The Imperativeness of Environmental Quality in China Amidst Renewable Energy Consumption and Trade Openness

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is interesting, original and of quite high scientific quality, there could be changes as well, but I missed the relevance and potential benefits of the study.

1. In the introduction, the authors should explain more clearly the importance and relevance of their research and the potential benefits of this research. The introduction is too broad, part of the material should be moved to other parts, nor is the object and purpose of the article highlighted.
2. Also, justify the choice of methods for performing this study.
3. Research methods should also be described in more detail, and the validity of research methods is not clear.
4.  Authors should insert deeper discussions and insights in analyzing problems.
5. I would suggest to improve the design of the presentation of research results, to substantiate the results in more detail.
6. I would recommend to include the discussion part in this manuscript this would bring more clarity and reveal the importance of the study.
7. -The pictures in the article are presented quite chaotically, it is not clear what the authors want to say, they should be commented on and described. I also missed the discussion part.
8. Link the findings to the results in more detail.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

1. In the introduction, the authors should explain more clearly the importance and relevance of their research and the potential benefits of this research. The introduction is too broad, part of the material should not be moved to other parts, nor is the object and purpose of the article highlighted.

Thank you for this suggestion. Methods utilized are presented in section 2. The objectives of the study are clearly stated in the introduction “Recent scholars have examined the association between economic growth and CO₂ emissions in the related environmental literature. However, there is no agreement about whether China can meet the Paris climate goals by 2030 [2, 4]. Hence, this study employed the time-frequency dependency to examine the relationship between CO₂ emissions and renewable energy, economic growth, trade openness, and energy use in China covering 1965–2019, which has not yet been explored using the wavelet tools (wavelet correlation, wavelet coherence, multiple wavelet coherence, and partial wavelet coherence)”.

1. Also, justify the choice of methods for performing this study.

Thank you for this suggestion: the study used wavelet tools to explore these associations. This approach differentiates between short, medium, and long-run dynamics over the entire sampling duration using this tool. The wavelet transformation is an effective method for signal analysis and processing that is incredibly useful in a variety of areas, including denoising and compression, as well as working with nonstationary signals as pictures.

1. Research methods should also be described in more detail, and the validity of research methods is not clear.

Thank you for this suggestion. The methodology employed and their uniqueness are well explained in both introduction and data and methodology part.

1.  Authors should insert deeper discussions and insights in analyzing problems.

Thank you for this suggestion. The paper used the wavelet tools to explore these association at different frequencies (different scales) over the period of study. Furthermore, we incorporate a discussion section as suggested.

1. I would suggest to improve the design of the presentation of research results, to substantiate the results in more detail.

Thank you for this suggestion. As suggested we have incorporated a better presentation of the research results.

1. I would recommend including the discussion part in this manuscript this would bring more clarity and reveal the importance of the study.

Thank you for this precise suggestion. As suggested we have incorporated discussion section.

1. -The pictures in the article are presented quite chaotically, it is not clear what the authors want to say, they should be commented on and described. I also missed the discussion part.

Thank you for this suggestion. As suggested better labeling were used to distinct the images.

1. Link the findings to the results in more detail.

Thank you for these suggestions the findings are properly linked to prior studies as illustrated in the discussion sections

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper deals with an interesting topic, which combines environmental with economic and commercial issues.

Here and there, the reader may find some orthographical/grammatical mistakes (see, for instance, “prior studies [7, 11, 13, 25] who analyze” or “The findings from Bayer and Hack The discloses”), but the paper is in general well written and theoretical background explained in a sound way. The tests used are also coherent with the goals set out in the paper.

The major concern I have is the lacking introduction to a topic, which is particularly interesting and engaging since almost everyone can relate to. In my opinion, there should have been a broader introduction containing/explaining some key figures showing – just as an example – China’s contribution to CO₂ emissions in the last decades, its gradual opening to international trade over time as well as economic growth trends combined with increasing needs to consume energy. The authors have added Figure 2 (which basically contains what I am pointing out), but it should have been commented in a more articulated and extended way than just putting a whole page summing up all fundamental figures. By doing so, the authors would have better introduced the topic and its general context while making the paper a more appealing read and the topic discussion less mechanical.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Here and there, the reader may find some orthographical/grammatical mistakes (see, for instance, “prior studies [7, 11, 13, 25] who analyze” or “The findings from Bayer and Hack The discloses”), but the paper is in general well written and theoretical background explained in a sound way. The tests used are also coherent with the goals set out in the paper.

