date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998 16:09:24 +0000 (GMT)
from: Robert Nicholls <R.NichollsatXYZxyz.ac.uk>
subject: Re: IMPORTANT:NATURE COMMENTARY
to: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, PARRYMLatXYZxyz.com
All numbers are correct and I find the new text fine. The two
additional paragraphs make an excellent case for adaptation.
However, an implicit message of Table 2 is that adaptation could
handle climate change alone (the -15% option), so why are we worrying
about mitigation? I think that this will be noted by many readers and
it would be best if the piece had an explicit view on this, or delete
the -15% option. We could note the long-term benefits of mitigation
earlier in the piece (like GEC), or alternatively the cummulative
threats of an unmitigated pathway.
The only other change I would suggest is to table 1. Remove sea-level
rise and replace with "coastal flooding (per year)".
Note New Fax Number Below
Robert J. Nicholls
Enfield EN3 4SF
44-181-362-5569 (Tel and answer phone)