Creating Monetary Collaborative Spaces for Social and Ecological Transformation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

The paper analyses the impact of the implementation of climate bonuses (a kind of a new local currency) in the German city of Traunstein. These bonuses reward citizens and organisations that adopt less carbon intensive behaviour. This experiment takes place in the frame of a Federal policy to reduce carbon emissions. Based on a dataset (computed by the city of Traunstein?) the author concludes that the local currency of climate bonuses contributed to a cut in carbon emission of 10 082 tons within three years, two times more than initially expected by the Federal Environment Ministry.

If the topic is interesting, it lacks clarity on a certain number of points.  

First, in the summary and introduction, a link is made between the regional currency Chiemgauer and the climate bonuses experiment. Therefore, the first part of the paper presents the history, design and actual functioning of the Chiemgauer. The second part exposes the principles and impacts of the climate bonuses experiment. But no clear link is made between the two parts, and therefore between the two currencies. There is only some sentences p7, from lines 280 to 284, where it is said that members of the regional currency Chiemgauer participated in workshops and took part in the climate concept of the city of Traunstein.  They therefore apparently helped to design the climate bonuses experiment, but no cooperation, collaboration or use of the Chiemgauer local currency appears with the climate bonuses. It seems to be a complete different local currency totally independent from the Chiemgauer regional currency. The only link is apparently that there is some overlapping between the Chiemgauer currency members and the pioneers of the climate bonuses. But this is unclear in the paper.

Besides this, it is not clear either where the datasets used are coming from. Are they computed by the Federal Environment Ministry? Frome the Traunstein city? From the researchers? Therefore, the scientific contribution of the author does not clearly appear.

The dedicated part (3) to the description of the Chiemgauer currency, from line 198 p5 to 235 p6 is unclear with a lot of sentences which need to be edited. In general, this part must be clarified and re-written.

More generally, the contribution of this paper is not clear enough. It describes an experiment of a new local currency: climate bonuses and shows that, according to the figures shown (source?) contributed to save 10 082 tons of carbon in three years. But does the researcher generate the methodology to collect this information and compute the results? What did he do? Does he test any theories? Which one? The discussion part is very short and light. He’s only comparing taxes to rewards. What is the core question that address the paper?

I think that the paper needs deep clarifications and modifications before considering publishing it.

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for the review, please finde some remarks in the word-file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Article review: The article under review deals with how complementary or regional currencies can help achieve sustainability through a reduction of carbon emissions to the atmosphere.
The article under review fits with the scope and objectives of the sustainability journal, where it has been submitted for review. This is because it addresses something (the reduction of carbon emissions), however, the root idea is related to currency and economics so it partially fits. That is to say, my reflection is that perhaps this article would have a better place in an economic or even an energy magazine.
I must criticize the way in which the author has presented the manuscript for review. For example, he places some abbreviations at the beginning, although it is not necessary.
Does the author use the introduction as a literature review? If so, this is not a thorough review of the literature. The author talks about the fact that complementary currencies have been in use for a long time, but the review in this respect is not thorough.
He should in this sense, divide on the one hand the introduction and on the other hand create a literature review really on this issue.
On the other hand, the author should make mention of the existing debate today about complementary currencies (in this case digital) and their impact on the environment. There is a great open debate in the scientific community about it, and the author does not seem to know about it. I indicate some sources that should be consulted to improve this section, since they discuss this issue:

Truby, J. