cc: 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 , Isabel Alegre , Dan Albritton , Tom Karl , Bob Scholes , Joyce Penner , 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 , Hideo Harasawa , Barrie Pittock , Martin Parry , Luis Mata , Luis Mata , Stewart Cohen , Oleg Anisimov , Graham Sem , Graham Sem , Barry Smit , Joel Smith , "D.H. Bouille" , "J.A. Sathaye" , "J.C. Hourcade" , "K. Halsnaes" , "K. Halsnaes" , "L. Srivastava" , "R.A. Sedjo" , "T. Banuri" , 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 date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 13:15:15 +0100 from: Rob Swart subject: Re: Synthesis Report (SYR): Summary for Policymakers to: Rwatson@worldbank.org Dear Bob, Thanks for giving us the opportunity to react to your thinking. It forces us to think more clearly about the main messages. I must admit that I am somewhat confused about the 26 page summary, since this comes very close to (although it is different from) the full-scale document the various teams are currently writing. My view would be that those teams take their own text as the starting point and try to improve/shorten it on the basis of your text. Here, I only respond to your main messages in italics and mainly focus on WG3 issues. Question 1: Most points made may be introducing the rest of the SYR, but they do not address the question. I think the chapter should do both. In my view, in addition to your 6 paragraphs, one or more paragraphs could be related to five key aspects of Article 2: (a) dangerous interference, (b) stabilization, (c) natural adaptation, (d) food security, and (e) sustainable economic development. Three of these words (b), (c), (d) are not even mentioned. Two of your paragraphs now do hardly relate to the question (the 4th and 6th) but could be linked (see below). The first italics could be positively relating to the question rather than negatively; e.g. take the 2nd and 3rd sentence as italics: "Scientific, technical and economic knowledge provides indispensable information needed to arrive at an informed judgement as to what level of anthropogenic interference would be dangerous, taking equity and social considerations into account. However, that judgement is a political, not scientific, one. " An initial attempt to address my 1st comment, integrating some of Bob's italics but linking them to Artcile 2 issues: "Article 2 relates dangerous anthropogenic interference to the level and the time-frame of stabilization of concentrations of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, which would be required to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner. Although many uncertainties remain, scientific, technical and socio-economic analysis as assessment in IPCC's Third Assessment Report provides information which can be used to arrive at the above mentioned political judgement about what constitutes dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Stabilisation of GHG concentrations. As elaborated in chapter (s) .. of this report, concentrations of GHGs are not expected to be stabilized in this century without additional climate policy interventions. Level and timing of intervention needed depends critically on (a) the underlying development path, which will be determined to a significant degree upon decisions made about sustainable development policies and choices, and b) the targetted level of the eventual stabilization of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere and the timing of achieving this level. Natural ecosystem adaptation. As discussed in chapter(s) ... of this report, the climatic changes projected in IPCC's Third Assessment Report report (TAR) are expected to significantly affect natural ecosystems worldwide. Their ability to adapt naturally is dependent on both the magnitude and rate of the changes. Policy intervention aiming at stabilizing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere as required by Article 2 will increase this ability. Food production. As discussed in chapter(s)... of this report, the climatic changes projected in TAR are also expected to affect food production in all regions. If food production would be threatened is not only dependent on the magnitude and rate of these changes, but also on the ability of societies, notably farmers, to adapt to the changing circumstances. Not only would intervention aiming at stabilizing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere make adaptation easier, also intervention aiming at increasing society's adaptive capacity is important. Sustainable economic development. The climate issue is an integral part of the larger question of how complex social, economic and environmental subsystems ineract and shape prospects for sustainable development over many decades. Chapter(s) .... elaborate on how the capacity to mitigate and to adapt to climate change could be enhanced and how possible associated mitigation and adaptation costs could be reduced to ensure that economic development can proceed in a sustainable manner. "No futures are free if risk, but some are less risky than others". While I do agree that it is useful to have a paragraph on risk, it is then also important to note that the report (as SAR, TAR) does not report probabilities, which would be needed to quantifdy risks (risk = impact * likelihood of occurrence, for most people). Question 2: I would not include a WG3 paragraph, like "The Kyoto Protocol has led to the creation of new market mechanisms"; apart from the question if this statement is very relevant as such, I don't think it is "evidence of the consequence of changes in the Earth's climate since the pre-industrial era." Question 3: In the current italics two things are missing: (a) the regional diversity in the projected changes, and (b) the degree of confidence in the findings (from most to least confident: gradual temperature change -> gradual precipitation change-> abrupt climatic changes) Question 4: Jose Roberto Moreira, Igor Bashmakov and myself drafted a new text on inertia in socioecomic sectors to completely replace the current section 4.4 and complement the WG1 type of inertia. It will be more widely distributed shortly. New italics (somewhat rearranged) from which the key messages from this section could be selected for the SPM (to replace III in your proposal): Inertia is not only an important integral feature of natural systems, it is also an inherent