Sustainable Development and Energy Policy: Actual CO₂ Emissions in the European Union in the Years 1997–2017, Considering Trade with China and the USA

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is very interesting, and should be considered for publication.

However, in the introduction the author can more clearly state the aim, and relate to it in the conclusion. The arguments are clear to me, but can be made clearer to the reader.

The English requires proofreading. The content is clear, but there are many grammatical issues to be dealt with. In the tables, dots instead of comma's are needed.

Author Response

First of all, I would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable comments.

I have adjusted the paper to the comments of the reviewers. The paper has been proofread by a native speaker.

The original title, “Environmental awareness in the aspects of the European Union reduction of CO2 emissions in the years 1997-2017, considering the EU trade with China and the USA”, has been changed to “Sustainable development and energy policy - actual  CO2 emissions in the European Union in the years 1997-2017, considering trade with China and the USA.”

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper presents “Environmental awareness in the aspects of the European Union reduction of CO₂ emissions in the years 1997-2017, considering the EU trade with China and the USA.” The work indicates (i) gaps in actual CO₂ emissions and official data, (ii) lack of true realization, (iii) problem in environmental awareness. In general, the paper is organized nicely and well written. However, I have raised some comments: Could you please elaborate more on CO₂ transfer in connection to export and import products and services? What are the uncertainties while computing CO₂ emissions from import and export goods and services? Does simply exporting or importing certain amount goods directly equivalent to the amount of the CO₂ emission? what are the major caveats/challenges to effectively implementing the reduction policy? As the authors mentioned in (i) there is an existing gap between the actual emissions of CO₂ and official data. Specifically, which region did you find the worst case while calculating the difference between the actual emissions of CO₂ and official data? What would this analysis recommend with regard to raising the awareness to reduction, and responsible stakeholders? I would recommend for publication after addressing the concerns raised. The specific comments are provided below for each section.

Abstract

Could you please clarify more about the official data?

Introduction

I would suggest to add some briefs on CO₂ transfer both in export and import products and services here. Could you explain in other way round such relations little bit? For example, during bulky production of goods in industry, huge amount of CO₂ would be emitted to the atmosphere. Otherwise, it seems to be very crude way of discussion.

Material and methods

Line number 91, The same as open and closed economy. It is not clear, what do you mean?

Line 102, please give equation number. Does this equation work for China only or others as well Suppose, what would the actual open CO₂ emission be if a country x is nearly export dependent? Could you please add more clarity on it?

Line 128, “…complexity (www).” what is www? Please include a link or a reference for the data source.

Results  

Line 140-141, “there is no other possibility to convince other countries in the world to undertake similar actions” in this context, the US and China did not undertake in similar level of EU? Add clarity. 

Line 149-150, “On the other hand, in the considered period of survey in the USA OC CO₂ emission was decreasing (more than 8%).” Is author talking about the trend of CO₂ emission in the considered period (1997-2017) or just some specific years? It is not clear.

Line 147-148, “In the USA, we could observe many ups and downs in the value of OC emission of CO₂ in the years 1997-2017. ” what are the attributes for ups and down?

Line 150-151, “In all the survey period the trend of OC CO₂ was generally decreasing.” If a sentence mentioned in line 149-150 says about the trend, you can delete this sentence stated in line 150-150.

Line 188-189, “so if the EU want to reduce GHS emission, they must reduce CO₂ emission in the first place.” I think it is just repetitive, please delete it.

Line 197-198, “Amongst these 13 countries only Poland had reached the earlier of value of less than 80% (years 2001,02, 14 and 15).” Could you list the possible factors that hinder to attain it in other years, apart from 2001,2002, 2014, and 2015?

Line 247-248, “The biggest loser in reduction of CO₂ emission after taking under consideration trade with China and the USA was Germany.” What does the author mean by the “biggest loser”?

Line 261-262, ”Number of countries (26) multiplied by (21) years considered in the  survey gives us 541 country years (CY).” it is not clear, what does 541 country years mean?

Discussion

Line 271-272, “It can result in the fact that the EU energy policy is not being regarded as a sustainable development policy and is related to high costs.” Is it because of high costs or limited territory? If so, which one weighs more? 

