tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post7342908220584352086..comments2023-08-07T16:41:49.660+02:00Comments on Die Klimazwiebel: Before we forget: IPCC working group 3 report publishededuardohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-56316667170397535012014-05-04T18:53:54.352+02:002014-05-04T18:53:54.352+02:00Ottmar Edenhofer, the co-chair of WG3 has written ...Ottmar Edenhofer, the co-chair of WG3 has written a letter to the Economist which is published in its latest edition:<br /><br />SIR – You described the estimated costs of mitigation in a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as “preposterous” for being too low (“Another week, another report”, April 19th). <b>But the cost of 0.06 percentage points of economic growth that you quoted is a reduction in the annual average consumption growth rate over the 21st century in stringent mitigation scenarios. This should not be compared with absolute reductions in economic output or consumption in a particular year. Indeed, the reductions in the rate of consumption growth correspond to median consumption losses of 1.7% by 2030 and 3.4% by 2050, relative to what would otherwise happen.</b><br /><br />You argued that the “costs of emission-reduction measures have routinely proved much higher than expected”. In the report the IPCC highlighted that cost estimates depend on a variety of assumptions, including the availability of relevant technologies and co-ordinated international action. These can indeed increase the costs substantially, as laid out in a comprehensive table in the summary for policymakers.<br /><br />The IPCC does not specify the feasibility of achieving a certain long-term climate-policy goal, but identifies the technological, economic and institutional requirements for achieving alternative goals under different socioeconomic conditions from a large body of scientific literature. Technological development, breakthroughs and human ingenuity will change these assumptions over time.<br /><br />That is the reason why these models should not be used as prediction machines, but as “living maps”, drawn up by scientists with the most recent evidence available to help policymakers navigate safely through a widely unknown landscape.<br /><br />Ottmar Edenhofer<br />Co-chair <br />IPCC Working Group III <br />Potsdam, Germany<br /><br />The contentious issue about reduced economic growth (0.06% pa.) is addressed in an oblique way (emphasised above) which is not immediately clear (at least not to me, as a non-economist). Maybe someone can help?@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-74469255991797695482014-04-30T15:03:15.564+02:002014-04-30T15:03:15.564+02:00Here is an inside story from an environmentalist, ...Here is an inside story from an environmentalist, covering the early 1990s<br /><br />http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Carbon_War.html?id=9lv8c2LkYm4C&redir_esc=y<br /><br />Not sure if similar accounts have been produced for later reports, or from different political viewpoints.@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-62398937742899409532014-04-28T14:49:02.825+02:002014-04-28T14:49:02.825+02:00Sorry, I meant
"oil exporting countries were...Sorry, I meant<br /><br />"oil exporting countries were trying some tactics in early reports within WG1."@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-30787406666729675742014-04-28T14:48:14.031+02:002014-04-28T14:48:14.031+02:00If this is the case I wonder what the reasons are ...If this is the case I wonder what the reasons are for the difference. I seem to remember that oil exporting countries were trying some tactics in early reports within WP2. But this seems to have subsided.<br /><br />WG2 is about impacts and perhaps this has created an incentive among governments to state the potential impacts in their fullest range, especially as there could be some kind of compensation.<br /><br />WG3 talks about mitigation and attributes quantities of emissions which is against the interests of some governments. <br /><br />Has this kind of government manipulation happened in previous reports of WG3? If not, why now? @ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-63981897589067072492014-04-28T08:18:45.702+02:002014-04-28T08:18:45.702+02:00Ich fand diesen Bericht über die Interaktion von W...Ich fand diesen Bericht über die Interaktion von Wissenschaft und Politik interessant, weil authentisch, von innen:<br /><br />http://www.robertstavinsblog.org/2014/04/25/is-the-ipcc-government-approval-process-broken-2/<br /><br />Ich denke, es kann gut sein, daß dies eine Besonderheit von WG II, im Gegensatz zu den WGs I und II ist.Hans von Storchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778028673130006646noreply@blogger.com