Saudi Arabia’s Journey toward Net-Zero Emissions: Progress and Challenges
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Using a parameter approach, this study reveals and predicts various sectors’ GHG emissions in reaching net-zero emissions in Saudi Arabia. The whole analysis is detailed and rich. But there exists a large uncertainty in such a simple assessment and the estimating process is not transparent. Some other concerns are follows:
1. Line27-56
Introduction uses 3-4 paragraphs to describe climate change, UNFCCC and Paris Agreement, which is very verbose. In fact, all sections in this study need to be more concise.
2. The literature review is missing.
3. Line 123
What are common measures in your paper?
4. Line 463
How to get the forecast values of GHG emissions from electricity generation? How to determine the above assumptions? How much energy is consumed in electricity generation? These are not clear.
5. Line 520-521
Why ‘Accordingly, CO2 emissions from transport will remain almost the same until 2030’ the sentence can hold?
6. Line 535
How do you get this number 20%? Similarly for 101.5Mt (Line 576)
7. Line 683
Authors said “It is predicted that the annual growth in demand will be on average 3.3% and most likely will drop to 2% after 2030”. Where is the conclusion from？
8. Line 92
Figure 1 is not complete.
Line 354-359
Figure3-5 are too blurred.
Line401-404
Authors can choose only one way to show the same results: Figure 8 or Table1; Figure 9 or Table 2……
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your comments and your time.
Attached, please find my responses to your comments and two revised copes (with track changes + clean).
Best regards
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper provides an analysis and challenges of the Saudi measures to achieve NZE by 2060. The most important conclusion relates to pointing out the lagging sector that could hinder Saudi Arabia from achieving NZE by 2060. Therefore, this paper could be interesting to policymakers.
In my opinion, this paper has several shortcomings:
1. It is extremely long so the readers lose focus when reading it. In my opinion, this is written more as some kind of report than a scientific paper. Therefore, I am not sure how applicable the work is for publication in Energies. In any case, I suggest shortening the paper.
2. Novelty should be pointed out in the Introduction.
3. Improve the quality of all Figures. Lose the numbers in Figure 1.
4. Several Figures are referenced. Check if these Figures be published?
5. Authors state on Page 4 "A literature review that determines the common measures to reduce emissions was conducted". Provide the analysis of this literature survey.
6. Paper ends with 7 recommendations. These recommendations are more or less general in nature and their significant scientific contribution is not visible.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your comments and your time.
Attached please find my responses to your comments and two revised copies (clean + with track changes).
Best regards
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has been sufficiently improved.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I have added recommendations (please see track change).
Thank you
Mazen
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In previous comment No. 6 regarding the provided recommendations in the conclusion, it was not suggested to delete this recommendations. It is important that the provided recommendations remain. It was only suggested to provide some numerical data on the potential impact of individual measures (e.g. potential on CO2 reduction or something similar).
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I have incorporated your comments and included a revised version of the recommendations. Please see track changes.
Thank you,
Mazen
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
