table SPM 1, Transport: The origin of 2030 mitigation potential is traced to pp.60 of Chapter 5; however, it is not clear how stated aviation component of 280 MtCO2 at Carbon price < 100 US$/tCO2 on pp. 60 is derived from Table 5.13 under subsection 5.4.2.2. It is also listed on pp. 39 of technical summary. (Government of United States of America) Table SPM 1, Transport: Mitigation technologies should acknowledge both light duty, heavy and heavy-duty road vehicles. (Government of United States of America) Table SPM 1, Transport: Include footnote specifying whether numbers are for CO2 only or include non-CO2 GHGs. (Government of United States of America) Table SPM 1, Transport: Consider inclusion of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and flex fuel hybrids in third column. (Government of United States of America) Table SPM 1, Industry: Consider adding a reference to alternatives to cement. (Government of United States of America) Table SPM 1, Energy Supply: Consider inclusion of solar PV, solar thermal, and concentrated solar in third column. (Government of United States of America)

Considerations by the writing team CHECK suggestions (all sector chapters)

SPM-309 A

10

SPM-310 A

10

CHECK suggestions (all sector chapters)

SPM-311 A

10

CHECK suggestions (all sector chapters)

SPM-312 A

10

CHECK suggestions (all sector chapters)

SPM-313 A

10

Reject, This suggestion is covered by materials substitution, Is covered under advanced renewables, but OK to add ( including marine energy, concentrating solar solar PV) after advanced renewables OK

SPM-314 A

10

SPM-315 A

10

SPM-316 A

10

Table SPM 1, Energy Supply: CO2 Capture and Storage (CCS) should be defined first time used in SPM. (Government of United States of America) Table SPM 1, caption: Replace "global mitigation potential" OK with "economic potential for global mitigation". (Government of United States of America)

Page 90 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments Table SPM 1, Agriculture: For agriculture it is not clear where the low-end figure 2.3 GtCO2eq./yr comes from: The executive summary of Chapter 8 states there is a low-end economic potential of 1500 MtCO2eq. in 2030 for all GHGs excluding biofuels at $20/tCO2, and that there is a low-end biofuel potential in 2030 of 70 MtCO2eq. at $20. This adds to 1.6 GtCO2eq./yr. The high-end estimate for agriculture in Table SPM 1 is more in line with the summation of the two high-end estimates found in the executive summary of Chapter 8. (Government of United States of America) Table SPM 1, Agriculture: Consider inclusion of cellulosic ethanol and bioenergy refineries in third column. (Government of United States of America) Table SPM 1, Agriculture, Forestry: Just an observation, but the table suggests that the economic potential of GHG mitigation in both the agriculture and forestry sectors is nearly as much - and possibly significantly more - than the economic potential of mitigation in both the energy and fuels sectors. Compare 3.6 vs. 4.0 GT CO2 at the low end and 10.8 vs. 7.2 Gt CO2 at the high end. (Government of United States of America) Table SPM 1 and Figure SPM 6: It is difficult to derive the numbers from the sections of the text. Document clearly through specific references how the numbers were derived. For example, Table 11.5 presents a variety of estimates based on alternative assumptions and models. The variation in these bottom-up results is not reflected in Table SPM 1. If only one set of estimates is to be presented, caveats should be included explaining why this was done. Also, another example, we had trouble matching the TS values for buildings (from Table TS-7) to those in Fig SPM 6.

Considerations by the writing team Reject, the numbers in SPM are fully consistent with those in table 8.7 (if need be the ES can be made consistent after the meeting)

SPM-317 A

10

SPM-318 A

10

Reject, biofuels are under Transport

SPM-319 A

10

Reject, This is caused by the end-use sector allocation. OK to add footnote as in A288

SPM-320 A

10

DISCUSS (ch 11 to check traceability); see A321, 322

Page 91 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments (Government of United States of America) Table SPM 1 and Figure SPM 6: Change captions to clearly reflect that the estimates are economic potential and that market potential is much smaller. In the caption, please change mitigation potential to economic mitigation potential and add the sentence from Page 8, lines 21-22 to the caption that The market potential is much smaller than the economic potential. (Government of United States of America) Table SPM 1 and Figure SPM 6: Both here and in Figure SPM 6, the global sectoral totals from the top-down models need to be presented as well as the bottom-up totals. We suggest presenting the top-down global sectoral competitive mitigation potential numbers first from stabilization scenarios and then discussing the detailed economic mitigation potential suggested by the bottom-up studies for carbon price ranges. Chapter 3 provides the global sector totals at the end of the chapter. (Government of United States of America) Table SPM 1 - Agriculture: Genetic modification of crops gets nearly no mention in Ch. 8 (only on pg. 47, and the word energy is not beside it when mentioned - though crops and livestock are mentioned). It is suggested that, since it is not supported by the background information, genetic modification of energy crops should not be included in the SPM. (Government of Canada) More needs to be said about how the SRES B2 and WEO 2004 baselines were used. This goes to the consistency question and the reasonableness and legitimacy of the resulting global sectoral AND total numbers. The Notes on Figure SPM 6 are too vague. For example, what does it

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-321 A

10

Ok to change caption as suggested;; remark about market potential is already in text of para 4. Discuss how we motivate that top-doen sector potentials should not be presented here

SPM-322 A

10

Discuss how we motivate that top-doen sector potentials should not be presented here

SPM-323 A

10

OK, see A294

SPM-324 A

10

DISCUSS

Page 92 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments mean to be "close to the SRES B2 baseline?" Is that in terms of emissions or socioeconomic variables? Also, there is a lot of room between B2 and A1b, so what does it mean for the building sector to have a baseline in between. Finally, what does it mean to "mostly use" SRES B2 drivers? (Government of United States of America) In Table SPM 1, last column, the row corresponding to the "Waste Sector" needs to be formated. (Government of Pakistan) In Table SPM 1, last column, the phrase "Improvement and identification of plant species which have more C sequestration potential" may be inserted in the row corresponding to the Forestry Sector. (Government of Pakistan) In Table SPM 1, last column, the phrase "Improved pesticides usage technologies" may be inserted in the row corresponding to the Agriculture Sector. (Government of Pakistan) Forestry, column 4. Suggestion for the empty box: Genetic technologies to improve tree species, including those for bioenergy plantations. Unlike the chapter on agriculture, that on forestry does not use the words "genetic technologies". However, "tree improvement" is mentioned in chapter 9.4.1 (Government of Sweden) "Table SPM1" "include the cultivation of cheap crops adapted to tropical regions for the production of bio-fuel for cars (Government of Mauritius) Table SPM 1, on the items related to Buildings. According to the content of WGIII Chap 6, page 6, lines15 and 16, it is very important to list in the mitigation technologies the so-

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-325 A

10

10

OK

SPM-326 A

10

10

CHECK suggestions (all sector chapters)

SPM-327 A

10

10

Reject, not supported by chapter

SPM-328 A

10

10

CHECK suggestions (all sector chapters)

SPM-329 A

10

10

Reject, is already covered in existing text on energy crops

SPM-330 A

10

10

CHECK suggestions (all sector chapters)

Page 93 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments called "integrated design process involving architects, engineers contractors and clients"" ; this very efficient process already exists but is not yet largely practiced. We would thefore suggest to include it in the technologies listed in the column "mitigation technologies with significant potential to be commercialised before 2030", but without excluding that it could also be in the column of the technologies already on the market( but not really currently) (Government of France) In the Table SPM 1 were realized any changes and additions, mainly in the sectors of Energy Supply, Transport and Buildings. The proposed modifications are shown in Annex (Government of Cuba) Table SPM1. (A) Suggest that it would be useful to see further cost breakdown (e.g. <US$20, <US$50 and <US$100 such as in Figure SPM6). (B) Can we say something about whether 16-30GtCO2eq economic abatement is significant in relation to mitigation levels consistent with avoiding dangerous climate change, and whether the pace of RDD&D is consistent with timely deployment. (Government of UK) Table SPM1 - suggest in right-hand box for Energy Supply to use semi-colon to make clear that CCS refers to gas, biomass and coal i.e "CCS for gas, biomass or coal-fired electricity generating facilities; advanced nuclear power; advanced renewables" (Government of UK) Table SPM1 - suggest in 3rd box for Transport clarify that "More" means "greater penetration of" rather than "higher efficiency"

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-337 A

10

10

CHECK suggestions (all sector chapters)

SPM-135 B

10

10

SPM-136 B

10

(A) Reject; figure SPM 5 gives those numbers (Y axis will be expanded to facilitate reading the numbers) (B) UK suggestion (..) to delete sentence in headline para 4, referring to reduction below current makes it impossible to give an idea about what the economic reduction potential can achieve OK

SPM-137 B

10

OK, change to higher efficiency aircraft

Page 94 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-15

10

SPM-16

10

SPM-17

10

SPM-331 A

10

10

SPM-332 A

10

10

SPM-333 A

10

10

(Government of UK) 0 Table SPM 1: Although later the potential interferences between crops for food production and crops for energy production, to replace fossil fuels, is mentioned, a similar warning is necessary in this row. (Government of Argentina) 0 Table SPM 1. For Agriculture insert under the Mitigation technologies column, the agriculture residues as other replacement for fossil fuel use. (Government of Spain) 0 Table SPM 1. As it is the firt time that CCS appears in the text , please detail the acronym (Government of Spain) 25 Table SPM 1: Energy Supply: "Improved supply and distribution efficiency" and "CHP" are not included in the cost and potential number presented here (European Community) 25 Table SPM 1: Agriculture: please delete the word GENETIC, this is not always required. In addition, what about other measures? (European Community) 25 Table SPM 1: This table is very important and should be kept however it needs improvement. The table is giving a biased signal to policymakers by using only bottom-up methodologies . It is relatively understating the potential in the energy sector / overstating potentials in other sectors. The table is based on a bottom up approach per sector/technology with some assumptions on how to aggregate across sectors to avoid crowding out (see chapter 11.3.1.3). Mitigation potentials in the energy supply and conversion sector seem to be much lower through this methodology then for top-down methodologies even after

Reject, no space to add caveats for each technology

Check ch 8

OK

DISCUSS CHP is not covered in the mitigation potential; how do we know that it has a large potential; see comm. Ch 4 OK, same as A294

OK, add note to explain differences with point-of-emission method

Page 95 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-334 A

10

10

SPM-335 A

10

10

taking into account point of emission allocation, certainly for the high end of mitigation potentials (see Table TS 16). This large difference needs to at least to be noted in the SPM or better a column needs to be added with top down results (this would also require a differentiation between end-use sector allocation and point of emissions allocation). (European Community) 10 Table SPM 1, under Enegy Supply - 'to be commercialised See # 314 before 2030 - 'marine' energy should be added, as this technology is under rapid development, particularly in waters off the UK and Portugalnot sure if this was meant to be included in 'advanced'renewables, but as it represents a separate category f renewable energy compared with the 'currently on the market' suggest inclusion. (Greenpeace International) 1 In the 'Buildings' category, under 'to be commercialised CHECK suggestions (all sector before 2030': 'integrated solar PV', assuming this means chapters) 'building-integrated solar PV' is already a commercial product and is in increasing use in both residential and commercial buildings in both OECD and non-OECD countries - and I find no reference to this in either chapter 4 or Chapter 6 - although there is reference to integrated passive solar design in 6.5, which is another well-established (although underutilised) technology. As for 'smart metering' - presume this refers to 'net' metering, which is in wide application in many countries...and should certainly be available in all. But if something else is meant, which is not yet commercial, then it should be clear what this is. There is one reference to 'smart' in the list of publications, which refer to a type of meter which is currently available in many countries, but is only now coming onto the market in Germany...it's not new technology. (Greenpeace International)
Page 96 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments Table SPM 1: The authors need to explain why SRES B2 was chosen. (Government of Australia) Table SPM 1: Insert "economic" before "mitigation". (Government of Australia) Table SPM1: "Mitigation technologies with significant mitigation potential projected to be commercialised before 2030 " includes "advanced nuclear power". This does not seem to reflect the chapter adequately. Section 4.3.2.3. announces "generation 4" reactors after 2030, and it is difficult to imagine that commercial exploitation could begin earlier. Column 3 should be improved and/or modified. In the "Buildings" category, what do "intelligent controls" and "smart metering" mean, regarding technologies that are not currently available ? Is this selection of technologies giving a good insight on the new technologies coming before 2030 ? (less important comment): Column 3 "Hydrogen powered fuel cell vehicles". Does it exist evidence that this may represent actual mitigation before 2030 ? As hydrogen is not an energy source, it would need to be produced either from nuclear, fossil fuel with CCS, or renewables. Chapter 4 reports that hydrogen produced from natural gas has a better efficiency regarding emissions than found in current cars, but this is partly due to the fact that natural gas contains less carbon than oil - thus it is not specific to the hydrogen/fuel cell technology. To produce significant mitigation, hydrogen production would need to use excess energy from low carbon sources such as renewables or coal with CCS, ie. energy that could not be used in a more efficient way otherwise. On the short term horizon, quoting hydrogen may result in double counting the

Considerations by the writing team OK, change caption to reflect baseline choices OK Reject, Gen 4 is not the only advanced nuclear (ch 4)

SPM-138 B

10

10

SPM-139 B SPM-140 B

10 10

1 1

10 0

1 0

Page 97 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments CCS potential. Transport row, right hand column: Add Modal Shift (eg from road/air to rail) due to infrastructure development and city planning.. Please also elaborate regarding short term public transport measures (middle column). Is it possible to add a column for market potential, to illustrate the difference? (Government of Belgium) Table SPM1:Box Energy Supply/ Mitigation: The term "natural gas processing" might confuse some readers and we propose that a more detailed description is given.(We suppose that it refers to CCS of excess CO2 from the extraction of natural gas, but it might also be interpreted as CO2 from gas-fired power plants). (Government of Norway) Table SPM1: For the transport sector, what about reduction potentials for vessels? (Government of Norway) Table SPM1: Box Transport/ Mitigation: If non-motorised transport mean more walking, cycling and riding, we think that similar non-technological measures should be referred to more consequently throughout the table. If it refers to sailing ship o.a. it should be stated more implicitly. Or does it refer to environmentally friendly (urban-) planning? (Government of Norway) Table SPM1: Box Transport/ Mitigation: As the target group for the summary is an international audience, we think that the world rapid should be omitted from "rapid public transport systems". (It can to easily be translate into "faster planes"). (Government of Norway) Table SPM 1: What is meant by "significant

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-141 B

10

OK, change to storage of removed CO2 from natural gas (ch 4 has as alternative from natural gas processing but this may still be confusing)

SPM-142 B

10

CHECK suggestions (all sector chapters) CHECK suggestions (all sector chapters)

SPM-143 B

10

SPM-144 B

10

CHECK suggestions (all sector chapters)

SPM-145 B

10

See #A299
Page 98 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-146 B

10

SPM-147 B

10

10

SPM-148 B

10

10

SPM-149 B

10

10

reduction/mitigation potential" in columns 3 and 4? (Government of Norway) 0 Table SPM 1: make it clear what "B2" in "SRES B2" indicates. (Government of Norway) 3 Table SPM 1: The authors need to make it clear that the figures in column 2 are derived from the analysis (and therefore should be read with the caveats) included at Table 11.3. (Government of Australia) 30 Table SPM 1: The authors need to improve the punctuation and clarity of a number of statements in Table SPM 1. Often the technology examples provided are unclear and in the column of technologies currently on the market seem to include examples of current technologies with more limited mitigation potential. Suggest the following changes: (a) Column 4/Energy Supply row: "Improved supply and distribution efficiency, combined heat and power, renewable heat and power (hydropower, solar, wind, geothermal and bio-energy), early applications of CCS (eg natural gas processing)"; (b) Column 5/Energy Supply row: replace "or" with "and"; (c) Column 4/Transport row: "More fuel efficient vehicles, hybrid vehicles, , bio-fuels, rapid public transport, non-motorised transport"; (d) Column 5/Transport row: "Hydrogen powered fuel cell vehicles, second generation biofuels, more efficient aircraft, advanced electric and hybrid vehicles with more powerful and reliable energy storage technologies (batteries and supercapacitors)" (Government of Australia) 3 Table SPM 1: The authors need to explain how they have determined what "significant reduction potential" is (i.e. for each of the sectors is it the technology that could be the

Reject, will be clear after box on SRES that will be added OK, add that to caption/ notes

CHECK suggestions (all sector chapters)

See #A299

Page 99 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments biggest potential mitigator?) (Government of Australia) ref. to row 6 of table SPM1 Agriculture 8.4: The values provided for the mitigation potential are very low. Some literature claim values up to 11 Gt CO2-eq/yr; the reason is that the potential is not strictly related to the carbon price since the adoption of carbon sequestrating agricultural practices is as such already more profitable than conventional agriculture (FAO) FIG6 The abatement cost curve (20, 50, 100 USD) for transport is very flat. This is strange since raising a tax from 20 to 100 USD would create much more opportunity. The result is contrary to existing literature on price elasticities for gasoline demand. The same observation can be made for the buildings sector. An important question is when the tax is introduced and how. Please specify. (Government of Sweden) Figure SPM-6: It is suggested to compare in an additional volueme the total mitigation potential for all Kategories of countires. (Government of Austria) Figure SPM-6: It is noted that there is a larger mitigation potenial in non-Annex 1 countries compared to Annex-1 countries. (Government of Austria) Figure SPM-6: Is this "economic" potential or other potential? Make clear. (Government of Canada) Figure SPM6 should also somehow show the absolute emissions of these sectors.

