date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 13:21:57 +0000 from: Henryk Gaj subject: RE: taxonomy to: sres@iiasa.ac.at Thank you for the response, Laurie. Details are inserted to the text below - > From: Laurie.MICHAELIS@oecd.org > To: sres@iiasa.ac.at > Subject: RE: taxonomy > Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 09:17:45 +0200 > Thanks very much, Henryk. I think the ideas in this are important -- my > main question is how we should present it. Your table carries the same > basic information as the one we produced last year but it presents it > spatially which could make it easier for people to grasp, certainly. Do you > have a preference for the dimensions you have included over the ones I put > in my table? Actually, my dimensions cover the same area yours do. There are only some differences in aggregation of dimensions (driving forces). The main difference is a different order of dimensions presented in the table. What I wanted to achieve changing the order was a certain internal logic by putting the dimensions in a sequence of "causes and results". This implies also certain ranking of dimensions. E.g.: "global governance" may be treated as a "top hierarchy" driving force; if it is perfect (see left side of the table)" global institutions" are well developed and "geopolitical stability" is achieved; next, if all three dimensions are highly positive the "free communication and global co-operation" is ensured; all above provides a good background for "good education" .... a.s.o. In this way, you can recreate a story for all storylines tracing (according to the proposed sequence) its ranking over all dimensions. This exercise let you check and verify the internal logical consistency of the storylines. > > On the time aspect, if I understand correctly, your main message is that > "sustainability" is subjective and context-dependent. Misunderstanding. My concept has nothing in common with the subjectivity. Subjectivity of assessments is quite an obvious thing, but this is not the concept is about. I wanted to show, that sustainability of developments, development as defined by our storylines, depends on how long period of time do we consider. If those patterns of development lasted for 400 years we would get a quite ruined world, which is not the case if we consider only 20-50 years period. The message I wanted to transfer was, that the SRES modelling team applied rather a short time perspective in its thinking (otherwise it had to include to the storyline set at least one storyline based on quite a different paradigm). But nobody can blame us we did not it. We are living now, and the reality of our life determines the discounting we apply in our thinking (2-5%). From that point our judgements are context dependent. I agree. End of file. Henryk I'm not sure if this > is just a time-scale issue. For example, some people would argue that A1 is > sustainable because it allows for the development of technology to > substitute for ecological services. Others would argue that any > irreversible change in ecosystems and biosphere cycles is unsustainable. > This is not just "us" versus "our children". I have tried to suggest that > the four scenarios actually play out different people's views of > sustainability, placing differing stresses on the economic, social and > environmental aspects. I am rather uncomfortable with trying to rank the > four scenarios in terms of "sustainability" in the short or long term. That > would be almost like ranking them for "goodness". > > My preference would be to have a paragraph in the overview on the scenarios > that conveys some of these ideas, including the idea that ideas about what > is "sustainable" are likely to change over time. What do you think? > > > > > > > ---------- > > From: Henryk Gaj[SMTP:fewewar@butler.medianet.pl] > > Sent: Tuesday, 13 October, 1998 18:29 > > To: laurie.michaelis@oecd.org > > Cc: naki@iiasa.ac.at; schlesin@atmos.uiuc.edu > > Subject: taxonomy > > > > <> > > > > Laurie, > > In the attachment I send possible input to the "Scenario taxonomy" > > chapter. This is done according to the concept I presented in > > Beijing. Feel free to make use of it, if you considered it valuable. > > Regards, Henryk > > > > ***************** > > Henryk Gaj Ph.D. > > Polish Foundation for Energy Efficiency > > 21, Brodzinskiego Str. > > 01-557 Warsaw, POLAND > > ----------------------- > > phone/fax: (+48)22 394945 or 393618 or 392141 > > e-mail: fewewar@ternet.pl > > web: http://www.silesia.top.pl/fewe/ > > ***************** > > > > ***************** Henryk Gaj Ph.D. Polish Foundation for Energy Efficiency 21, Brodzinskiego Str. 01-557 Warsaw, POLAND ----------------------- phone/fax: (+48)22 394945 or 393618 or 392141 e-mail: fewewar@ternet.pl web: http://www.silesia.top.pl/fewe/ *****************