Thursday, May 10, 2012


date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 11:17:14 -0800
from: "Richels, Richard" <>
subject: RE: Synthesis Report (SYR): Summary for Policymakers
to: "''" <>, Rajendra Pachauri <>, Tomihiro Taniguchi <Taniguchi@Ccr.U-Tokyo.Ac.Jp>, John Houghton <>, Osvaldo Canziani <>, Bert Metz <>, Mohan Munasinghe <>, Michael Prather <>, Robert Scholes <>, John F B Mitchell <>, Thomas Stocker <>, Daniel L Albritton <>, Ulrich Cubasch <>, Stephen Schneider <>, Murari Lal <>, Zbigniew Kundzewicz <>, Barrie Pittock <>, Christopher Magadza <>, Habiba Gitay <>, "T. Barker" <>, "J.R. Moreira" <>, "J.B. Robinson" <>, "I.A. Bashmakov" <>, "Richels, Richard" <>, "D. Zhou" <>, Ian Noble <>, Narasimhan Sundararaman <Ipcc_SecatXYZxyzeway.Wmo.Ch>, Renate Christ <>, David Griggs <>, Neil Leary <>, Rob Swart <>, Isabel Alegre <>, Dan Albritton <>, Tom Karl <>, Bob Scholes <>, Michael Prather <>, Joyce Penner <>, Thomas Stocker <>, Bryant McAvaney <>, Ulrich Cubasch <>, Bruce Hewitson <>, John Church <>, Jonathan Gregory <>, Francis Zwiers <>, Sir John Houghton <>, John Mitchell <>, Joanna Haigh <J.HaighatXYZxyzAc.Uk>, Dr M J Salinger <J.SalingeratXYZxyza.Cri.Nz>, Fons Baede <BaedeatXYZxyzi.Nl>, Fons Baede <Fons_Baede@Hotmail.Com>, Chris Folland <CkfollandatXYZxyzo.Gov.Uk>, Colin Prentice <ColinatXYZxyznteco.Lu.Se>, Colin Prentice <CprenticatXYZxyz-Jena.Mpg.De>, V Ramaswamy <VratXYZxyzl.Gov>, Jerry Meehl <MeehlatXYZxyzr.Ucar.Edu>, Filippo Giorgi <GiorgiatXYZxyzp.Trieste.It>, David Karoly <DjkatXYZxyztex.Shm.Monash.Edu.Au>, Linda Mearns <LindamatXYZxyzr.Edu>, Mike Hulme <M.HulmeatXYZxyz.Ac.Uk>, Berrien Moore <B.MooreatXYZxyz.Edu>, Steve Schneider <>, QK Ahmad <>, Tim Carter <>, Nigel Arnell <>, Liu Chunzhen <>, Habiba Gitay <>, Bill Easterling <>, Alla Tsyban <>, Alla Tsyban <>, Tom Wilbanks <>, Pier Vellinga <>, Tony McMichael <>, Chris Magadza <ProfmagadzaatXYZxyznde.Co.Zw>, Paul Desanker <>, Murari Lal <>, Murari Lal <>, Hideo Harasawa <>, Barrie Pittock <>, Barrie Pittock <>, Zbigniew Kundzewicz <>, Martin Parry <>, Luis Mata <>, Luis Mata <>, Stewart Cohen <>, Oleg Anisimov <>, Graham Sem <>, Graham Sem <>, Barry Smit <>, Joel Smith <>, "D.H. Bouille" <>, "I.A. Bashmakov" <>, "J.A. Sathaye" <>, "J.B. Robinson" <>, "J.C. Hourcade" <>, "K. Halsnaes" <>, "K. Halsnaes" <>, "L. Srivastava" <>, "R.A. Sedjo" <>, "T. Banuri" <>, "T. Barker" <>, "J.R. Moreira" <>, "Richels, Richard" <>, "D.Zhou" <>, "A. Markandya" <>, "C.J. Jepma" <>, "C.J. Jepma" <>, "F.L. Toth" <>, "J.P. Weyant" <>, "M.J. Mwandosya" <>, "P.E. Kauppi" <>, "W.R. Moomaw" <>, "W.R. Moomaw" <>, "P.R. Shukla" <>, "T. Morita" <>, Lenny Berstein <LsbernsatXYZxyzldnet.Att.Net>

The following is in response to your request for comments. More will be
coming, but given your Feb. 2 deadline, I am sending the first installment