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-336 A

10

24

Reject, chapter assessed all literature and these are the outcomes

FIGURE 6 SPM-338 A

11

CHECK ch 5 and 6 how this can be explained

SPM-340 A

11

11

Reject, there is no possibility to develop another volume

SPM-341 A

11

11

Thank you

SPM-342 A

11

OK, make clear it is economic potential DISCUSS See also #287

SPM-343 A

11

Page 100 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments (Government of Germany) Figure SPM 6: This is an example of a figure which raises many questions. For example, energy supply currently emits almost 13 Gton. This will probably increase to 20 Gton by 2030. The mitigation potential with a USD100 carbon tax is surprisingly low (3.5 Gton) considering the changes in relative costs that would be the effect. Is consistency ensured? For example, do reductions in the buildings sector resulting from electricity price increase spill over into energy supply? The error bars for building sector are unreasonably small. Why? What do these ranges, in all sectors, refer to? (Government of Sweden) Figure SPM 6: Why is transportation represented only by world totals and not allocated across similar categories as other sectors? Realize the difficulty of bunkers - but these could be a separate bar. (Government of United States of America) Figure SPM 6: Based on appearance alone, there seems to be something fundamentally wrong with this figure, namely because it is telling policymakers that agriculture offers greater mitigation potential than the energy supply sector and the transport sectors. The caption of this figure states these sectoral estimates are based on bottom-up studies; however, the executive summary of Chapter 8 states the agricultural biofuel mitigation potential estimates come from top-down studies, and it appears that the biofuel mitigation estimates have been included for agriculture for this figure. If agricultural biofuels are included, it immediately raises the question to what extent there may be double counting occurring with the energy supply and transport sectors. (Government of United States of America)

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-344 A

11

OK, better explain the fact that these numbers are based on end-use allocation basis (as in TAR)

SPM-345 A

11

Ok, add footnote to explain

SPM-346 A

11

See #344

Page 101 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments Figure SPM 6, caption: Replace "mitigation potential" with "economic potential for global mitigation". (Government of United States of America) Figure SPM 6 - It would be very useful to policymakers to identify the net-negative cost opportunities (i.e. <0) as well. (Government of Canada) Comment on Figure SPM 6: The uncertainty ranges of Buildings sector are very small if compared with the uncertainty ranges of other sectors. It is unlikely that the mitigation potential in the Buildings sector is known with such a certainty. Should the uncertainties be reassessed for the Buildings sector? (Government of Finland) Similar remark as for table SPM1, please indicate what energy supply mitigation potentials are so relatively low compared to top down approaches and/or change graph to incorporate accordingly. (European Community) Figure SPM6: We think that reading would be easier if this figure could be made more similar to figure SPM 5 - for example with bars representing the regions and with these bars sub-divided according to costs. (Government of Norway) Figure SPM6: We suppose that this figure is based on the same assumptions as figure SPM 5 and propose that the text is changed to "Estimated ECONOMIC mitigation potential" to reflect this. (Government of Norway) To clarify what mitigation potential is meant and to be consistent with use elsewhere in the SPM, should "Estimated mitigation potential" be "Estimated economic mitigation potential"?

Considerations by the writing team OK

SPM-347 A

11

SPM-348 A

11

Reject, not available for all sectors

SPM-349 A

11

11

CHECK ch 6

SPM-350 A

11

11

See #344

SPM-151 B

11

Reject, others like it this way

SPM-152 B

11

OK, see #A347

SPM-351 A

11

11

Ok, see #347

Page 102 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments (Government of New Zealand) Since the figure may take on a life of its own, it may be useful to make it clear here at what carbon price the estimated economic mitigation potential includes significant Carbon Capture and Storage (Government of New Zealand) Include the word "Global" in the figure caption (Government of Switzerland) Figure SPM6: For comparison the baseline scenarios emission levels should be included in the caption. (Government of Norway) Suggest redraft caption to read "Figure SPM 6: Estimated sectoral mitigation potential as a function of carbon price for different regions in 2030 from bottom-up studies, compared to the respective baselines assumed in the sector assessments (see notes)" (Government of UK) Figure SPM 6 - Explain why emissions from transport are reported as world total only. (Government of UK) Figure SPM-6: The notes for this figure needs to provide an explanation of the uncertainty error bars. (Government of Australia) Is it possible to add something about costs of inaction? (Government of Netherlands) Figure SPM6, it should be explained whether there are further implications in the selection of different sources to produce baselines for the different sectors presented in this Figure. (Government of CHILE) The phrase "A1b;for waste SRES A1bdrivers" may be changed to "A1b; for waste SRES A1b drivers".

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-352 A

11

11

13

Reject, that is not the purpose of this figure

SPM-353 A SPM-153 B

11 11

2 3

11 0

3 0

OK OK

SPM-154 B

11

11

OK, take into account with other suggestions

SPM-155 B

11

11

13

See #A345

SPM-150 B

11

11

13

OK, see also #A349

SPM-354 A SPM-355 A

11 11

5 5

11 11

35 8

Reject, is covered in paragraph 20 UNCLEAR

SPM-356 A

11

11

OK, improve the caption

Page 103 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-357 A SPM-358 A

11 11

8 11

11 11

SPM-359 A

11

11

11

SPM-156 B

11

12

11

(Government of Pakistan) 8 It is suggested to substitute A1b by A1B (Government of Austria) 11 Please make clear whether "transport" (in the figure label above) includes air travel and air freight or whether they are covered by the term "public transport" and so excluded from the figure. (Government of New Zealand) 13 It is better that specific references could be given on how these results(10-15%) are achieved.if not,suggest deleting "10-15%" because it is impossible to give the specific value of underestimation if other categories' data are not available. (Government of China) 12 The authors need to explain if the underestimation of 1015% is for each of the listed sectors or in total. (Government of Australia) 15 While this SPM is improved from the previous version, the major negative is the loss of the previous table SPM 1. It now appears as table 3.10 in Chapter three, and should be inserted here. It is the clearest delineation of the sense of the WG III report overall, and would be most useful for policy makers. (Greenpeace International) 35 It is suggested to include an additional bullet in order to address the avoided damage costs as a result of mitigation. (Government of Austria) 0 Which baseline are you using? Are these costs in 2030 relative to a 2030 baseline? It looks like these ranges are for category C? (Government of United States of America)

OK Ok, clarify in note

Ok, refer to respective section of ch 11

OK, clarify that is is total

PARAGRAPH 5 SPM-360 A 11

15

11

Reject, it is too complex for SPM and is also covered in TS

SPM-339 A

11

16

11

Reject, is covered in paragraph 20

SPM-361 A

11

16

OK, Add a footnote to explain that these results are based on studies with a range of baselines; it is obvious from the text that these results are for 2030 and compared to GDP in 2030 in the
Page 104 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-362 A

11

16

11

22

SPM-363 A

11

16

11

23

SPM-364 A

11

16

11

35

SPM-365 A

11

16

SPM-366 A

11

16

11

22

baseline What is the target date for stabilization and indicate whether CHECK (ch 3) if we can say anything about the assumed time for costs for a given stabilization scenario vary depending on WHEN action is taken? stabilisation in the respective studies (Government of Canada) [different levels; cannot make one statement, literature uses different moments in time] Might footnote NAKI & Terry To be discussed- Checked and new text has been included from chapter 3 What is the baseline used here, compared to that referred to See #A361 in lines 24-25 and 30-33? Are the studies referred to in 3033 included in assessment here? (Government of Canada) The stabilization target is to be achieved over what timeSee #A362 scale? Without this, the stabilization target is not very informative. The title gives the impression that for a 650 ppmv stabilization level, GDP loss may actually be negative, indicating a net benefit. The range of GDP loss indicated for a 650 ppmv stabilization target needs to be examined carefully. (Government of Nepal) The implied value of carbon to achieve stabilization targets OK, this is in 4th bullet that needs to be would be a useful bullet to include (see lines 15-25, p. 57 of revised in light of different treatment section 3.3). of TD and BU (Government of United States of America) The cost calculations do exclude a valuation of many Ok, add footnote or text in box 2 to benefits of mitigation as well as co-benefits. This should be explain this stated from the start of this section, as it otherwise conveys the wrong message. (details can be given in paragraph 6 on p. 12). (European Community)
Page 105 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team OK

SPM-367 A

11

16

11

SPM-368 A

11

16

SPM-369 A

11

16

SPM-370 A

11

16

24 The breakdown of the total GDP loss into annual increments, as is done for the 650 ppmv CO2-eq trajectory are useful, (i.e., .06 % per annum to 2030), and the 550 ppmv CO2-eq (i.e., <.1% GDP/annum). The correct annual figure for the trajectories in the range of 445-535 ppmv CO2-eq should also be included for comparison purposes. (Greenpeace International) 0 Suggest adding a bullet that these studies have different baselines and assumptions that influence the estimates. Add "The costs of stabilization crucially depend on the choice of the baseline; related technological change and resulting baseline emissions; stabilization target and level; and the portfolio of technologies considered (high agreement/much evidence). Additional factors affecting costs include assumptions regarding the use of flexible instruments and revenue recycling." Then refer readers to the text box for more information (see lines 15-20, p. 5, ES 3) (Government of United States of America) 0 Somewhere it should say that the majority of studies find GDP losses increase with the stringency target (see lines 1-2, p. 56 of section 3.3). (Government of United States of America) 0 Section C.5: The GDP loss numbers are from the top-down models, but, given the format of this section could easily be interpreted as corresponding to the bottom-up picture created on the previous pages. This is misleading. The link between the GDP loss numbers and the bottom-up estimates is weak to non-existent. This is further justification for discussing the top-down results first in this section and using the bottom-up estimates to discuss region and sector specific technologies. (Government of United States of America)

Reject, already in box 2 (text may have to be improved)

Ok, include new bullet (same comment in para 19)

OK, clarify in box 2 that these results are from top-down studies

Page 106 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team Reject; nothing wrong with median (same comment in para 19)

SPM-371 A

11

16

11

SPM-372 A

11

16

11

SPM-157 B

11

16

11

SPM-158 B

11

16

11

22 Section C.5: This text is misleading. Rephrase the range for 650 ppm to "0 1.2% global GDP loss" per Figure 3.25a, page 54, Chapter 3, from the shaded grey area, which represents the 10th to 90th percentile range. Drop all references to the median of the medians, as this is misleading. Do the same for the 550 ppm range. (Government of United States of America) 25 GDP changes for scenarios towards stabilisation levels between 445 and 535 ppme should be included in the bold part of this paragraph (lines 16-22) since these are very important results with a view to assessing the consequences of aiming for a 2 C limit for global temperature increase over pre-industrial levels as is endorsed by an increasing number of governments. It should be pointed out that the "3% global GDP loss" is a maximum value and average values must be given like for the other scenarios before. These GDP figures should also be reported in terms of reduction of average annual GDP growth rates to allow for full comparison to other stabilisation categories. (Government of Germany) 22 It is highly relevant to policy makers that the costs of mitigation in terms of GDP loss vary considerably from global losses, for different regions based on local economic circumstances and assumed emissions allowances. This should be inserted in the headline statement. (Government of Australia) 35 Somewhere in this section it needs to be said that these estimates do not take into account the costs of the damage caused by the impacts of climate change associated with different stabilisation levels, which are expected to increase with increasing stabilisation levels as reported in WG2 SPM. (Government of UK)

move all numbers from headline to bullets ; see also A382

OK, add short sentence in headline (but only if all numbers go down to bullets)

See #A366

Page 107 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-159 B

11

16

11

16 As these studies all either use multi-gas abatement options OK or assume them (and since this was not the case in the TAR), suggest that "multi-gas" be inserted before "mitigation". (Government of UK) "0.2" and "0.6" should be deleted . It is better to use range(0.6 to 1.2% and 0-2.5%) of uncertainty. Delete "(reduction of 0.06 percentage points)" and "(reduction of 0.1 percentage points)". (Government of China) These percent figures need to be translated into US$ in a footnote, if not in the text. (Government of United States of America) Replace "loss" on lines 18 and 20 with "decrease". (Government of United States of America) Clarify how "reduction of the average annual GDP growth rate less than 0.06 percentage points" is derived. (Government of United States of America) Change to: "A reduction of the annual GDP growth rate OF less than ....". Presentation of both of these metrics to explain mitigation costs is important, but couldn't they be more elegantly presented? (Government of Canada) Delete "(See Box .. These results)", add the first sentence in the Box SPM.2 on page 12, namely "Studies on mitigation portfolios and macro-economic costs assessed in this report are based on a global least cost approach, with optimal mitigation portfolios and without emission allowances to regions." (Government of China) Instad of "caveats" used the word "discussion" (Government of Switzerland)

SPM-373 A

11

17

11

20

See #A371

SPM-374 A

11

18

11

19

SPM-375 A SPM-376 A

11 11

18 18

11 11

20 19

Reject, absolute $ numbers cannot be understood without context of total GDP OK- not added Ok, add footnote (see footnote for para 19) OK to say of There is no other , more elegant way, to say this

SPM-377 A

11

18

11

22

SPM-378 A

11

21

11

22

Reject, box 2 needs to have even fuller description of methods; not good to only take one sentence out of it

SPM-379 A

11

22

11

22

OK, but change to methodologies and assumptions- not found in current text
Page 108 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team OK, needs to be rephrased in the same way as for other categories; see other comments about equal treatment with other categories Reject; that statement is already in box 2; refer to box is OK) Reject, See #A372

SPM-380 A

11

23

11

SPM-381 A

11

23

11

SPM-382 A

11

23

11

SPM-383 A

11

23

11

SPM-160 B

11

23

11

SPM-384 A

11

24

11

25 The cost are related to a certain period, which need to be put into perspective. Therefore it is important to compare costs also to expected GDP growth over this period, to put costs in perspective. (European Community) 25 Suggest adding before the period the following: ", which lead to lower estimated costs". (Government of United States of America) 25 Please include these low stabilisation categories A1 and A2 and their costs on GDP in the chapeau. Numbers of studies are low because it is only fairly recent that the science of climate change has increased the level of ambition necessary to limit certain changes due to increases in estimated radiative forcing. Therefore it is even more crucial that policy makers are aware of these cost estimates. Reference to low number of studies and the use of relatively low baselines could remain in the main text. Note that it could be interesting for policy makers to indicate that the low emission baselines used are similar up to 2030 to the WEO 2004 results at least for the energy sector. (European Community) 25 Please delete this paragraph. Reason (1) the number of the studies is relatively small, thus lack of representive. (2) in 2004, GHG concentration has reached 435 ppm CO2-eq. (Government of China) 25 Redraft to "...cost are lower than 3% global GDP loss with the majority of models suggesting costs of less than 2%..." All the model results shown in Fig. 3.25 give GDP costs less than 2% of GDP by 2030, except for one outlier. the text "less than 3%" relies too heavily on this result. (Government of UK) 25 The words "but the number of studies is relatively small and

Reject, formulation is chosen to reflect lower number of studies

Reject, no basis to do that (as in para 19); but change 535by 490

For A2 the wording limited number of

Page 109 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments they generally use low baselines." should be deleted, since Fig 3.17 shows, that categories A1 and A2 combined ( 445535 ppme) represent even more studies than there are in category B (550 ppme), and Fig 3.20 shows that the baselines are NOT AT ALL "generally low". In fact, for 2030 the average of baselines is very equal for all categories. (Government of Germany) "lower than 3%" is vague. Please be more specific - "just under" maybe? (Government of United States of America) We propose changing text to " are lower than 3% global GDP loss compared to the baseline" (Government of Norway) It would be useful to note the implications of having higher emissions baselines - higher mitigation costs. (Government of United States of America) Are the baselines being referred to at the end of the bullet emissions baselines? Please specify. (Government of United States of America) The authors need to explain what a low baseline is or at least provide a reference to Box SPM 2. (Government of Australia) Please include conclusions on how the timing of emissions reductions affects costs. (Government of Canada) It would be useful to give some sense of how much these measures lower costs. Suggest for clarity "auctioned permits under an emissions trading scheme". (Government of Canada)

Considerations by the writing team studies does not apply. So replace 535 by 490 text has been changed and deleted, therefore this comment cannot be implemented

SPM-385 A

11

24

11

24

See #B160 for better text

SPM-161 B

11

24

11

24

See #B160 for better text

SPM-386 A

11

25

11

25

See #A382, A384

SPM-387 A

11

25

11

25

See #A382, A384

SPM-162 B

11

25

11

25

OK< refer to box 2; but see also #A382/384 OK, add explanation in box 2 that these are fixed time horizon estimatesnot found in Box 2 addition of under an emission trading system OK Based on ch 11 suggestions, text could become: Cost may be substantially reduced, if revenues from carbon taxes or auctioned permits under an emission trading system are used to promote
Page 110 of 183

SPM-388 A

11

26

11

28

SPM-389 A

11

26

11

28

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team low-carbon technologies or reform of existing taxes, depending on the existing tax system and spending of the revenues. [ch 11 to look at wording Terry& Igor]- Assume that current wording is o.k. by chapter 11. Reject, would make sentence hard to understand Reject, too much detail for SPM

SPM-390 A

11

26

11

SPM-391 A

11

26

11

SPM-392 A

11

26

11

SPM-393 A

11

26

11

SPM-394 A

11

26

11

29 Comment: The source of revenues is irrelevant, so please edit (Government of Netherlands) 29 Comment: it remains unclear where the money will go, to implementation of low carbon technology or to technology development; in the first case macro-economic cost are not affected, although the end-user cost are reduced; in the second case the cost reduction will only occur over longer periods of time. (Government of Netherlands) 29 Comment: although we recognize that coupling of carbon tax or permit auctioning revenues to low carbon technology funding is politically logical, the source of revenues is irrelevant, so we suggest to rephrase. (Government of Netherlands) 29 Change to "Costs are lower or there may even be net economic benefits if revenues from ". (Government of United States of America) 29 Add a second, separate bullet: "New research on non-CO2 and terrestrial sinks GHG mitigation suggests that there are cost-competitive opportunities for reducing the costs of climate policies in the near-term, when energy-related CO2 mitigation alternatives are more economically constrained by existing infrastructure and not-yet-available future lowcarbon technologies."

Reject; See #A390

Reject, this issue is covered in third bullet Reject, too much detail for SPM and this belongs to mitigation potential discussion

Page 111 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments (Government of United States of America) The start of this sentence implies the use of carbon taxes or auctioned permits, it should therefore be rephrased to state "Costs can be reduced if any revenues are generated from the use of carbon taxes or auctioned permits and are then used to promote..." (Government of Australia) We suggest the following wording "Costs are lower if revenues from taxes on, or auctioned permits for GHG emissions are used to promote low emission technologies or reform of existing taxes". Justification: In a.o.3.3.5.4 it is stated that multigas emissions reduction scenarios are able to meet climate targets at substantially lower costs compared to CO2-only strategies. This should not be left out by only focusing on "carbon" like the existing sentence does. (Government of Norway) Also note that although the practial implications of induced technological change are indeed lower costs overall, they may also mean higher upfront costs - for investment in research, development and deployment of technology - in order to achieve those lower costs. This is noted in underlying chapters. (Government of UK) Suggest rephrasing to "technologies or reduction of burdensome taxes. ..." as the benefit comes if the tax reform reduces burdensome taxes. (Government of UK) how much lower are costs estimated for these scenarios? Some indication would be useful (Government of Germany) Suggest add "overall" between "lower costs" at end of and adding new sentence. This would now read "...also give

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-163 B

11

26

11

26

Reject, sentence is clear as is

SPM-164 B

11

26

11

27

Reject, sentence is clear as is

SPM-165 B

11

26

11

29

OK, add text- do not think that this point has been covered in the new text

SPM-166 B

11

27

11

27

Reject, burdensome is a value judgment

SPM-395 A

11

28

11

28

See #A389

SPM-167 B

11

29

11

29

OK- this wording suggestion is not there in text

Page 112 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments lower overall costs. However, this induced effect may require higher upfront investment and deployment of new technologies in order to achieve cost reductions thereafter [3.4]." (Government of UK) Very important statement. It should stay as it is. (Government of Germany) This is very interesting conclusion- are these models used in calculating overall average cost figures? Are these global gains? At what ppm? How do these baselines compare to those referred to in key message? More detail would be useful. (Government of Canada) The language "or negative GDP losses is confusing. Please delete. (European Community) Suggest to delete the word "positive" (Government of Mexico) Delete third bullet, starting with "Some models" (Government of United States of America) Which climate mitigation policies steer economies towards reducing imperfections? R&D? The Authors need to be more specific. (Government of Australia) This dot point is quite confusing as presently drafted (e.g some models give positive GDP gains for what?), it also does not allow comparison with the figures above that provide figures for GDP losses as no stabilisation level is provided for these models. Suggest, therefore, that this dot point is deleted. (Government of Australia) The authors should delete "(or negative GDP losses)" as this

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-396 A SPM-397 A

11 11

30 30

11 11

30 33

Thank you Reject, for more detail see TS and chapter

SPM-398 A

11

30

11

30

OK

SPM-399 A SPM-400 A SPM-168 B

11 11 11

30 30 30

11 11 11

30 32 32

OK Reject, is a policy relevant conclusion Reject, too detailed for SPM

SPM-169 B

11

30

11

32

Reject, bullet explains the negative numbers mentioned above

SPM-170 B

11

30

11

30

OK, see #A398

Page 113 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments is unnecessary and confusing. (Government of Australia) Suggest rephrasing to "The substitution possibilities among producers and consumers, and therefore the assumed efficiency of the economy is also important in determining costs. For example, if baselines are not optimal, mitigation policies can steer economies towards reducing unemployment and market imperfections. The rate of technological change and the extent of mitigation benefits assumed also affects overall costs. Variations of these assumptions lead some models to report positive GDP gains (or negative GDP losses). [3.3, 3.4, 11.4]." (Government of UK) Write " towards reducing market imperfections." (Government of Switzerland) This can be confusing language for readers that have no expert knowledge concerning emission trading systems . As long there is Box SPM 2 which gives clear explanation this bullet point is redundant. Therefore delete. (European Community) To assist policy readers the authors should explain what an "assumed emission allowance" is (this also applies to Box SPM-2 line 3) (Government of Australia) It is asserted that the assumed stabilisation level and baseline scenario are more important in determining the regional policy cost than the regional emission allocations. However, in box SPM 2 on page 12, it is stated that in the reviewed literature emission allowances are NOT allocated to regions. Given that the relative importance of these cost drivers do not appear to have been quantitatively modelled, this assertion needs to be substantiated.

