date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 11:17:14 -0800 from: "Richels, Richard" subject: RE: Synthesis Report (SYR): Summary for Policymakers to: "'Rwatson@worldbank.org'" , 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" , "Richels, Richard" , "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" , "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 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 now. 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 change? 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: Rwatson@worldbank.org [mailto:Rwatson@worldbank.org] 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 IPCC 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 tuning the text. I have taken the 100-page report and attempted to extract what I believe are the key messages in a 26-page summary (14,000 words). Each paragraph starts with an italicized bolded sentence which is meant to be the key take home message of 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 (6,500 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). I 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 which messages are less important and can be deleted for the SPM). When you redraft 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 right 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 I) and appropriate figures and tables (many of these were new "synthesized" figures and tables. The key to success for the Synthesis Report and the SPM will be punchy take home messages, and thoughtful tables and figures. Would you please send me comments by Friday, February 2. I think that the key to success will be a few well-crafted tables and figures. As soon as I receive your comments, I will write a 5-7 page SPM. I have attached three documents, without any figures (you can almost certainly guess which figures I am referencing): (See attached file: SPM-Syn-Question 2-short version.doc)(See attached file: SPM Headlines - no figures.doc)(See attached file: Version 1-SPM-SYN-no figures.doc) Thanks in advance Bob ________________________________________________________________________ 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: rwatson@worldbank.org