Alleged CRU Emails - 25 results below

The below are part of a series of alleged emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, released on 20 November 2009.

Browse by 10 | 25 | 50 100

Original Filename: 870465098.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Arnulf Gruebler <gruebler@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: alcamo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, knut.alfsen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dennis.anderson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, becon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, g.r.davis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, fisher@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, gruebler@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ja_edmonds@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, j.fennhann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, stuart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Fewewar@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, kennethgregory@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ehaites@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, bhare@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jefferson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tyjung@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, emilio@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, brahman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, vc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dpid@[169.158.128.138], d.mckay@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, laurie.michaelis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mori@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, naki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t-morita@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rmoss@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, naki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ynassef@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wpepper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, hm_pitcher@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, lkprice@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, crosenzweig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, shukla@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, J.F.Skea@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, leena@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ipcc_sec@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rob.swart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rwatson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, weyant@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, e.worrell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rogner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: No Subject
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 1997 15:51:38 +0200

<x-rich>

Dear Participants,

Please find attached the Minutes of the SRES Meeting in Laxenburg, June 14-16. 1997.

Please note that the list of participants will be sent additionally Monday, 4th of August.

Best regards,

Arnulf

</x-rich>

Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachfinalmin.doc"
<x-rich>

<center>Dr. Arnulf Gruebler

Environmentally Compatible Energy Strategies

International Institute for | Email: gruebler@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Applied Systems Analysis | Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx

A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria | Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx</center></x-rich>

Original Filename: 872202064.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "Wallace, Helen" <helen.wallace@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "'t.mcmichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx'" <t.mcmichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "'m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx'" <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Letter
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 18:21:04 +0100

Dear Tony and Michael,

The final draft of the letter to the Times is attached, incorperating
your changes (I hope I have combined them in a way that you are both
happy with).

Brian Hoskins and Adrian Jenkins have both decided that they prefer not
to sign the letter, although agreeing with its message. I haven't been
able to contact anyone else in the short time available, so I leave it
up to you to decide whether you are still both happy to go ahead.

If so, Mike could you please reply to both Tony and myself and let us
know, and Tony could you then send it as agreed?

Thank you both very much for your time and trouble.

Best regards,
Helen

Dr Helen Wallace
Senior Scientist
Greenpeace UK

Greenpeace, Canonbury Villas, London, N1 2PN

Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
---------------------------
FINAL DRAFT

Letters Editor
The Times

Fax: 0xxx xxxx xxxx
Email: letters@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

21 June 1997
Dear Sir,

Without wishing to comment on the dispute between BP and Greenpeace
(Editorial, 20 August), we would like to remind your readers of the
seriousness of the potential threat caused by our continued use of
fossil fuels. This damage occurs both locally - as evidenced by the
deterioration of air quality in UK cities in the past few weeks - and
also globally.

As scientists studying the impacts of climate change, we consider the
global threat from greenhouse gases to be serious and to need
addressing. Adverse effects on human populations are likely to result
from changes in weather patterns, shifts in storm frequencies, rises in
sea level and the spread of certain pests and infectious diseases. A
wide variety of ecosystems throughout the world will be at increasing
risk.

We have little idea whether or not we can manage such adverse effects
and therefore the prudent course of action is to limit the cause of the
threat.

Major shifts in investment away from fossil fuels will therefore be
required to make the necessary reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide
to the atmosphere. Large companies like British Petroleum seem to us to
be well placed to take an active part in investing in these changes.
There is no doubt the need for precautionary, preventative action is
urgent.

Yours sincerely,

Prof. A.J. McMichael
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
University of London
Keppel Street
London
WC1E 7HT

Dr. M. Hulme
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich
NR4 7TJ

Original Filename: 876171248.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Nebojsa Nakicenovic <naki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: alcamo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, knut.alfsen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dennis.anderson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, becon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Ged.R.Davis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ja_edmonds@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, j.fenhann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, fisher@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, stuart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Fewewar@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, kennethgregory@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, gruebler@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ehaites@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, bhare@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jefferson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tyjung@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, kram@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, emilio@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, brahman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Rik.Leemans@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, vc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dpid@[169.158.128.138], Doug.D.Mckay@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, laurie.michaelis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mori@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t-morita@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rmoss@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, nassef@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wpepper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, hm_pitcher@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, lkprice@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rogner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, crosenzweig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, leo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, shukla@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, J.F.Skea@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, leena@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rob.swart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Bert.de.Vries@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, weyant@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, e.worrell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dgvictor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: IPCC - a) Meeting, 17-19. Sept. 97; b) New Bureau
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 16:54:08 +0200
Cc: macdon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jaeger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, leo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, johnson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mcdonald@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

<x-rich>Dear Colleagues,

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of you who have attended the

SRES Lead Authors' meeting xxx xxxx xxxxSeptember 1997) and Rob Swart and

his colleagues from RIVM for organizing and hosting the meeting.

We have achieved a lot in the three short days as you will soon also see

from the minutes. The minutes of the meeting will be forwarded to you later this week

together with the revised SRES work plan that we have discussed during the meeting.

Sorry that it took a while longer this time for the completion of the minutes,

but I hope that they will refresh you memory about the outcome of the meeting.

Erik Haites just e-mailed that he returned from the IPCC plenary meeting in

Maldives and that the new IPCC Bureau has been appointed. It consists of

30 members: the Chair (Bob Watson), 5 Vice-Chairs (R. Pachuari (India), R.

Odingo (Kenya), G. Meira Filho (Brazil), Y. Izrael (Russia), K. Seiki

(Japan), and 8 Bureau members for each of the three Working Groups. The

Bureau for Working Group III (responsible for SRES) is B. Metz

(Netherlands), O. Davidson (Sierra Leone), E. Jochem (Germany), M.

Munasinghe (Sri Lanka), E. Calvo (Peru), R. Madruga (Cuba), R.T.M.

Sutamihardja (Indonesia), and L. Lorentsen (Norway).

Best regards,

Naki

<center>Nebojsa Nakicenovic

Project Leader

Environmentally Compatible Energy Strategies

International Institute for | Email: naki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Applied Systems Analysis | Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx

A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria | Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx</center>
</x-rich>

Original Filename: 876250531.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Angela.LIBERATORE@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: "m.hulme" <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Martin.OConnor" <Martin.OConnor@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, alcamo <alcamo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, jaeger <jaeger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, dvm <dvm@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, eepriia <eepriia@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, hourcade <hourcade@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "t.jackson" <t.jackson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, jaeger <jaeger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, vertic <vertic@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "pier.vellinga" <pier.vellinga@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, pweingart <pweingart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, fy1 <fy1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Copy of: climate: Japanese proposal
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 14:55:31 +0200

From: Andrew Kerr <101322.3724@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Sender: Andrew Kerr <101322.3724@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Peter DEBRINE <Peter.Debrine@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Patricia DESMARES <patricia.desmares@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Cherry FARROW <cfarrow@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Elizabeth FOLEY <EFOLEY@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Karen GILL <kgill@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
"Merylyn HEDGER (wwfnet)" <mmhedger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Martin HILLER <mhiller@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Aldo IACOMELLI <aldo.jacomelli@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Lars Georg JENSEN <wwf2@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve JUDD <smjudd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Paolo LOMBARDI <mc2236@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tony LONG <tlong@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Sten LUNDBERG <sten.lundberg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Nick MABEY <nmabey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Adam MARKHAM <ADAM.MARKHAM@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Gisele McAULIFFE <gisele.mcauliffe@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Konrad MEYER <konrad.meyer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Stefan MOIDL <STEFAN_MOIDL@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Lee POSTON <LEE.POSTON@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Michael RAE <wwfmrae@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Andrea RIES <andrea.ries@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Sible SCHONE <sschone@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Stephan SINGER <singer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Marc van den TWEEL <mtweel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Marijke UNGER <marijke.unger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Koichi WATANABE 2 <LDN02771@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Helge WEINBERG <weinberg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: Michael Brown <mvbrown@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
"Kornelis BLOK (ecofys)" <k.blok@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
"Kornelis BLOK (univ)" <blok@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Yvo de BOER <y.y.deboer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Michael BROWN <100563.1340@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Renate CHRIST <Renate.CHRIST@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Kirsty HAMILTON <KIRSTY.HAMILTON@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Kirsty HAMILTON 2 <khamilton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Sabri ZAIN <sabriz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bill HARE 1 <BHARE@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Bill HARE 2 <bill.hare@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Martina KRUEGER <MKRUEGER@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Penehuro LEFALE <lefale@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Yasuko MATSUMOTO <yasuko.matsumoto@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Paul METZ <pemetz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Katarina PANJI <KPanji@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
"Michel RAQUET (dg11)" <Michel.RAQUET@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Holger ROENITZ <hroenitz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
Cornelia SIDLER <Cornelia.Sidler@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
"Ad van WIJK (ecofys)" <a.vanwijk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,
"Ad van WIJK (uu)" <vwijk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: climate: Japanese proposal
Message-ID: <199710051347_MC2-22DC-A5E4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

From: Andrew Kerr, WWF Climate Change Campaign
re.: "scandalous" Japanese climate change proposal
Dear All
I am in Japan for the next week. If you need to, you can contact me by
phone at the following numbers:
* Monday - xxx xxxx xxxx(Yurika?s mobile)
* Tuesday-Thursday - via WWF Japan. Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx; fax: 3xxx xxxx xxxx.
* Friday - Tokyo Grand Hotel. Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx
Tomorrow the Japanese government is due to formally announce its emission
reduction proposal for the industrialised world for the Kyoto climate
summit: a maximum of a 5% reduction from 1990 levels for a basket of three
greenhouse gases over the period 2xxx xxxx xxxx. In a second period up to 2017,
industrialised countries would not be obliged to make further reductions.
See below for fuller details and an analysis of the emission
reduction implications for various industrialised nations.
The information has been well-leaked. In a talk to the Foreign
Correspondents Club of Japan last Friday I described the proposal as a
"joke". This was well picked up by the written press here.
Now more details have emerged, the proposal is even weaker than first
thought. We are faxing a press release out this afternoon to Japan-based
agencies and press with WWF?s reaction (see below). You might like to join
in the condemnation of what Japan is proposing and ensure that your country
flatly rejects the proposal.
Japan?s Special Ambassador, Toshiaki Tanabe, is on a world tour canvassing
for the support of other industrialised nations. After visiting Washington
DC he moved on to Hawaii a few days ago for an informal conference
including Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the US. Today's Yomiuri
Shimbun gave front-page coverage to Australia?s outrage over the stringency
of the Japanese proposal!
Tanabe is moving to Europe for talks in the next few days. It is vital that
European governments reject the proposal in no uncertain terms and urge
Japan to at least support the EU standpoint. (Note: the WWF policies and
measures study for Japan identifies how to cut CO2 emissions 8.8% below
1990 levels by 2005 and 14.8% by 2010 - very similar to the EU position).
It would also be very useful if progressive business groups would express
their horror at the new economic opportunities which will be foregone if
Kyoto is a flop.
Best wishes, Andrew
---
CLIMATE CHANGE: JAPANESE PROPOSAL FOR KYOTO
To be formally announced by the Japanese government, Monday 6 October 1997
Following information is from the Nikkei Journal, 4 October 1997
A. Content of the proposal
1. First period: the five years from 2008 to 2012
Reduction of 5%; Base year: 1990
1) Gases: CO2, methane, Nitrous oxide
2) Target figures will be flexible according to the future energy
situation, changes in industrial structures, etc. But in any case, the
total emission should not exceed 1990 level.
3) Each country's target would be based on emission per GDP, emission per
capita, and population growth rate.
If emission per GDP of 1990 (A) is smaller than emission per GDP of all
countries (B), the reduction rate should be 5%x(A/B)
If per capita emission of 1990(C) is smaller than per capita emission of
all countries (D), the reduction rate should be 5%x(C/D).
If population growth rate from 1990 to 1995 is more than the population
growth rate of all other countries, the reduction target of that country
should put into consideration their high population growth rate.
Banking, Borrowing, Joint Implementaion and Emission Trading schemes should
be introduced with certain conditions.
2. Second period: 2xxx xxxx xxxx
Emission should not exceed the level of the first period.
More sophisticated differentiation scheme should be adopted for the second
period.
B. Implications of the proposal
Resulting emission reduction targets for the five years 2xxx xxxx xxxx, relative
to 1990:

%
Australia 1.8
Czech Republic 5.0
Denmark 2.5
Germany 3.1
Italy 2.5
Japan 2.5
Portugal 1.6
Russia 5.0
Spain 2.2
Switzerland 1.3
UK 3.7
US 2.6
Overall reduction for all industrialised countries: 3.2 %
---
WWF PRESS RELEASE
JAPAN PROPOSAL FOR KYOTO SUMMIT SCANDALOUS, WWF SAYS
KYOTO, JAPAN, 5 October 1997 ? The World Wide Fund for Nature condemned as
"scandalous" the Japanese government?s proposal for reducing greenhouse
gases responsible for climate change, Sunday, and called on industrialised
nations to flatly reject it.
As full details of the proposal emerged over the weekend, it was revealed
that Japan suggests allowing industrialised countries to make extremely
marginal reductions in their emissions by as late as 2xxx xxxx xxxx. In a
second five-year period up to 2017, countries would only be required to
ensure their emissions were lower than in 1990.
"The Japanese plan presents a bleak future for the environment, already
suffering from the serious impacts of global warming including rising
sea-levels, rising sea temperatures, and increased extreme weather patterns
? to name just a few," said Andrew Kerr of WWF?s international Climate
Change Campaign. "The plan is laughable when you consider that some
European nations already have cut their greenhouse gas emissions by several
times more than the amount Japan proposes for emission reductions more than
a decade from now."
According to the just released "WWF State of the Climate" report that
evaluates the global impacts of climate change, a long list of impacts
already are visible today including the destruction of several land and
marine ecosystems in Asia and around the world because they cannot keep up
with the pace of global warming.
The Japanese proposal also proves the government is back-tracking on a
Ministerial Declaration concluded at the 1996 climate summit in Geneva. At
that conference, 130 countries, including Japan, agreed that the Kyoto
Summit should agree on "legally-binding objectives for emission limitations
and significant overall reductions" of greenhouse gases. At the Geneva
meeting, the Ministers recognised that climate change science showed human
activities, primarily the burning of coal, oil and gasoline, are already
affecting the planet?s climate and the impacts would be wide-ranging and
irreversible, posing threats to food supplies, public health and the
survival of many species. Nations also agreed that "significant reductions
in net greenhouse gas emissions are technically possible and economically
feasible".
WWF is calling on industrial nations to cut their carbon dioxide emissions
20 percent below 1990 levels by 2005. A WWF report written by Dr. Haruki
Tsuchiya of the Research Institute for Systems Technology, in Tokyo, (to be
released by WWF later this month) shows that Japan can reduce its carbon
dioxide emissions by nearly nine percent by 2005 and by almost 15 percent
by 2010 without damaging the economy. Policies and measures suggested by
the WWF report would stimulate the economy and help position Japan as a
world leader in the development of new, energy efficient technologies.
"Environmentally, Japan?s plan is worse than no plan whatsoever because it
pretends to legitimise an emissions cut that is so low it will produce no
tangible result in the effort to combat climate change, " said Kerr. "Even
more alarming, it encourages many nations also to cut their emissions by
much less than they now plan. This proposal is an embarrassment for Japan
because it spells disaster for the Kyoto Summit in December which will be
seen as an absolute failure by several European nations and the entire
environmental community if such meagre greenhouse gas emission cuts are
adopted."
The complicated emission-reduction formulae that Japan proposes would
require Japan to make only a 2.5 percent cut in emissions. The United
States, responsible for over one-fifth of world releases of carbon dioxide,
would only need to make a 2.6 percent reduction. Highlighting the
political irrelevance of the Japanese formula, Germany, Denmark and the UK
would have to make reductions of 3.1 percent, 2.5 percent and 3.7 percent
respectively. But Germany already has achieved around half of its national
target of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 25 percent by 2005. Denmark
is aiming for a 20 percent reduction by the same date and the UK?s target
is a 20 percent cut by 2010.
Contact: Andrew Kerr or Yurika Ayukawa. Mobile tel: xxx xxxx xxxxand
Hearton Hotel, xxx xxxx xxxx.