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-171 B

11

30

11

33

Reject, too technical for SPM

SPM-401 A SPM-402 A

11 11

32 33

11 11

32 35

OK See #A403

SPM-172 B

11

33

11

33

OK, clarify

SPM-173 B

11

33

11

33

DISCUSS ch 13 (last sentence that gives opposite message to the one included in SPM text) [Dennis will look back in Ch 13, in combination with the heading. Will come back]

Page 114 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-174 B

11

33

11

(Government of Australia) 33 Please clarify the issue of emission allowances to regions as box SPM 2 states that the studies without allocation to regions (Government of Norway)

SPM-175 B

11

33

11

SPM-403 A

11

34

11

SPM-404 A BOX 2 SPM-406 A

11

35

35 Suggest redraft to "Total mitigation costs depend on the extent of assumed participation of countries and sectors, because abatement costs differ across regions and sectors. The more countries involved in the mitigation efforts (whether through trading or other mechanisms), the lower total global costs are, because the cheapest abatement options globally can be exploited." Regional abatement costs are not dependent on emissions allowances assumptions -abatement costs exist despite those assumptions. (Government of UK) 35 Rephrase the sentence "assumed stabilization level and baseline scenario are more general precondition in determining regional costs" If allocation of allowances to some region is relatively small, this may have larger effect on abatement cost than stabilization level or baseline scenario. (Government of Japan) 0 include Table TS2 - like in the second order draft (SOD) (Government of Germany) 0

DISCUSS ch 13 (last sentence that gives opposite message to the one included in SPM text) [Dennis & Terry will look back in Ch 13, in combination with the heading. Will come back] DISCUSS ch 13 (last sentence that gives opposite message to the one included in SPM text) [Dennis & Terry will look back in Ch 13, in combination with the heading. Will come back]

Reject, this is not what the chapter says; DISCUSS (ch 13) if better language can be found (see also #402) [Dennis & Terry will look back in Ch 13, in combination with the heading. Will come back] Reject, table is not relevant here

12

Box SPM 2: The text "with optimal mitigation portfolios Reject, box is meant to give these and without allocation of emissions to regions. If regions are points visibility excluded or non-optimal portfolios are chosen, global costs will go up." is a very important caveat that should be
Page 115 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments included in the bullets under paragraph #5 as well. (Government of United States of America) Box SPM2. Insert after portfolios", with carbon taxes or auctioned permits". The reason: the costs are larger if emission permits are given freely as in EU ETS. Also delete "and without allocation of emissons allowances to regions", because allocation, in a least-cost approach, should not have any effect on mitigation costs (a least cost approach assumes trading or a similar efficient mechanism to ensure global abatement costs are equalised). Also see our comments on 4th bullet in section 5 (11,33,11,35) where the same reasoning is applied. (Government of UK) Perhaps this conclusion needs to be qualified by a reference to the specific sectors where there are clear synergies between mitigation activities and air pollution, because it is not clear that this conclusion is justified in general. (Government of Nepal) Consistent with chapter 11, "air pollution" should be clarified to mean "fine particulate matter and ground-level ozone" (chapter 11 page 76, line 12). (Government of United States of America) The authors should set out which world regions were analysed. (Government of Australia) It would be of assistance if the authors could provide some quantification of their use of the word substantial in respect of offsetting part of the cost of mitigation. (Government of Australia) Please clarify what is meant by "substantial fraction of mitigation costs"

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-176 B

12

Reject suggestions, because incorrect Ok to explain least cost approach to clarify the points made [Naki and Terry check on this] (still under discussion)

PARAGRAPH 6 SPM-407 A 12

12

Reject, since connected to burning of coal and oil, many sectors involved

SPM-408 A

12

12

Reject, too much detail for SPM

SPM-177 B

12

12

Reject, too detailed for SPM

SPM-178 B

12

12

See #A409

SPM-179 B

12

12

See #A409

Page 116 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-409 A

12

12

SPM-410 A

12

12

SPM-411 A

12

12

SPM-412 A

12

12

SPM-413 A

12

12

SPM-180 B

12

12

SPM-414 A

12

12

(Government of Norway) What does the report tells us of the approximate size of these Reject, will take too much text (The cost reductions? More detail is preferential. health benefits vary widely, depending (European Community) on the country, the pollutant and population at risk, between $US 2 and 176/tCO2 abated. T11.18 Replace "energy security" with "energy-supply security (by Ok, add supply, but not the bracketed text, because not correct increased energy diversity)" [Section 4.5.3, p. 88, line 25] (Government of United States of America) Increased agricultural production is an "important" coOk, add increased agricultural benefit that should be included in this list, as described in production and reduced pressure on section 11.8.1.3. In addition, benefits to natural ecosystems natural ecosystems due to decreased could be added to be more complete, as described in section tropospheric ozone 11.8.1.4. (Government of United States of America) How are the various co-benefits resulting from reduced air Reject, too much detail fro SPM pollution, energy security & employment commensurate with mitigation costs, to permit a direct comparison? (Government of Nepal) Delete "and employment" (for justification, see comments Ok, delete employment on Section C.8). (Government of United States of America) We propose that the second bullet point comes first to be Reject, first bullet gives more detail more in line with lines 6 to 8. and logically preceeds second bullet (Government of Norway) This sentence needs to be clarified, consistent with section Reject, This is one aspect of the cost 11.8.1.7. It should be made clear that this refers to reductions available. Another is the abatement of the air pollutant tropospheric ozone (not fine switch to gas or CCS from coal, which particulate matter). Further, it should be noted that ozone is reduces the need for FGD to reduce air itself a greenhouse gas with local and global impacts. pollution. It will be difficult to put (Government of United States of America) these points in the text without a new bullet.
Page 117 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments The word "offers" needs to be changed to "offer". (Government of Pakistan) The authors should review this dot point and consider its deletion. It seems to be a rephrasing of the headline statement albeit with a focus on policies rather than outcomes. (Government of Australia) The following language ist suggested: compared to treating those policies... (Government of Austria)

Considerations by the writing team Reject, correct English Reject, it is a further elaboration of the headline

SPM-415 A SPM-181 B

12 12

8 8

12 12

8 9

SPM-416 A

12

12

OK, replace the by those

PARAGRAPH 7 SPM-417 A 12

11

SPM-418 A

12

11

12

SPM-419 A

12

11

12

The statement 'Recent literature CONFIRMS the conclusions in TAR on spill over and carbon leakage' seems not to be underpinned by literature. It's 'medium agreement, medium certainty' and line 17 states that 'critical uncertainties remain'. Therefore, it is more accurate and neutral if it stated 'Recent literature IS IN LINE WITH the conclusions in TAR on spill over and carbon leakage'. (European Community) 11 The statement "Recent literature confirms the conclusion in TAR.. (medium agreement, medium evidence). " may unintentionally suggest that there is now more confidence in the conclusions in the TAR, as opposed to what we understand the intent of this statement to be: reinforcing the conclusions of the TAR that there is considerable uncertainty and that estimates of spill over effects remain mixed and varied. This strong statement should be revised accordingly. (Government of Canada) 21 Suggest to re-phrase the jargon terms "spill over" and "carbon leakage" into more common terminology. (Government of Germany)

OK, use in line

See A417

OK, Replace by the effects of Annex 1 actions on the global economy and global emissions
Page 118 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team See A419. The literature covered in Chapter 11 is specifically on the effects of Annex 1 action. We would need another bullet for technological spillovers: The potential beneficial effect of technology transfer to developing countries brought about by Annex I action may be substantial, but has so far not been quantified in a reliable manner.

SPM-420 A

12

11

12

SPM-421 A

12

11

SPM-422 A

12

11

12

SPM-423 A

12

11

12

12 Should clarify "spill over" and "carbon leakage" for those who are not familiar with these terms, particularly as they are applied in the context of SPM Section 7 (Page 12, Lines 13-21). Carbon leakage and changes in oil price and demand are not the only "spill over" effects - wider treatment is required, i.e. technological spill overs. Positive effects should also be noted as per Table 11:13. Spill over effects are also not limited to Annex I/non-Annex I, but also occur between regions and sectors. For the current SPM wording on Page 12, line 14 "lower demand and price...and GDP growth" - we do not know the context of "lower" because no information on the baseline assumptions used as a basis for making this statement were provided in the SPM or in the Technical Summary (11.7). The SPM states that the extent of spill over depends strongly on assumptions related to Annex I policy decisions and oil market responses and therefore makes clear that the statement on spill over effects needs to be understood in the context of the assumptions on which it was based. It is therefore important that these assumptions be clearly illustrated. (Government of Canada) 0 Section C.7: Leakage and spillover are technical terms that have no meaning to a layman. Please rewrite these paragraphs so that policy makers can understand these sentences even if they have never heard these specific terms. (Government of United States of America) 11 Reference is made to conclusions in TAR. Are policy makers expected to be closely familiar with the conclusions in TAR? What are the conclusions in TAR? (Government of Sweden) 11 It would be useful to explain "spill over" and "carbon leakage" here, in a footnote, rather than requiring readers to

See A419, A420, and A451.

OK, Add a footnote from TAR SPM

See A419

Page 119 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments refer to a glossary. (Government of New Zealand) It would be clearer if the TAR conclusions were explicitly (shortly) given, e.g. in brackets or in a footnote (Government of Switzerland) Given the concerns and rationale outlined above, we propose the following revision: "Fossil fuel exporting nations (in both Annex I and non-Annex I) may experience, as indicated in TAR, relatively lower demand as a result of certain emission abatement policies. However, the impacts are expected to be marginal given that fossil fuels are projected to predominate in the global energy mix to 2030 and beyond, and the overall influence of non-climate change factors on energy markets. The extent of spill-over depends strongly on assumptions related to a range of public and private policy decisions and oil market conditions which cannot be fully captured in the models." [11.7] (Government of Canada) Change "confirms" to be "repeats" or"shows". Reason: the using of wording "confirm" seems to conflict with the uncertainty level at the end of this sentence--medium agreement, medium evidence. (Government of China) After reviewing TS, Chapter 11, we have reservations that the underlying assessment supports the statement as per SPM p. 12, lines 11-16. We articulate these reservations below in five sections in order to provide a rationale for our proposed revised language. This bullet should be REVISED accordingly. (Government of Canada) 5. Models can not capture the full range of energy markets dynamic as demonstrated in the very mixed results put

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-424 A

12

11

12

11

See A422

SPM-425 A

12

11

11

16

See A420. The additional text suggested raises too many extra questions.

SPM-426 A

12

11

12

12

See A417

SPM-427 A

12

11

12

16

See A420.

SPM-428 A

12

11

11

16

See A425.

Page 120 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-429 A

12

11

11

SPM-430 A

12

11

11

forward in Chapter 11. Even IF certain abatement measures result in overall lower demand than would have been the case without abatement measures, this decrease in demand may not be accompanied by lower price and GDP growth as many other interacting factors can intervene and have a stronger affect. The baseline assumptions are also not realistic. There is no guaranteed price to benchmark, as we have seen with the movement from $15 a barrel to the current $60 a barrel in the past few years due to a host of demand and supply issues. Energy markets are not static and there is no baseline guarantee for a producer country on any level of fossil fuel price and quantities. (Government of Canada) 16 4. In any future scenario envisaged, the SPM already See A425. acknowledges projections that fossil fuels will be vastly predominate in the global energy mix to 2030 and beyond, as per conclusion in SPM page 3 lines 41-42, and associated emissions increase 40-110%- this implies a significant INCREASE in demand. All signs indicate that increasing demand from growth in other regions will more than compensate for Annex I abatement policies. With the explosive projected growth of non-Annex One countries such as China and India, the continued focus on the impact of Annex I climate policy responses on fossil fuel exporting nations is too limiting - most projected future growth is for non-Annex I countries. (Government of Canada) 16 3. Not all abatement measures include a shift away from See A420 fossil fuels, but rather clean fossil fuel technology which, unless costs are assumed to be prohibitive and passed along via price), will not have a major impact on demand in the longer run. Although these technologies are assumed to be an integral part of abatement policies in the near-term, it is
Page 121 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-431 A

12

11

11

SPM-432 A

12

11

11

SPM-433 A

12

11

not clear if (and or how) these are included in the modeling studies referred to. [need some areas in SPM where this is ref] . With the development and implementation of clean and/or cleaner burning and/or more efficient technologies, such as carbon capture and storage and coal gasification, fossil fuel industries can accommodate many elements of emission abatement policies that are being introduced that could also extend the life and competitiveness of fossil fuels in the process particularly given rising concern over global environment and health issues. (Government of Canada) 16 2. Related to (1) above, like any other economic sector, with innovation and ongoing change, the fossil fuel sector will always face the on-going need to adapt. Many private and public policy decisions, for a host of environment, energy and other reasons (e.g., energy security, supply and refinery problems, geopolitics, industry costs, competitiveness etc.), will continue to exert influence on oil markets even if climate change itself were not an issue. (Government of Canada) 16 1. There are many non-abatement related influences on demand for oil- some of which far outweigh climate policy influence. For example, TS page 9 lines 16-19 refer to the fact that developing countries reduced emissions by 500 million tonnes/year for reasons other than climate change, and that these reductions (and associated reductions in oil demand) far exceed those required by Annex I Parties as per the Kyoto Protocol. (Government of Canada) 0 Carbon leakage needs to be defined somewhere. (UNEP)

Reject. The SPM is about GHG mitigation, not the global energy industry.

See A431

OK footnote definition of carbon leakage from Ch11: Carbon leakage is defined as the increase in CO2
Page 122 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team emissions outside the countries taking domestic mitigation action divided by the reduction in the emissions of these countries.

SPM-182 B

12

11

Since this is the first time the terms "spill over" and "carbon leakage" are used, we think that an explanation should be included. (Government of Norway)

OK, see #A433. The meaning of spillover is clear in line 15. If definition needed: Spillover effects of mitigation in a cross-sectoral perspective are the effects of mitigation policies and measures in one country or group of countries on sectors in other countries. OK, see #A433. See B182

SPM-183 B

12

11

12

SPM-434 A

12

12

SPM-435 A

12

13

12

SPM-436 A

12

13

12

12 Explain the terms 'spill over' and 'carbon leakage' to make the meaning clear to policy makers (Government of UK) 0 It appears better to include in the opening statement of point 7, a sentence indicating what are the conclusions in TAR which have been confirmed with regards to spill over and carbon leakage. (Government of CHILE) 13 It is suggested to address also in another bullet the reduction of climate risk. (Government of Austria) 15 Economic impact on fossil fuel exporting countries would seem to have greater uncertainty than noted here under future scenarios. Also, not sure that the effect on fossil fuel demand should be described as a spillover unless you want to discuss improvements in energy security. Reword to say "Some fossil fuel exporting nations may expect lower fuel demand and prices and lower GDP growth due to

See A422

Reject. Climate risks are WG1 and WG2 topics. See more specific heading for para in A419

Page 123 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-184 B SPM-185 B

12 12

14 14

12 12

emission abatement policies. The extent of this effect depends strongly on...." (Government of United States of America) 14 For clarity delete "in case of" and replace with "due to". (Government of Australia) 14 Suggest redraft "...lower demand and prices which may cause some negative effects on growth due to mitigation policies...". (Government of UK)

OK

SPM-437 A

12

15

12

SPM-438 A

12

15

12

SPM-439 A

12

15

12

SPM-440 A

12

15

OK but use "...lower demand and prices and lower GDP growth due to mitigation policies...". reason: negative effects on growth may be misunderstood as reductions in GDP. 15 It is suggested to substitute "Annex I policy decisions" with OK, this fits better with A419 "policy decisions".. (Government of Austria) 15 I would not call this a "spill over" effect. I would call spill See A420 with suggested new over the dissemination in countries with no or weak carbon technology bullet. policies of better technologies resulting from their development in more carbon-constrained economies. (International Energy Agency) 16 Delete Annex I from this sentence. Spill over will result OK. See A437 from non-Annex I policy decisions to mitigate emissions as well as decisions by Annex I countries. (Government of United States of America) 0 Recent literature seemingly does not provide strong Reject. New text too technical and evidence for teh statement in the draft. Fairly limited raises too many new questions. research seems to have taken place since the TAR. Spill over effects on oil exporting countries will be limited if policies are optimised (targeting for instance carbon content or energy carriers). In particular spill over will depend on the development of a global carbon market. Therefore change into: The modelled extent of this theoretical spill over depends strongly on assumptions related to the development of optimised global greenhouse gas mitigation policies incl.
Page 124 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments the global carbon market as well as on policy assumptions on the side of oil exporting countries inter alia diversification policies." (European Community) The authors need to provide an indication as why only Annex I policies will influence the extent of spill over. (Government of Australia) Please explain the term Carbon leakage (Government of Netherlands) Leakage as a result of what? Without assumptions, this sentence has no meaning. (International Energy Agency) Define the concept of carbon leakage (Government of Sweden) Suggest redraft to "Most equlibrium modelling support the conclusion in the TAR of economy wide leakage from Kyoto action in the order of 5-10% {we can't see a reference to 20% in the text of chapter 11 though it is in the ES}. However, realistically, this is likely to be lower because several factors favour local production. Findings from sectoral analysis of the effects of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme also indicate lower levels of economy-wide leakage and find that competitiveness effects on energy-intensive sectors are not significant. [11.7, and Ch 11 ES]" (Government of UK) The authors need to explain the assumptions upon which the figures of 5-20% economy wide leakage were calculated, (e.g. are these figures based upon the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol?). (Government of Australia) Suggest "...leakage from Kyoto action". Reason: the 5-10% rates are from studies of Kyoto. More stringent action could

