date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998 16:09:24 +0000 (GMT) from: Robert Nicholls subject: Re: IMPORTANT:NATURE COMMENTARY to: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, nwa1@soton.ac.uk, arnell61@btinternet.com, PARRYML@aol.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)". Robert ______________________________________________________________________ Note New Fax Number Below Robert J. Nicholls Middlesex University Queensway Enfield EN3 4SF United Kingdom 44-181-362-5569 (Tel and answer phone) 44-181-362-6957 (Fax) R.nicholls@mdx.ac.uk (Internet)