Original Filename: 876437553.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Joseph Alcamo <alcamo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Rob.Swart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Timing, Distribution of the Statement
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:52:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: alcamo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Mike, Rob,

Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.

I would like to weigh in on two important questions --

Distribution for Endorsements --
I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as
possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is
numbers. The media is going to say "1000 scientists signed" or "1500
signed". No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000
without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a
different story.

Conclusion -- Forget the screening, forget asking
them about their last publication (most will ignore you.) Get those
names!

Timing -- I feel strongly that the week of 24 November is too late.
1. We wanted to announce the Statement in the period when there was
a sag in related news, but in the week before Kyoto we should expect
that we will have to crowd out many other articles about climate.
2. If the Statement comes out just a few days before Kyoto I am
afraid that the delegates who we want to influence will not have any
time to pay attention to it. We should give them a few weeks to hear
about it.
3. If Greenpeace is having an event the week before, we should have
it a week before them so that they and other NGOs can further spread
the word about the Statement. On the other hand, it wouldn't be so
bad to release the Statement in the same week, but on a
diffeent day. The media might enjoy hearing the message from two
very different directions.

Conclusion -- I suggest the week of 10 November, or the week of 17
November at the latest.

Mike -- I have no organized email list that could begin to compete
with the list you can get from the Dutch. But I am still
willing to send you what I have, if you wish.

Best wishes,

Joe Alcamo

----------------------------------------------------
Prof. Dr. Joseph Alcamo, Director
Center for Environmental Systems Research
University of Kassel
Kurt Wolters Strasse 3
D-34109 Kassel
Germany

Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx

Original Filename: 884731847.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Nebojsa Nakicenovic <naki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Joseph M. Alcamo" <alcamo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Knut H. Alfsen" <knut.alfsen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Dennis Anderson <dennis.anderson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Zhou Dadi <becon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Gerald R. Davis" <Ged.R.Davis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Benjamin Dessus <benjamin.dessus@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jae Edmonds <ja_edmonds@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, (although he cancelled) Joergen Fenhann <j.fenhann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Stuart R. Gaffin" <stuart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Henryk Gaj <Fewewar@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ken Gregory <kennethgregory@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "A. Gruebler" <gruebler@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Erik Haites <EHaites@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, William Hare <bhare@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Jefferson <jefferson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tae-Yong Jung <tyjung@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Kram <kram@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Emilio Lebre La Rovere <emilio@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mathew Luhanga <vc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Douglas McKay <Doug.D.Mckay@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Julio Torres Martinez <dpid@[169.158.128.138]>, Laurie Michaelis <laurie.michaelis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Shunsuke Mori <mori@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tsuneyuki Morita <t-morita@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Richard Moss <rmoss@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Youssef H. Nassef" <nassef@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, William Pepper <wpepper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Hugh M. Pitcher" <hm_pitcher@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Lynn Price <lkprice@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Hans-Holger Rogner <h.h.rogner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Cynthia Rosenzweig <crosenzweig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Jim F. Skea" <J.F.Skea@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Priyadarshi Shukla <shukla@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Leena Srivastava <leena@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Rob Swart <rob.swart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "H.J.M. de Vries" <Bert.de.Vries@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "John P. Weyant" <weyant@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ernst Worrell <e.worrell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Invitation to the SRES meeting in Berkeley
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 17:50:47 +0100

<x-rich>Dear Colleagues,

I would like to confirm that we will hold the next SRES meeting on 7-8 February

at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California. Lynn

Price is the organizer of the meeting. Below is her contact information.

Ms. Lynn Price

Energy Analysis Program

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

MS xxx xxxx xxxx, 1 Cyclotron Road

Berkeley, CA 94720

U.S.A.

(xxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxxx

(xxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxxx

e-mail: lkprice@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

The main purpose of the meeting is to review the work progress of the four

modeling groups that have been involved in first quantifications of the

four storylines. My expectation is that we can harmonize various model

runs into four initial scenarios. Thus, this will be primarily a modelers'

meeting focusing on technical issues, storyline interpretation and

consistency of first quantifications. It will not have the character of a

Lead Authors meeting in the strict sense. It is nevertheless an important

meeting for all modeling groups who have volunteered to quantify

storylines, since this work needs to proceed in order for us to meet our

original timetable and cannot be postponed until the next Lead Authors'

meeting in the spring.

I hope that most of you can attend. Your input would be

valuable in this early stage of modeling work. Furthermore, it would be

good to also take the opportunity of this meeting to review the so-called

zero-order-drafts (ZODs). The deadline for the submission of the final

versions of the ZODs is 15 January (Thursday), so I expect that we will

also have new material to discuss.

Although I realize that this meeting will take place on rather short

notice and not all of you will be able to obtain the necessary approvals

and visas to attend, I nonetheless believe that it is important at this

stage to hold an informal meeting with the four modeling groups. I have

funds available for the four lead authors from developing countries:

Matthew Luhanga, Zhou Dadi, Henryk Gaj, and Emilio La Rovere. As noted

above, a more formal meeting of the complete writing team will be held

sometime in March or April, at which time I hope everyone will be able to

attend.

Please confirm your attendance for the February meeting with me as soon as

possible (this week if you can), so that we can reserve sufficient hotel

space in Berkeley.

Again, for those of you who are working on Zero Order Drafts, please

remember that this Thursday is the deadline for completion. I look forward to

receiving these.

Best Regards,

Naki

<center>Katalin Kuszko

Environmentally Compatible Energy Strategies

International Institute for | Email: kuszko@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Applied Systems Analysis | Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx

A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria | Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx</center>
</x-rich>

Original Filename: 884787012.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: P R Shukla <shukla@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Nebojsa Nakicenovic <naki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Invitation to the SRES meeting in Berkeley
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 09:10:xxx xxxx xxxx
Reply-to: shukla@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: "Joseph M. Alcamo" <alcamo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Knut H. Alfsen" <knut.alfsen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Dennis Anderson <dennis.anderson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Zhou Dadi <becon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Gerald R. Davis" <Ged.R.Davis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Benjamin Dessus <benjamin.dessus@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jae Edmonds <ja_edmonds@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "(although he cancelled) Joergen Fenhann" <j.fenhann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Stuart R. Gaffin" <stuart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Henryk Gaj <Fewewar@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ken Gregory <kennethgregory@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "A. Gruebler" <gruebler@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Erik Haites <EHaites@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, William Hare <bhare@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Jefferson <jefferson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tae-Yong Jung <tyjung@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Kram <kram@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Emilio Lebre La Rovere <emilio@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mathew Luhanga <vc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Douglas McKay <Doug.D.Mckay@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Julio Torres Martinez <dpid@[169.158.128.138]>, Laurie Michaelis <laurie.michaelis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Shunsuke Mori <mori@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tsuneyuki Morita <t-morita@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Richard Moss <rmoss@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Youssef H. Nassef" <nassef@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, William Pepper <wpepper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Hugh M. Pitcher" <hm_pitcher@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Lynn Price <lkprice@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Hans-Holger Rogner <h.h.rogner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Cynthia Rosenzweig <crosenzweig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Jim F. Skea" <J.F.Skea@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Priyadarshi Shukla <shukla@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Leena Srivastava <leena@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Rob Swart <rob.swart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "H.J.M. de Vries" <Bert.de.Vries@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "John P. Weyant" <weyant@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ernst Worrell <e.worrell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Naki,

Thanks for the invitation to the SRES meeting.

Given the funds situation at your disposal, I am opting out of attending
the meeting. I would however like to offer any assistance on issues
concerning developing / Asian countries. Specifically, I have data on
structural changes of GDP and energy for countries in Asia-Pacific. The
structural transitions in these countries offer interesting insights and
directions for scenarios. I have passed an analysis of 12 countries to
Tae. The countries include the important economies in Asia-Pacific,
namely China, India, Japan, Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand,
Pakistan, Bangladesh etc. I think the structural changes in developing
countries is a very vital aspect for specifying future emissions. Also,
well documented and specified information on this shall help the policy
exercises later which shall use our emissions scenarios as reference.

I think the modelling groups may also require some inputs (and insights)
for handling developing country specifications in the models. In the
past we have pointed out several lacunas - such as neglect of
traditional biomass, disequilibrium, informal economy, geopolitical
realities etc. These also influence technological assumptions and
constraints. In fact our scenarios are very well suited to handle some
of these aspects differently. The modellers may have to be advised to
handle these aspects suitably. This is vital since we aim to specify the
emissions regionally.

An another issue I wish to bring to your attention relates to discount
rates. I know your competence on this issue. However, the modelling
difficulties (and paradigm itself) often stop us from using different
discount rates. The persistence of high discount rates in developing
economies is an observed fact. This may not equalize globally during the
next half century (or more). Even if we may not want to have different
discount rates (since this upsets the underlying neoclassical paradigm),
we may just ask the modellers to ensure that the results are not
sensitive to this.

A more interesting issue concerning the discount rates for our scenarios
is that the different futures (scenarios) would have different
associated discount rates. The sustainable development type scenarios
(e.g. B1 scenario) may have lower discount rate than our A scenarios. If
we run all scenarios with same discount rate, this would be a
contradiction. I know there are no easy answers around this since we do
not want to confuse the users of scenarios later on with too many
different parameters. However it may be worth providing different
specifications for important parameters or caveats where we anticipate
contradictions.

Given the recent developments in East Asia, it may be worth to take a
relook at A1 scenario and consider whether the Tiger World would transit
to A1 or A2. This is just an aside.

Wishing you a very happy new year.

P.R. Shukla

**************************************************************
P.R. Shukla, Professor
Indian Institute of Management, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad 380015, India
Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx, Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
Email: shukla@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, http://www.iimahd.ernet.in/~shukla
***************************************************************

Original Filename: 885318160.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Lynn Price <lkpocd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Nebojsa Nakicenovic <naki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Confirmation of Attendance for Next IPCC SRES Meeting
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 12:42:xxx xxxx xxxx(PST)
Reply-to: Lynn Price <lkpocd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: "Joseph M. Alcamo" <alcamo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Knut H. Alfsen" <knut.alfsen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Dennis Anderson <dennis.anderson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Zhou Dadi <becon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Gerald R. Davis" <Ged.R.Davis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Benjamin Dessus <benjamin.dessus@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jae Edmonds <ja_edmonds@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Joergen Fenhann <j.fenhann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Stuart R. Gaffin" <stuart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Henryk Gaj <Fewewar@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ken Gregory <kennethgregory@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "A. Gruebler" <gruebler@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Erik Haites <EHaites@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, William Hare <bhare@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Jefferson <jefferson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tae-Yong Jung <tyjung@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Kram <kram@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Emilio Lebre La Rovere <emilio@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mathew Luhanga <vc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Douglas McKay <Doug.D.Mckay@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Julio Torres Martinez <dpid@[169.158.128.138]>, Laurie Michaelis <laurie.michaelis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Shunsuke Mori <mori@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tsuneyuki Morita <t-morita@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Richard Moss <rmoss@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Youssef H. Nassef" <nassef@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, William Pepper <wpepper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Hugh M. Pitcher" <hm_pitcher@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Lynn Price <lkprice@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Hans-Holger Rogner <h.h.rogner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Cynthia Rosenzweig <crosenzweig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Jim F. Skea" <J.F.Skea@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Priyadarshi Shukla <shukla@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Leena Srivastava <leena@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Rob Swart <rob.swart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "H.J.M. de Vries" <Bert.de.Vries@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "John P. Weyant" <weyant@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ernst Worrell <e.worrell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, ASM@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rrichels@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, johnson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Kuszko@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Hi everyone,

I need to have a firm number of attendees by the end of the day tomorrow
(Wednesday January 21st) in order to hold rooms at the hotel. At the end
of this e-mail I have listed the information that I currently have
regarding who is planning to attend, who is not planning to attend, and
who has not responded.

I will hold a room for each of the people listed below as attending
unless I hear otherwise from you.

If you are in the list of people who have not yet responded and you plan
to attend, please let me know ASAP.

If I have not heard from you by the end of the day tomorrow I will assume
that you will make your own arrangements for accommodations.

For those of you who want me to hold a room for you, I will send
information on how to make your reservations in a day or so.

