Friday, January 20, 2012


date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 15:45:48 +0200
from: "T.Kram" <>
subject: Re: B2 sulphur

Dear all,

I fully agree with Naki that we should be very careful with such
last-minute changes, in particular if they seem to be inspired by the
wish to make B2 the preferred single case. In my view there are plenty
arguments in favour and against higher sulphur emissions in B2 than B1
that need to be sorted out in due course for final assessments for the
final report. As Naki mentions rightfully, the model-based approach
selected is not compatible with 'simply' adjusting emission
coefficients ex-post. Moreover, as we need to freeze numerical data for
the Open Process on very short notice (e.g. Alex already prepared
graphs based on the current calculations in Beijing and we cannot
continue adjusting all these numbers and graphs!).

So, I suggest to leave the markers unchanged as there are no convincing
arguments in support of S-emissions being "too low" in B2. In the worst
case we may want to revise our position somewhat in the final report,
causing slightly less global climate effect and less regional spread in
temperature forcing due to the higher S emissions.


PS: If the group decides not to adhere to my views, an extremely tight
schedule will have to be developed to ensure that new runs are made and
data are made available on the Website before the end of the month. So
we must decide very, very quickly.


From: Nebojsa NAKICENOVIC <>
Subject: Re: B2 sulphur
Date: maandag 12 oktober 1998 15:15

Laurie and Ken,

I appreciate the importance of this discussion and full review of all
runs. However, we need to be absolutely careful not to make a mess of
work in the last minute, so to say. Modeling groups have now spent
harmonizing the scenarios and we all know that we still have a lot of
to do. However, we should not ask them to make fundamental changes in
scenarios while we have not yet agreed on the exact text of the
I also agree with Laurie that we should resist further temptations to
B2 appear as the only baseline scenario. They all are reference

Yes, let us review sulfur and all other features of the scenarios.
send specific comments to the modeling groups, but let us not propose
fundamental changes until the proposed changes have been analyzed.
emissions calculations are based on technical emissions coefficients so
that they cannot be changed by simply pushing a button. Some sulfur is
removed from coal in synfuel production, other is scrubbed from
powerplants, etc. Reintroducing these emissions into the final model
solution requires changes in technology mix and costs meaning that we
likely to have a new scenario that is different in other aspects as
and not only in sulfur emissions.

Cheers, Naki

At 02:36 PM 10/12/98 +0200, wrote:
>I agree with taking another look at sulphur profiles across the
>and I'm comfortable with the idea that B2 might have higher sulphur
but I do
>not agree with Ken's rationale.
>The modelling community may or may not take B2 as their preferred case
>model, but we decided last week that we do not want to offer a "median
>case". B2 has to have its own story. I do not believe that there is
>harm in giving the message that median variables do not necessarily go
>Having said this, B2 has been explained as an environmentally
conscious case
>with a regional governance emphasis -- "regional self-reliance". The
>question is, do we seen this storyline as having more or less advanced
>sulphur control technology than B1. The way I've currently slanted
>storylines, B1 has more technical change, and B2 has more behavioural
>change. Hence, I would be comfortable with B2 having a higher
>factor for sulphur from coal.
>Laurie Michaelis
>Tel +33 1 45 24 98 17
>Fax +33 1 45 24 78 76
>OECD Environment Directorate
>2 rue Andr�-Pascal
>75775 Paris

No comments:

Post a Comment