1. We are at risk of confusing readers if we do not adopt the renumbering
and definition of the questions as agreed upon in the conference call.
Recall that it was decided to switch Q5 and Q6. The reason being that Q7
should follow the old Q5 directly. Also recall that the new Q5 (old Q6) has
been retitled along with its sub-bullets. Currently, they are:

Q5. What is known about the costs of, and timeframe for, reducing greenhouse
gas emissions?

a) What would be the economic and social costs, and equity implications
of options that might be considered to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions,
regionally and globally
b) What portfolio of options of research and development, investments,
and other policies might be considered that would be most effective to
enhance the development and deployment of technologies that address climate
c) What kind of economic and other policy options might be considered
to remove existing and potential barriers and to stimulate private and
public sector technology transfer and deployment among countries and what
effect might these have on projected emissions?

The reason for the retitling was to eliminate the huge amount of redundancy
among questions. It was also decided in the conference call that the new Q5
would contain the discussion of near-term mitigation costs and Q7 would
include the material on timing and the costs of stabilization. Hence, the
benefits and costs of stabilization would be contained in Q7. Note that Q5
by agreement does not contain a discussion of avoided damage (other than
co-impacts) associated with climate change mitigation. Again, this is
relegated to Q7.

This being the case, perhaps it would make sense to do some additional
fine-tuning with regard to the title for the new Q5. I suggest: "What are
the implications of near-term actions on the costs of reducing ghg
emissions." The advantage would be to highlight the fact that we are looking
at a range of near-term actions. This is more consistent with the first
bullet under Q5a.

Section Q5d has now been moved to Q7 since it focuses on long-term
mitigation costs.

I am afraid that if we don't get this all sorted out there will be confusion
among the reviewers with some commenting on the old Q5 and others on the new
Q5. Moreover, there will be confusion on the scope of the new Q5.

2. Included among the robust conclusions in Q9 are the results of the bottom
up analysis suggesting that in some cases half of the potential can be
achieved at net negative costs. Clearly, this statement needs some
elaboration and clarification or it is apt to be misinterpreted.

3.We need a fuller discussion of the differences between top-down and
bottom-up cost projections. A major difference between bottom up studies and
those based on computable general equilibrium (CGE) models is the definition
of the baseline. The CGE models typically assume that if something is worth
doing it will be done in both the "no policy" and policy cases. For example,
taking advantage of "no regrets" energy efficiency opportunities. The bottom
up studies on the other hand are often less sanguine about the adoption of
such opportunities in the absence of climate policy. Or to put it another
way, its not that the top down models ignore the $20 bills on the sidewalk,
its that they pick them up in both the "no policy" and policy cases. Q9
should focus on the results from both top down and bottom up models.
Emphasizing only the latter is misleading.

5. A key message that has been overlooked is that there appears to be a bend
in the cost curve between 450 and 550ppmv. This is because a target in this
range would cause some premature retirement of long-lived capital stock. See
bullet 13 in the WGIII SPM.

4. The reader should be alerted to the fact that not all co-benefits are
positive. For example, a technology may reduce ghg emissions, but have its
own environmental problems. The possibility of negative co-impacts is
acknowledged early on in the Watson document, but the focus, thereafter, is
virtually exclusively on positive co-benefits,

5.In general, I find the discussion of mitigation costs to be a bit
unbalanced, suggesting that they are likely to be negligible. I believe that
a much stronger case for early action is to approach the issue from a risk
management perspective. The extent of action depends upon ones perception of
the stakes, the odds, the costs of early action and ones attitude to risk.
Given the risks, one can make a strong case for going beyond "no regrets".

6. Another key message is that mitigation is action but action is not
confined to mitigation. It also includes technology development, learning
more about adaptation opportunities, and reducing critical scientific
uncertainties. The issue is not one of "either-or" but what is the right
mix, noting that the mix is apt to change over time and space.