Thanks,

Lynn

*************************************
Lynn Price
Energy Analysis Program
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
1 Cyclotron Road, MS xxx xxxx xxxx
Berkeley, CA 94720 USA
(5xxx xxxx xxxx
fax (5xxx xxxx xxxx
*************************************

Confirmed as attending:
Nebojsa Nakicenovic
Zhou Dadi
Stuart Gaffin
Henryk Gaj
Ken Gregory
Arnulf Gruebler
Erik Haites
Tae-Yong Jung
Emilio Lebre La Rovere
Alan Manne
Tsuneyuki Morita
Richard Moss
Hugh Pitcher
Rich Richels
Rob Swart
H.J.M. de Vries
Ernst Worrell

Not attending:
Knut Alfsen
Dennis Anderson
Joergen Fenhann
Laurie Michaelis
Priyadarshi Shukla
Jim Skea

Have not responded:
Joseph Alcamo
Ged Davis
Benjamin Dessus
Jae Edmonds
William Hare
Michael Hulme
Michael Jefferson
Tom Kram
Mathem Luhanga
Douglas McKay
Julio Torres Martinez
Shunsuke Mori
Youssef Nassef
William Pepper
Hans-Holger Rogner
Cynthia Rosenzweig
Leena Srivastava
John Weyant

Original Filename: 887665729.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Nebojsa Nakicenovic <naki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Joseph Alcamo <alcamo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Knut Alfsen <knut.alfsen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Benjamin Dessus <benjamin.dessus@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Dennis Anderson <dennis.anderson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Zhou Dadi <becon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gerald Davis <Ged.R.Davis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Benjamin Dessus <Benjamin.Dessus@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bert de Vries <Bert.de.Vries@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jae Edmonds <ja_edmonds@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Joerg Fenhann <j.fenhann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Stuart Gaffin <stuart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Henryk Gaj <Fewewar@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kenneth Gregory <kennethgregory@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Arnulf Gruebler <gruebler@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Erik Haites <ehaites@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, William Hare <bhare@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Jefferson <jefferson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tae-Yong Jung <tyjung@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas Kram <kram@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Emilio La Rovere <emilio@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mathew Luhanga <vc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Julio Torres Martinez <dpid@[169.158.128.138]>, Douglas McKay <Doug.D.Mckay@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Laurie Michaelis <laurie.michaelis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Shunsuke Mori <mori@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tsuneyuke Morita <t-morita@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Richard Moss <rmoss@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Nebojsa Nakicenovic <Naki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Youssef Nassef <nassef@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, William Pepper <WPepper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Hugh Pitcher <hm_pitcher@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Lynn Price <lkprice@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Holger Rogner <rogner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Cynthia Rosenzweig <crosenzweig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Priyadarshi Shukla <shukla@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Skea <J.F.Skea@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Leena Srivastava <leena@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Robert Swart <rob.swart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, John Weyant <weyant@xxxxxxxxx.xxx.>, Ernst Worrell <e.worrell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: minutes of the SRES informal modelers' meeting
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998 16:48:49 +0100
Cc: kuszko@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, naki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Dear Colleagues,

Please find attached the minutes of the SRES informal modelers' meeting,
7-8 February 1998 in Berkeley, California. I would like to thank those who
participated in the meeting and Lynn Price in particular, both for the
excellent organization of the meeting and for drafting the minutes. Please
note the deadlines detailed in our
work plan; for those of you completing the next two rounds on model runs
and storylines, this will be especially important. Additional submissions
to the SRES scenario database would be also greatly appreciated. Finally,
if anyone would like to receive a hard copy of the materials we discussed
in Berkeley, please contact Anne Johnson at johnson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx. (The same
material was sent to you by e-mail on January 30).

With best regards,

Naki

Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachdraft-minutes1.doc"

Nebojsa NAKICENOVIC
International Institute for | Email: naki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Applied Systems Analysis | Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria | Fax: xxx xxxx xxxxFrom ???@??? Fri Feb 20 10:42:xxx xxxx xxxx
Return-path: <dlroberts@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Envelope-to: f037@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Delivery-date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 10:41:40 +0000
Received: from mailgate3.uea.ac.uk [139.222.230.3]
by cpca11.uea.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 1.73 #1)
id 0y5ptk-0005i2-00; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 10:41:40 +0000
Received: from thorn.meto.gov.uk by mailgate3.uea.ac.uk with SMTP (PP);
Fri, 20 Feb 1998 10:41:22 +0000
Received: from thorn.meto.gov.uk (MEADOW)
by thorn.meto.gov.uk (PMDF V5.1-9 #26370) with ESMTP
id <01ITST3966TC0044ID@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> for m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx;
Fri, 20 Feb 1998 10:40:27 GMT
Received: from hc0800 ([151.170.1.12])
by meadow.meto.gov.uk (PMDF V5.1-9 #26370) with ESMTP
id <01ITST3LEWEW006LUJ@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> for m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx;
Fri, 20 Feb 1998 10:40:44 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from hc1300 by hc0800 with ESMTP (1.39.111.2/1.1) id AA146051261;
Fri, 20 Feb 1998 10:41:02 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 10:41:01 +0000 (GMT)
From: David L Roberts <dlroberts@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: From dlroberts@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Message-id: <199802201041.AA146051261@hc0800>
Posted-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 10:41:01 GMT
Received-Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 10:41:02 GMT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="X-roman8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Status:

Dear Mike,
What is the current state of play regarding definition of
improved sulphur emission scenarios? I have the 'zero-order
draft' by Arnulf Grubler that you sent me at the beginning of
November, as well as a shorter note by Hugh Pitcher. Have there
been more developments since then?
As you can probably guess, this enquiry results from Geoff
Jenkins's visit to Brussels (?) a few days ago. Geoff is now
keen that we should use better emission scenarios than IS92a
and is pressing me for action, even if this means using an
interim scenario that has not yet been agreed by IPCC.
Best regards,
David

Original Filename: 888364876.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Nebojsa NAKICENOVIC <naki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Joseph Alcamo <alcamo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Knut Alfsen <knut.alfsen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Benjamin Dessus <benjamin.dessus@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Dennis Anderson <dennis.anderson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Zhou Dadi <becon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gerald Davis <Ged.R.Davis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Benjamin Dessus <Benjamin.Dessus@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bert de Vries <Bert.de.Vries@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jae Edmonds <ja_edmonds@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Joerg Fenhann <j.fenhann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Stuart Gaffin <stuart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Henryk Gaj <Fewewar@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kenneth Gregory <kennethgregory@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Arnulf Gruebler <gruebler@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Erik Haites <ehaites@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, William Hare <bhare@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Jefferson <jefferson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tae-Yong Jung <tyjung@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas Kram <kram@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Emilio La Rovere <emilio@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mathew Luhanga <vc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Julio Torres Martinez <dpid@[169.158.128.138]>, Douglas McKay <Doug.D.Mckay@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Laurie Michaelis <laurie.michaelis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Shunsuke Mori <mori@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tsuneyuke Morita <t-morita@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Richard Moss <rmoss@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Nebojsa Nakicenovic <Naki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Youssef Nassef <nassef@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, William Pepper <WPepper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Hugh Pitcher <hm_pitcher@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Richard G. Richels" <rrichels@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Lynn Price <lkprice@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Holger Rogner <rogner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Cynthia Rosenzweig <crosenzweig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Priyadarshi Shukla <shukla@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Skea <J.F.Skea@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Leena Srivastava <leena@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Robert Swart <rob.swart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Robert Watson <rwatson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, John Weyant <weyant@xxxxxxxxx.xxx.>, Ernst Worrell <e.worrell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Next SRES Meeting, week of 27 April in Washington
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 19:01:16 +0100

Dear Colleagues,

I am writing to let you know that the next IPCC-SRES Full Authors meeting
will be held the week of 27 April 1998 (instead the week of 6 April) in
Washington, D.C. Bob Watson of
the IPCC will attend. The exact dates during that week are not yet fixed,
but I expect that we will have a full authors meeting for two days,
preceded by a two-day modelers meeting. Please let me know soon--today if
possible--whether you will be available during this week; it is critical
that we finalize the dates early so there will be sufficient time to ensure
funding for our colleagues from developing countries who need IPCC support.

I look forward to hearing from you very soon.

Best regards,

Naki

Prof. Dr. Nebojsa Nakicenovic
Project Leader
Environmentally Compatible Energy Strategies
International Institute for | Email: naki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Applied Systems Analysis | Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria | Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx

Original Filename: 888611422.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Nebojsa NAKICENOVIC <naki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Joseph Alcamo <alcamo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Knut Alfsen <knut.alfsen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Dennis Anderson <dennis.anderson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Zhou Dadi <becon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gerald Davis <Ged.R.Davis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Benjamin Dessus <Benjamin.Dessus@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bert de Vries <Bert.de.Vries@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jae Edmonds <ja_edmonds@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Joerg Fenhann <j.fenhann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Stuart Gaffin <stuart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Henryk Gaj <Fewewar@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kenneth Gregory <kennethgregory@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Arnulf Gruebler <gruebler@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Erik Haites <ehaites@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, William Hare <bhare@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Jefferson <jefferson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tae-Yong Jung <tyjung@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas Kram <kram@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Emilio La Rovere <emilio@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mathew Luhanga <vc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Julio Torres Martinez <dpid@[169.158.128.138]>, Douglas McKay <Doug.D.Mckay@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Laurie Michaelis <laurie.michaelis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Shunsuke Mori <mori@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tsuneyuke Morita <t-morita@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Richard Moss <rmoss@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Nebojsa Nakicenovic <Naki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Youssef Nassef <nassef@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, William Pepper <WPepper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Hugh Pitcher <hm_pitcher@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Richard G. Richels" <rrichels@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Lynn Price <lkprice@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Holger Rogner <rogner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Cynthia Rosenzweig <crosenzweig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Priyadarshi Shukla <shukla@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Skea <J.F.Skea@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Leena Srivastava <leena@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Robert Swart <rob.swart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Robert Watson <rwatson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, John Weyant <weyant@xxxxxxxxx.xxx.>, Ernst Worrell <e.worrell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Tentative Attendance of IPCC SRES Meeting, xxx xxxx xxxxApril 1998
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 1998 15:30:22 +0100

Dear Colleagues,

Thank you for your prompt response to my recent e-mail message regarding
the next IPCC SRES meeting. I am glad to hear that so many of you will be
able to attend, since this will be a very important discussion. The plan is
to hold the modelers' meeting on April 27 and 28, followed by the full
authors' meeting on April 29 and 30.

Below is a list of those who are planning to attend:

Joseph Alcamo <alcamo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Dennis Anderson <dennis.anderson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Zhou Dadi <becon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Gerald Davis <Ged.R.Davis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> (part of the meeting)
Bert de Vries <Bert.de.Vries@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Jae Edmonds <ja_edmonds@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Joerg Fenhann <j.fenhann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Stuart Gaffin <stuart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Henryk Gaj <Fewewar@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Kenneth Gregory <kennethgregory@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Arnulf Gruebler <gruebler@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Erik Haites <ehaites@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Michael Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Tae-Yong Jung <tyjung@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Mathew Luhanga <vc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Julio Torres Martinez <dpid@[169.158.128.138]>
Laurie Michaelis <laurie.michaelis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> (part of the meeting)
Tsuneyuke Morita <t-morita@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Richard Moss <rmoss@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Nebojsa Nakicenovic <Naki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Youssef Nassef <nassef@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Hugh Pitcher <hm_pitcher@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Lynn Price <lkprice@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Holger Rogner <rogner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> (strong possibility)
Priyadarshi Shukla <shukla@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Leena Srivastava <leena@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Robert Swart <rob.swart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> (strong possibility)
Ernst Worrell <e.worrell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

I will be in touch with additional details in the coming weeks.

Best regards,

Naki

Original Filename: 889047457.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

Original Filename: 889554019.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Anne JOHNSON <johnson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Joseph Alcamo <alcamo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Knut Alfsen <knut.alfsen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Dennis Anderson <dennis.anderson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Zhou Dadi <becon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gerald Davis <Ged.R.Davis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Benjamin Dessus <Benjamin.Dessus@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bert de Vries <Bert.de.Vries@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jae Edmonds <ja_edmonds@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Joerg Fenhann <j.fenhann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Stuart Gaffin <stuart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Henryk Gaj <Fewewar@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kenneth Gregory <kennethgregory@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Arnulf Gruebler <gruebler@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Erik Haites <ehaites@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, William Hare <bhare@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Jefferson <jefferson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tae-Yong Jung <tyjung@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas Kram <kram@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Emilio La Rovere <emilio@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mathew Luhanga <vc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Julio Torres Martinez <dpid@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Douglas McKay <Doug.D.Mckay@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Laurie Michaelis <laurie.michaelis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Shunsuke Mori <mori@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tsuneyuke Morita <t-morita@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Richard Moss <rmoss@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Nebojsa Nakicenovic <Naki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Youssef Nassef <nassef@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, William Pepper <WPepper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Hugh Pitcher <hm_pitcher@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Lynn Price <lkprice@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Rich Richels <rrichels@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Holger Rogner <rogner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Cynthia Rosenzweig <crosenzweig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Priyadarshi Shukla <shukla@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Skea <J.F.Skea@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Leena Srivastava <leena@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Robert Swart <rob.swart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Robert Watson <rwatson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, John Weyant <weyant@xxxxxxxxx.xxx.>, Ernst Worrell <e.worrell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: new IPCC-SRES Zero Order Draft
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 13:20:19 +0100

Dear Colleagues:

I am sending you a copy of Ged Davis' IPCC-SRES Zero Order Draft on
storylines and scenarios. The text is appended below, but I am also
attaching versions in MS Word and in Rich Text formats so that you can
better view the graphics.

Please send any comments directly to Ged Davis at

Ged.R.Davis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Regards,

Anne Johnson

****************************************************************************
******
Zero Order Draft

IS99
Storylines and Scenarios

February, 1998

Ged Davis et al

For Comment Only
Draft Paper for the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios

*********************************
Contents

1. Introduction

2. Scenarios - overview

3. Golden Economic Age (A1)

4. Sustainable Development (B1)

5. Divided World (A2)

6. Regional Stewardship (B2)

7. Scenario comparisons

8. Conclusions

Appendix 1: Scenario quantification

1. Introduction

The IS99 scenarios have been constructed to explore future developments in
the global environment with special reference to the production of GHGs.
These scenarios are being developed in three phases:
- Phase 1: the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) team is
preparing a set of scenarios for wide public discussion, which is the
subject of this note,
- Phase 2: the scenarios will be placed on the World Wide Web, subject to
public scrutiny, and suggestions for relevant modification of the scenarios
will be sought,
- Phase 3: the scenarios will be finalised for peer review, incorporating
suggestions received during the public review, by April 1999.
Phase 1 centred on a facilitated open process for Lead Authors at workshops
in Paris, Vienna and Utrecht. The scenarios developed allow for a broad
range of GHG emissions and provide a basis for reflection on policy.

