Friday, December 30, 2011


cc: "Quinn, Rachel" <>, "Bowden, Rebecca" <>
date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 12:07:53 +0100
from: Tom Downing <>
subject: RE: Climate change meeting draft program - comments
to: "Goulden, Marisa" <>, Terry Barker <>, Tom Downing <>, "''" <>, "''" <>, "'Brian Hoskins (E-mail)'" <>, "''" <>, "''" <>, "''" <>, "''" <>

Marisa (and colleagues):

Your certainly have your hands full on putting this together. There have
been some very sensible suggestions, here are a few more:

Session 1: Needs a title, otherwise seems solid

Session 2: How will climate change this century?
First question is too bald, maybe: Can global climate models go beyond
plausible scenarios to robust forecasts?

Jim Skea would be ideal for the emission scenarios--he was on the SRES panel
(I saw him yesterday and he would be available subject to diaries).

Session 3: I think this needs a bit more focus and headlines. I would
rephrase the question to:

What are the major issues in vulnerability, impacts and adaptation?

I have three topics in mind--but we may need to move the last one to a later
session if timings are too difficult.

Chair: Martin Parry

A: Have we detected the first impacts of climate change?
Speaker: David Macdonald, Director of WildCru, Zoology Department, Oxford (I
spoke to him yesterday as well and he is willing to do this--has several key
data sets and knows the issues well)
Discussant: Mel Cannell, CEH

B: Contested impacts: issues of model dependence, scale and valuation
Speaker: Richard Tol--a set of subjects that he has worked on
Discussant: could be anyone

C: Integrated vulnerability assessment: Can we identify hot spots for
Speaker: could be me, Martin Parry, Neil Adger
Discussant: Best to get someone from the disaster community?

Session 4: mitigation: okay

Sum up: Mike Hulme would be ideal--he covers a wide spectrum from climate
science to impacts; or a policy-oriented person?

Session 5:
Might put Houghton then Watson, with Jaeger as a discussant--that is to
bring out the good, bad and ugly of international scientific
processes--leading to the kinds of questions about the use science in

Session 6: International level
These need to be clarified. I would adopt a model of:
Research synopsis: an introduction to the research--the speakers and some of
the audience may not have attended the first day (5-10 min)
Policy needs: the main presentation (10-15 min)
Discussant: views from an alternative stakeholder (5 min)


A: Sustainable climate change: what are the best prospects for achieving
acceptable levels of climate change?
Synopsis: Tol would be good, Bert Metz as well
Policy: John Ashton or DEFRA negotiators
Discussant: Aidan Murphy, Shell, Alan Steinbeck, RT or Bernard Bulkin, BP

B: Global equity: what are the hot spots for adaptation and mitigation
impacts? (If not done in session 3)
Synopsis: T Downing and Benito Muller (10 min)
Policy: Andrew Bennett, DfID, Sir Crispin Tickell
Discussant: Patricia Feeney, Oxfam, or someone from Red Cross (Netherlands
or Geneva?)

C: Regimes: Is Europe going to deliver the Kyoto Protocol?
Synopsis: Grubb
Policy: Jos Delbecke, EU
Discussant: John Gummer
This should be a longer session! Maybe part of UK session (7), or a separate
session linking the international and UK?

That's all for now!


Thomas E. Downing
Reader in Climate Policy

Environmental Change Institute
University of Oxford
1a Mansfield Road
Oxford OX1 3SZ
Tel: +44 1865 281180 Fax: +44 1865 281181

-----Original Message-----
From: Goulden, Marisa []
Sent: 26 June 2001 09:43
To: ''; '';
''; ''; 'Brian Hoskins
(E-mail)'; ''; '';
''; ''
Cc: Quinn, Rachel; Bowden, Rebecca
Subject: FW: Climate change meeting draft program - comments

Dear all,
thank you for your comments, I will be putting them together shortly. In the
mean time here are some suggestions from Martin Parry and Michael Grubb. Any
further comments/suggestions are welcome.

-----Original Message-----
From: []
Sent: 25 June 2001 16:01
Subject: Re: RS Climate change meeting draft program - comments pl

You have the reply from Hulme that followed my discussion with him; and I am

happy with that though I would add: a) I think Arnell would make a better
discussant than Tol and b)Downing would be a good alternate for Adger.

As I mentioned on the phone, I am (at end of this week) finalising some
for the autumn, so it would be helpful to know if you would like me involved

in the meeting (then I'll book to return to UK a little bit sooner than
originally planned).

Prof. Martin L. Parry
Jackson Environment Institute
University of East Anglia

Tel: +44 (0) 1603 592 318
Fax: +44 (0) 1603 593 896

-----Original Message-----
From: Grubb, Michael J []
Sent: 25 June 2001 15:15
To: 'Goulden, Marisa '
Subject: Climate change meeting draft program - comments

Dear Marissa

Many thanks for the programme, I am sorry if I have been slow to respond.
On Thursday I jotted down the following suggestions, working on the draft
from 18 June:

Session 2. Emission scenarios
Dennis Anderson at IC was a key person involved in the IPCC emission
scenarios - not me, nor Terry. He would obvious lead. Ken Gregory - now
an independent consultant - could provide an industry view, he was also
involved in the IPCC scenarios.
Or for UK scenarios you could go for one of the Royal Commission people.

Session 4. Mitigation
In my draft this is still blank, could you consider the following.
i) If you want an analysis from within the IPCC WG-III process then I would
probably be best placed to do the first talk - something rather general like
'Mitigating climate change: the potential for technologies and policies'

ii) Terry Barker would then be best for a follow on something like 'the
costs of emission limitations - a macroeconomic view'

iii) For Technologies and Options - Mary Archer could be an interesting

Jim Skea would be also be good on either (I) or (iii), as speaker or

Session 6. Challenges at the International Level

This is quite complex. You could consider something like the following:

The global architecture - John Ashton
Discussant - I could be one possibility, or maybe Simon Shackley (Mike Hulme
would be best placed to judge whether Simon right for this) from Tyndall

Richard Sandbrook, former director, IIED, or Saleemul Huq, now climate
change coordinator at IIED, could be very good on the development angle,
with a discussant from DFID?

Then I think you need someone on the US position - maybe Alyce Tymball from
the US Embassy
Benito Mueller from Oxford Inst of Energy Studies would be the best
discussant, he is specialising in understanding what is going on there.

Also, Sir Crispin would be obvious eg. as discussant, big picture things.

I hope these comments help.


Marisa Goulden
Science Policy Officer (Environment & Energy)
Science Advice Section
The Royal Society
6 Carlton House Terrace
London SW1Y 5AG

Tel: +44 (0)20 7451 2590
Fax: +44 (0)20 7451 2692
Registered Charity No 207043

This e-mail message has been scanned for viruses and spam by the e:)scan

No comments:

Post a Comment