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-186 B

12

15

12

15

The literature covered is on Annex 1 action. See A433. See A433

SPM-441 A SPM-442 A

12 12

17 17

12 12

21 18

SPM-443 A SPM-187 B

12 12

17 17

12 12

17 21

See A433 OK. Add from Kyoto action after leakage. The 5-20% is a TAR conclusion. See A451

SPM-188 B

12

18

12

18

See B187

SPM-189 B

12

18

12

18

See B187

Page 125 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-444 A

12

19

12

lead to higher leakage rates. (Government of UK) 21 Strike the sentence beginning with Findings from and insert in its place: Findings from sectoral analysis of the effects of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme indicate lower levels of economy wide leakage, at least in the short term. However, leakage rates rise with higher allowance costs, and at 50 US$/t CO2 can lead to potentially greater leakage. The ETS was only instituted recently and there is general agreement that too many allowances were issued. Has the ETS even been in operation long enough to see an effect, and has the price of carbon been high enough to induce leakage? This is a legitimate question because the discussion in 11.7 states: Szabo et al. (2006) report production leakage estimates of 29% by 2010 for cement with an EU ETS allowance price of about 50 US$/tCO2 using a detailed model of the world industry. Leakage rates rise the higher the allowance price. More generally, Reinaud (2005) surveys estimates of leakage for 20 energy-intensive industries (steel, cement, newsprint and aluminium) with the EU ETS. She comes to a similar conclusion as Sijm et al. (2004) and finds that with the free allocation of CO2 allowances any leakage would be considerably lower than previously projected, at least in the near term. (p. 10). However, the ambiguous results of the empirical studies in both positive and negative spillovers warrant further research in this field. (p.179). Why would it surprise anyone that free allocation of CO2 allowances would reduce potential leakage, especially when that allocation was considered too generous? And there is certainly some ambiguity in these studies (Reinaud). The results reported here indicate that the higher the cost of carbon, the greater the potential for leakage. This is

See A451. There are too few studies in the literature to conclude, with evidence, that higher carbon prices will lead to higher leakage. The outcome will depend on the modelling assumptions. Szabos estimate is for one sector, cement, and for a specific set of assumptions.

Page 126 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments important because a good portion of the SPM up to this point concerns itself with a cost of CO2 in the 50 to 100 US$/t range. It seems, then, the more pertinent finding is that of Szabo. (Government of United States of America) Replace "are" with "were". (International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)) It is suggested to delete "any findings from sectoral analysis of the effect of the emissions trading scheme" because of the significant overallocation of EU-Allowances in the first commitment perod. (Government of Austria) Is it possible to draw scientific conclusions on data from a system that has been operational for only two years? (Government of Sweden) Delete this sentence or add "due to very loose allocation." (Government of Japan) Delete the whole sentence from "Findings", because 1) EUETS is not an economy wide trading scheme; 2) EUETS allowances are excessive in some energy intensive industries, so there is no value to analyze the leakage. (Government of China) Change "if low-emissions technologies" to "if competitive low-emissions technologies" to indicate that the technologies being diffused are at least roughly comparable in cost to older technologies. (Government of United States of America) The CO2 caps of the EUETS were set pragmatically to the levels comfotable and acceptable to the industry. If the caps were set unrealistically stricter, the leakage would be a real issue. The statement here gives the impression that ETS is free from leakage. However, it is not so. It is better delete

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-445 A SPM-446 A

12 12

19 19

12 12

19 21

OK See A451

SPM-447 A

12

19

12

21

See A451

SPM-448 A SPM-449 A

12 12

19 19

12 12

21 21

See A451 See A451

SPM-450 A

12

19

12

19

OK

SPM-18

12

19

12

21

Check ch 7 and 11

Page 127 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-451 A

12

20

SPM-452 A

12

20

12

SPM-190 B

12

21

12

SPM-191 B

12

22

12

the statement. (Government of Japan) 0 The sentence "Findings from sectoral analysis of the effects of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme indicate lower levels of economy wide leakage" is an overstatement, compared to its source (Chapter 11.7). Having looked at the source, this sentence would more accurately read: "Findings from sectoral analysis of the effects of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme indicate that, in practice, carbon leakage is unlikely to be substantial because of a range of factors.". (European Community) 21 replace "lower levels of economy wide leakage" with "that economy wide leakage is of much lower relevance." (Government of Germany) 21 It would be of assistance to policy readers if the authors could provide the figures for economy wide leakage in the EU, as a result of the EU ETS. The authors also need to explain if their finding on economy wide leakage relates to the EU, or globally. (Government of Australia) 22 Suggest that a positive message on technology spill-over be included based on Ch 11 (Government of UK)

OK re-draft sentence to "Findings from sectoral analysis of the effects of Phase 2 of the the EU Emissions Trading Scheme indicate that, in practice, carbon leakage outside the EU is unlikely to be substantial because of free allocation, exemptions and other factors." See A451

See A451

OK See A420

PARAGRAPH C8 SPM-453 A 12 SPM-454 A 12

23 23

12 12

26 We suggest to describe each renewable on its own Reject, no space in SPM to do that (Government of Sweden) 25 This sentence is misleading. Potential for emission Reject first change (changes the reductions will depend on the source of new supply. Change meaning); OK second addition to "LOW-CARBON OR CLEAN FOSSIL FUEL energy supply investments." and "achieve GHG emissions reductions COMPARED TO BASELINE SCENARIOS". Add renewable energy and energy efficiency after "policies
Page 128 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-455 A

12

23

13

SPM-456 A

12

23

12

SPM-457 A

12

23

13

that promote". (Government of Canada) 8 This section is rather unbalanced. There is an emphasis on energy security, but what about development benefits and objectives of providing modern energy services to all? (Government of Nepal) 26 The sentence is extremely hard to understand on a first reading. It would help if it were easy to comprehend the first time through. (International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)) 8 Section C.8: This section makes the claim that new energy supply investments in developing countries, upgrades of energy infrastructure in developed countries, and policies that promote energy security contribute to, among other things, wealth creation and employment. The supporting bullets for this section make no further reference to the wealth creation and employment benefits of these investments, and do not provide information on where these claims are supported within the chapters. Searching the chapters, I could not find text supporting the wealth creation claim. Searching for the text that supports the employment co-benefit claim, I found in chapter 4, page 89, lines 14 21: Increased net employment and trade of technologies and services are useful co- benefits given high unemployment in many countries. Employment is created at different levels, from research and manufacturing to distribution, installation and maintenance. Renewable energy technologies are more labour intensive than conventional technologies for the same energy output (Kamman et al., 2004). For example solar PV generates 5.65 person-years of employment per 1 million US$ investment (over 10 years) and the wind energy

OK, add this point to end of headline

See #B192

OK to drop wealth creation, but reject dropping employment because that is covered in report. (this last point is still under discussion). Add respective chapter refrences that are mentioned in comment.[employment statement is supported in Ch 4 (RE, EE and others). CH 11; it varies across the options. We keep statement on employment in] See also US comment on third bullet (#A477)

Page 129 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments industry 5.7 person-years. In contrast, every million dollars invested in the coal industry generates only 3.96 personyears of employment over the same time period (Singh & Fehrs., 2001). And, chapter 6, page 45, lines 35 39: Most studies agree that energy-efficiency investments will have positive effects on employment, directly by creating new business opportunities and indirectly through the economic multiplier effects of spending in other ways the money saved on energy costs (Laitner, 1998; Jochem and Madlener, 2003). And chapter 7, page 47, lines 30 37: Economy-wide impact studies (Sathaye, et al, 2005; Phadke, et al, 2005) show that in developing countries, like India, adoption of efficient electricity technology can lead to higher employment and income generation. However, the lack of empirical studies leads to much uncertainty about the SD implications of many mitigation strategies, including use of renewables, fuel switching, feedstock and product changes, control of non-CO2 gases, and CCS. For example, fuel switching can have a positive effect on local air pollution and company profitability, but its impacts on employment are uncertain and will depend on inter-input substitution opportunities. And chapter 11, page 39, lines 6 10: Climate policy proposals in the U.S. have been put forward by the states. Analysis of a package of 8 efficiency measures using a CGE model (Roland-Holst, 2006) reduces GHG emissions by some 30% by 2020, about half of the Californian target of returning to 1990 CO2 levels by 2020, with a net benefit of 2.4% for the states output and a small increase in employment (Hanemann et al., 2006). While these references within the chapters do support the

Considerations by the writing team

Page 130 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-459 A

12

23

12

idea that climate mitigation policies may have employment co-benefits, there are enough other instances in the literature of climate mitigation policies having a negative impact on employment that it might not be correct to claim high agreement, much evidence on this point. Examples in the literature of studies of climate mitigation policies that show negative impacts on employment include: Smith, A, P. Bernstein, D. Montgomery. (2003) The Full Costs of S.139, With and Without its Phase II Requirements, Charles River Association Energy Information Agency. (2003) Analysis of S.139, the Climate Stewardship Act of 2003. Energy Information Agency. (2007) Energy Market and Economic Impacts of a Proposal to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Intensity with a Cap and Trade System. Additionally, many of the CGE models that have been used to analyze climate policies are full-employment models. While these models can not inform us about the changes in unemployment due to a climate policy, they can tell us about the labor leisure choice and changes in labor supply. It is commonly found in this type of model that a climate policy will decrease labor supply (increase leisure demand). For a good discussion of this effect, see: D. Jorgenson, R. Goettle, P. Wilcoxen, M.S. Ho. (2000) The Role of Substitution in Understanding the Costs of Climate Change Policy, Pew Center on Global Climate Change report. (Government of United States of America) 26 Reword beginning of sentence to read: "New energy supply OK to add can, in many cases (see investments, upgrades of energy infrastructure, and policies also B193, Australia) that promote energy security, can, in many cases," This addresses the point that it is not clear at all that energy security and climate change mitigation are necessarily
Page 131 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-460 A

12

23

13

SPM-192 B

12

23

12

compatible, especially for those countries with large coal reserves. Fuel switching from coal to gas in the power sector might be good for CO2 emissions, but bad for energy security. There needs to be recognition of the possibly tension between mitigating CO2 emissions and achieving a measure of energy security, especially in light of different energy resource endowments (Government of United States of America) 10 A wide range of energy supply mitigation options is available in the short to medium time frame (high confidence). Implementation will be in the form of a portfolio of options: improved supply efficiency, renewable energy (particularly biomass), fuel switching from coal to gas, advanced nuclear power, and CO2 capture and storage (CCS) in combination with coal or 5 gas-fired installations This is not completely consistent with the factual material contained in the full Report. Namely 4.3, 4.3.1 Fossil fuels, 4.3.2 Nuclear energy, 4.3.3 Renewable energy. So we propose rearrange the points, i. e. "A wide range of energy supply mitigation options is available in the short to medium time frame (high confidence). Implementation will be in the form of a portfolio of options: improved supply efficiency, fuel switching from coal to gas, advanced nuclear power, renewable energy (particularly biomass), and CO2 capture and storage (CCS) in combination with coal or 5 gas-fired installations" (Government of Russian Federation) 27 We propose that this very long sentence is simplified and divided into two sentences - for example as follows: "New energy supply investments in developing countries, upgrades in developed countries and policies that promote energy security, create opportunities to achieve GHG emission reductions. In addition this can provide co-benefits such as

UNCLEAR where the comment is related to

OK Taking into account A454, A455,A457A459, sentence proposed is: New energy supply investments in developing countries, upgrades of energy infrastructure in developed
Page 132 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments air pollution abatement, balance of trade improvement, wealth creation and employment (high agreement, much evidence)." (Government of Norway)

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-19

12

24

SPM-461 A

12

25

12

countries, and policies that promote energy security, can, in many cases, create opportunities to achieve GHG emission reductions compared to baselines. Additional co-benefits are country specific but often include air pollution abatement, balance of trade improvement, provision of modern energy services to rural areas and employment. (ch 4 still had a few other points that are unclear) 0 This umbrella looks too much positive. It assumes a priori Check ch 4 a definitely honest technology transfer and affirms facts which implementation may well be no such positive as hinted. To be more near the truth, as shown by many investments made in developing countries, the umbrella shall read as follows: New energy supply investments in developing countries could upgrade their energy infrastructure, and install / enhance policies that may promote energy security, create opportunities to achieve GHG emission reduction, and provide co-benefits such as air pollution abatement. The past experience, gathered in developing countries, does not show much of balance of trade, and the employment rate normally increases during the installation phase. Modern automated factories and systems tend to reduce personnel at all levels. (Government of Argentina) 26 Delete the list of co-benefits and replace with (lines 25-28, See # A457 p. 88, Section 4.5): "such as air pollution abatement, energysupply security, technological innovation, reduced fuel cost, and reduced urban migration." (eliminating "employment"
Page 133 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments from the language in Section 4.5). The co-benefits of "balance of trade improvement, wealth creation and employment" are not substantiated in the supporting chapters. The supposed benefits are, in most cases, merely a transfer between regions and sectors rather than a general acceleration in global growth. The mitigation policies will have costs and are unlikely to result in a win-win. For example, Russia may see positive "co-benefits" in increased agricultural productivity because of carbon offset payments, but other regions will see a decrease in agricultural productivity -- this is a negative co-benefit that should be acknowledged. (Government of United States of America) Editing: replace "to" with "can". (Government of Australia) What reference/evidence is there for balance of trade improvements, wealth creation and employment. The authors should provide some justification for this statement in the SPM. (Government of Australia) Section C.8: The message in the first bullet that "widespread diffusion of low-carbon technologies may take decades" is key for two reasons: one, it explains why some technologies are not available by 2030, and two, it is one of the central reasons why tight stabilization targets are expensive. The first point should be clearly made under Section C.8 and the second should be made in Section D.18, starting on line 27. (Government of United States of America) This paragraph is hard to understand, language could be clearer (Government of Netherlands) The second sentence needs to be modified with suitable

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-193 B SPM-194 B

12 12

25 26

12 12

25 26

See #A459 Reject, justification is in the chapters

SPM-458 A

12

28

12

33

Reject this point in para 8, because not the issue here.

SPM-462 A

12

28

12

33

See #A464, A466

SPM-463 A

12

28

12

33

See #470
Page 134 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments qualifications, or dropped. Net additional investments ranging from negligible to less than 5% - how is this possible? For which low carbon technologies? (Government of Nepal) The importance to include low-carbon technology into that near-term $20 trillion investment is not clear, thus we suggest the following revised text: "Future energy infrastructure investment decisions, expected to total over US$20 trillion between now and 2030 will affect GHG emissions in the long-term, because the long lifetimes of energy and other infrastructure capital stock means that widespread diffusion of low-carbon technologies may take many decades. The implementation of low-carbon technologies must be pushed forward in short order, through the removal of barriers and creation of structures that favour investment in low-carbon technologies, to prevent lock-in of carbon intensive technologies." (Government of Canada) The first sentence of this dot point is poorly drafted and could be improved for greater clarity suggest that it is replaced with the following: "Near-term future energy infrastructure investment decisions (projected investment until 2030 is at least 20 trillion US$) will have long term impacts on GHG emissions because long life-times of energy and other infrastructure capital stock means that widespread diffusion of low-carbon technologies may take (insert a more specific timeframe)". (Government of Australia) Suggest "(projected global investment till 2030..." (Government of UK) , because the long lifetimes (Government of Austria)

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-464 A

12

28

12

29

Ok, first sentence; try simplify and shorten second proposed sentence Text could be: Future global energy infrastructure investment, expected to total over US$20 trillion between now and 2030, will have long term impacts on GHG emissions, because of the long life-times of energy plants and other infrastructure capital stock. The widespread diffusion of low-carbon technologies may take many decades, even if early investments in these technologies are made attractive. See #A464

SPM-195 B

12

28

12

31

SPM-196 B SPM-465 A

12 12

28 29

12 12

28 29

See #A464 See #A464

Page 135 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team See #B197, B199

SPM-466 A

12

31

12

SPM-467 A

12

31

12

SPM-468 A

12

31

12

SPM-197 B

12

31

12

SPM-198 B SPM-199 B

12 12

31 31

12 12

31 What is meant by "lower carbon scenarios" and in this sentence? Please provide a range. (Government of United States of America) 33 We have no idea what this sentence is trying to say in terms of the previous sentence on energy infrastructure (which is confusing itself). (Government of Canada) 33 The sentence on redirection of investments is unclear. Please be more specific. How does this compare to the WEO 2006 calculations (if comparable at all)? (European Community) 33 This sentence does not accord closely enough with the finding of chapter 11 (upon which it is presumably based). Suggest that this sentence is deleted and replaced with the finding drawn from Chapter 11 page 67: "Initial estimates for low-carbon paths consistent with the returning global CO2 emissions to present levels involve a large redirection of investment, with net additional costs (based on a limited set of studies) likely to be less than 5-10% of the total investment required, and possibly negligible". (Government of Australia) 31 Suggest quantify the number of decades for precision. (Government of UK) 33 "Initial estimates for lower carbon scenarios show a large redirection of investment, with net additional investments ranging from negligible to less than 5%." At first reading this seems partly self contradictory. Is the meaning "Initial estimates show that achieving lower carbon scenarios will require a large shift in the pattern of investment, though the net additional investment required ranges from a negligible amount to about 5%" (Government of UK)

See #B197, B199

See #B197, B199

see#B199, because the suggestion given here leads to complicated sentence

Reject, precision cannot be given Ok, modify sentence with this reformulation as basis; take also #B197 and A470 into account. Text could be : "Initial estimates show that returning global emissions to 2005 levels by 2030 will require a large shift in the pattern of investment, though the net additional investment required ranges from a negligible amount to
Page 136 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team about 5-10 %."