The major concern I have is the lacking introduction to a topic, which is particularly interesting and engaging since almost everyone can relate to. In my opinion, there should have been a broader introduction containing/explaining some key figures showing – just as an example – China’s contribution to CO₂ emissions in the last decades, its gradual opening to international trade over time as well as economic growth trends combined with increasing needs to consume energy. The authors have added Figure 2 (which basically contains what I am pointing out), but it should have been commented in a more articulated and extended way than just putting a whole page summing up all fundamental figures. By doing so, the authors would have better introduced the topic and its general context while making the paper a more appealing read and the topic discussion less mechanical.

Thank you for this suggestion. As suggested the trend of CO2 emissions and GDP is incorporated in the introduction section.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

1. I recommend that the authors revise the abstract. The abstract should be no more than 250-300 words and structured: Purpose of the Study: In simple terminology, tell the readers about this study's aim. No discussion or research background is to be included in this part [50–60 words]. Methodology: Provide the names, brands, types of tools, methods, software, reviews, and surveys that have been used to conduct the study. No discussion or explanation is included in this part [50–60 words]. Main Findings: Write only the main results in a few words. No discussion or explanation is included in this part. Results imply only a concrete result belonging to a particular instance [50–60 words]. Applications: Describe how this study might be useful by giving the area's name or discipline [50–60 words]. Novelty/Originality: Identity what is new in this study that may benefit readers or how it may advance existing knowledge or create new knowledge on this subject [50–60 words]. This will allow the main points of the article to be more clearly formulated for the readers. Now, in my opinion, the abstract has general statements and conclusions. It is necessary to use the most specific language possible to explain the research methods and results so that the reader has a clear and comprehensive understanding of the author’s research. Do not simply repeat the information already stated in the title; faithfully reflect the research work done and provide as much quantification as possible.
   2. In my opinion, there is an insufficient description of the tables and figures.
   3. I recommend the authors revise the conclusion. I lacked the substantiation of the author's novelty of the research. What is the novelty of the author's approaches, and how can they be applied in practice? Are there any limitations in the application of the author's results? What are the perspectives of the study?

Author Response

Reviewer 3

I recommend that the authors revise the abstract. The abstract should be no more than 250-300 words and structured: Purpose of the Study: In simple terminology, tell the readers about this study's aim. No discussion or research background is to be included in this part [50–60 words]. Methodology: Provide the names, brands, types of tools, methods, software, reviews, and surveys that have been used to conduct the study. No discussion or explanation is included in this part [50–60 words]. Main Findings: Write only the main results in a few words. No discussion or explanation is included in this part. Results imply only a concrete result belonging to a particular instance [50–60 words]. Applications: Describe how this study might be useful by giving the area's name or discipline [50–60 words]. Novelty/Originality: Identity what is new in this study that may benefit readers or how it may advance existing knowledge or create new knowledge on this subject [50–60 words]. This will allow the main points of the article to be more clearly formulated for the readers. Now, in my opinion, the abstract has general statements and conclusions. It is necessary to use the most specific language possible to explain the research methods and results so that the reader has a clear and comprehensive understanding of the author’s research. Do not simply repeat the information already stated in the title; faithfully reflect the research work done and provide as much quantification as possible.
2. In my opinion, there is an insufficient description of the tables and figures.
3. I recommend the authors revise the conclusion. I lacked the substantiation of the author's novelty of the research. What is the novelty of the author's approaches, and how can they be applied in practice? Are there any limitations in the application of the author's results? What are the perspectives of the study?

Thank you for these suggestions. A discussion part was incorporated for better understanding of the techniques employed. The wavelet tools employed is a time-frequency techniques which uncover unnoticed information which time domain and frequency domes techniques cannot discover. The policy suggestions in this empirical analysis are based on the outcomes of the techniques employed.

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Review the findings carefully. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer; 

Thanks a lot for this comment and your contribution to our article. As suggested, we reviewed the findings. In addition, we add additional sentences for some findings as well.