cc: "Quinn, Rachel" date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 12:22:13 +0100 from: "Goulden, Marisa" subject: Stakeholder comments on Draft Program to: "'tsb1@econ.cam.ac.uk'" , "'tom.downing@eci.ox.ac.uk'" , "'djgriggs@meto.gov.uk'" , "'michael.grubb@ic.ac.uk'" , "'Brian Hoskins (E-mail)'" , "'jthoughton@ipccwg1.demon.co.uk'" , "'m.hulme@uea.ac.uk'" , "'jcrh@mssl.ucl.ac.uk'" , "'martin.parry@uea.ac.uk'" Dear all, We have received the following additional comments from stakeholders (DEFRA, BP and IPIECA members (International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association)). They were sent a brief outline of the Draft Programme without any suggested names for speakers. We would be pleased to hear your views on any of these or earlier comments (sent by Rachel on 26/07). - In general, more emphasis should be placed on the contentious issues. - The sessions should focus on what is not agreed, and on the areas of the greatest uncertainty. It would be good to bring different sides of the land use debate into the room, for example. I believe that there is still a problem with certain areas of carbon cycle science and I think these need to be highlighted. Jorge Sarmiento from Princeton is excellent in this regard. - Mitigation and other methods of coping with emissions needs to look at the state of play, economics, and research underway on things like subsurface sequestration, ocean disposal, etc. These are controversial -The IPCC WG3 results are more controversial and enough time to explore these should be allowed. -The inclusion of Greenhouse gas emissions trading was suggested by 2 Stakeholders. - possibly focusing on need to communicate science to financial institutions for building confidence in the City (where trading system will be based). (A two day conference on Emissions trading was held in London in April 2001 by EuroMoney.) -Costs are a big issue (idenitfied by 2 Stakeholders)- how about really challenging the views on costs of Kyoto, with examples of things that have been done already. -Should explain why the UK has done so well in reducing greenhouse gas emissions so far and that the 'dash for gas' isn't the whole story. - China is clearly the big issue going forward, and I wonder how you plan to bring this into the discussion. - The program for Day 1 is very ambitious, trying to cover a large amount quickly. Will it really be possible to discuss the details? - The 5min allocated to each discussant seems very short. - Session 5. It would be more sensible to talk about the process of IPCC before the results, ie on first day. - Session 7. UK: In the outline of the program given, difficult to see where industry/business fits in. Business largely operates internationally. A UK focus would be limiting for multi-nationals. - How will we be engaging US scientists? Will we be engaging scientists from outside IPCC. Please feel free to contact Rachel or I by phone or email with any comments. Regards, Marisa 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 e-mail marisa.goulden@royalsoc.ac.uk http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk Registered Charity No 207043 This e-mail message has been scanned for viruses and spam by the e:)scan service.