Line 280-281, “….some enterprises produce in countries when this environmental policy, legal restrictions payments, and taxes are not so strict.“ Improve the sentence, …countries where they have less paid environmental policy, lose legal restrictions,….

Line 281, “Because of its costs of production could be lower.” please revise this expression again.

Line 283, “May be countries should be more interested in where they import,” Would please add some clarity on it?   

Conclusions

Line 294-295, “Trade relates to a big import of CO₂ hidden in goods and services imported to the EU especially from China, and much less from the USA.” Sometimes it is a confusing narration. I would suggest author to add clarity about CO₂ hidden in goods and services.    

Line 301-302, “The impact of the trade on CO₂ emission was the smallest in the USA and big but relatively smaller in China than in the EU.” it is not clear, please make it clear.

Line 310, “The results of the research indicate that CO₂ emission is a global problem.” It is obvious that CO₂ emission is a global problem, which is indicated in several studies. Rather, this work shows that there is a problem in fully implementing policies toward curbing the reduction of CO₂ emissions. Revise it again.

Line 310-313, “Countries which want to act more sustainably, more environmentally aware must take into consideration not only themselves but also the impact of other countries on them especially by the bilateral and international trade.” Please revise this sentence again.

Technical Comments:

In general, I would suggest author to check the language throughout the text.

Line 36, ….energy sector.[1-5]-->….energy sector [1-5]. Reference should be inserted before full stop mark (.)m and similarly, correct others. Please check it.

Line 172, ‘…(tab. 6).’,-> …(Table 6) …Please check referring Table and Figure in the entire text.

Lien 189, GHS -> GHG

Line 195, “..couldn’t..”-> ..could not..

Line 225, UE->EU?

Line 234, cased?

Line 266, 270, UE->EU?

Author Response

First of all, I would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable comments.

I have adjusted the paper to the comments of the reviewers. The paper has been proofread by a native speaker.

The original title, “Environmental awareness in the aspects of the European Union reduction of CO2 emissions in the years 1997-2017, considering the EU trade with China and the USA”, has been changed to “Sustainable development and energy policy - actual  CO2 emissions in the European Union in the years 1997-2017, considering trade with China and the USA.”

This decision is based on Reviewer 2’s comment “what are the major caveats/challenges to effectively implementing the reduction policy?” It is now emphasized that the Actual Emissions are important for sustainable development and energy policy in general, and environmental management of industries in particular.

Regarding particular reviewer remarks:

Could you please elaborate more on CO2 transfer in connection to export and import products and services?

The formula for the calculation is presented in the article. These formulae are now more extensively discussed.

What are the uncertainties while computing CO2 emissions from import and export goods and services?

This issue is now mentioned in the Materials and Methods section, where I added the following:

„Available data are always featured by uncertainty about their reliability. The calculation of emissions embedded in imports and exports provides a rather rough picture. This picture shows a general challenge in the assessment of data to assess the effectiveness of policy for sustainable development. This analysis needs refinement, which is a task for future studies."

Does simply exporting or importing a certain amount of goods directly equivalent to the amount of the CO2 emission?

This is not the case. As mentioned above, the calculation in the article provides a general picture, statistically showing the relevance of imports and exports for the amount of actual CO2 emissions.

what are the major caveats/challenges to effectively implementing the reduction policy?

The major challenges are not in the range of the article. The article identifies a great challenge in the assessment of reduction policy – the exclusion of CO2 emissions embedded in imports and exports. This issue has been dealt with in the paper.

As the authors mentioned in (i) there is an existing gap between the actual emissions of CO2 and official data. Specifically, which region did you find the worst-case while calculating the difference between the actual emissions of CO2 and official data?

I emphasized that in particular for Germany the picture changes. As formally they seem to achieve the aim of 20% CO2 emission reduction, but that the picture changes when considering the emissions embedded in international trade.

What would this analysis recommend concerning raising the awareness of reduction, and responsible stakeholders?

It has been recommended to consider energy policy goals in trade policy.

I would recommend for publication after addressing the concerns raised.

Thank you very much. This has been done. Also, the article has been proofread on language.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author,

I have seen that the revised version of the manuscript is well improved and addressed all comments. Therefore, I recommend the manuscript to be accepted for publication.