date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998 16:09:24 +0000 (GMT)
from: Robert Nicholls <R.Nicholls@mdx.ac.uk>
subject: Re: IMPORTANT:NATURE COMMENTARY
to: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, nwa1@soton.ac.uk, arnell61@btinternet.com,  PARRYML@aol.com

All numbers are correct and I find the new text fine. The two 
additional paragraphs make an excellent case for adaptation. 

However, an implicit message of Table 2 is that adaptation could 
handle climate change alone (the -15% option), so why are we worrying 
about mitigation? I think that this will be noted by many readers and 
it would be best if the piece had an explicit view on this, or delete 
the -15% option.  We could note the long-term benefits of mitigation 
earlier in the piece (like GEC), or alternatively the cummulative 
threats of an unmitigated pathway.

The only other change I would suggest is to table 1. Remove sea-level 
rise and replace with "coastal flooding (per year)".

Robert
______________________________________________________________________
Note New Fax Number Below


Robert J. Nicholls
Middlesex University
Queensway
Enfield EN3 4SF
United Kingdom

44-181-362-5569 (Tel and answer phone)
44-181-362-6957 (Fax)

R.nicholls@mdx.ac.uk (Internet)