-----Original Message-----
From: []
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 10:24 AM
To: Robert Watson; Rajendra Pachauri; Tomihiro Taniguchi; John Houghton;
Osvaldo Canziani; Bert Metz; Mohan Munasinghe; Michael Prather; Robert
Scholes; John F B Mitchell; Thomas Stocker; Daniel L Albritton; Ulrich
Cubasch; Stephen Schneider; Murari Lal; Zbigniew Kundzewicz; Barrie
Pittock; Christopher Magadza; Habiba Gitay; T. Barker; J.R. Moreira;
J.B. Robinson; I.A. Bashmakov; R.G. Richels; D. Zhou; Ian Noble;
Narasimhan Sundararaman; Renate Christ; David Griggs; Neil Leary; Rob
Swart; Isabel Alegre; Dan Albritton; Tom Karl; Bob Scholes; Michael
Prather; Joyce Penner; Thomas Stocker; Bryant McAvaney; Ulrich Cubasch;
Bruce Hewitson; John Church; Jonathan Gregory; Francis Zwiers; Sir John
Houghton; John Mitchell; Joanna Haigh; Dr M J Salinger; Fons Baede; Fons
Baede; Chris Folland; Colin Prentice; Colin Prentice; V Ramaswamy; Jerry
Meehl; Filippo Giorgi; David Karoly; Linda Mearns; Mike Hulme; Berrien
Moore; Steve Schneider; QK Ahmad; Tim Carter; Nigel Arnell; Liu
Chunzhen; Habiba Gitay; Bill Easterling; Alla Tsyban; Alla Tsyban; Tom
Wilbanks; Pier Vellinga; Tony McMichael; Chris Magadza; Paul Desanker;
Murari Lal; Murari Lal; Hideo Harasawa; Barrie Pittock; Barrie Pittock;
Zbigniew Kundzewicz; Martin Parry; Luis Mata; Luis Mata; Stewart Cohen;
Oleg Anisimov; Graham Sem; Graham Sem; Barry Smit; Joel Smith; D.H.
Bouille; I.A. Bashmakov; J.A. Sathaye; J.B. Robinson; J.C. Hourcade; K.
Halsnaes; K. Halsnaes; L. Srivastava; R.A. Sedjo; T. Banuri; T. Barker;
J.R. Moreira; Rich Richels; D.Zhou; A. Markandya; C.J. Jepma; C.J.
Jepma; F.L. Toth; J.P. Weyant; M.J. Mwandosya; P.E. Kauppi; W.R. Moomaw;
W.R. Moomaw; P.R. Shukla; T. Morita; Lenny Berstein
Subject: Synthesis Report (SYR): Summary for Policymakers

Dear core and extended team members of the IPCC Synthesis Report,

I truly appreciate all the effort that you are expending on preparing the
Synthesis Report.

I had planned to have a short SPM ready for your review by now but I decided
that I needed to better understand the key messages from each of the Working
groups before the 5-7 page report could be finished. Hence, I would greatly
appreciate it if you could review this material - big messages not fine
the text.

I have taken the 100-page report and attempted to extract what I believe are
key messages in a 26-page summary (14,000 words). Each paragraph starts
an italicized bolded sentence which is meant to be the key take home message
the paragraph (I have attached a document that only has these italicized
headings for easy reading). I did not try to limit myself to 5-7 pages
words), but rather attempted to extract all the key messages knowing the
resulting document would be too long (in particular questions 5, 6 and 9).
need to know whether I have managed to identify the key messages for each
question, because they will be the basis of the SPM (I also need to know
messages are less important and can be deleted for the SPM). When you
the answers to the questions hopefully this will assist you in seeing what I
thought were the take-home messages.

I have also attached a shortened version of question 2, which is about the
length for the SPM - please review, especially those of you involved in
question 2 -- does the table work (needs to be printed with 6.5 inch width).

The WG I extended writing team had an excellent meeting in China, where they
focussed on identifying the key messages for each question (relevant to WG
and appropriate figures and tables (many of these were new "synthesized"
and tables.

The key to success for the Synthesis Report and the SPM will be punchy take
messages, and thoughtful tables and figures.

Would you please send me comments by Friday, February 2. I think that the
to success will be a few well-crafted tables and figures. As soon as I
your comments, I will write a 5-7 page SPM.

I have attached three documents, without any figures (you can almost
guess which figures I am referencing):

(See attached file: SPM-Syn-Question 2-short version.doc)(See attached file:
Headlines - no figures.doc)(See attached file: Version 1-SPM-SYN-no

Thanks in advance


Robert T. Watson, Chief Scientist & Director, ESSD - The World Bank
1818 H Street, NW - MSN MC4-408, Washington, DC 20433 - USA
Phone: +1 202 473-6965 - Fax: +1 202 522-3292 - E-mail:

No comments:

Post a Comment