SPM-469 A

12

32

12

SPM-470 A

12

32

12

SPM-200 B

12

32

12

SPM-201 B

12

32

12

SPM-471 A

12

34

12

SPM-472 A

12

34

12

32 What is meant by "a large redirection of investment"? To what? Lower-emitting technologies? (Government of United States of America) 33 This sentence should read "with net additional investments ranging from negative to less than 5%". For instance, the WEO 2006 Alternative Policy Scenario shows a significant net economic benefit as compared with the Reference Scenario, i.e., at WEO 2006, p. 195, figure 8.1 and accompanying text - (IEA 2006b) - it is also the source of the 20 trillion figure used earlier in the same paragraph, so it seems useful to include reference to its findings here. (Greenpeace International) 32 The authors need to explain in a footnote, to what technologies the large redirection of investment will be moving towards. (Government of Australia) 32 Suggest redraft "large redirection of investment, although net additional costs range from negligible..." (Government of UK) 36 The SPM is largely silent about the implications of achieving the MDGs. In particular, bullet #2 conveys the impression that end-use efficiency may be a substitute for increasing energy supply clearly this cannot be the case for the large segments of the population in developing countries that have no access to modern energy services at the moment. (Government of Nepal) 35 The authors indicate energy efficiency is "cheaper", is there any comparative or ratio as per it effectiveness or quantities achieved (e.g. per dollar invested) in relation to investing in

See #B199

OK

Reject, it is not the purpose of this para to discuss specific technologies; focus is on investment patterns See #B199

See #A455

Ok, to use cost effective Text becomes: It is often more costeffective to invest .
Page 137 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments additional supply? Proposed Revision - "It is often more cost-effective to invest in end-use" (Government of Canada) Move this bullet from Section C.8 and move to Sections C.11 and C.12, where it fits in a better context. (Government of United States of America) The authors should provide a timeframe statement for this dot point. Suggest the start of the sentence is prefaced with a clause such as "In the near-term, it is often cheaper.." (Government of Australia) if it can be stated that efficiency improvement "has" a postive effect on energy security and employment (l. 35), it should also be possible to state "renewable energy has a positive effect" in line 37. (Government of Germany) We suggest to add after energy security, "local and regional air pollution abatement" Justification: improved end-use energy will usually also reduce emissions of air pollutants, as stated in a.o. 4.5.2 and 6.6.1. (Government of Norway) In its present form bullet 8 is biased and incomplete. Chapter 4 looks at fossil fuels (4.3.1), nuclear (4.3.2) and renewables (4.3.3) of which nuclear is not mentioned in bullet 8 although, according to Fig 4.27 it has one of the lowest external costs and according to Table 4.19 it has by far the largest mitigation potential and the second lowest (after hydro) median mitigation cost. Hence the following bullet should be added after page 12 line 36: "Energy security and climate change concerns, high gas prices as well as regional and local air quality problems have revived interest in nuclear power in Annex I countries and raised interest in many Non-Annex I countries as well. Nuclear electricity

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-473 A

12

34

12

36

SPM-202 B

12

34

12

34

Reject, it is important to show that energy supply is not disconnected from demand Reject, this is not only relevant for the short-term

SPM-474 A

12

35

12

37

Reject, this is already in the text of the third bullet

SPM-203 B

12

35

12

36

OK, add suggested text after energy security

SPM-475 A

12

36

12

37

Ok, but add nuclear to last bullet instead

Page 138 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-476 A

12

37

13

SPM-477 A

12

37

12

SPM-478 A

12

37

12

SPM-479 A

12

37

12

SPM-204 B

12

37

13

could provide about 18% of the total electricity supply in 2030 at carbon prices less than US$20/tCO2-eq." [4.3, 4.4, 11.3, 11.4, 11.5] (International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)) 2 Please clarify if renewable energy/renewable electricity include large hydroelectric facilities. Suggested text: "Renewable energy resources, such as hydroelectricity, wind, biomass, solar, geothermal, and ocean power, can have a positive effect on energy security, employment and on air quality." (Government of Canada) 37 Delete "employment." Employment may simply be a transfer with no net effects across sectors (e.g. renewable energy may see an increase in employment but more traditional forms of energy may see a decrease in employment). Typically, these effects are relatively small (Jeeninga 1999), are often in partial equilibrium contexts (Hanneman 1006, in CA), and rely on revenue-recycling to find a positive effect on employment (which implies it happens through reducing pre-existing tax distortions and not through job creation - Meyer and Lutz 2002). The studies cited in 11.8.2 suggest that employment should not be considered as a general co-benefit. (Government of United States of America) 37 Change "can" to "will" to be consistent with the literature and with usage of "will" elsewhere in the SPM (Government of Germany) 39 Can we tighten up renewable energy "30-35% at a range of $20-$100/tonne", it is the 20-100 range that seems quite large. (Government of Canada) 2 The renewable energy figures seem high. The authors should

OK, add footnote

See #A457 Reject, because there is ample material in the report (ch 4) (this point is still under discussion; see also A457) [same point as 457, we keep employment statement in ]

OK,but say has as in energy efficiency bullet OK, rephrase as at carbon prices between 20 and 100 US$/tCO2eq); see See also #A481C481 Reject, this is result of assessment in
Page 139 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team Ch 4

SPM-480 A SPM-481 A

12 12

38 38

12 13

SPM-482 A

12

38

12

SPM-483 A

12

38

12

SPM-205 B

12

38

13

SPM-405 A

12

40

SPM-484 A

12

40

SPM-485 A

12

40

explain whether they account for baseload supply issues and ensure consistency with the underlying report. (Government of Australia) 38 Suggest adding "initial capital" before "costs relative". (Government of United States of America) 1 Replace sentence with "Given costs relative to other supply options, renewable electricity (including hydroelectric generation) can have a 30- 35% share of the total electricity supply in 2030 at carbon prices of <US$ 50/tCO2-eq." as supported by line 43, p. 77 of Ch. 4: "For costs < 50 US$ /tCO2-eq avoided, renewable energy generation increases to 10,673 TWh /yr by 2030 giving a 33.7% share of total generation." (Government of United States of America) 8 Insert the words "including hydropower" after "renewable electricity". (International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)) 38 Indicate what is meant by "renewable electricity": hydro, etc. (Government of Switzerland) 1 It would be of assistance if the authors could detail what they expect the biggest renewable energy component of the 30-35% renewables share will be in 2030. (Government of Australia) 0 Footnote 7 should be as follows: 20 trillion = 20 000 billion = 20 E+12 (Government of Finland) 0 Footnote 7 reads 20 trillion = 20 000 billion = 10EXP12. It should read = 20*10EXP12. (the 20 is missing) (Government of Sweden) 0 Footnote 7 need correction to read 20 trillion=20000 billion = 20x10^12

Reject, is not based on capital costs but on costs per tonne of CO2eq avoided see also #A479 Ch4 suggests (based on ch 4 text): . renewable electricity (including hydropower) can have a 35% share of the electricity supply in 2030 at carbon prices up to US$50/t CO2 eq This is not in line with CH 11 text; DISCUSSAccept OK, See #A476

OK, See #A476

Reject, too much detail for SPM

See #A484

OK

See #A484

Page 140 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments (Government of United States of America) Footnote 7 : correct: 20 . 10**12 (Government of Switzerland) Writre: " recent increases in natural gas prices, " (Government of Switzerland) The statement about building CCS ready plants needs to be qualified by an indication of the range of additional costs associated with CCS ready plants. Further, the statement conveys the impression that there are no outstanding scientific or technical issues associated with CCS and carbon storage (geological or ocean) in particular. This is not the case there are many open questions related to long-term stability, monitoring, measurement & verification. (Government of Nepal)

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-486 A SPM-487 A SPM-488 A

12 13 13

40 3 3

0 13 13

0 3 8

See #A484 OK, add natural DISCUSS ; Take into account in reformulating bullet Proposed replacement of 2 sentences in line 4-8: Use of CCS on new coal-fired power plants will depend on technical, economic and regulatory developments. Whether retrofit of CCS on conventional power plants or CCSready built power plants is more costeffective depends on economic and technical assumptions. Ok, See #A487 DISCUSS ; Take into account in reformulating bullet ; see A488

SPM-489 A SPM-490 A

13 13

3 3

13 13

3 8

SPM-491 A

13

13

Suggest adding "natural" before "gas" for clarification. (Government of United States of America) Rewrite bullet: "Estimates of the role CCS will play over the course of the century to reduce GHG emissions vary. It has been seen as a "transitional technology", with deployment anticipated from 2015 onwards, peaking after 2050 as existing heat and power plant stock is turned over. [p. 50, line 12, Ch. 4] The degree to which CCS is economically attractive and deployable on a broad scale will have an impact on how quickly new coal plants are equipped with CCS which will impact future GHG emissions." (Government of United States of America) It is noted that there is a significante of a "lock-in" into high carbon technology bacause cold plants with CCS-technology probably will be planned for a different technology in order

DISCUSS ; Take into account in reformulating bullet , see A488

Page 141 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments to have a high energy efficiency. (Government of Austria) Add bullet to Section C.8, as follows: "Nuclear energy, already about 7% of total primary energy, could make an increasing contribution to carbon-free electricity and heat in the future. It has the potential for an expanded role as a cost effective mitigation option but the problems of potential reactor accidents, nuclear waste management and disposal, and nuclear weapon proliferation will remain as constraints to be managed." [See line 11, Chap. 4, p. 4 and line 5, Chap. 4, p. 30] Also suggest including 15 - 20% market share estimate for 2030 for <20 US$/tCO2-eq. from p.77 of Ch. 4. (Government of United States of America) A critical issue is whether choices are made to actually build these coal plant or not or whether to go for efficiency or renewables instead and this should be said here. (Government of Germany) "Due to increased energy security concerns and recent increases in natural gas prices, there is growing interest in new, more efficient, coal-based power plants." (Government of Canada) Suggest more accurate to redraft as "Due to increased energy security concerns and the increases in gas prices in 20042006, there is..." (Government of UK) Instead of new coal power plants, can a specific term be used specially in reference to specific technologies (Government of Nepal) Change the sentence starting from A critical as below; Installation of CCS is a effective measure for coal based

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-492 A

13

Ok, but work nuclear into last bullet by adding nuclear power and after interest in line 4 and adding the following sentence after the first sentence: Nuclear power could make an increasing contribution to mitigation, but the problems of potential reactor accidents, nuclear waste management and disposal, and nuclear weapon proliferation will remain as constraints Reject, this bullet is starting from the fact that there is a renewed interest

SPM-493 A

13

13

SPM-494 A

13

13

OK, See #A487

SPM-206 B

13

13

SPM-495 A

13

13

CHECK if wording 2004-2006 is in line with chapter 4 REJECT chapters does not give specific annual costs for gas only trends Reject, details of coal plants not for SPM DISCUSS ; Take into account in reformulating bullet , see A488
Page 142 of 183

SPM-496 A

13

13

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments power plants to decrease GHG emissions for future and it is important that how quickly new coal plants are going to be equipped with CCS. Rationale: The original description is misleading as it gives an impression that CCS is the only solution for coal based power plants to decrease GHG emission. (Government of Japan) line should read, "GHG emissions is if, and how quickly, new coal plants are going to be equipped with CCS." (Greenpeace International) It is unclear what the differences are between CCS ready, retrofitting or new plants integrated with CCS. (European Community) In addition to "economic and technical assumptions", does not the speed with which coal plants would be equipped with CCS also depend on policy signals? (Government of Canada) I would suggest deleting the sentence that makes the rapidity of new coal plants being equipped with CCS mainly dependent on whether building CCS ready plants is more cost-effective than other options. Available information suggests little room for the CCS ready plant concept. How quickly new coal plants will be equipped with CCS depends more on how rapidly the cost of CCS and the price of carbon from mitigation policies will meet - or how rapidly mandatory obligations will be made with respect to CCS in new plants. (International Energy Agency) Define CCS - "Carbon Capture and Storage" - the first time it is used (actually used first in Table SPM 1). This term is not defined until page 17. Although SRCCS is defined in the introduction on page 3, the acronym CCS should be defined

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-497 A

13

13

DISCUSS ; Take into account in reformulating bullet see A488 DISCUSS ; Take into account in reformulating bullet see A488 DISCUSS ; Take into account in reformulating bullet see A488

SPM-498 A

13

13

SPM-499 A

13

13

SPM-500 A

13

13

DISCUSS ; Take into account in reformulating bullet see A488

SPM-501 A

13

13

OK, but only in table 1

Page 143 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments the first time it is used in the text. (Government of Canada) Add the following sentence after "It depends on economic and technical assumptions..." Installation of CCS also needs to take into account various factors such as technical maturity, overall potential, regulatory aspects, environmental issues and public perception [SR CCS 2005 SPM Page3 Para 1] " Rationale: The whole paragraph gives a wrong impression as there still remain lots of issues to be considered other than cost before CCS become widely used. (Government of Japan) Add "geological" to "economic and technical assumptions". Is there an examination of the projected impact of the suite of "clean coal" (clean burning) technologies such as Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) type technologies? (Government of Canada) First mention of CCS should be defined, e.g. "Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)" (Government of UK) The current sentence is unclear and understates the influence of factors other than economics and technology on the deployment of CCS. It would be better to say that deployment will be influenced by these factors. Suggest that the authors replace: "It depends on economic and technical assumptions whether building CCS ready plants is more cost-effective than retrofitting plants or building a new plant integrated with CCS. (4.2, 4.3, 4.4)" with: "Economic and technical assumptions will influence future investment decisions concerning the optimum combination of retrofitting older plants, building CCS

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-502 A

13

13

DISCUSS ; Take into account in reformulating bullet see A488

SPM-503 A

13

13

DISCUSS ; Take into account in reformulating bullet see A488

SPM-207 B

13

13

Reject, already done in table 1

SPM-208 B

13

13

DISCUSS ; Take into account in reformulating bullet see A488

Page 144 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments ready plants or constructing new plants integrated with CCS" (Government of Australia)

Considerations by the writing team

PARAGRAPH C9 SPM-504 A 13

10

13

SPM-505 A

13

10

15

SPM-506 A

13

10

13

SPM-507 A

13

10

13

Move the para into para 8 as one but last bullet, dropping reference to CCS Text could become: The higher the market prices of fossil fuels, the more low-carbon alternatives will become competitive, although price volatility will be a disincentive for investors. Higher priced conventional oil resources on the other hand, may be replaced by high-carbon alternatives such as from oil sands, oil shales, heavy oils and synthetic fuels from coal and gas. 14 Is this primarily about transportation fuels? In that case, it is Reject, this is part of energy supply better considered as a part of the next point (#10), which looks at transportation (Government of Nepal)
Page 145 of 183

11 The term "low carbon alternatives" in this context is misleading as the conclusion does not apply to natural gas and not necessarily to CCS. Should be specified, in particular clarified, that it does not necessarily apply to CCS. (Government of Germany) 2 The headings from these to pages (which appeared in the SOD) should be replaced to highlight the different sectors being referred to. As is, the order of the statements and their relevance to this section is not as clear as when the headings were present. (Government of Japan) 10 Please replace here "fossil fuels" with "conventional oil resources", as the following sentence opposes these "fossil fuels" with oil sands, oi shales, heavy oils and synthetic fuels from coal and gas" (International Energy Agency)

Reject, because low-carbon alternatives can be anything

Reject, it is clear from the paragraphs which sector is being discussed. For paragraph 9 this will be solved by moving the para into para 8 as a bullet, dropping reference to CCS

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team Move the para into para 8 as a bullet, dropping reference to CCS; see text in #A506

SPM-508 A

13

10

13

SPM-20

13

10

13

SPM-509 A

13

11

13

SPM-510 A

13

11

13

SPM-511 A

13

11

13

14 Delete the whole paragraph. Because there should be a balance here. Given so many cost-effective mitigation technologies available at this moment, there is no need to emphasize CCS by two paragraphs, when this is still a uncertain, costly and risky option (Government of China) 15 Regarding this statement, a step is missing. Competitiveness is being solved with the use of lower quality fossil fuels, including coal. This happens today in developing countries. Maybe this intermediate step may dye-out in the future, but not in the near one. Therefore, this statement needs adjustment. (Government of Argentina) 14 This misses an option of not investing in such technologies bet expanding renewable fuel supply options and increasing end use efficiency. The competitiveness point only really applies if carbon prices are low and are not increasing (Government of Germany) 11 line should read, "although price volatility will be a disincentive for investors in fossil fuel technologies in general." (Greenpeace International) 14 Change the sentence starting from "On the other hand" as below; "On the other hand, oil shales, heavy oils, and synthetic fuels from coal and gas will also become more competitive as transportation fuels, In this case, production plants equipped with CCS could decrease GHG emissions." Reason: Equipping production plants with CCS may be efficient in decreasing GHG emissions, but the word "unless" in line 13 may be misleading because it gives an impression or draws the idea that CCS is the only means to decreasing GHG emissions.