characteristic of socio-economic systems, and thus crucial for the assessment of both adaptation and mitigation options. One important reason for socioeconomic inertia is that gradual climate change effects may take decades to be noticed by the general publi, because the irreversibility, in the medium term, of the buildup of greenhouse gases is not well understood by the public or the policy community. Research in many sectors and regions indicates an impressive human capacity to adapt to long-term mean climate conditions, but less success in adapting to extremes and to year to year variations in climatic conditions. While some adaptation options have become more readily available, other adaptation options have decreased, leading to inertia in socio-economic sectors and making adaptation more difficult. The challenge of the future appears to be to go beyond historical limits of changes in energy and carbon intensity changes, i.e., move from slow ?dynamics-as-usual? scenarios toward ?fast? alternatives with new social and institutional configurations addressing environmental constraints. Past and anticipated rates of change of major forces driving anthropogenic GHG emissions down are often limited to 1-1.5% per year. [add required rates for stabilization at different timing - Igor Bashmakov] Without inertia any trajectory could be corrected at no cost, but as inertia is important, changing course may be very costly. The inertia in socio-economic systems in mitigating climate change is determined by their mitigative capacity, the development of which is a slow and complex process to which long-term commitments must be made. Inertia is very different for different elements of the socio-economic system. End-use equipment with a relatively short lifetime can be replaced within a few years (short term). Infrastructure, buildings, and production processes can be replaced in up to 50 years, a similar time frame as for lifestyle-related elasticities of energy, material and food demand (medium term). Structures of urban form and urban land-use as well as fundamental socio-economic such as international market and governance can only be changed over 100 years (long term). As to the short term, empirical studies suggest that the response of relevant technological change to energy price changes can be surprisingly swift, but its diffusion takes much longer. Inertia of reproducing developing paths can be reduced on the short term by developing countries through adopting anticipative strategies to avoid in the long-term, the problems faced today by industrial societies (?leapfrogging?). Speed of new technology penetration is influenced greatly by what have been called ?national systems of innovation? ? the institutional and organizational structures that support technological development and innovation. Behavioral changes can impact demand almost instantaneously under severe economic conditions. For example, the oil crises of the 1970s very quickly triggered societal interest in energy conservation and alternative sources of energy. Following this period, economic development growth rates in most OECD countries deviated strongly from the traditional tie with energy consumption growth rate. As to the medium to long term, social structures and personal values evolve relatively slow with a society?s physical infrastructure, institutions, and the technologies embodied within them. Institutions crowded by other problems competing for attention exhibit substantial continuity and offer narrow and infrequent windows of opportunity for reform, leading to medium to long-term inertia. Question 5: First bullet: I propose to add (because of question 1) that the SRES scenarios do NOT lead to stabilization of GHG concentrations within this century, unlike popular rumours make believe (B1). Question 6: Second bullet: I would include the full text of the bullet in the extended version: "Even with the same definition of costs, estimates will vary considerably among studies: they depend on the reference, non-climate-policy-intervention case; which policy intervention tools are employed and when and where they are employed; which energy technologies are available, and when and where these technologies are available. " Fifth bullet: delete "that simultaneously correct market and policy distortions" (unnecessary jargon and possible politically sensitive) Sixth bullet: add: "which can be both positive and negative"; possibly mention a few examples in addition to the oil producing countries example mentioned. The one mentioned "a likely decline in GDP" is actually WRONG and should be "a likely decline in GDP GROWTH" (WG3 SPM). Additional examples could include the WG3 SPM statement: "These and other non-Annex I countries may benefit from the reduction in fuel prices, increased exports of carbon intensive products and the transfer of environmentally sound technologies and know-how. They may be adversely affected by reductions in demand for their exports to OECD nations and by the price increase of those carbon intensive products they continue to import. The net balance for a given country depends on which of these factors dominates. Because of these complexities, the breakdown of winners and losers remains uncertain. " Tenth bullet: cited wrongly: WG3SPM makes this statement about bringing GLOBAL emissions in 2010 below 200 levels rather than Annex-B although during the WG3 SPM approval process governments will propose to revise the statement to say something they can use for Kyoto (but the underlying chapter does not support this ... yet). Question 7: The first bullet should either acknowledge (in a footnote?) that IPCC is as yet unable - based on the available literature - to say something sensible about stabilizing concentrations of equivalent CO(subscript: 2), OR the word equivalent should be added and explained in a footnote that current levels of CO2 equivalent are close to 450 ppm ("today's levels"). "There is little information on the regional climate effects of stabilizing CO2 concentrations" is a weak statement: either remove from SPM or say something positive and qualitative as far as it is supported in TAR and have the proposed sentence as a disclaimer. The sentence does suggest that there is much information on the global climate effects of stabilizing CO2 concentrations: is this right? All bullets on the mitigation aspects of the question are still missing (4th