1.1 What are scenarios?
Scenarios are pertinent, plausible, alternative futures. Their pertinence,
in this case, is derived from the need for climate change modelers to have
a basis for assessing the implications of future possible paths for
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs). Their plausibility is tested by peer
review, in an open process, which includes their publication on the World
Wide Web.

There are clearly an infinite number of possible alternative futures to
explore. We have consciously applied the principle of Occam's Razor ,
seeking the minimum number of scenarios to provide an adequate basis for
climate modelling and challenge to policy makers. The alternative futures
constructed are not, and cannot be, value free since like any work they
self-evidently reflect the team's view of the possible. The scenarios
should not be construed as being desirable or undesirable in their own
right and have been built as descriptions of possible, rather than
preferred, developments. There can be no objective assessment of the
probability of the scenarios, although in the prevailing zeitgeist some
will appear to individuals to be more likely than others. Scenarios are
built to clarify ignorance rather than present knowledge -- the one thing
we can be sure of is that the future will be very different from any of
those we describe!

2. Scenarios - overview

2.1 Scenarios: key questions and dimensions
Developing scenarios for a period of one hundred years is a relatively new
field. Within that period we might expect two major technological
discontinuities, a major shift in societal values and a change in the
balance of geopolitical power. A particular difficulty is that people are
not trained to think in these time-spans, are educated in narrow
disciplines and our ability to model large-systems, at the global level, is
still in its infancy. Additionally, most databases do not go back much
further than 50 years and many less than that. How best to integrate
demography, politico-economic, societal and technological knowledge with
our understanding of ecological systems? Scenarios can be used as an
integration tool, allowing an equal role for intuition, analysis and
synthesis.

Terminology
Storylines, Scenarios and Scenario Families

Storyline: a narrative description of a scenario (or a family of
scenarios), highlighting the main scenario characteristics, relationships
between key driving forces and the dynamics of the scenarios.

Scenario: projections of a potential future, based on a clear logic and a
quantified storyline.

Scenario family: one or more scenarios which have the same demographic,
politico-societal, economic and technological storyline.

Scenario Classification

Our approach has been to develop a set of four "scenario families". The
storylines of each of these scenario families describes a demographic,
politico-economic, societal and technological future. Within each family
one or more scenarios explore global energy industry and other developments
and their implications for Greenhouse Gas Emissions and other pollutants.
These are a starting point for climate impact modelling.

The scenarios we have built explore two main questions for the 21st
century, neither of which we know the answer to:
- Can adequate governance -- institutions and agreements -- be put in place
to manage global problems?
- Will society's values focus more on enhancing material wealth or be more
broadly balanced, incorporating environmental health and social well-being.
The way we answer these questions leads to four families of scenarios:
- Golden Economic Age (A1): a century of expanded economic prosperity with
the emergence of global governance
- Sustainable Development (B1): in which global agreements and
institutions, underpinned by a value shift, encourages the integration of
ecological and economic goals
- Divided World (A2): difficulty in resolving global issues leads to a
world of autarkic regions
- Regional Stewardship (B2): in the face of weak global governance there is
a focus on managing regional/local ecological and equity

Within these scenario families we examine plausible energy industry and
other developments which will contribute to GHG emissions. Although the
storylines cannot have explicit climate change policy measures in them
there are examples of indirect mitigation measures in some of the scenarios.
The scenario quantifications of the main indicators related to growth of
population and economy, the characteristics of the energy system and the
associated greenhouse gas emissions all fall within the range of prior
studies .

3. Golden Economic Age (A1)

This scenario family entitled "Golden Economic Age", describes rapid and
successful economic development. The primary drivers for economic growth
and development "catch up" are the strong human desire for prosperity, high
human capital (education), innovation, technology diffusion, and free trade.
The logic of successful development assumes smooth growth with no major
political discontinuities or catastrophic events. The scenario family's
development model is based on the most successful historical examples of
economic growth, i.e., on the development path of the now affluent OECD
economies. Historical analogies of successful economic "catching up" can
be found in the Scandinavian countries, Austria, Japan, and South Korea.
"Intangible" assets (human capital, stable political climate) take
precedence over "tangible" assets (capital, resource, and technology
availability) in providing the conditions for a take-off into accelerated
rates of development. Once these conditions are met, free trade enables
each region to access knowledge, technology, and capital to best deploy its
respective comparative economic and human resource advantages.
Institutional frameworks are able to successfully sustain economic growth
and also to handle the inevitable volatility that rapid economic growth
entails.

The "intangible" prerequisites for accelerated rates of economic growth
also offer long-term development perspectives for regions that are poorly
endowed with resources or where current economic prospects are not
auspicious, such as Sub-Saharan Africa. There, for instance, fostered
regional trade and capital availability enhance the pull-effects of a
strong South African economy. In other regions, growth may be fuelled by
domestic know-how and high human capital valued at the international
market. An example of this is the thriving software industry of the Indian
subcontinent. In yet other regions, growth could be stimulated by the
expansion of regional economic partnerships and free trade arrangements
(e.g., extensions of NAFTA and the European Union).

The main difference with the historical OECD experience is a certain
acceleration in time and space, (i.e., "leapfrogging") made possible by
better access to knowledge and technology, a consequence of the high-tech
and free trade characteristics of development. Successful catching up
becomes pervasive; all parts of the "developing world" participate, though
with differences in timing. The final outcome is that practically all
parts of the world achieve high levels of affluence by the end of the 21st
century, even if disparities will not have disappeared entirely. The
current distinction between "developed" and "developing" countries will in
any case no longer be appropriate.
As in the past, high growth (a "growing cake") eases distributional
conflicts. Everyone reaps the benefits of rapid growth, rising incomes,
improved access to services, and rising standards of living. The economic
imperatives of markets, free trade, and technology diffusion (i.e.,
competition) that underlie the high growth rates provide for efficient
allocation of resources. Efficiency and high productivity are the positive
by-products of the highly competitive nature of the economy. They also
provide the economic resources for distributive and social measures
required for a stable social and political climate, vital for sustaining
high growth rates in human capital, productivity, innovation, and hence
economic growth.

The economic development focus explains its central metric: the degree of
economic development as reflected in per capita income levels (GDP at
market exchange rates as well as at purchasing power parity rates). The
principal driver is the desire for prosperity, all major driving forces are
closely linked to prosperity levels, with actual causality links going in
both directions. For example, demographic variables co-evolve with
prosperity: mortality declines (i.e. life expectancy increases) as a
function of higher incomes (better diets and affordable medical treatment).
In turn, changes in the social values underlying the fertility transition
also pave the way for greater access to education, modernisation of
economic structures, and market orientation. These are key for innovating
and diffusing the best practice technologies underlying the high
productivity, and hence economic growth, of the scenario.

3.1 Key Scenario Drivers and their Relationships

3.11 Population and Economic Development
High education, stable social relations, and incentives for innovation and
experimentation are the preconditions for productivity increases underlying
rapid economic development in this world-- as a result, social, economic,
and demographic development are highly correlated .
The link between demographic and economic variables in the scenario
corresponds to present empirical observations: the affluent live long and
have few children. High per capita incomes are thus associated with both
low mortality and low fertility. Together, this results in rather low
population growth, characterised in addition by a considerable "greying" of
the population.
This family of scenarios combines high life expectancy with low fertility,
where OECD rates are assumed to stabilize at current (below replacement)
levels, and developing countries follow a similar transition by the
mid-21st century. Fertility rates range between 1.3 to 1.7 children per
woman. Life expectancy can approach some 95 years, with a regional
variation between 80 and 95 years. Global population grows to some 9
billion by 2050, and declines to 7 billion by 2100, the result of continued
below replacement fertility in all regions.
Population ageing results in economic growth rates somewhat lower than
historical experience, especially in the OECD countries. Economic growth
rates slow over time in proportion to the reduction of the potentially
economic active population (age 15 to 65), which decline in some regions to
50 percent compared to the historical average of approximately 70 percent.

For "developing countries", economic growth is based on the most successful
cases of economic "catch up" found in history. The economic growth profile
of Japan after WW II served as a model to delineate the upper bounds of
possible GDP growth for all regions. Consistent with growth theory, GDP
expansion initially accelerates, passes through a peak, in which growth
rates around 10 percent per year can be sustained for several decades, and
then declines. Once the economic and industrial base is firmly established
and the economy matures, growth rates decline with increasing income
levels. This reflects saturation effects and a higher emphasis on quality
rather than quantity at high income levels.
The global economy in the "Golden Economic Age" expands at an average
annual rate of three percent per year to 2100. This is about the same rate
as the global average since 1850 and in this respect may simply be
considered "dynamics as usual". Non-Annex-I economies expand with an
average annual growth rate of four percent per year, twice the rate of
Annex-I economies. By approximately 2030 Non-Annex-I GDP surpasses that of
the Annex-I economies. Per capita income disparities are reduced, but
differences between regions are not entirely eliminated. Non-Annex-I per
capita income reaches the 1990 Annex-I level (14,000 $/capita) by around
2040. By 2100 per capita income would approach 100,000 $/capita in Annex-I
countries and 70,000 $/capita in Non-Annex-I countries.

3.12 Equity
Equity issues are not a major concern in the world, but is rather a
by-product of the high rates of economic development. Existing per capita
income gaps between regions close up in a similar way as between Western
Europe and Japan compared to the US in the 20th century. Disparities
continue to persist between regions, but more so within particular regions.
Nevertheless, the high economic growth rates require a certain degree of
income distribution. Extreme income disparities are found to be negative
influencing factors for economic growth. Additionally, fair income
distribution only assures the large consumer markets and the social
cohesion and stability required for the realisation of high economic growth.

3.13 Settlement patterns/communication
Communication technologies and styles are highly homogeneous and extremely
developed -- rather than a "global village" future, this is one of "global
cities." Existing trends towards urbanisation continue, as cities provide
the highest "network externalities" for the educational and R&D-intensive
economic development pattern underlying the scenario. Regional differences
in settlement patterns persist. They range from fragmented, compact, but
large (i.e., 20+ million inhabitants) cities that depopulate their
respective rural hinterlands in Latin America to urban "corridors"
connected by high capacity communication and transport networks (in Asia).
Regional transport networks include high speed trains and maglevs, which
ultimately fuse short- and long-distance transport means into single
interconnected infrastructures. In some parts of the world high-tech cars
take the place that high-tech trains occupy in other parts.
The large urban agglomerates and the high transport demands of a high
material growth economy generate vast congestion constraints. These are
solved by applying market-based instruments (prices) rather than
regulation. Economic instruments include access and parking fees,
auctioning off the limited number of new car and truck licenses in
megacities, much along the lines of the current stringent Singapore model.
Therefore, even at very high income levels, car ownership rates could be
comparatively low in parts of the world. In extremely densely populated
areas, cars remain a luxury rather than a means of mass transport (viz.
Hong Kong). In areas with lower population density, car densities are high
(+1 car per inhabitant). Car fuels could be either oil, synfuels,
electricity, or hydrogen. Intercontinental transport is provided by
energy- and GHG-intensive hypersonic aircraft fuelled by methane or
hydrogen. They are the physical transport equivalent of the high capacity
virtual communication links of a truly global economy.

3.14 Environmental Concerns/Ecological resilience
Ecological resilience is assumed to be high. In and of themselves,
ecological concerns receive a low priority. Instead, the valuation of
environmental amenities is strictly in economic terms, e.g., a function of
affluence. Non-congestion, clean water and air, and recreational
possibilities in nature all assume increasing importance with rising
affluence, although preferences for environmental amenities may differ
across regions and income levels. For instance, urban air quality and
human health are valued highly even at income levels lower than those
prevailing in England, where stringent air quality measures were introduced
after the "killer smog" of 1952. Reduced particulate and sulphur air
pollution become a matter of major consumer preference at levels of $2,000
- 3,000/capita income in Asia. Altogether, the concept of environmental
quality changes from "conservation" of nature to active "management" --and
marketing-- of natural and environmental amenities and services.

3.2 Scenarios
The core bifurcation (with respect to GHG emissions) of the scenario family
unfolds around alternative paths of technology development in the
agriculture and energy sectors. In the energy sector, the central question
is how to manage the transition away from the current reliance on
conventional oil and gas. In the agricultural sector, the key issue
concerns land productivity.
Alternative technology bifurcations lead to a number of scenarios embedded
and consistent within the overall theme of "prosperity via high
techologies". All scenarios provide the high quantities of clean and
convenient energy forms and diverse, high quality food demanded in an
affluent world. Because technological change is cumulative, it can go in
alternative, mutually exclusive directions, i.e., changes become "path
dependent". Alternative directions unfold around the interrelated cluster
of variables of resource availability and conversion technologies in both
energy and agriculture. For instance, new technologies may enable humanity
to tap either the vast quantities of fossil resources existing in the form
of coal, unconventional oil, and gas with technologies that are both highly
economic, efficient, and clean in terms of traditional pollutants, such as
particulates or sulphur. Alternatively, technological change could unfold
favouring non-fossil technologies and resources, such as nuclear and
renewables.
A similar bifurcation unfolds in the agricultural sector. In one
sub-scenario, only incremental improvements are achieved in farming
practices and land productivity. This is combined with a gradual global
diffusion of meat-based diets. Both of these trends are land- (and
deforestation-) intensive. Alternatively, global agriculture could move in
the direction of genetically engineered, high productivity crops and
"sea-farming," combined with a quality- and health-oriented diet based on
fish and vegetables, both of which are relatively less land intensive. As
a result, GHG emissions range widely even for otherwise similar scenario
characteristics.

3.21 Energy Resources/Technology
Resource availability and technology are tightly interrelated. The "Golden
Economic Age" of high productivity growth results from substantial
technological innovation. Both contribute to economic growth, expansion of
accessible resources, and improved efficiency in resource use. Factor
productivity improvements occur across the board for agricultural land,
materials, and energy. Improvement rates largely follow long-term
historical trends and are entirely technology- and income- driven. Energy
intensity (total commercial and traditional primary energy use per unit of
GDP) improves at an aggregate global rate of 1.5 percent per year.
Improvement rates vary across regions as a function of distance from the
productivity frontier and the turnover rates of capital stock. Ceteris
paribus, improvement rates are higher in regions with currently lower
efficiency and greater than average GDP growth. This assumes no particular
policy intervention or additional price regulation apart from the ones
consistent with a free market environment (i.e. price subsidies are
removed, and full costing principles are established).

Per capita final energy use gradually converges as income gaps close.
Final energy use per capita in non-Annex-I countries would reach
approximately 85 GJ (2 tons of oil equivalent) by 2050 and approximately
125 GJ (3 toe) by 2100, i.e., about the current average of OECD countries
outside North America. Despite improvements in productivity and
efficiency, the high income levels lead to resource use close to the upper
bounds of the scenarios available in the literature. For instance, global
final energy use would increase to approximately 1000 EJ by 2100.

The scenarios developed are a function of the different directions taken by
technological change. The key question is which primary resources may
become economically accessible in the future, and which technologies will
become available to convert these primary resources into the final goods
and services demanded by consumers. In the energy area,
resources/technologies are key variables in determining the timing and
nature of the transition away from currently dominant conventional oil and
gas.
Four pathways are possible:
1. Progress across all resources and technologies.
2. "Clean coal" technologies: environmentally friendly except for GHG
emissions and possible resource extraction impacts.
3. "Oil/Gas": smooth transition from conventional to unconventional oil and
gas, tapping the vast occurrences of unconventional fossil fuels, including
methane clathrates.
4. "Bio-Nuclear": rapid technological progress in non-fossil supply and
end-use technologies, e.g. renewables, such as solar and biomass
combustion, nuclear and hydrogen-fuelled end-use devices, such as fuel cells.

For the scenario quantification, a number of contrasting cases,
characterised by the main energy form used in the second half of the 21st
century, have been evaluated with the aid of formal energy models:
1. The dominance of Non-Fossil fuels -- the "Bio-Nuclear" scenario (A1R).
2. The dominance of unconventional gas, including hydrates, and oil (A1G)
3. The dominance of "Clean Coal" (A1C)

A brief scenario taxonomy is given below.

Scenario
Dominant
Oil/Gas Resource
Technology Improvements
Fuel Availability Coal Oil/Gas Non-fossil
A1R Non-fossil Medium (<50 ZJ ) Low Medium High
A1G Oil/Gas High (>75 ZJ) Low High Low
A1C Coal Low (<35 ZJ) High Low Low
*
Depending on the assumed availability of oil and gas, (low/medium/high) and
corresponding improvements in production and conversion technologies for
coal, oil/gas, and non-fossil technologies, different energy systems
structures unfold. For instance, in the dynamic technology cases, liquid
fuels from coal or unconventional oil/gas resources would become available
at less than $30 /barrel, with costs falling further by about one percent
per year with exploitation of learning curve effects. Non-fossil
electricity (photovoltaics, new nuclear) would become available at costs of
less than 10 mills/kWh ($.01/kWh) and continue to improve further as a
result of learning curve effects. The basic premise of the "dynamic
technology" scenarios is that energy services could be delivered at
long-run costs not higher than today, but with technologies having
radically different characteristics, including environmental. In the event
that such technology dynamics do not materialise, energy costs and prices
would be significantly higher than suggested above -- illustrative model
runs suggest energy demand would be up to 20 percent lower for a fossil
scenario without significant cost improvements .

3.22 Agriculture
In the agricultural sector, two contrasting scenarios of land productivity
could unfold, depending on the nature of advances in agricultural
technologies. However, CO2 emissions from land use changes could range
from 0.5 (low) to 1.5 (high) GtC by 2030 and from -1 to -2 (low) to zero
(high) GtC emissions by 2100. In the latter case tropical forests
essentially become depleted as a result of land-use conversions for
agriculture and biomass fuel plantations. In the former case, land
productivity gains are so substantial that ploughing of marginal
agricultural land is no longer economically feasible and is abandoned,
following recent trends in the OECD. The resulting expansion of forest
cover leads to a net sequestration of atmospheric CO2.

3.23 Scenario Quantification
An initial scenario quantification in terms of population, GDP, energy use,
and CO2 emissions for the three energy resource/technology sub-scenarios is
summarised in Appendix 1 . The global scenario for 2100 is also summarised
in the form of a snowflake diagram. All scenario quantifications are
tentative and subject to revisions.
[Figure: "Snowflake" for A1 scenarios]

3.24 CO2 Emissions
The diverging pathways of resource availability and technological change
characteristic of the three scenarios examined result in a wide range of
annual CO2 emissions: from 10 to 33 GtC by 2100. It is interesting to note
that the emissions of the two "fossil fuel" sub-scenarios, "clean coal" and
"oil and gas," are quite close to each other (33 CtC versus 29 GtC).
Continued reliance on oil and gas, coupled with demand growth, explain the
emission patterns for the oil/gas scenario. Coal is the only fossil
resource available in the "clean coal" scenario. Therefore, over time coal
is increasingly required for conversion into premium fuels such as
synliquids and syngas. This conversion "deepening" leads to a feedstock
premium for coal and increases the market potential of non-fossil fuels.
CO2 emissions are therefore not as high as in traditional coal-intensive
scenarios.
4. Sustainable Development (B1)

The central elements of this scenario family include high levels of
environmental and social consciousness, successful governance including
major social innovation, and reductions in income and social inequality.
Successful forms of governance allow many problems which are currently hard
or difficult to resolve to fall within the competency of government and
other organisations. Solutions reflect a wide stakeholder dialogue leading
to consent on international environmental and social agreements. This is
coupled with bottom-up solutions to problems, which reflect wide success in
getting broad-based support within communities.
The concerns over global sustainable development, expressed in a myriad of
environmental and social issues, results in the eventual successful
management of the interaction between human activities and the biosphere.
While no explicit climate policy is undertaken, other kinds of initiatives
lead to lower energy use, and clean energy systems, which significantly
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Besides cleaning up air quality, there is
emphasis on improving the availability and quality of water.

4.1 Key Scenario Drivers and their Relationships

4.11 Technological Development
High levels of technological development focused on achieving sustainable
development leads to high levels of material and energy saving, innovations
in emissions control technology, as well as labour productivity. The
latter is essential to support the rapid growth in personal income, given
that a major increase in labour force participation is implicit in the
equity assumptions. Technologies tend to be implemented in an industrial
ecology mode, implying a much more highly integrated form of industrial
production than at present. Information technology achieves a global
spread, and is fully integrated into production technologies. Advances in
international institutions permit the rapid diffusion of new technologies
-- R&D approaches two percent of GDP.

4.12 Population and Economic Development
Population -- reaches only 9 billion by 2xxx xxxx xxxxdue to a faster than
expected completion of the demographic transition arising from a large
increase of women in the labour force, universal literacy, and concern for
the environmental impacts of high population levels. The potential impacts
of ageing populations which emerge from this low level of population growth
are offset by relatively high levels of immigration, which reduce the
negative impacts of ageing populations on savings and the ability of
societies to adapt and implement new and cleaner technologies.
This world has a faster than expected transition from traditional to modern
economic sectors throughout the developing world. In addition, widespread
education leads to high labour productivity, and high labour force
participation. Migration serves to sustain the size of the labour force in
developed countries, which helps to maintain their growth in per capita
income. Developing countries experience few institutional failures,
enabling them to grow at or near the historical upper bounds of experience
given their per capita incomes.
This yields a world of high levels of economic activity, with significant
and deliberate progress being made with respect to international and
national inequality of income. The current order of magnitude differences
in income between developing and developed countries are reduced to a
factor of two, with moderate growth continuing to occur in OECD countries.
Gross World Product (GWP) reaches $350 trillion by 2100 and average global
incomes $40,000 per capita. Economic development is balanced and, given
the high environmental consciousness and institutional effectiveness, this
leads to a better quality environment, with many of the aspects of rapid
growth being anticipated and dealt with effectively. Active management of
income distribution is undertaken through use of taxes and subsidies. The
composition of final demand will evolve to a mix reflecting lower use of
materials and energy, thus easing the impact of high income levels.

4.13 Equity
In this world there is a preparedness to address issues of social and
political equity. The increases in equity, reflect a shift in values
which, with widespread education, leads to greater opportunity for all.
New social inventions, such as the Grameen Bank's micro-credit schemes, are
a significant contributor to an increase in institutional effectiveness and
equity improvement.

4.14 Communications, Settlement Patterns and Environment
The social innovations and effective governance rest on high levels of
communication, both in a passive (i.e. TV) and active sense. Governance
systems reflect high levels of consent from those affected by decisions,
and this consent arises out of active participation in the governance process.
Settlement patterns arise from design, and tend to reflect a distributed,
compact, city design structure. This results in high amenity levels, and
the careful design and location of these cities results in a lessening of
the natural disasters which plague many cities today. Advanced hazard
warning systems and careful design limit the impact of such disasters.
Low emission technologies, and careful management of land use, preservation
of large tracts of land, and active intervention to counteract the impacts
of imprudent societal actions strengthen the resilience of the ecological
system.

4.2 Scenarios

4.21 Energy Resources/Technology
Energy efficiency innovations, and successful institutional innovations
disseminating their use, result in much lower levels of energy use relative
to historic patterns. The forward-looking nature of societal planning
results in relatively smooth transitions to alternative energy systems as
conventional oil and gas resources dwindle in availability. There is major
use of unconventional natural gas as fuel supply during the transition, but
the major push is towards renewable resources such as solar and wind. The
impact of environmental concerns is a significant factor in the planning
for new energy systems.
Two alternative energy systems, leading to two sub-scenarios, are
considered to provide this energy:
1. Widespread expansion of natural gas, with a growing role for renewable
energy (scenario B1N). Oil and coal are of lesser importance, especially
post-2050. This transition is faster in the developed than in the
developing countries.
2. A more rapid development of renewables, replacing coal and oil; the bulk
of the remaining energy coming from natural gas (scenario B1R).

4.22 Scenario Quantification
Per capita incomes in the developed world are close to ___ in 2100, while
average per capita income in the developing world grows from ___ % of the
developed world in 1990 to ____ % in 2100. Energy per unit of output
continues to fall at about historical rates in the developed countries,
resulting in total energy use of ____ EJ in 2100. Rapid spread of
technology from developed to developing countries enables an energy growth
of ___ percent less than GDP, resulting in total energy use of ___ EJ in
the developing part of the world
An initial quantification of the scenarios in terms of population, GDP,
energy use, and CO2 emissions for the two energy resource/technology
scenarios is summarised in Appendix 1. The global scenario for 2100 is
also summarised in the form of a snowflake diagram. All scenario
quantifications are tentative and subject to revisions.
[Figure: "Snowflake" for B1 scenarios]

4.23 CO2 Emissions
The range of carbon in CO2 emissions for the scenarios is 7.5 to 20 billion
tons in 2100, reflecting 3 and 2 percent per year reductions in carbon per
unit of GDP

5. Divided World (A2)

In a retreat from the globalising trends of the previous century, the world
"consolidates" into a series of roughly continental economic regions.
Regions pursue different economic strategies based on the resources and
options available to them. Trade within economic regions increases, while
trade between regions is controlled by tariff and non-tariff barriers to
support the region's economic strategy. High income regions restrict
immigration and impose selective controls on technology transfer to
maintain high incomes for their residents.
High income regions encourage higher levels of education to increase the
productivity of their labour force. They impose restrictions on immigrants,
except skilled immigrants, to keep per capita incomes high. They also try
to impose selective restrictions on technology transfer to maintain the
productivity of their labour force.
Low income regions are only able to increase per capita incomes slowly.
They do not have the resources to invest in educating the labour force or
in research and development. Investment from other regions is constrained.
Thus exports are primarily products manufactured with low cost labour and
some natural resource-intensive products. Population growth is high
relative to high income regions. Income inequality becomes more pronounced
within low income regions and increases between regions.

Regions use non-tariff barriers, such as differences in standards and
labelling requirements, to limit trade. Trade is also dampened by
differences in tastes in products. These factors favour the use of
resources found within each region. Regions that have abundant coal
resources but very limited oil resources, for example, encourage use of
"local" coal by heavy industries and electric utilities while allowing
restricting free imports of crude oil and petroleum products .

5.1 Key Scenario Drivers and their Relationships

5.11 Population and Economic Development
Fertility rates vary among regions. North America, Northwest Europe and
Asia experience falling fertility rates and populations. The Middle East,
Africa, and to some extent, Southern Europe and South America see rising
population although the rate of growth decreases. This leads to a shift in
the world population balance from the Indian sub-continent and South East
Asia to the Middle East and Africa by the end of the century. World
population reaches 16 billion by 2100.
Regional economies emphasise self-sufficiency with wide variations in
growth levels. Average global economic growth is relatively low at around
2.5%/year, leading to a GWP of $250 trillion by 2100. Trade across regions
consists primarily of raw materials and semi-finished goods in a relatively
low trust world where dependence on other regions is minimised.

5.12 Government and Geopolitics
National boundaries become less important within the regions as an
increasing share of policy is agreed at the regional level. This allows
considerable cultural diversity within regions. Governmental style is also
diverse across regions. In some, government and religion strengthen their
links, in others, secular democracy is maintained or consolidated.
Education is strengthened in most regions with a deepening understanding of
cultural history and religion. The growing strength of the economic
regions, and their competing economic interests, lead to reduced
international co-operation. Global environmental, economic and social
issues are subject to relatively weak governance. Conflicts between ethnic
and religious groups within economic regions become less violent as a
result of economic pressures on the parties. Where ethnic and religious
violence persists, the groups are excluded from the economic region. Thus
wars occur in the boundary zones between economic regions. Wars may also
occur near regional boundaries for control of scarce natural resources.

5.13 Technology Developments
While underlying science is conducted in all regions an information about
scientific developments are available world-wide, consumption and
production patterns and hence, technology and practices, are determined by
local circumstances.

Research activity increases in all regions; in high income regions due to
the need to increase productivity with limited regional resources and in
low income regions due to the growing size of the population. Restrictions
on transfer of some technologies to other regions is widespread.

High income regions invest heavily in education to enhance labour
productivity. Some high-income regions move towards broad-based education
for a knowledge-based society. Others move towards practical education
(lots of science and engineering) for an advanced industrial society. Low
income regions are not able to invest as heavily in education, but the
levels (and future rates of economic growth, vary significantly.

Technological change is rapid in some regions, slow in others, with
industry adjusting to local resource endowments, cultural characteristics
and education levels.

5.14 Communication and Settlement Patterns
Languages become more uniform within regions, but globally more diverse.
Speakers of the main world languages are fairly evenly split. Computerised
translation eliminates the language barrier to technology diffusion and
economic development.
Urban concentration continues except in Europe and North America, which
move towards larger numbers of smaller cities and towns. Urban shares of
population in other countries rise to current OECD levels by 2020. While
there is free movement within most regions, there is very little migration
among regions. Refugee problems are confined to edge areas, for example,
Baltics and Tibet.

5.15 Environmental Concerns
Environmental management follow pragmatic paths: with rising incomes,
people become increasingly concerned first about urban pollution, then
about regional pollution, finally about global problems. In this world,
global environmental problems are discussed extensively but the will to
tackle them is lacking. Propensity to worry about the environment is
regionally variable. Sulphur emissions are rapidly reduced in South and
South East Asia due to the impacts on agriculture but increase in Africa
with exploitation of coal and minerals there.

5.2 Scenarios
Divided World is explored through a single scenario.
5.21 Resource Availability
Regions try to use their resource endowment for their economic advantage.
Regions with abundant energy and mineral resources use those resources
domestically and to produce exports (surplus to expected long-term needs).
Regions poor in energy and mineral resources will minimise their dependence
on these resources. High-income, resource-poor regions will develop as
service-based, dematerialised economies, while low-income, resource-poor
regions are forced to limit their consumption of resources.

High-income regions without indigenous oil and gas undergo a near-complete
conversion to an energy economy based on nuclear or renewable based
electricity and synthetic gases and liquids by 2050. India and China adopt
these technologies at the largely exhausting domestic coal reserves by
2050. Renewable input, zero waste industry is pioneered in South East Asia
and adopted in Europe, minimising mineral and fossil fuel requirements by
2050. Oil and gas-rich regions (North Africa, the Middle East, Central
Asia, Russia) continue to use fossil fuels but towards 2050 the falling
cost of renewable technology (wind and biomass in Russia, photovoltaic in
the other regions) begins to make them competitive even in these regions

5.22 Scenario Quantification
An initial quantification of the scenario in terms of population, GDP,
energy use, and CO2 emissions is summarised in Appendix 1. The global
scenario for 2100 is also summarised in the form of a snowflake diagram.
All scenario quantifications are tentative and subject to revisions.
[Figure: "Snowflake" for A2 scenarios]

5.23 CO2 Emissions
The level of carbon in CO2 emissions for the scenario is 15 billion tons in
2100 as only oil and gas rich regions continue to use fossil fuels.

6. Regional Stewardship (B2)

"Regional Stewardship" is based on a natural evolution of the present
institutional policies and structures. As such it does not incorporate
major geopolitical power shifts or fundamental technological
discontinuities. There is relatively low trust, global agreements are
difficult to reach and the result is 'multiple islands' with inward looking
policies.
This is a world of good intentions, which are not capable of being
implemented. The late 20th century value shift towards environmental
stewardship continues, for example as envisioned in the Cairo and Rio
Programs of Action, with increasing recognition of the importance of human
welfare and inequity. These concerns cannot be tackled at a global level
and are resolved regionally or locally. Environmental solutions are
tempered by the desire for balance with economic goals in many areas - but
poor governance means that meeting the needs of the poor and future
generations is hampered by limited prosperity.
Families think seriously about the fact that their offspring may be dealing
with a more ecologically stressed world, moreover one with limited
financial resources for dealing with such problems. Education levels are
high so that the ability of families to internalise global concerns in
their family planning decisions is also high. The relative stabilisation
of world population growth after 2050 leads to general optimism about the
ability of society to solve problems such as food and water supply.

6.1 Key Scenario Drivers and their Relationships

6.11 Population
Both local governance and environmental concerns limit population growth.
The world largely supports efforts to reduce unwanted births both as a
social service but also because there is an implicit belief that even
increasing populations have severe environmental consequences. Education
and welfare programs for the young and illiterate are widely pursued.

Population stabilises at 10.5 billion people by 2100. Since economic
growth is relatively slow, fertility rates do not decline strongly. But,
the effect of fertility rate declines on lowering population size outweigh
those of mortality rate decreases increasing population size.

The stabilisation of global population (largely after 2050) leads to a new
atmosphere for social planning. It becomes considerably easier than at
present for education, health care and pension programs. Age cohort sizes
are much more stable through time than at present, although of course,
overall ageing continues.

6.12 Economic Development
GWP grows to around 240 trillion $ in 2100 with a North/South income ratio
of approximately 7/1 (presently 13/1). Concerns about the ecological costs
of consumerist lifestyles receive wide attention and attempts are made,
first in industrial countries, but later in developing countries, to seek
satisfaction through community activities rather than high consumption.
Overall people are eager to find alternatives to the high income world of
materialism.

6.13 Governance
Governance is weak globally but strong nationally and regionally.
Deliberate policies to limit trade for environmental and social reasons
hinder the transfer of technologies. However pollution trading concepts
catch on as a way of driving down the costs of pollution control.
International alliances occur based on particular national circumstances,
such as in the development of biomass technologies. This fragmentation
gives rise to pockets of environmental and social justice activists.
Environmental policies vary widely across regions, for example in
acceptable sulphur emission levels. NGO and public interest groups are
strong, influential and busy.

6.14 Equity
While strong redistribution policies are enacted within regions to reduce
income disparity, income differences between regions persist globally
throughout the century and even increases in absolute terms, although the
relative inequity decreases. The mechanism by which global equity
increases relates in part to population dynamics: as fertility rates
decline in developing countries, the decrease in youth dependency ratios
leads to an increase in savings rate and strengthened economic growth
during the first half of the century. In the developed regions, by
contrast, ageing becomes an increasing drag on economic growth in helping
to converge global incomes, concerns about the persistence of income
inequality world-wide are swamped by the local concerns and conscious
policies to limit international trade.

6.15 Settlement Patterns
A strong deurbanization trend occurs in this world because of increasing
concern about the marginalization of the very poor that accompanies massive
urbanisation. There are also concerns about managing large transient
populations that migrate seasonally to cities for short term employment,
for example in the construction industry.

Immigration is controlled but accepted, partly to compensate for very low
fertility rates in some regions and partly to help economic development
worldwide without the problems of uncontrolled globalisation.

6.16 Environmental Policy
Environmental improvement is strongly pursued although regional policies
vary widely such as with sulphur controls. Marked reductions in S, CH4,
deforestation, CFCs and N2O occur and water quality is addressed.
Ecological resilience is not seen as high. The environment is viewed as
quite fragile and requiring careful policy stewardship. Resource
extraction is viewed as intrinsically problematic and scepticism persists
regarding the ability of society to prevent environmental disasters like
the Valdez oil spill and Kuwaiti oil fires. Indeed the world is
increasingly sensitive about and intolerant of such events and much tension
exists concerning this aspect of development. Environment groups lobby
hard on these themes and paint a picture of rapidly depleting natural
resources.

6.2 Scenarios

6.21 Energy Resources/Technology
Because of the concern about ecological fragility, alternative and
renewable energy systems are viewed with much hope and are socially and
politically encouraged. Biomass technologies and policies are invigorated.
The labour and land intensive developing countries pursue biomass
production while the capital intensive developed regions develop the
required technologies. A degree of co-operation coalesces about such
mutually symbiotic activities.
Consumers accept a rather long return in evaluating energy-efficiency
investments. Mass transit systems are very successful and profitable.
Advances in transportation technology are rapid.

Hydroelectric power is a constrained bag. Dams are viewed with disdain
because there are soon no more wild rivers anywhere and the rights of
indigenous people have been egregiously violated. Although they are
relatively clean from the perspective of carbon emissions, their effects on
indigenous people (mercury poisoning of fish, etc.) becomes unacceptable.
Decommissioning dams is widespread to restore pristine ecological systems
downstream.

Reduction in carbon intensity is not viewed as a policy goal but it
declines for other reasons. It is a frugal world with limited resource
availability and so the paradigm grows that it is less costly to save
energy than it is to buy it and use it. This spurs the development of
technologies that use carbon more efficiently. In addition the
accompanying emissions of NOx and SOx and tropospheric ozone are
increasingly viewed as unacceptable.

6.23 Scenario Quantification
An initial scenario quantification in terms of population, GDP, energy use,
and CO2 emissions for the scenario is summarised in Appendix 1.
Energy intensity declines at a rate of 1.3%/year to a value of 0.12
toe/$1000 in 2100. This represents a total global energy usage in 2100 of
1250 EJ, of which 300 EJ is oil and gas; 100 EJ coal and 900 EJ is
non-carbon renewables, with nuclear's role limited.

The global scenario for 2100 is also summarised in the form of a snowflake
diagram. All scenario quantifications are tentative and subject to revisions.
[Figure: "Snowflake" for B2 scenario]

6.24 CO2 Emissions
By 2100 CO2 emissions 11.5 GtC/year, of which 5 GtC/year is emitted by the
North and 6.5 GtC/year by the South. Carbon intensity declines at a rate
of 0.8%/year to 2100, to a value of 0.3 tC/toe, some 50% of today's value.
7. Scenario Comparisons
[To be written]

8. Conclusions
[To be written]

Appendix 1: Scenario Quantification
[To be written]

Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachdavis.doc"

Attachment Converted: "c:eudoraattachdavis.rtf"

Anne JOHNSON
IIASA
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria
E-Mail: johnson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Phone : xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax : xxx xxxx xxxx

Original Filename: 893188400.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Anne JOHNSON <johnson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Joseph Alcamo <alcamo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Knut Alfsen <knut.alfsen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Akhiro Amano <z95020@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Dennis Anderson <dennis.anderson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Zhou Dadi <becon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gerald Davis <Ged.R.Davis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Benjamin Dessus <Benjamin.Dessus@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bert de Vries <Bert.de.Vries@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jae Edmonds <ja_edmonds@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Joerg Fenhann <j.fenhann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Stuart Gaffin <stuart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Henryk Gaj <Fewewar@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kenneth Gregory <kennethgregory@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Arnulf Gruebler <gruebler@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Erik Haites <ehaites@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, William Hare <bhare@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Jefferson <jefferson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tae-Yong Jung <tyjung@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas Kram <kram@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Emilio La Rovere <emilio@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Mathew Luhanga <vc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Sandy MacCracken <smaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Nicolette Manson <Nicolette_Manson-Engelbrecht@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Julio Torres Martinez <dpid@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Douglas McKay <Doug.D.Mckay@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Roberta Miller <roberta@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Laurie Michaelis <laurie.michaelis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Shunsuke Mori <mori@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tsuneyuke Morita <t-morita@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Richard Moss <rmoss@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Nebojsa Nakicenovic <Naki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Youssef Nassef <nassef@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, William Pepper <WPepper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Hugh Pitcher <hm_pitcher@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Lynn Price <lkprice@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Rich Richels <rrichels@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Holger Rogner <rogner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Cynthia Rosenzweig <crosenzweig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Priyadarshi Shukla <shukla@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Skea <J.F.Skea@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Smith <ssmith@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Leena Srivastava <leena@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Susan Subak <S.Subak@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Robert Swart <rob.swart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Robert Watson <rwatson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, John Weyant <weyant@xxxxxxxxx.xxx.>, Ernst Worrell <e.worrell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: meeting next week
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 1998 15:53:20 +0200
Cc: kuszko@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Dear Colleagues,

Due to the large number of participants at the Lead Authors meeting, the
location has been changed from IPCC WG II TSU offices to the World Bank,
H Building, 600 19th Street, N.W.

The closest metro stop to this building is Farragut West on the orange and
blue lines. Take the 18th Street exit from the metro and go one block to
19th Street and then two blocks over to G Street. You will need a badge to
get
into the meeting, but someone will be there to help you with this. In any
case, it may be a good idea to come a bit early on the first day to get
checked in. The meeting begins at 8:30 a.m. Wednesday morning.

The Modelers meeting will still be held at the WG II TSU office as
originally planned. That meeting starts at 8:30 a.m. on Monday morning.
The address, once again, is 400 Virginia Avenue S.W., Suite 750,
Washington, D.C.

We look forward to seeing everyone in Washington.

Best regards,

Anne Johnson

Anne JOHNSON
IIASA
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria
E-Mail: johnson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Phone : xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax : xxx xxxx xxxx

Original Filename: 901894140.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: mnoguer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: scenarios@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Scenarios - SRES description 2
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 10:09 +0000 (GMT)

As promised here is the second part of the SRES description:

----------

SRES WRITING TEAM
ADDRESS LIST

Dr. Joseph M. Alcamo
Professor, Scientific Center for
Environmental Systems Research
University of Kassel, Germany

Dr. Knut H. Alfsen
Director, Center for International Climate and Environmental Protection (CICERO)
University of Oslo, Norway

Prof. Akhiro Amano
Dean, School of Policy Studies
Kwansei Gakuin University, Japan

Dr. Dennis Anderson
Professor, Oxford University
Oxford, UK

Dr. Zhou Dadi
Energy Research Institute
State Planning Commission
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Beijing, China

Dr. Gerald R. Davis
Group Planning
Shell International Petroleum
London, UK

Dr. Bert de Vries
National Institute for Public Health
and Environmental Hygiene (RIVM)
Bilthoven, the Netherlands

Dr. Jae Edmonds
Senior Research Scientist
Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory
Washington, D.C., U.S.A.

Mr. J/0rgen Fenhann
Energy Systems Group and
UNEP Collag. Ctr. on Energy
and Environment
Ris/0 National Laboratory
Roskilde, Denmark

Dr. Stuart R. Gaffin
Atmosphere Program
Environmental Defense Fund
New York, NY, U.S.A.

Dr. Henryk Gaj
Polish Foundation for Energy
Efficiency (FEWE)
Warsaw, Poland

Dr. Ken Gregory
Centre for Business and the Environment
Middlesex, UK

Dr. Arnulf Gruebler
Environmentally Compatible
Energy Strategies
International Institute for Applied
Systems Analysis
Laxenburg, Austria

Mr. William Hare
Greenpeace International
Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Dr. Erik Haites
Margaree Consultants, Inc.
Toronto, ONT, Canada

Dr. Tae-Yong Jung
Korea Energy Economics Institute
Euiwang-Si, Kyunggi-Do, Korea

Dr. Thomas Kram
Project Head of ETSAP
ECN Policy Studies
Netherlands Energy Research
Foundation
Petten, the Netherlands

Dr. Emilio Lebre La Rovere
COPPE/UFRJ
Universidade Federal do
Rio de Janeiro
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Prof. Matthew Luhanga
University of Dar es Salaam
Dar es Salaam, United Republic
of Tanzania
Dr. Laurie Michaelis
Environment Directorate
OECD
Paris, France

Dr. Shunsuke Mori
Department of Industrial Administration
Faculty of Science and Engineering
Science University of Tokyo
Tokyo, Japan

Dr. Tsuneyuki Morita
Head of Global Warming Response Team
National Institute for Environmental
Studies
Tsukuba, Japan

Dr. Richard Moss
Head of Technical Support Unit
IPCC Working Group II
Washington, D.C., U.S.A.

Prof. Nebojsa Nakicenovic
Project Leader
Environmentally Compatible
Energy Strategies
International Institute for Applied
Systems Analysis
Laxenburg, Austria

Dr. William Pepper
ICF Kaiser
Fairfax, VA, U.S.A.

Mr. Hugh Martin Pitcher
Senior Scientist, Global Change Group
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Washington, D.C., U.S.A.

Ms. Lynn Price
Energy Analysis Program
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Berkeley, CA, U.S.A.

Dr. Hans-Holger Rogner
Section Head, Planning and Economic
Studies Section
International Atomic Energy Agency
Vienna, Austria

Dr. Priyadarshi Shukla
Indian Institute of Technology
Ahmedabad, India

Mr. Alexei Sankovski
ICF Kaiser
Washington, D.C., U.S.A.

Dr. Robert Swart
Air Research Laboratory
Policy Analysis and Scenarios
RIVM
Bilthoven, the Netherlands

Prof. John P. Weyant
Director
Energy Modeling Forum
Stanford University
Stanford, CA, U.S.A.

Dr. Ernst Worrell
Energy Analysis Program
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Berkeley, CA, U.S.A.

/p/ecs/general/admin/ipcc-sr/corr/open process/naki-short.doc 06/26/98,
11:34 AM

Original Filename: 904080701.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Nebojsa NAKICENOVIC <naki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Joseph Alcamo <alcamo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Knut Alfsen <knut.alfsen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Akhiro Amano <z95020@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Dennis Anderson <dennis.anderson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Zhou Dadi <becon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gerald Davis <Ged.R.Davis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Benjamin Dessus <Benjamin.Dessus@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bert de Vries <Bert.de.Vries@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jae Edmonds <ja_edmonds@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Joergen Fenhann <j.fenhann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Guenther Fischer <fischer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Stuart Gaffin <stuart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Henryk Gaj <Fewewar@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kenneth Gregory <kennethgregory@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Arnulf Gruebler <gruebler@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Erik Haites <ehaites@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, William Hare <bhare@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Jefferson <jefferson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tae-Yong Jung <tyjung@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Kram <kram@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Emilio La Rovere <emilio@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Rik Leemans <Rik.leemans@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Matthew Luhanga <vc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Douglas McKay <Doug.D.Mckay@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Julio Torres-Martinez <dpid@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Laurie Michaelis <laurie.michaelis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Roberta Miller <roberta.miller@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Shunsuke Mori <mori@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tsuneyuke Morita <t-morita@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Nebojsa Nakicenovic <Naki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Youssef Nassef <Nassef@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, William Pepper <WPepper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Hugh Pitcher <hm_pitcher@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Lynn Price <lkprice@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Rich Richels <rrichels@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Holger Rogner <H.H.Rogner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Cynthia Rosenzweig <crosenzweig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Alexei Sankovski <ASankovski@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Stephen Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Priyadarshi Shukla <shukla@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Skea <J.F.Skea@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Steve Smith <ssmith@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Leena Srivastava <leena@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Susan Subak <S.Subak@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Robert Swart <rob.swart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Sascha van Rooijen <vanrooijen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, John Weyant <weyant@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ernst Worrell <e.worrell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Xing Xiaoshi <xxiaoshi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Next SRES Meeting in Beijing, 7-9 October
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1998 17:31:41 +0200
Cc: johnson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, kuszko@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dowds@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Dear Colleagues,

Zhou Dadi has been kind enough to organize the next SRES Lead Authors
meeting in Beijing, China, to be held on 7-9 October, 1998. Dadi will
provide us with more detailed information on meeting logistics in the near
future, and I will send out a meeting agenda as we get closer to the
meeting date. Basically, there are four items that need to be discussed at
the meeting: 1) SRES progress to date; 2) the open process; 3) scenario
revisions and additional work; and 4) planning the final report.

Please mark you calendars for this date and RSVP to both Zhou Dadi
(becon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx) and Anne Johnson (johnson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx) as soon
as possible I will be out of the office xxx xxxx xxxxSeptember and will not be
able to receive messages during this time.

I look forward to seeing you in Beijing.

Naki

Original Filename: 904762907.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Nebojsa NAKICENOVIC <naki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Joseph Alcamo <alcamo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Akhiro Amano <z95020@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Zhou Dadi <becon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gerald Davis <Ged.R.Davis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bert de Vries <Bert.de.Vries@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jae Edmonds <ja_edmonds@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Joergen Fenhann <j.fenhann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Guenther Fischer <fischer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Stuart Gaffin <stuart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Henryk Gaj <Fewewar@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Kenneth Gregory <kennethgregory@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Arnulf Gruebler <gruebler@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, William Hare <bhare@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Jefferson <jefferson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tae-Yong Jung <tyjung@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Kram <kram@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Emilio La Rovere <emilio@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Rik Leemans <Rik.leemans@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Matthew Luhanga <vc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Douglas McKay <Doug.D.Mckay@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Julio Torres-Martinez <dpid@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Bert Metz <bert.metz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Laurie Michaelis <laurie.michaelis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Roberta Miller <roberta.miller@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "John F.B. Mitchell" <jfbmitchell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Shunsuke Mori <mori@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tsuneyuke Morita <t-morita@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Nebojsa Nakicenovic <Naki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Youssef Nassef <Nassef@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, William Pepper <WPepper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Hugh Pitcher <hm_pitcher@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Lynn Price <lkprice@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Rich Richels <rrichels@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keywan Riahi <Riahi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Alexander Roehrl <Roehrl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Holger Rogner <H.H.Rogner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Cynthia Rosenzweig <crosenzweig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Alexei Sankovski <ASankovski@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Stephen Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Priyadarshi Shukla <shukla@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Michael Schlesinger <schlesin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> Steve Smith" <ssmith@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Leena Srivastava <leena@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Susan Subak <S.Subak@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Sascha van Rooijen <vanrooijen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, John Weyant <weyant@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Xing Xiaoshi <xxiaoshi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Richard H. Moss" <rmoss@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "John F.B. Mitchell" <jfbmitchell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Ernst Worrell <e.worrell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Dennis Anderson <dennis.anderson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Erik Haites <ehaites@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Skea <J.F.Skea@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Next SRES Meeting in Beijing, 7-9 October
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 15:01:47 +0200
Cc: Dave Dokken <ddokken@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Rob Swart <rob.swart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "D.J. Griggs" <djgriggs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Dear Colleagues,

This is a follow up on the earlier announcement of the next SRES Meeting.
First, I would like to thank all those of you who have confirmed that you
will join us in Beijing. Unfortunately, some of our colleagues also had to
cancel due to other commitments. Attached you will find the venue of the
meeting and hotel that Dadi reserved for us at a special discounted price.
My proposal is to convene at 13:00 hours on 7 October and try to finish on
early afternoon on 9 October so that you have some free time left for
sight-seeing before we all depart.

I will soon send to all of you formal invitation letters on IIASA
letter-head just in the case you need it for travel approval (unless you
cancel your participation in the meantime). Dadi will send you a similar
invitation letter to use in order to obtain a visa for China.

Appended is my last e-mail concerning this meeting in case you did not
receive a copy. In the attachment to this e-mail you will find two
letters. One is from IPCC outlining the possible role of scenarios in IPCC
assessment (Microsoft Photo Editor file). It is important for our work as
it indicates possible uses of new IPCC emissions scenarios. One of the
agenda items at the meeting will indeed be to discuss which of our marker
scenarios we recommend be used in the interim period before our scenarios
are approved by IPCC in early 2000. The other letter is also from IPCC
announcing the SRES web-site (PowerPoint file). The web-site includes most
of the scenario variants we have developed to date. Please circulate this
second letter as widely as you can because we need as much feedback from
the wider community of possible users as we can obtain.

Please let us know as soon as possible whether you are planing to attend.

I hope to see you all in China.

Regards, Naki

Venue:
National Meteorological Administration (No. 46 Baishiqiao Road, Haidian
District, Beijing).

Accommodation:
Olympic Hotel (No. 48 Baishiqiao Road, Haidian District, Beijing,
Tel: xxx xxxx xxxx); discounted Price: US$65+15% service costs.

Meeting Announcement:

Dear Colleagues,

Zhou Dadi has been kind enough to organize the next SRES Lead Authors
meeting in Beijing, China, to be held on 7-9 October, 1998. Dadi will
provide us with more detailed information on meeting logistics in the near
future, and I will send out a meeting agenda as we get closer to the
meeting date. Basically, there are four items that need to be discussed at
the meeting: 1) SRES progress to date; 2) the open process; 3) scenario
revisions and additional work; and 4) planning the final report.

Please mark you calendars for this date and RSVP to both Zhou Dadi
(becon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx) and Anne Johnson (johnson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx) as soon
as possible I will be out of the office xxx xxxx xxxxSeptember and will not be
able to receive messages during this time.

I look forward to seeing you in Beijing.

Naki

Original Filename: 914013281.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Rob Swart <Rob.Swart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: oadegbul@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, oadegbul@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dahuja@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, cna@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, cna@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, 110217.3046@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, alcamo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, knut.alfsen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, j.aloisi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, amano@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, amous.apex@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dennis.anderson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, applebpg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mapps@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, l.arizpe@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, robert.ayres@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, frtca@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Jan Bakkes <Jan.Bakkes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, gil_bamford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, banuri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, barbour.wiley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, terry.barker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, richard.baron@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, cenef@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jeannett.beck@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, lenny_s_bernstein@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, root%CpCb@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.blok@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pb@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, bbolin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, bert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, JC.Bollen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jbond@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, idbouille@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, british@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, british@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jpbruce@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, bruggink@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ecalvo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ocanz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, kapros@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ccarraro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, caccerri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, cerri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, renate.christ@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, john.christensen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, criqui@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, becon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, partha.dasgupta@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ogunlade.davidson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, devra@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ged.r.davis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, emilio@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dearing@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Yhding@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rdixon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ddokken@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tom.downing@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, duchin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ja_edmonds@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ellerman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, osp@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, sfankhauser@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tibor_farago@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, PMFEARN@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, zhoufq@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, j.fenhann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, bfisher@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, brian.p.flannery@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, louise.fresco@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, fujimori@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, fewewar@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, gilberto.gallopin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, cgay@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ft-geng@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pghosh@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, a.m.gielen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jglenn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, goldemb@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, estrukova@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jgrant@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, kennethgregory@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dJgriggs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mgrubb@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, gruebler@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jgu@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, joyeeta.gupta@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, sujatag@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pgutman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ehaites@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, david.hall@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, kirsten.halsnaes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, allen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, bhare@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, theller@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, matthijs.hisschemoller@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, michael.hoel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, hogan.kathleen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, hohenstein.william@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, hohmeyer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ch11@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, leen.hordijk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rhoughton@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, xuhging@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, saleemul@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, image-ers@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, imura@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Bert.Metz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ogunlade.davidson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ejo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, munasinghe@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ecalvo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Fabio@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, depas3lh@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, lorents.lorentsen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ishi@globalenv.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp, patricia.iturregui@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, hjacoby@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, fuj.jaeger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ajaffe@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, janzen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jaszay@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jefferson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, c.j.jepma@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, gjjenkins@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ejo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, johnson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, joos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tyjung@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, lijf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, stephen_karekezi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, kasiwagi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, kates@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Pekka.Kauppi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, hskhesh@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ger.klaassen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, alexey.kokorin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, kolstad@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, kopp@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, kram@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, krankino@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, helmut.kuehr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, lambermp@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p.j.kuikman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, snorre.kverndokk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dlashof@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, nleary@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, emilio@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, hoesung@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, lelieveld@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, lennon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mdlevine@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Bo.lim@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pvanderlinden@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, lo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, lorents.lorentsen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, loulou@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, vc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, nmabey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wrmldc@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, hssam@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, gum@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, marbe@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, omasera@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, n_matsuo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, j45662a@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, scentr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Pfohomasters@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, archie_mcculloch@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mack.mcfarland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, doug.d.mckay@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, merylyn.hedger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, gmeira@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, gph200@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Bert Metz <Bert.Metz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, laurie.michaelis@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, roberta@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, minami@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, irvingm@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wmoomaw@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, moorcroft@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, bun@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, amosier@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, richard.moss@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, munasinghe@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ceest@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, G.J.NABUURS@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, anajam@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, naki@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, enikitina@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, snishiok@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, noble@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, norgaard@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, T.Oriordan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, r.odingo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, oosterma@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, michael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pachauri@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jpalmisano@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pjh@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jparikh@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, alberto@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, alberto@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, hm_pitcher@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, nsprasad@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, vxt_copr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, lkprice@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, raymond.prince@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, atiq@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, bcas@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, kramakrishna@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, praskin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ravi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p.read@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rrichels@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, johnr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rogner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, m.rosegrant@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, daler@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, j.rotmans@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, yeruqiu@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, w.sachs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, asankovski@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, sarukhan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dinkopib@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jasathaye@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, john@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, schimel@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, uvu@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, schlesin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, seroa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ravi.sharma@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, shechter@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jramses@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, leena@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, shukla@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ksims@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, r.e.sims@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, siniscalco@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ssmith@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, vsokol@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ceest@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, birger.solberg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, solomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, robert_stavins@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, stigson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, john.stone@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, fb@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, depas3lh@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tt-tomi@q.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp, thtieten@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, timmer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dtirpak@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, richard.tol@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ratolmos@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, toman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dpid@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ferenc.toth@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, willemijn.tuinstra@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, john.turkson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, elsd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, s.c.vandegeijn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, vandril@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, j.vanham@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ekko.vanierland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, gerrit@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, vanrooijen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, lvanwie@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, v.vandeweerd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pier.vellinga@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, aviel.verbruggen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, A.Vollering@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, euvw@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wake@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, davidw@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, hwatanab@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rwatson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, weyant@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wilcoxen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, michael.williams@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wuebbles@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, xxiaoshi@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, myamagu@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, yamaji@yamaji.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp, F.D.Yamba@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, fy1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ybema@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, gyohe@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, yukawa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, PZhou@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: IPCC Emissions Scenarios
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 15:34:41 +0100

LS

As you may recall, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is
in the process of preparing a Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES).
Recently, it has been agreed that these scenarios are to play an important
role in IPCC's Third Assessment Report. The Terms of Reference of this
Special Report include a so-called Open Process to stimulate input from a
community of experts much broader than the writing team. This Open Process
has started in August 1998 and was planned last until the end of the year.
Because of the late date of this message we decided to extent this deadline
until January 10 now. A website (sres.ciesin.org) is managed by the Center
for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) in the United
States in collaboration with the Energy Research Foundation (ECN) in the
Netherlands, the Technical Support Unit (TSU) of Working Group III on
Mitigation of IPCC in the Netherlands, and the International Institute of
Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria, the home institution of the
co-ordinator of the SRES Report, dr. Nebojsa Nakicenovic. Three types of
input are invited: (a) new scenarios (preferably from the peer-reviewed
literature) that have not been taken into account by the writing team, (b)
new quantification of the proposed SRES scenarios based on storylines, and
(c) suggestions for improvements of the material developed until now.
Several of you have responded to an earlier request for input into this
open process. Thank you for that input. Amongst other things on the basis
of input received so far, recently the information on the website has been
improved considerably. The writing team of the report has now started to
actually draft their report, but can still take into account reactions to
this new information as published through the website, in principle until
31 December 1998. Herewith I would like to invite you to explore the site
(again) and provide us with your comments.