Check ch 4

OK, By adding market before prices as suggested in #B211 this is taken care of

Reject, this text want to point to price volatility of fossil fuels being a disincentive to invest in low carbon alternatives Move the para into para 8 as a bullet, dropping reference to CCS; see text in #A506

Page 146 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments (Government of Japan) The authors need to explain their assertion that price volatility for low-carbon energy sources is more of a disincentive to investors than price volatility in fossil fuels. (Government of Australia) Replace "On the other hand" with "Higher carbon energy sources such as oil sands." to provide more meaningful commentary for readers. (Government of Australia) This concept is important but text must be improved for clarity. The CCS production plants caveat needs to be clearer. Suggest separate sentence at end : "However, these emissions can be reduced if power plants are equipped with CCS." (Government of Canada) Need to indicate what is driving the increase in the prices of fossil fuels. If the fossil fuel price is increasing as a result of a carbon tax, then the competitiveness of highly emissions intensive alternative liquid fuels such as oil sands would also decline. (Government of Australia)

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-209 B

13

11

13

11

Reject, price volatility of low-carbon energy sources is not a real issue

SPM-210 B

13

11

13

11

Move the para into para 8 as a bullet, dropping reference to CCS; see text in #A506 Move the para into para 8 as a bullet, dropping reference to CCS as suggested in #A508

SPM-512 A

13

13

13

14

SPM-211 B

13

13

13

13

OK, add market before pricesin line10

PARAGRAPH 10 SPM-513 A 13 SPM-514 A 13

15 15

13 13

35 Why is not navigation included in this section? Reject, no significant messages to (Government of Sweden) report 34 The summary for the transportation sector fails to provide See # A539 the big picture. No figures on road transport current or future CO2 emissions contribution is given despite of its overwhelming share - 74% of total transport CO2 emissions. I strongly suggest that the relative figures of the contribution from the various transport modes and their expected growth rates be included. Currently the SPM only singles out growth figures for global aviation but without providing its
Page 147 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-515 A

13

16

13

SPM-516 A

13

16

13

SPM-517 A

13

16

13

current and future contribution when compared with other transport modes. Without policy intervention, what is the growth rate expected for road, rail and maritime transport? Are the mitigation policies envisaged in the medium term sufficient to halt their emissions growth? A more balanced summary of the mitigation potential of all transportation modes is required for this section of the SPM. Therefore, I suggest the inclusion of text addressing the questions highlighted above or the deletion of lines 29 to 31 from page 13. (ICAO) 33 Urban design initiatives are not mentioned but warrant inclusion. (Government of New Zealand) 17 This sentence does not say much. It's an improvement over previous versions that stated wrongly that transport emissions were the fastest-growing in end-use sectors, as buildings was first when emissions from power production was duly attributed to buildings for their share in consumption. So transport comes next, ie second, but second out of tree. Why not simply say transport sector comes second after buildings (emissions from electricity included) with respect to emissions absolute numbers and growth rates? (International Energy Agency) 33 Freight accounts for over a third of energy use in the transport sector, yet it is not mentioned in this section or included in mitigation potential. Suggest adding a statement on freight emissions: Freight transport by truck and ship accounts for about a third of transportation energy demand [table 5.1] and demand is expected to grow. (IPIECA (Non-Governmental Organisation))

CHECK ch 5 if this could be included in third bullet Reject, it is not the intention to focus on ranking

OK, but since no reliable estimates of mitigation potential of freight transport (heavy duty vehicles) in the chapter, only add a few words to first bullet that freight traffic potential is not available

Page 148 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team CHECK ch 5 if indeed no basis for statement on barriers

SPM-518 A

13

16

13

SPM-212 B

13

16

13

SPM-519 A

13

17

13

SPM-520 A

13

18

13

SPM-521 A

13

18

13

SPM-522 A

13

18

13

17 Change the second sentence in bold to read: "There are multiple mitigation options, but their effect may be limited due to growth in the sector and the influence of consumer considerations." Reason: Chapter 5 does not make a general statement about barriers. (Government of United States of America) 17 The sentences should include the fact that there are many measures with negative costs and that there are many cobenefits (Government of Norway) 17 This sentence is not very good either. There are multiple options for mitigation, not all being faced by the same barriers, but that's about similar to other sectors, at least buildings! It would perhaps be more useful to note that although there are multiple options for mitigation, full decarbonisation of the transport sector looks more difficult and farther in the future than for other sectors. (International Energy Agency) 22 This paragraph is quite vague (not transparent) as to what actually would be the primary vehicle changes that would lead to Improved vehicle efficiency and what would be consumer considerations. If the negative cost options are primarily the use of smaller and/or lower performance vehicles, then this should be explained and this would make the consumer considerations obvious. (IPIECA (Non-Governmental Organisation)) 22 This paragraph deals with measures and might be better placed in the section on policies and measures where what is meant (e.g. vehicle standards?) can be explained more carefully. (IPIECA (Non-Governmental Organisation)) 22 Rewrite the first part of the first sentence: "Many studies

CHECK ch5 if justified

See #A518

Reject, too detailed for SPM

Reject, this is about technological options

See #A523
Page 149 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-523 A

13

18

13

SPM-524 A

13

18

SPM-525 A

13

18

13

SPM-213 B

13

18

13

SPM-526 A

13

20

13

SPM-527 A

13

20

13

show there are substantial vehicle efficiency gains available at minimum or net negative costs due to improved vehicle efficiency measures, but the market potential is much lower than the economic potential due to the influence of other consumer considerations, such as vehicle performance and weight." [See Section lines 20-22, p. 53, Chapter 5] (Government of United States of America) 18 Please clarify whether "to a large extent" refers to the OK, change into Improved vehicle benefits being large, or to there being benefits in most cases. efficiency measures, leading to fuel (Government of New Zealand) savings, in most cases have a net benefit (footnote 8) 0 Add as a first bullet: "Fuel economy regulations have been Reject, policies are treated in section D effective in slowing the growth of GHG emissions, but so far growth of transport activity has overwhelmed their impact." [See lines 7-8, p. 6, Chapter 5]. (Government of United States of America) 18 "benefits" would be a better term to use than "net negative OK, use benefits but then retain a costs" as it is clearer to the policymaker reader (modified) footnote (Government of New Zealand) 33 We propose inclusion of text about results from the report Reject, findings of chapter do not concerning ship transport. warrant statement in SPM (Government of Norway) 22 What does this sentence mean? People already pay fuel OK with #B215 insertion of rising costs, thus "market forces" lead to the current level of before fuel costs this problem is emissions. If you want to talk about price elasticity, please solved do so, but then do not forget to distinguish short term elasticities, which are low, and long term elasticities, which are important, as shows the big difference (and bigger before the CAFE standards were set up) between car efficiency in the US and in countries with higher, decade-long, fuel taxes. (International Energy Agency) 20 This would appear to be an important point so it would be CHECK ch 5 what are the main
Page 150 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments helpful to identify here, very briefly, what the "other consumer considerations" are. (Government of New Zealand) Is the statement that market forces alone are not expected to lead to significant emission reductions useful to policy makers? Would it not be better to indicate what, in terms of policy interventions, that are needed to counter the trend? (Government of Sweden) Explicit "market forces": which ones, which policies and measures ? (Government of Switzerland) An example of "other consumer considerations" would provide readers with further important guidance. (Government of Australia) Insert "rising" before "fuel costs". (Government of Australia) It could be more instructive to note that, in accordance with [5 ES]: "technology research and development is essential to create the potential for future, significant reductionsThis holds, amongst others, for advanced biofuel conversion.." This would be more constructive than referring to a general projection. (Government of Sweden) Bullet should mention projections beyond 2030. (Government of United States of America) Add "used" after "biofuels." (Government of United States of America) US$ \25 /t CO2 is it a global average, is it possible to give separately for developing and industrialized countries? (Government of Nepal) The reference to such high global penetration of biofuels at such limited costs seems too strong, certainly given the fact

Considerations by the writing team contributors

SPM-528 A

13

20

13

22

Reject, this is here to clarify that rising oil prices are not going to do the job; that is useful for policy

SPM-529 A

13

20

13

20

Reject, market forces is not the same as policies and measures See #A527

SPM-214 B

13

20

13

20

SPM-215 B SPM-530 A

13 13

21 23

13 13

21 27

OK CHECK ch 5 if one additional sentence can be formulated on potential beyond 2030 and need for further R&D

SPM-531 A SPM-532 A SPM-533 A

13 13 13

23 23 23

13 13 13

26 24 24

See #A530 OK CHECK ch 5

SPM-534 A

13

24

13

26

CHECK ch 5

Page 151 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-216 B

13

25

13

SPM-535 A

13

26

13

SPM-536 A

13

27

13

that it is qualified at low agreement, limited evidence in chapter 5. (European Community) 26 It would be of assistance if the authors could explain why they have singled out biofuels from cellulosic biomass for special mention. (Government of Australia) 26 Suggest to add a sentence about effects of large scale biofuel use on land use (Government of Netherlands) 29 insert "may" prior to "offer." (Government of United States of America) 28 Change the sentence to "Modal shifts from road transport to rail, public transport systems and non-motorised transport offer additional opportunities for greenhouse gas mitigation. The mitigation potential should be adressed in detail in future reports". [5.3.1.3] (the special conditions in the U.S. should not be underscored by the words "depending on local conditions") (Government of Germany) 28 Suggest deleting "depending on local conditions". In chapter 5 the only "exception" is the US but this is very much debatable; any policy that could lead to a greater rate of occupancy in existing US buses would on the contrary provide greater benefits than anywhere else. (International Energy Agency) 31 Strike bullet and replace with "CO2 emissions from global aviation are currently 2% of total global GHG emissions and are expected to rise at around 3-4% per year. Mitigation potential in the medium term includes recently introduced more efficient aircraft and improved operations that will

OK, explain the fact that cellulosic biofuels are expected to provide large potential in future Reject, is covered in paragraph 13

SPM-537 A

13

27

13

Reject, already the word opportunities and depending on local conditions is mentioned OK,, but without second sentence

SPM-538 A

13

28

13

CHECK ch 5 if this would be justified

SPM-539 A

13

29

13

OK, but add wording about non-CO2 as suggested in # 540 (bracketed text after 2%)

Page 152 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments slow, but not reduce the growth in emissions." (Government of United States of America) Please mention the importance of additional greenhouse effects from aviation besides CO2 (Government of Germany) It is noted that also the aviations sector might use biofuel technology. (Government of Austria) Comment: it is irrelevant whether emissions are from global, continental or national aviation. We therefore suggest to delete "global" or move it in front of "CO2". (Government of Netherlands) Suggested redraft of this statement to acheive the following: (a) Delete the phrase "Without policy intervention" as this is not a construction used elsewhere in the SPM; (b) to include the current contribution of aviation emissions to global GHG emissions (2% total anthropogenic CO2 emissions); (c) clarify the distinction between global aviation and civil aviation (used in the TS) (d) the authors should also consider adding the following from the TS for completeness: "The fuel efficiency of civil aviation can be improved through a variety of means including technology, operation and management of air traffic. Technology developments might offer a 20% improvement in fuel efficiency over 1997 levels by 2015, with a 40-50% improvement likely by 2050". (Government of Australia) It might be relevant to include the timeframe for which the expected rise at 3-4% is relevant (is it till 2030?) (Government of Norway) The words "efficiency improvements" do not reflect the range of actions in this sector; explicit the list of possible measures

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-540 A

13

29

13

29

Ok, see also # A539

SPM-541 A

13

29

13

31

Reject, not enough basis in chapter

SPM-542 A

13

29

13

29

OK

SPM-217 B

13

29

13

29

OK, but simpler version in #A539 preferred (these proposals too detailed for SPM)

SPM-218 B

13

29

13

30

CHECK ch 5

SPM-543 A

13

30

13

30

See #A539

Page 153 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments (Government of Switzerland) The sentence states that only fuel efficiency is an option, i.e., implying that internalizing environmental costs for aviation cannot lead to mitigation in the medium term. Is this really what [5] says? (Government of Sweden) Please provide more detail on what efficiency improvements are referred to. Only fuel efficiency or others such as capacity utilization, routing, etc.? (Government of Canada) In the medium term renewable source jet kerosene is also an option and is already being trialled. This needs to be mentiones as it would reduce the direct CO2 effects of aviation based in jet turbines (Government of Germany) Add for CO2 after Mitigation potential (Government of Belgium) Add new sentence at end of this bullet (adapted from TS page 36): As the total climate effect of aviation (due to CO2, NOx and condensation trails, but excluding enhancement of cirrus clouds) is estimated to be about 2 to 4 times greater than that of aviations CO2 alone, the environmental effectiveness of mitigation policies for aviation may be enhanced by considering additional technological and operational measures focused on reduction of non-CO2 gases [5.2] (Government of Belgium) This sentence is very prescriptive and also likely often wrong. It is true that there are cobenefits from mitigation policies and it may be true that CO2 reductions will follow from policies that reduce trafic congestion, air pollution from transport etc but it is not so that in the future reductions

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-544 A

13

30

13

31

CHECK ch 5 if more can be said

SPM-545 A

13

30

13

30

See #A539

SPM-546 A

13

30

13

30

See #A541

SPM-219 B SPM-220 B

13 13

30 31

0 0

0 0

OK OK, but shorten/simplify

SPM-547 A

13

32

13

33

OK, say often are

Page 154 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-221 B SPM-548 A

13 13

32 34

13 0

"will" come in this area from the persuit of these latter objectives. Reformulate. (Government of Germany) 33 Personal safety might also be included as a co-benefit. (Government of Norway) 0 Add a final bullet to this section: "Assessment of mitigation potential in the transport sector through 2030 is highly uncertain because it depends on future fuel prices and R&D outcomes, and because available studies are limited in number and scope." [lines 45-47, p.5, Chapter 5] (Government of United States of America) 44 The idea of net negative costs appears again. It obscures the fact that there is a large gap between economic and market potential, and the fact that technology availability and financing remain real barriers to the adoption of these EE options. It is recommended that this entire section should be dropped, or modified rather substantially. (Government of Nepal)

Reject, no basis in chapter Reject, no reason to single out transport sector; all potential estimates are depending on assumptions about future energy prices

PARAGRAPH 11 SPM-549 A 13

35

13

SPM-550 A

13

35

13

OK, replace text on net negative costs at the end of footnote (8) by : net negative costs means that mitigation at a carbon price of zero results in benefits. Still under discussion [see definition chapter 2; Kirsten, Olav & Mark will work on this] 37 Change "net negative cost" to "low cost" or "cost-effective". Reject, ch 6 used the term costChapter 6 does not say these opportunities are available at effectively in connection with a zero net negative costs. It says: "Globally, approximately 29% of carbon price; it is clearer to stick to the projected baseline emissions by 2020 can be avoided net negative costs cost-effectively through mitigation measures in the Still under discussion [see definition residential and commercial sectors (high agreement/ much chapter 2; Kirsten , Olav & Mark will evidence)" (see lines 15, 35, and 39, section 6.5, p. 39). work on this] Replace the first summary sentence with "Energy efficiency options for new and existing buildings can achieve substantial reductions in CO2 emissions cost-effectively using mature technologies that already exist widely and that have been successfully used." (see lines 19-23, p. 31, section
Page 155 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-551 A

13

36

13

6.4) (Government of United States of America) 36 There is a reference to footnote 6 (from previous page), but it probably should be reference to footnote 8. (Government of Finland) 36 Reference to footnote 6 should probably be substituted by refence to footnote 8. (Government of Austria) 36 Footnote 6 does not support the statement that reductions have negative costs. Move reference to footnote 6 to 'emissions(6) at negative cost (8)'. Add reference to footnote 8. (European Community) 38 Most everything else up to now has been pegged to 2030, yet this sentence pegs avoided emissions reductions to 2020. Adjust to 2030. (Government of United States of America) 39 Delete "More than half of this potential is in developing countries". Is obvious and does not seem relevant here. (Government of Germany) 40 The statement can reduce mortality actually refers to cook stoves. This should be made clear as well in the definition of the category of buildings which goes beyond the building itself, to the lighting and appliances contained within buildings. (IPIECA (Non-Governmental Organisation)) 41 The causality of this observation, as it is currently written, is obscure. In the main report three main reasons why energy efficiency in buildings may reduce health problems in developing countries are explicitly brought forth: urban outdoor pollution, indoor environment (pollution and

SPM-552 A

13

36

13

OK, confusion to be solved, because reference to footnote 6 is meant; solution: move footnote to appear after options in line 35 OK, see #A551

SPM-553 A

13

36

13

See #A551 (confusion)

SPM-554 A

13

38

13

Accept. The chapter also refers to 2030 and references 31% savings

SPM-555 A

13

39

13

Reject, this is relevant and in line with chapters See #B223

SPM-556 A

13

40

13

SPM-557 A

13

40

13

See #B223

Page 156 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments moisture problems) and (energy) poverty. They ought to be reflected in the SPM. "Health" is more appropriate than "mortality". Cooking in developing countries, accounting for 5% of global GHG emissions (World Energy Asssessment, p. 73) should be explicitly noted. This problem will not go away with a carbon tax. Again, the reader is left with a problem description but no analytical information on what actually needs to be done. (Government of Sweden) Suggest to add the word "human" before "mortality" (Government of Mexico) Replace "can reduce mortality" with "may result in substantial health-related benefits (including reduced mortality)." (Government of United States of America) "how will energy efficient buildings reduce mortality in developing countries. What about mortality rate in industrialised countries? In someway or the other, energy efficient buildings in developing countries will also influence the mortality in developed countries" (Government of Mauritius) For policy readers this finding is a little hard to grasp. The authors should explain that in developing countries energy efficient buildings reduce mortality by reducing indoor air pollution and weather-related mortality. (Government of Australia) We propose to insert " can improve indoor and outdoor air quality" after "of CO2 emissions" . Justification; This will make it easier to understand why energy efficient buildings can reduce mortality in developing countries. It is also more consistent with 6.6.and 6.7. (Government of Norway)

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-558 A SPM-559 A

13 13

40 40

13 13

40 41

See #B223 See #B223

SPM-560 A

13

40

13

41

See #B223

SPM-222 B

13

40

13

41

See #B223

SPM-223 B

13

40

13

41

OK, in combination with dropping developing countries(see #A561)

Page 157 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team Reject, too detailed for SPM

SPM-224 B

13

40

13

SPM-225 B

13

40

SPM-21

13

40

SPM-561 A

13

41

14

SPM-562 A

13

42

13

SPM-226 B

13

42

13

SPM-563 A

13

43

13

42 It should be added that heating of buildings only requires low valuable energy. High valuable energy like electricity can be avoided consumed to heating directly, but used in heat pumps for energy recovering from water, outdoor air, ventilation air and heated wastewater (Government of Norway) 0 Suggest adding "also" "while limiting the growth of CO2 emissions, can also reduce" (Government of UK) 0 The bullet under lines 40 to 41 call for an amendment. In fact, today and for the near future, poverty in developing regions tend to increase, practically at the rate of the population growth. This would be so for so many years from now. Therefore, today s ideal approach to energy efficient buildings in developing countries will be delayed. A solution will be to replace could instead of can, in line 40. (Government of Argentina) 41 Delete "in developing countries". The statement is true for both developed and developing countries, and there is no sense to only address the latter. (Government of China) 44 Cut "realize the economic" and "potential" and just leave the word "mitigation" in order to simplify. (Government of United States of America) 42 The authors need to explain what (at least some of) the "many barriers" to the realisation of the economic potential of the building sector are. (Government of Australia) 44 This bullet singles out one policy out of a subset of identified cost-effective policies. Please rewrite to make it a broader statement by deleting "instruments encouraging private initiative can limit public expenditures."

OK

See B223 and A561

OK, but drop mortality

OK

OK to add such as (text still under discussion)

the problem here is that table SPM2 goes deeper into effective policies for the building sector, so we do not want to repeat that in the text of para 11.
Page 158 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments (Government of United States of America)

Considerations by the writing team Solution could be to drop last part of sentence, elaborate on the barriers and refer to table 2 for the policies. Then the remark about private initiatives can be worked into the right hand column of table 2. ( still under discussion) see #A563

SPM-227 B

13

43

13

44 The finding that instruments that encourage private expenditure in the building sector can limit public expenditure is not clearly articulated in Chapter 6, as such the authors should consider its inclusion in the SPM. (Government of Australia) 46 We suggest "industry sector" should read "industrial sector". (Government of New Zealand) 10 Section C.12: There are a number of key points from Chapter 7 that are not reflected here. Two that should be added are: (1) "The slow rate of capital stock turnover, lack of financial and technical resources, and limitations in the ability of firms to access and absorb information are key barriers to full use of available mitigation options (high agreement/ much evidence)" (line 25, p. 6, ES of Chapter 7). (2) "While existing technologies can significantly reduce industrial GHG emissions, new and lower cost technologies will be needed to meet long-term mitigation objectives" (line 5, p. 7, ES of Chapter 7). (Government of United States of America) 6 Although both industrialized and developing contries are mentioned, the text has an emphasis on developing countries. The text needs to balance that with emphasis on developed country actions being needed too so all large emitters are included.

PARAGRAPH C12 SPM-564 A 13 46 SPM-565 A 13 46

13 14

OK OK to add first bullet; Reject second bullet, because this is a statement that is made elsewhere in general, since it applies to all sectors

SPM-566 A

13

46

14

OK, text will be balanced by modifying text of first bullet and replacing second bullet

Page 159 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments (Government of New Zealand) The authors should provide a footnote in the SPM on the scope of inclusion in the industry sector. (Government of Australia) The majority of large industrial enterprises established in developing countries depend from foreign companies / stakeholders. Experience shows that, in addition to preserve their countries from the pollution effects, these groups select developing countries which environmental regulations are more than soft and, in a great number of cases, are also abused, to obtain larger benefits through such lack of constrains and because of low salaries. Therefore, te responsibility shall be not attributed to developing countries but to non-scrupulous stakeholders. A minor adjustment may put things in order. (Government of Argentina) Should be " 50% are " and not " 50% is " since it is industries (plural). (Government of New Zealand) Delete ", of which more than 50% is located in developing countries". Is obvious and does not seem relevant here. Or to be balance one should note how much of the energy intensive goods are consumed by developed/developing countries (Government of Germany) The authors need to clarify whether 50% of the mitigation potential of the industry sector is located in developing countries, or 50% of energy intensive industries are located in developing countries as presently this is not clear. (Government of Australia)

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-228 B

13

46

13

46

Reject, why single out industrial sector? Check ch 12

SPM-22

13

46

SPM-567 A

13

47

13

47

OK

SPM-568 A

13

47

13

47

Reject, is policy relevant, because policy approach to mitigation in developing countries is different

SPM-229 B

13

47

13

47

OK, reformulate to : industries. These industries are for more than 50% located . Additional suggestion from ch 7 not followed to add that >50% of mitigation potential is also in developing countries. Reason: nobody
Page 160 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team asked for that

FOOTNOTE 8 SPM-569 A 13

48

13

SPM-230 B

13

50

13

48 Footnote 8: it would be helpful to add text about the implementation barriers and demand considerations that are not captured in the cost estimates and are some of the reason for not adopting negative cost options. (Government of United States of America) 50 Footnote 8: The term "net negative costs" was first used on page 8 at line 14. This footnote should be moved to reflect this. (Government of Australia) 2 This statement suggests that competition has particular effect on mitigation decisions for this sector. However, this is not a key finding that seems to come out of the executive summary of Chapter 7, and indeed, in the executive summary of Chapter 11 it is stated that (regarding energyintensive sectors) "as far as existing mitigtion options actions are concerned, the empirical evidence seems to indicate that competitive losses are not significant". Therefore, we suggest this sentence is replaced with keys message of Chapter 7, that "Full use of available mitigation options is not being made in either industrialized or developing nations (high agreement/much evidence), and a policy environment that encourages the implementation of existing and new mitigation technologies could lead to lower GHG emissions (medium evidence/medium agreement) [ES, Chapter 7]." (Government of UK) It is suggested to realize modifications in the paragraph redaction in the following manner: Many industrial facilities in developed countries and

Reject, because in para 4 wext will be added in bullet about policy challenges and footnote will appear there first and in para 110 adequate attention is given to barriers OK, move footnote tp pge 8, line 16 and refer here again to this note

Para 12 continued SPM-231 B 14

14

Ok, replace second sentence in headline by first part of suggested text (to developing countries)

SPM-570 A

14

14

Reject, suggestion not in line with chapter text

Page 161 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-571 A

14

14

SPM-232 B

14

14

SPM-572 A

14

14

SPM-573 A

14

14

SPM-233 B

14

14

some developing countries are new and include the latest technology with the lowest specific energy use. However inefficient facilities prevail in the majority of developing countries and some areas in industrialized countries (Government of Cuba) 4 Replace "lowest specific energy use" with "lowest specific emission rates" (see line 33, p. 9, section 7.1) or with "latest technology" (see line 6, p. 61, section 7.11). (Government of United States of America) 6 This dot point does not provide a complete picture of industrial facilities in developed and developing countries. Suggest that the construction in the TS (page 50 line 31) is used "Many facilities (for aluminium, cement and fertiliser industries) in developing nations are new and include the latest technology with lowest specific energy use. However, as in industrialized countries, many older, inefficient facilities remain". (Government of Australia) 10 What is the purpose of this point? What is the message? There is no analytical information in this observation. (Government of Sweden) 7 Add as an additional bullet point "Common pay back times for investments into energy efficiency measures are short in most industries resulting in significant and well understood low-cost emission reduction potentials." (Government of Germany) 10 This dot point is an example of the eclectic choices the authors have made when including sectoral findings in the SPM. While the differences between the capacities of large companies and SMEs is important, for the bulk of policy readers it is more important to have information on the key categorisation of mitigation options in the industry sector.

OK, change to lowest specific emissions as in chapter

Reject, existing text is better (less detail)

See #B233

Reject, chapter does not discuss payback times

OK, delete (see also A572 Sweden). Reject the proposed replacement, because this duplicates the material in table SPM 1

Page 162 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-574 A

14

10

14

Suggest that this dot point is replaced with a point based on Chapter 7 (page 5 lines 40-51): "Options for mitigating GHG emissions from the industrial sector can be divided into three categories: Sector-wide options, (e.g., more efficient electric motors and motor-driven systems; high efficiency boilers and process heaters; fuel switching; and recycling); Process-specific options, (e.g., the use of the bioenergy contained in food and pulp and paper industry wastes and control strategies to minimize PFC emissions from aluminium manufacture); and Operating procedures, (e.g., control of steam and compressed air leaks, reduction of air leaks into furnaces, optimum use of insulation, and optimization of equipment size to ensure high capacity utilization)". (Government of Australia) 10 It is not only the case in developing countries, therefore See #B233 (bullet deleted) write: ".. in many countries." (Government of Switzerland) 12 Write: " a significant contribution to reducing GHG emissions and to increasing soil " (Government of Switzerland) 23 Section C.13: It would be helpful if the paragraph included a bullet about how we will get to tradable quantification of these types of mitigation activities given the various implementation issues (e.g., MMV, uncertainty). (Government of United States of America) 13 Section C.13: Is there really "much evidence" for the header statement? The chapter relies heavily on a few studies. (Government of United States of America) 0 Section C.13: An important point raised in the ES of Chapter 8 should be added as a bullet: " A practice effective at Reject, emission reduction potential is small Reject, chapter has no basis for such a statement

PARAGRAPH C13 SPM-577 A 14 12

14

SPM-579 A

14

12

14

SPM-580 A

14

12

14

See A585

SPM-582 A

14

12

OK. add the latter part of the sentence as a new bullet point: there is no
Page 163 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team universally-applicable list of mitigation practices; practices need to be evaluated for individual agricultural systems and settings.

SPM-583 A

14

12

SPM-584

14

12

14

SPM-585 A

14

12

14

reducing emissions at one site, may be less effective, or counter productive elsewhere. Consequently, there is no universally-applicable list of mitigation practices; practices need to be evaluated for individual agricultural systems." (lines 12-13, p. 4, ES of Chapter 8) (Government of United States of America) 0 Section 13: This section needs to distinguish the difficulties, and the lack of an economic mitigation potential, for ruminant methane emissions from pastoral agriculture. There is otherwise the misleading impression that agricultural mitigation is relatively straightforward across agriculture as a whole. (Government of New Zealand) 24 I agree that soil carbon can plays an important role in GHG reduction. However, the carbon content in soil may be largely affected by temperature and moisture, at this stage there is not a concurred view whether the soil carbon will be increased or decreased by climate change. So, high agreement would be leveled down and this is already mentioned in line17 with contradiction to the premise of line 12. (Government of Korea) 14 delete in line 14 "high agreement, much evidence" include instead " "medium agreement/limited evidence" according to executive summary of chapter 8 line 44, page 3 and according to high error bars in SPM6, and include information from lines 17/18 in bold text to have a balanced sujmary, Therefore suggest, reordering reference to soils and bioenergy and adding a sentence, so it would read: "agricultural practicises can make a significant contribution to bioenergy and to increasing soil sinks, however, the longterm mitigation potential of increasing soil sinks is uncertain

Reject; we cannot list all problem areas in mitigation; and anyway we do not focus on non-CO2 emission reduction

See #A585

OK, should indeed be medium/medium; Reject adding second bullet in heading, because of other comments to add thing to haeding; bullet 1 and 2 will be combined.

Page 164 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments due to the uncertain impact of climate change on soil carbon stocks." (Government of Germany) Comment: we miss information about peatland degradation in one of these two bullets (Government of Netherlands) Change to "Agricultural practices can make a significant contribution to reducing GHG emissions through enhanced soil sinks and bioenergy, and are cost competitive with nonagricultural mitigation options for achieving long-term climate objectives." (line 32-33, p. 3, ES of Chapter 8) (Government of United States of America) Change "can" to " is likely to"; Change "high agreement, much evidence" to be "medium agreement, medium evidence". (Government of China) "Agricultural practices can make a significant contribution to emissions mitigation and removal by both increasing soil sinks at low costs and by contributing feedstocks to bioenergy. (Government of Canada) We propose to change the sentence to " significant contribution to increasing soil carbon storage" (Government of Norway) This paragraph might appear somewhat confusing, since the concepts of "soil sinks" and "soil carbon management" probably are not very well known and might be confused with biological sinks. Emissions of CH4 and N20 from agriculture might also be relevant to mention in this context. (Government of Norway) First bullet: "About 90% of the mitigation potential", of which mitigation potential exactly (technical, economic,

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-586 A

14

12

14

35

Reject, chapter has no basis for statement Ok to add wording on redcuing emissions to headline (also in light of other comments) Reject; costs of options already covered in fig SPM 6 See A585 on uncertainty Reject likely , because we do not make statements on the probability of implementation OK, take into account in reformulation as suggested by #A587

SPM-587 A

14

12

14

13

SPM-588 A

14

12

14

13

SPM-589 A

14

12

14

13

SPM-234 B

14

12

14

13

Reject, leads to confusion with CCS

SPM-235 B

14

12

14

23

In bullet 1 carbon sequestration will be used; that will minimise confusion ON non-CO2, Ok to add bullet (and short reference in headline) see #A-581

SPM-576 A

14

14

14

16

OK, just add economic before potential.

Page 165 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments <20, <50, <100 US $/t CO2 eq)? What are the certainties and can they be monitored? What is the role of non-CO2 GHGs in this sector? (European Community) What are the implications of soil carbon management for farm incomes and livelihoods of farmers? (Government of Nepal) The about 90% statement is unclear without definition of soil carbon management. Presumably it excludes energy crops (which not only can replace fossil fuels but also can build up soil carbon). A better sentence would read: "The agricultural sector has the potential to increase soil carbon sinks at a low cost by using appropriate agricultural practices but it can also produce biomass for energy. Soil carbon management and energy crop production can have strong synergies with..." It should also be noted that the soil carbon potential can easily be reversed. (Government of Sweden) Replace "management" with "sequestration (enhanced sinks)." (see line 47, p. 3, ES of Chapter 8) (Government of United States of America) Regarding the statement that 90% of the global mitigation potential comes from soil carbon management, this figure comes from Smith et al. (2007a) prominently featured in Chapter 8, and this number is in turn dominated by grazing land management (Fig. 8.4). It is unclear from Chapter 8 what Smith et al. (2007a) assume to be carried out under grazing land management (e.g., change in grazing intensity, conversion to grasslands, etc.); some grazing land management practices have co-effects on emissions of CH4 and N2O. Therefore, the phrase "soil carbon management" should be clarified to include, for example: "soil carbon

Considerations by the writing team And at prices upto 100 US$/tCO2-eq

SPM-578 A

14

14

14

16

Reject, chapter has no basis for such a statement Reject, makes it more confusing; reversal point will be covered in combined bullet 1/2

SPM-590 A

14

14

14

16

SPM-591 A

14

14

14

14

OK

SPM-592 A

14

14

14

16

OK, remove 90% wording Reject point about dominance of grazing land management Uncertainty statement changed

Page 166 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments management through changes in tillage and grassland conversion" --- if these indeed are the practices embedded in this large number. Would further recommend that "high agreement" be changed to "medium agreement", at least, because the 90% figure is coming from only Smith et al. (2007a), and is based largely on the potential for grazing lands, which are generally under less intensive management than croplands. (Government of United States of America) Comment: to avoid misunderstanding we suggest to insert "agricultural" before "mitigation potential". (Government of Netherlands) Change "mitigation potential" to "technical mitigation potential for agriculture". (Government of United States of America) Insert "in the agriculture sector" after "mitigation potential". (Government of Australia) We propose to change the sentence to "About 90% of the mitigation potential in the agricultural sector" (Government of Norway) It could be mentioned whether there is a trade-off between low-input farming like organic farming and carbon sequestration and biomass production (Government of Norway) Suggest that this would be clearer if redrafted "Excluding bioenergy, about 90% of the mitigation potential arises from soil carbon management, which has strong" (Government of UK) It is suggested to insert "management after agriculture" (Government of Austria) Insert "impacts" after "climate change". (Government of Australia)

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-593 A

14

14

14

14

Reject, this is paragraph on agriculture Reject, but add economic

SPM-594 A

14

14

14

14

SPM-236 B SPM-237 B

14 14

14 14

14 14

14 14

See #A593 See #A593

SPM-238 B

14

14

14

17

Reject. No basis for this in the chapter.

SPM-239 B

14

14

14

16

OK

SPM-595 A SPM-240 B

14 14

15 15

14 14

15 15

Reject, is not an improvement Reject, it is vulnerability to climate change

Page 167 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team Reject, this is upto decision makers

SPM-596 A

14

17

14

SPM-597 A

14

17

14

SPM-598 A

14

17

14

19 What are the policy implications of the uncertainty and complexity mentioned in bullet #2? (Government of Nepal) 19 This sentence does not seem to fully convey the risks arising from the more likely positive feedbacks from the land carbon cycle identified in WGI Chapter 7 eg section 7.3 and the in the WGI SPM and TS. The issue is covered quite carefully considered in Chapter 8, but the issue here is what happens after 2030 as soil sequestration taken up to this time, may indeed not be vulnerable if appropriate technological measures are pursued (as argued in the chapter), but warming after this time could lead to high levels of risk. This risk can be seen in relation to the effects of recent heatwaves in Europe, which are projected to become more frequent and which are not included in present assessment of mitigation potential. The key vulnerabilities identified in Table 8.9 and the assessment of WGI imply that the uncertain mentioned in this section is asymetrically biased towards a potential for soil carbon stocks taken up in the next few decades to be released in part subsequently. (Government of Germany) 19 the potential of carbon sequestration in sustainable no-till systems which includes other components (also known as conservation agriculture) is much higher than stated and is actually not reflected in chapter 8.4; the ambiguity of this statement here results from a lack of understanding of the processes; the cited literature does also not reflect sources which are knowledgeable about the potential of these sustainable no-till systems (as conservation agricutlure; check Don Reicosky/USA, Raul Ponce-Hernandez/Canada) and is mixing the effects with other reduced tillage options. Chapter 8.4 does not reflect the demonstrated chances for carbon sequestration under such systems, combined with the

OK, combine bullet 2 with 1 and reformulate as follows: Excluding bioenergy, a large proportion of the economic mitigation potential (up to 100 US$/t CO2-eq.) arises from soil carbon sequestration, which has strong synergies with sustainable agriculture and generally reduces vulnerability to climate change. However, since soil sinks are reversible, their long-term potential is less certain due to the uncertain impact of climate change on soil carbon stocks.[8.4, 8.5, 8.8, 8.10]

Reject. Zero tillage is one of the options considered under the broad activity of "cropland management" so zero tillage is not mentioned explicitly in the SPM

Page 168 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments reduction of emissions from fuel, input production and manufacturing and other GHG. (FAO) Could some brief examples be given of " different complex processes with opposing effects"? (Government of Canada) Climate change has the potential to affect not only agricultural soil carbon stocks, but also agricultural CH4 and N2O emissions. This potential effect on non-CO2 GHGs may also alter total agricultural mitigation potential and should therefore be noted. This is also consistent with section 8.5. This bullet should also state whether adaptation responses (e.g. water management, plant selection) could ameliorate negative feedbacks of climate change on soil carbon. (Government of United States of America) Chapter 8 (e.g., Table 8.3 on p. 14) does not support this statement. Instead, Chapter 8 explains that major uncertainties are the future level of adoption of mitigation measures, the effectiveness of adopted measures, and the persistence of mitigation (see page 4 of the ES). Please delete or change to "due to future level and effectiveness of adopted measures and persistence of mitigation." (Government of United States of America) It is unclear what the phrase "The net impact of climate change" means. The authors should consider its replacement with "The effect of climate change (e.g. global temperature rise)". (Government of Australia) It would be of assistance if the authors could describe some of the complex processes alluded to (i.e. are the authors referring to non-climatic drivers like population growth; or

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-599 A

14

17

14

19

OK, modify sentence; see A598

SPM-600 A

14

17

14

20

Reject, Climate change potentially has a far greater impact on soil C (by reversing soil C sinks) than on other GHGs where emission reduction is permanent. Non-CO2 gas reduction is now in new bullet

SPM-601 A

14

17

14

19

See rewording in A597

SPM-241 B

14

17

14

17

See rewording in A597

SPM-242 B

14

18

14

19

See rewording in A597

Page 169 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments some biogeochmical processes?) (Government of Australia) The sustainability issue related to bioenergy should be addressed here such as for instance referred to in chapter 8.4.1.7 on Bioenergy. (European Community) There is substantial literature regarding the possible crosssectoral impacts of bioenergy and biofuel production, and competition for land & water with food & fiber. (Government of Nepal) It is unclear what is meant by how much bioenergy could be used in transport and energy supply; is this referring to the cost or infrastructure or demand suggest that if this phrase is included that it specify the meaning? As highlighted in section 8.4.5, water use is an additional constraint. Suggest adding , settlements, and ecosystems, and the availability of water. to the end of the last sentence (as is discussed in section 8.4). (IPIECA (Non-Governmental Organisation)) It is proposed to insert "use" after biomase for energy. (Government of Austria) Bioenergy crops are oversold in their mitigation effect, since they offset the potential for carbon sequestration in the soil by removing carbon from stocks which would otherwise be considered residue and left on the field. Further is the conversion factor in most of the biofuels not very efficient consindering the amount of fosil fuel invested and the amount of biofuel produced. Again here no-tillage systems would be a precondition to improve this efficiency, while under conventional tillage based cropping systems too much energy is wasted for the production of bioenergy. (FAO)

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-575 A

14

20

14

23

Take into account see A609

SPM-602 A

14

20

14

23

Take into account see A609

SPM-603 A

14

20

14

24

Take into account see A609

SPM-604 A SPM-605 A

14 14

20 20

14 14

20 24

Take into account see A609 Take into account see A609

Page 170 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team Reject, policy prescriptive