and part of 5th bullet of 7b). Question 8: This question should be strengthened and Osvaldo is working on this. The italics of the suggested revised text I sent to Osvaldo follow below: Climate change is closely interlinked with a number of other environmental problems at various scales, such as urban air pollution, regional acid deposition, loss of biological diversity, stratospheric ozone depletion, desertification and land degradation, scarcity of freshwater resources, and forestry issues. While at UNCED in 1992 these problems were recognized as being closely related, afterwards, they were often addressed as isolated issues by both the scientific and political communities, as reflected in the separate scientific assessment activities and international conventions. The Earth īs weather, climate and stratospheric ozone layer are controlled by the interplay among physical, chemical and ecological processes: changes in one process influence the other and vice versa. Since the issues of ozone depletion and climate change are interconnected, so also are the Montreal and the Kyoto Protocols. Hence, decisions made under the Kyoto Protocol with respect to methane, nitrous oxides and carbon dioxide will affect the rate of recovery of stratospheric ozone, while decisions controlling HFCs may affect decisions regarding the ability to phase out ozone-depleting substances. Climate change affects land degradation through the effects of changes in various climate variables (i.e. wind, precipitation/ runoff, temperature, solar radiation, acid precipitation) on soil erosion and transport; and land degradation affects climate change through the feedback soils have on albedo. The causes of land degradation, such as intensive use of land in arid and semi-arid areas, often co-incide with land-use related causes of climate change locally, and through the increased demand for land elsewhere . In arid and semi-arid regions, where deforestation is advancing and leading to carbon loss, restoring forests by afforestation and proper management of existing secondary forests can help combat desertification. Changes in the acidity of rain are associated to variations in the emission of sulfur oxide from fossil fuel burning and nitrogen oxides from fixed and mobile engines. Sulfur abatement and fuel shifts are projected to lead global emissions of sulfur to peak in the period 2020-2050 and then decrease, mitigating acid deposition, but removing the masking effect on global warming. Climate change can not only affect local air quality, (e.g. warming can enhance conditions for troposheric ozone production and smog), conversely urban air pollution can enhance (e.g. through tropospheric ozone) or counteract (e.g. through sulphate aerosols) global warming. Addressing local air pollution can have important co-benefits with mitigating climate change. add statement on fresh water scarcity and climate change? Climate change is projected to have significant impacts on the world?s terrestrial ecosystems [forests]. At the same time, these ecosystems offer significant potential to capture and hold carbon at modest social cost. (WG3-ch 4). Increased carbon pools from management of terrestrial ecosystems can only partially offset fossil fuel emissions. add statement about biodiversity? Interactions between climate change and other environmental problems have important policy implications which can be seen in the context of the social, economic, and environmental dimensions of sustainable development (see Figure 8.2). The interactions call for policies that can serve multiple objectives, such as development, equity and sustainability (DES), and requires that a balance be struck when objectives conflict. Policies that exploit synergies between national economic growth objectives and environmental policies could help mitigate climate change as well as promote development. Development paths that focus on the social, economic and environmental elements of sustainable development may result in lower GHG emissions. The effectiveness of climate change mitigation can be enhanced when climate policies are integrated with the non-climate objectives of national policy development and be turned into broad transition strategies to achieve the long term social and technological changes required by both sustainable development and climate change mitigation. Political decisions will inevitably be influenced by the distribution of the effects of climate change over regions, sectors and time, as well as the costs of mitigation among countries and be determined by how risks, costs, environmental values and development aspirations are weighed in different regions and cultures. Countries with limited economic resources, low level of technology, poor information systems, inadequate infrastructure, unstable and weak institutions and inequitable empowerment and access to resources have little capacity to adapt and are highly vulnerable to climate change and associated stresses. At least three clusters of activities are likely to gain advantage from potential synergies in implementing global conventions: the development and strengthening of organizational structures, capacity-building interventions, and data collection and information processing. Question 9: Organize the messages (a) according to the 5 bullets in the question and (b) according to "robust findings" and "key uncertainties" (now all mixed up). 17thbullet: Cost and benefits are projected to amount to plus or minus a few percent of GDP: add "which is projected to increase significantly in all scenarios considered." Add robust statement about possibilities to decrease costs, a.o. through flexible mechanisms, multi-GHG approach, appropriate design of instruments (e.g. double dividend), accounting for co-benefits, integration with other national SD objectives. Optimistic message. But: cost may be low at the aggregate level, they are not at the sectoral level. And maybe even more important: there are many barriers and inertia in the socio-economic sector/transaction costs which make implementation hard. (that it is going to be difficult could be presented as a robust finding, but the extent to which it is going to be difficult - when and for whom - is a key uncertainty). If I can find some more time this week, let me also think about your request for tables and graphs. Good luck and looking forward to the "real" first draft SPM. Regards, Rob