PLEASE DO SO USING THE FACILITIES OF THE WEBSITE, DO NOT USE THE EMAIL
ADDRESS OF THE SENDER OF THIS MESSAGE OR THE EMAIL GROUP LIST ABOVE!!!!

On behalf of Dr. Nakicenovic, thank you very much for your support to this
important endeavour!

Dr. Rob Swart
Head, Technical Support Unit
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group III: Mitigation
P.O. Box 1
3720 BA Bilthoven
Netherlands
xxx xxxx xxxx
email: rob.swart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx or ipcc3tsu@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Original Filename: 914022359.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Bill Hare <Bill.Hare@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: MAGICC
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 18:05:59 +0100

Dear Mike

Please send the details etc to me.

Thanks

Bill

On 18 Dec 98 at 9:43, Mike Hulme wrote:

> Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 09:43:31 +0000
> To: Bill Hare <Bill.Hare@xxxxxxxxx.xxx3>
> From: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
> Subject: Re: MAGICC

> Bill,
>
> The version of MAGICC we are distributing is the IPCC SAR 1996
> version. You can get that from me under Licence for $50. If you
> wish to proceed let me know and I can send it you with invoice.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
>
> At 17:59 16/12/98 +0100, you wrote:
> >Dear Mike
> >
> >I would like to know how to get the most recent version of MAGICC and
> >of COMICC (carbon cycle model). I heard from a colleague that you
> >may be distributing MAGICC??
> >
> >I look forward to hearing from you,
> >
> >Regards
> >
> >Bill Hare
> >
> >Bill Hare
> >Climate Policy Director
> >Greenpeace International
> >Keizersgracht 176
> >1016 DW Amsterdam
> >The Netherlands
> >
> >Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
> >Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
> >Email: bill.hare@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> >
> >
> >
>
Bill Hare
Climate Policy Director
Greenpeace International
Keizersgracht 176
1016 DW Amsterdam
The Netherlands

Phone: xxx xxxx xxxx
Fax: xxx xxxx xxxx
Email: bill.hare@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Original Filename: 981068343.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Martin Welp <Martin.Welp@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: gberz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, juergen.engelhard@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, schlueter@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, gerd-rainer.weber@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, zimmermeyer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jan.rispens@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, guentherr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, gretz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, siegfried.jacke@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, paul.bergweiler@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, kohl.harald@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, klaus.hasselmann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, schellnhuber@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Carlo.Jaeger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tol@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ccarraro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ola.johannessen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wokaun@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, f.gruber@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, baldur.eliasson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, sengbusch@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, buchner.barbara@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Ottmar.Edenhofer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Martin.Welp@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: ECF
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 17:59:03 +0100

Dear friends of the ECF,

Attached I send you:
- An executive summary of the ECF (to be revised anytime on the basis of
your suggestions),
- The current version of the ECF "Manifesto" (to be revised anytime on the
basis

Original Filename: 993768960.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Martin Welp <Martin.Welp@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: gberz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tloster@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ccarraro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, juergen.engelhard@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, guentherr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, bhare@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, klaus.hasselmann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, carlo.jaeger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, martin.welp@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: ECF: Agenda of the telephone conference 2 July 2001
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 18:56:00 +0200

Dear member of the ECF steering committee,

The next telephone conference takes place on Monday, 2 July 2001 at
17.00-18.00 CET. The agenda is as follows (it may be modified at the
beginning of the meeting):

1. Minutes of previous telephone conference (Draft sent by email on
14.6.2001) (5 Min.)
2. ECF preparatory meeting in Brussels (15 Min.)
(Agenda, Inputs: project descriptions, Outputs: workplan, sketch of a
position paper)
3. ECF as an Association and/or Foundation (15 Min.)
4. Three priority projects (15 Min.)
5. Varia (10 Min.)

Important!! Please check that the telephone number where you want to be
called is correct.

Gerhard Berz xxx xxxx xxxx
Carlo Carraro xxx xxxx xxxx
J

Original Filename: 998078193.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: "Stephan Singer" <SSinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: <bill.hare@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,<baldur.eliasson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <klaus.hasselmann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <tol@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <ccarraro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <gretz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <hourcade@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <GBerz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <ola.johannessen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Carlo.Jaeger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Martin.Welp@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Ottmar.Edenhofer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <schellnhuber@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <juergen.engelhard@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <ccarraro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: response
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 15:56:33 +0200

Dear Mr Hasselmann,

thanks for the draft position of the ECF. I do believe it is very good first approach to position the needs of a science-based climate policy in the future. I do particularly like the quasi-goal of a long-term 0-emission target supported by the scientific community.
However, there are a few amendments I like to propose:

a) I do not agree at all that the focus on the short term "dictared by the 10 year Kyoto horizon has tended to obscure longer term issues".

In the contrary, if we were to agree on longer-term and deeper targets - what we all want I suppose - there must be a starting point somewhere in the next years. I do agree that the 1 CP targets are moderate and will be diluted by all kinds of loopholes. But given the economic and political nature of this treaty, more is/was not reachable by the international community. I prefer an unperfect agreement coevering the globe (almost!) as a starter over an perfect agreement that will never be agreed upon.
And - probably more important - the recent Bonn agreement will give the signal to the main polluters that the atmosphere is not a free sewer any more. At best, they won some time - but the ultimate message is, that the train towards deeper targets has started. This may impact future industrial investment and legislative decision making much deeper than the targets of the 1 CP itself as it provides some basic certainty.
Having said this, the next important discussion round on a political level will resume about "adequacy of commitments" of the next CPs. that is the build-in logic of both the treaty and the Convention. Here countries will start to address targets for 2xxx xxxx xxxx. Thus, there is an approach to the long-term issues. It is a transient process over time. And, please believe me, almost everyone I talked to in the past who complained about the "short-term" focus of the treaty as opposed to a long-term global strategy had not in mind to strengthen environmental effectiveness - these voices mostly reflected the desire to fully delay any early action after all. And without early action and without short term focus we will never get to the longer-term targets.
In short, I believe, a scientific approach should foster the architecture of the KP and that of the Convention and the need for further target-setting processes in the future by all parties - and that is intrinsincally embedded in the process.
In that respect, it is probably scientifically correct to state that the "Kyoto reductions have negligible impacts on global warming" but it would be politically naive to conclude that this means Kyoto is only "symbolic". It is much more.

b) I have problems with the focus on solar as the sole beneficiary of a 0-emission society. Still, I still like to focus on those measures that are not implemented yet and can provide the bulk of future emissions reductions mostly cost-effectively - that is energy efficiency in its various forms and various applications. And renewables are those who benefit most from energy efficiency as each renewable kWh provides more service, km or goods.

Generally, I like a broader approach to renewables. It is not "one takes it all" solar what will save the world from climate change. We need many forms of renewables according to the cultural, political and economical circumstances in the various regions. In some it may be solar thermal power or PV, in others it is off-shore wind, and in many rural areas it may be biomass or geo-thermal energy. And let us not forget the challenge of producing hydrogen from renewable sources as another ultimate fuel.

c) How dow we deal with equity? I believe it has to be addressed in one way or the other - and I mean much more than the usual GHG emissions per capita approach. This would include compensation/adaptation funding for poor and vulnerable developing countries - but also how to deal with targets for (certain) developing countries in the next CPs.

best regards
Stephan Singer
WWF International

Original Filename: 998156340.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Klaus Hasselmann <klaus.hasselmann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Stephan Singer" <SSinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <bill.hare@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <baldur.eliasson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <tol@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <ccarraro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <gretz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <hourcade@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <GBerz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <ola.johannessen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Carlo.Jaeger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Martin.Welp@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <Ottmar.Edenhofer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <schellnhuber@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <juergen.engelhard@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, <ccarraro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: response to response
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 13:39:00 +0200

<x-flowed>

>Dear Stephan (I suggest we use the anglo-saxon first-name form, coupled
>with "Sie" if we slip into German)

I agree with all of your points and hope you will contribute to finding the
right language in our position paper to reflect both the need for long-term
goals and the value of at least starting off with something one can build
upon. One of my motives was to help keep the door open for those who wish
to join the process later without too much embarassment. I also agree that
we need to investigate all technological options. I am certainly not an
expert in this field and am willing to learn from those who see more Global
Mitigation Potential in some of the currently proposed technologies than I do.
With best regards
Klaus

Prof. Dr. Klaus Hasselmann
work: Max Planck Institute of Meteorology,
Bundestrasse 55, D21046 Hamburg, Germany
Tel. (+49) (0xxx xxxx xxxxFax. (+49) (0xxx xxxx xxxx
home: Schulstr. 79, D 25368 Kiebitzreihe
Tel. (+49) (0)4xxx xxxx xxxx, Fax. (+49) (0)4xxx xxxx xxxx
e-mail: klaus.hasselmann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

</x-flowed>

Original Filename: 999293834.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Mike Hulme <m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Klaus Hasselmann <klaus.hasselmann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Carlo.Jaeger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Martin Welp <Martin.Welp@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, schellnhuber@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Ottmar.Edenhofer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, tol@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ccarraro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ccarraro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, juergen.engelhard@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, baldur.eliasson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, hourcade@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ola.johannessen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, gretz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, bill.hare@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, SSinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, guentherr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, gberz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: ECF position paper
Date: Fri Aug 31 17:37:xxx xxxx xxxx

Klaus,
A few belated comments on your 1st draft ...... which is looking promising:
a. we need to be careful about using concepts/terms such as 'unacceptable' global warming.
As I think Richard Tol says, we do not have any sound basis for determining what
constitutes 'dangerous' climate change. Is it one life lost? a nation-state inundated?
or some more utilitarian exceedance of a benefit/cost ratio? Does every citizen on the
planet have a vote or just each government? We should draw attention to the rather flimsy
basis upon which notions of safe or dangerous, tolerable or unacceptable climate change are
debated. In the end of course there are lots of things we may view as 'unacceptable' (war
for example), yet they happen and we survive. I think this is an area rich for research
and we could draw out some of the dimensions.
b. later on you use the idea of balancing abatements costs vs. the risks of climate
change. I think we need to use the language of risk here and to draw upon insights
developed by risk analysts (academic and professionals) about how we frame the climate
change problem in risk terms. The differential perceptions of risks, inc. climate ones,
therefore becomes central in addressing point a.
c. the proposed ECF project on changes in extreme weather is of course a necessary first
step towards the quantification of climate risks. This should be one of the justifications
for work in this area. It is also the case that better understanding of these changes will
yield insights into how adaptation does or should proceed, at both environmental systems
and institutional systems levels.
d. re. nuclear energy in a climate protection portfolio, the ECF should be bold and should
question and expose assumptions made on both sides of the debate about the up and
down-sides of this technology. It is rising higher on the UK agenda and there will be some
challenging times ahead in this country about its rightful place and role.
I look forward to seeing the second draft,
Mike
At 14:24 11/08/01 +0200, Klaus Hasselmann wrote:

Dear colleague:
I was requested on the 6.August telephone conference by the ECF skeleton board and the
members of the former ECF steering committe to coordinate the writing of an ECF position
paper, as agreed upon at the ECF meeting in Brussels on July 12.
It was proposed that we complete the position paper and present it to the press about a
week in advance of the Marrakech COP 7 meeting in November this year.
I suggest the following timetable:
1) preliminary agreement on the structure and contents of the paper by the end of this
month,
2) production of first draft in September,
3) detailed discussion of first draft on 2nd October in Potsdam (an additional day ahead
of the 3-4.October ECF meeting, which was proposed on 6.August to discuss the details of
the various projects agreed upon at the Brussels meeting)
4) completion of the paper in October.
5) November: presentation of the paper
I would hope that apart from the 2nd October meeting we can achieve our task by e-mail.
But a meeting may be necessary in September. If so, we should try to combine it with one
of the other project meetings that will be taking place in September.
Everybody is invited to participate. Please feel free to copy this mail to other ECF
members or potential members who I may have missed.
It has been suggested that the position paper should be short, about 5 pages, plus some
appendices if necessary.To get the discussion going, I propose the attached structure as
straw man. Please note that many of the points I have listed are my own views, and I
will by happy to - and expect to - modify them based on your responses.
With best regards
Klaus

Prof. Dr. Klaus Hasselmann
work: Max Planck Institute of Meteorology,
Bundestrasse 55, D21046 Hamburg, Germany
Tel. (+49) (0xxx xxxx xxxxFax. (+49) (0xxx xxxx xxxx
home: Schulstr. 79, D 25368 Kiebitzreihe
Tel. (+49) (0)4xxx xxxx xxxx, Fax. (+49) (0)4xxx xxxx xxxx
e-mail: klaus.hasselmann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Original Filename: 1033599602.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails

From: Martin Welp <martin.welp@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: gberz@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ccarraro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, baldur.eliasson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, juergen.engelhard@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, bhare@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, klaus.hasselmann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, hourcade@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, SSinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, carlo.jaeger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, martin.welp@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: ECF: Monthly telephone conference (7 October)
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 19:00:02 +0200
Cc: tloster@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, anders.h.nordstrom@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, e.l.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Ottmar.Edenhofer@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Dear member of the extended board

The next ECF telephone conference takes place on Monday, 7 October 2002 at
xxx xxxx xxxxCET (Central European Time). The participants are:

Gerhard Berz xxx xxxx xxxx
Carlo Carraro xxx xxxx xxxx
Baldur Eliasson xxx xxxx xxxx
J

What are others looking for?