date: Wed, 10 Jun 98 9:23:22 +6000
from: richard.tol@ivm.vu.nl
subject: Naming lead authors
to: acacia_conf <acacia_conf@ucl.ac.uk>

First, e have now embarked on a process of naming our friends and colleagues 
to be lead authors in the ACACIA report. It may be a good idea to have some 
publications of these people as well. Not all those that have been named are 
obvious experts.

Second, and again, we need to think what we want this report to do. We have 
just been through an IPCC Special Report on Regional Impacts, and 
preparations for the IPCC TAR are ongoing. We need to choose between doing 
preparatory work for IPCC, or doing something completely different. I prefer 
the latter.

If we opt not to do a standard literature review, we could work towards more 
integration between sectors, or work more towards policy advice. I do not 
think the former is doable (although it is my preference). The latter is 
hard, but worth pursuing.

If this is the course taken, we are not looking for detail-experts but for 
skilled communicators with a broad overlook.

Third, and again, the outline of the report needs thought, and needs to 
reflect the purpose of the report. In any case, I do not think it is wise to 
single out extreme weather. The little that is known about the impact of 
future extreme weather should be placed in the relevant sector chapters. So 
little is known about the impact of past weather extremes that I doubt it 
deserves a separate chapter -- instead, we could ask each chapter to add a 
historical/empirical review, say of weather impacts on agriculture in the 
past 20 years.

I doubt the purpose of common scenarios. Authors will not have time to 
analyse these.

Although the impact of climate change on manufacturing, retailing, 
construction, insurance, tourism, migration and so on may be substantial,  
the body of literature is not. It is distortion of the state of the art to 
have a mining (say) chapter next to a coastal zone (say) chapter.

Being a social scientist, singling out soils occurs strange to me. There is 
no Minister of Soils in any country I know, but there are ministers of 
agriculture and nature (through which soils make themselves felt).

Fourth, an alternative structure would be:
water resources, agriculture, un- and semi-maneged ecosystems, sea level 
rise, health and miscellaneous -- apart from the last, this is recognizable 
to the policy makers we may seek to inform.

Each chapter could then follow this structure:
mechanisms, past impacts of weather and climate, estimates of impacts of 
future changes, adaptation options.

If agreed, I could think of some authors.

Richard Tol