SPM-606 A

14

20

14

SPM-607 A

14

20

14

SPM-243 B

14

20

14

SPM-244 B

14

20

14

23 Agriculture To modify the paragraph in the following manner: There is a substantial potential to produce biomass for energy from crop residues and dedicated crops, but the size of its contribution to mitigation depends on how much bioenergy could be used in transport and energy supply, and on requirements of land for food production, that is the main task of agriculture in order to comply with population necessities (Government of Cuba) 23 A few words on the sustainability of biomass production should be inserted here (Government of Switzerland) 23 Suggest that for clarity and comprehensiveness this dot point is replaced with the following: "There is a substantial potential to produce biomass for energy from crop residues and dedicated crops. The size of its contribution to mitigation depends on how much bio energy could be used in transport and energy supply, on requirements of land for food production and upon the net emissions effect of agricultural production factors". The authors should ensure that there is consistency in the representation of the size of the potential to produce biomass for energy from crop residues and dedicated crops. The TS notes that there are no accurate estimates of future agricultural biomass supply (TS:p59 10-26) and as such the authors also need to explain the use of the word substantial in the SPm, in this context. (Government of Australia) 23 Considerations as regards biological diversity might also be relevant in this context. (Government of Norway)

Take into account see A609

Take into account see A609

Reject, discussed in the chapter but too detailed for discussion here, especially considering the different findings for different energy crops /
Page 171 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team systems Check ch 8/9

SPM-23

14

20

SPM-608 A

14

21

14

The last bullet has to be linked to what is mentioned in para 14, in two critical issues. The boom of grains s production has increased deforestation to unprecendented levels. The furtherance of agricultural land s expansion not only will mean the necessary consideration regarding food or fuel pollution, or both, but a word of warning about deforestation. The Clean Development Mechanism must not be the justification for destroying biological diversity either. Therefore, a more correct text, correctly embracing these sustainability paradigms would be necessary for paragraphs 13 and 14. (Government of Argentina) 23 Replace the sentence with the following three sentences: Take into account see A609 There is a substantial potential to produce biomass for energy from crop residues and dedicated crops. However, the contribution of biomass to mitigation depends on what energy source it replaces and on how it is used (unprocessed for heat and/or electricity production or converted into liquid biofuels for transportation). The potential production of biomass from dedicated crops will largely depend on the requirements of land for food production. (Government of Sweden)

Page 172 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team Ok, reformulate, taking into account .. as follows: Biomass from agricultural lands, as crop residues or dedicated crops, can be an important feedstock for bioenergy, but its contribution to mitigation depends on demand for bioenergy from transport and energy supply, on water availability and on requirements of land for food production. Widespread use of agricultural land for bioenergy may compete with other land uses and have other environmental impacts. [8.4, 8.8] OK

SPM-609 A

14

21

14

21 Please add the following text after "depends on:" "the relative prices of fuels and the balance of supply and demand." (line 19-20, p. 4, ES of Chapter 8) Please change the text to reflect this. Delete "how much bioenergy could be used in transport and energy supply." Add: "Consideration should be given to competing land uses (such as food production) and to environmental impacts when planning to use energy crops." (see lines 48 - 50, p. 20, section 8.4) (Government of United States of America)

SPM-610 A

14

21

14

SPM-611 A

14

22

14

SPM-612 A SPM-613 A

14 14

23 23

14 14

SPM-581 A

14

24

22 Bioenergy should be one word, as it was in line 13 on page 14. (Government of Canada) 22 Water should be added here to land as one other critical factor. (International Energy Agency) 23 Text on peatland degradation is missing (Government of Netherlands) 23 May also want to note the key factor of technology change and commercialization in this sector - particularly cellulosic ethanol. (Government of United States of America) 0 Section C.13: Include a bullet on agricultural CH4 and N2O, which are the majority of current and projected baseline emissions from this sector. There is also significant potential to reduce these emissions, and these emissions are

Take into account see A609

Reject, chapter has no basis for statement Reject, This issue is already mentioned in paragraph 10 on biofuels and here already many things are mentioned OK, bullet will be added, as follows: Significant potential is also available from reductions in methane and nitrous oxide
Page 173 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments permanent reductions compared to the reversible benefits of soil carbon sequestration. Even if the non-CO2 mitigation potential appears to be much smaller compared to soil carbon strategies (the 90% figure at the global scale may be overstated for soil carbon), they may have advantages such as permanent reductions and in some cases (e.g., manure management CH4 capture) measurability. (Government of United States of America)

Considerations by the writing team emissions, and such emission reductions are permanent. [8.4, 8.5]

PARAGRAPH C14 SPM-615 A 14 25 SPM-616 A 14 25

14 14

SPM-617 A

14

25

14

SPM-618 A

14

25

14

SPM-619 A

14

25

14

35 What are the synergies with adaptation? (Government of Nepal) 27 The last part of this bullet heading does not reflect the scale of risks to water and biodiversity from a carbon approach. It would be best to divide the bullet point into one dealing with deforestation reductions and the other dealing with carbon sequestration activities in the forest sector. Deforestation itself is not mostly a "forest sector" activity anyway. The risks to biodiversity and water from large scale afforestation and reforestation need to be covered in a separate sentence in 14. (Government of Germany) 35 Section C.14: It would be helpful if the paragraph included a bullet about how we will get to tradable quantification of these types of mitigation activities given the various implementation issues (e.g., MMV, uncertainty). (Government of United States of America) 27 Reword sentence to read "Forest sector activities can significantly reduce emissions and increase removals by sinks at low costs, while creating synergies with adaptation and sustainable development." (Government of United States of America) 35 Explicit mentioning of "deforestation" should be made in

Reject, detail in chapter DISCUSS if chapter has basis to say something about potential risks of carbon sequestration

Reject, chapter has no basis for such a statement

OK

UNCLEAR
Page 174 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments addition to the exclusive reference to "forestry mitigation opetions" . (Government of Germany) Does increasing removals refer to carbon dioxide or does it include other GHG? (Government of Sweden) "what IPCC can do to insist on reforestation in the tropics.-international law, what about the developing countries which have to cut down trees to set up their industrial plants (Government of Mauritius) To make it more clear in what way forestry can contribute to reducing emissions we suggest to add "from fossil fuels" after "to both reducing emissions" (Government of Norway) The changes suggested are in bold letter: ...Properly designed and implemented forestry mitigation options that also take care of biodiversity will have substantial cobenefits in terms of employment, income generation, renewable energy supply and poverty alleviation. This would provide opportunities for expanding forestry projects under future modalities for the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). [9.6, 9.7] (Government of Argentina) Please, add environmental protection in the last part of the phrase "synergies with adaptation and sustainable development" and some references to biodiversity, desertification, watershed protection should be mentioned in this 14 bullet point. (Government of Spain) Comment: to avoid misunderstanding we suggest to insert "in forestry" before "is located in the tropics".

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-620 A

14

25

14

26

OK, add CO2before removals

SPM-621 A

14

25

14

30

NCLEAR

SPM-245 B

14

25

14

25

Reject, that is not what is meant; it covers deforestation as well as bio energy Check ch 9

SPM-24

14

25

35

SPM-25

14

25

14

35

Check ch 9

SPM-614 A

14

28

14

28

Reject, this is forestry paragraph

Page 175 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments (Government of Netherlands) This bullet conveys far greater certainty than is merited by the literature (and discussion in Chapter 9). Insert the sentence: "Uncertainty exists regarding the mitigation potential of forests." The numbers presented are mischaracterized. Replace second sentence in the bullet with "About 65% of the medium estimate of total economic mitigation potential for the forest sector is located in the tropics, mainly in above ground biomass, and about 50% percent of the total may be achievable at a cost under 20 US$/tCO2." (Government of United States of America) First bullet: "Over 65% of the mitigation potential .. ", of which mitigation potential exactly (technical, economic, <20, <50, <100 US $/t CO2 eq)? (European Community) For clarity insert "from the forest sector" after "total mitigation potential". (Government of Australia) We propose to change the sentence to "Over 65% of the total mitigation potential in the forestry sector" (Government of Norway) This statement implying that the sign of the projected effects of climate change on forests and their storage of carbon is uncertains appears radically inconsistent with section 9.5.1 "Climate impacts on carbon sink and adaptation", with the WGI Chapter 7 assessment of changes to carbon stocks in forest ecosystems and with the effects in systems found in Chapter 4 and 5 of WGII. Taken together these indicate a likely release of carbon from forest lands due to the combined of climate change (including extreme events and increased variability) and other factors. It needs to be

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-622 A

14

28

14

29

Reject, the statement does not contain absolute numbers, but percentages and is therefore not sensitive to the uncertainty of the potential as presented in figure 6. Ok, to add aboutbefore the 65 and 50 numbers

SPM-623 A

14

28

14

28

SPM-246 B

14

28

14

28

OK, add footnote that it is economic potential CHECK if these numbers are for potential < $100/t Reject, this is the forestry paragraph

SPM-247 B

14

28

14

28

See #A623

SPM-624 A

14

30

14

30

DISCUSS ch 9 (include WG I findings)

Page 176 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments rephrased to indicate that the likelihood is for carbon mitigation options to be less as consequence of projected climate change (Government of Germany) Take into consideration the agreed wording by WG II on the global sink in this century (Government of Switzerland) For clarity insert "impacts" after "climate change". (Government of Australia) This sentence is obscure - the text should clarify how climate change is going to influence mitigation in the forest sector. (Government of UK) This is from 9.1, but it is misquoted. Replace with "Since ancillary benefits tend to be local, rather than global, identifying and accounting for them can reduce or partially compensate the costs of the mitigation measures. Natural forests are a significant source of livelihoods to hundreds and millions of forest dependent communities." (see lines 12-14, p.50, and line 5-6, p. 52, section 9.7) (Government of United States of America) Suggest replacing this section with the following: "Properly designed and implemented forestry mitigation options that include afforestation, reforestation, appropriate forest management and reduced deforestation will contribute significantly to sequestering atmospheric CO2. Additional benefits include the improvement of employment opportunities in remote regions based on the management of natural resources, poverty alleviation, and renewable energy supply. This provides opportunities for expanding forestry projects under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)." (Government of Canada)

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-625 A

14

30

14

31

See #A624 (presumably WG I is meant here) Reject, it is climate change OK, to be clarified; see also #A624

SPM-248 B SPM-249 B

14 14

30 30

14 14

30 30

SPM-626 A

14

32

14

35

Reject, too detailed for SPM

SPM-627 A

14

32

14

35

Reject, this bullet is only on the cobenefits

Page 177 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team OK

SPM-250 B

14

32

14

SPM-628 A

14

34

14

SPM-629 A

14

34

14

SPM-630 A

14

34

14

SPM-631 A

14

34

SPM-632 A

14

34

14

SPM-633 A

14

34

14

32 We propose to change the sentence to " forestry mitigation options can have substantial" This is more in line with lines 26-29 on page 23 (Government of Norway) 34 Why is policymeasure and CDM mentioned here the first time? How about other CDM-projects? (Government of Sweden) 35 The sentence on the CDM appears policy prescriptive and should be removed. (Government of Germany) 35 The last sentence in this paragraph is misleading and inappropriate. Suggest deletion (Greenpeace International) 0 The first mention of CDM should not be in relation to forestry. CDM is much broader, and it is not the only option to encourage forestry. This mention is therefore misleading. Line 34 would be more neutral and representative as to mitigation options if it took the wording of the table on page 21 on "Forestry", and stated "This provides opportunities for expanding financial incentives to maintain and manage forests". (European Community) 35 The co-benefits do not in themselves provide "opportunities" for expanding forestry projects under the CDM. It should also be noted that The coverage of forestry and forest related projects is a contentious issue under the CDM (Ch. 13, p. 50, row 16). Furthermore, "Despite... many possible positive side effects the pace with which forest carbon projects are being implemented is slow." (Ch. 9.6.6.5). Sentence should be revised. (Government of Sweden) 35 Suggest moving CDM sentence to Table SPM-2; seems out

OK, Delete sentence

See #A628

See #A628

See #A628

See #A628

See #A628
Page 178 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments of place here. (IPIECA (Non-Governmental Organisation)) Suggest deleting last sentence as the point could be made more generally for any carbon market and could be said for any of the mitigation options in other sectors, not just forestry. (Government of United States of America) Delete the sentence starting with "This provides .." it is to narrowly foccused on CDM where currently only AR projects are allowed. Sustainable forestry is not limited to CDM!!! And negotiations are also not limited to AR CDM. (Government of Germany) Delete the final sentence of this dot point as it is policy prescriptive. (Government of Australia) Delete sentence beginning 'This provides' Reference to CDM is policy prescriptive siince possibilites are wider than the CDM (Government of UK) It is noted that avoided deforrestation projects usually have high costs per tonne carbon. (Government of Austria) Add to last sentence "or other financial mechanisms." (Government of Netherlands)

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-634 A

14

34

14

35

See #A628

SPM-635 A

14

34

14

35

See #A628

SPM-251 B

14

34

14

35

See #A628

SPM-252 B

14

34

14

35

See #A628

SPM-636 A

14

35

14

35

See #A628

SPM-637 A

14

35

14

35

See #A628

PARAGRAPH 15 SPM-638 A 14

37

14

43 The paragraph about Waste Management and their potentialities is poor, and very much reduced in large comparing it with other sectors, undervalued their importance It is proposed the following redaction: 15. Post-consumer waste sector is a small contributor to global GHG emissions (<5%), but can positively contribute

Reject, waste sector statements have to be limited in light of potential (still under discussion)

Page 179 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-639 A

14

37

14

to mitigation at low cost and promote sustainable development. For example, landfill methane recovery now accounts >15% of CDM projects. Improved public health and safety, pollution prevention, local energy supply (from landfill gas and incineration), and mitigation of GHG emissions are all important co-benefits of sustainable waste and wastewater management. Financial support is necessary in many developing countries, in order to solve mitigation problems. Major technologies for mitigating GHG emissions from waste are mature and readily deployable, as landfill gas recovery, thermal and biological processes for waste and wastewater treatment. Recycling and waste minimization provide indirect GHG mitigation benefits via conservation of raw materials, and energy from waste offsets fossil fuel consumption. (Government of Cuba) 43 Source reduction of waste and extended producer responsibility should be included as means of reducing waste generation. Line 40-41, should say "from landfill gas capture and utilization, anaerobic digestion of waste and waste incineration". (Government of Canada)

SPM-253 B

14

37

14

43 We think that the relevant gases and sources (CH4 from decomposition and CO2 from incineration?) should be mentioned explisitely. (Government of Norway)

Reject extended producer responsibility too specific Ok to add short bulle on waste minimisation: t: Waste minimization and recycling provide indirect mitigation benefits from avoided waste generation and the conservation of raw materials and energy . OK to add anaerobic digestion to lines 40-41 as suggested but put after incineration OK OK, add to footnote 9: Waste sector sources include landfill CH4 , wastewater CH4 and N2O , and CO2 from incineration of fossil carbon.
Page 180 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments

Considerations by the writing team Ok to add separate bullet as proposed

SPM-640 A

14

40

14

SPM-641 A

14

40

14

SPM-642 A

14

40

14

SPM-643 A

14

41

14

SPM-644 A SPM-645 A

14 14

42 42

14 14

SPM-254 B

14

44

14

43 Turn the last portion of this bullet into a separate bullet: "Local availability of capital and the selection of appropriate and sustainable technology to fit local conditions are key constraints for waste and wastewater management in developing countries." (lines 19-21, p. 4, ES of Chapter 10) (Government of United States of America) 43 Replace this bullet with "Existing waste management practices can provide effective mitigation of GHG emissions from this sector: a wide range of mature, environmentallyeffective technologies are available to mitigate emissions and provide public health, environmental protection, and sustainable development cobenefits." (Government of United States of America) 41 Add "anaerobic digestion" after "landfill gas", as this option has a large potential (e.g. anaerobic digestion oft agricultural wastes, manure, waste water). (European Community) 42 "not only financial obstacles exist in many developing countries, but also the technical knowhow in managing waste. Any sideeffects of landfill and incinaration projects. (Government of Mauritius) 42 Please specify "financial obstacles" (Government of Sweden) 43 It is written: but financial obstacles exist in many developing countries. [10.3, 10.4, 10.5]. It is important to place this affirmation in all economy sectors or in a main general declaration for all documents. It is a real situation that developing countries dont count with necessary resources in order to make front to mitigation necessities (Government of Cuba) 44 We suggest to add an extra paragraph : Waste reduction,

OK

OK, but see #A639 for placement

Reject, too detailed

Reject, is obvious Reject, this is about basis sanitation actions as part of sustainable development; that even here financial obstacles occur is worth mentioning; adding this to all mitigation paragraphs is not justified

See A639 for suggested addition

Page 181 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments reuse and recycling can reduce GHG emissions both directly and indirectly through energy savings, and avoidance of GHG generation. This is especially true for products resulting from energy-intensive production processes such as metals, glass, plastic, and paper (10.4.5) (Government of Norway)

Considerations by the writing team

PARAGRAPH 16 SPM-646 A 14

45

SPM-647 A

14

45

SPM-648 A

14

45

15

Section C.16: Some clarification is needed. The text reads like there is medium agreement that the mitigation potential of geo-engineering options are speculative and that no reliable cost estimates have been published. Based on the box in Annex 1, the appropriate description would seem to be "high agreement, limited evidence". (Government of United States of America) Section C.16: Add a sentence to note that many of these geoengineering approaches affect just a portion of the impacts, e.g. blocking sunlight may reduce overall temperature but does not reduce the acidification of the oceans. (Government of United States of America) Geo-engineering options, such as ocean fertilisation to remove CO2 directly from the air, or blocking sunlight by bringing material into the upper atmosphere, remain largely speculative, uncosted and with potential for unknown sideeffects Again this is not consistent with the factual material of the full Report (e. g. ch. 11, part 11.2.3) Our proposal is to add several lines as follows: "25. Geo-engineering options, such as ocean fertilisation to remove CO2 directly from the air, or blocking sunlight by bringing material into the upper atmosphere, remain largely speculative, uncosted and with potential for unknown side-effects. But there is a risk that the conventional mitigation options will not be

OK

OK

Reject, policy prescriptive and too detailed

Page 182 of 183

Section Comme nt

To Page

To line

Batch

From Page From Line

Comments sufficient to achieve atmospheric stabilization. So there is acute need to research geo-engineering techniques for mitigating climate change, first off all Deflector System at Earth-Sun L-1 point, Stratospheric Reflecting Aerosols, Albedo Enhancement of Atmospheric Clouds, Iron fertilization of the oceans". We should stress the importance of the techniqe using stratospheric aerosols. Russian Academie of Sciense now has a special research project in this field (leader Prof. Izrael). (Government of Russian Federation) "remain largely speculative and unproven, and" (Government of Canada) Suggest deleting last sentence. While the costs of some concepts have been estimated to be small, their effectiveness remains unproven, making the critique on the quality of cost estimation in a headline statement premature. (IPIECA (Non-Governmental Organisation)) Grammar: replace "with the risk of" with "may have." (Government of United States of America)

Considerations by the writing team

SPM-649 A SPM-650 A

14 15

46 1

15 15

1 2

OK Reject

SPM-651 A

15

15

Reject, current text puts more emphasis on risk

Page 183 of 183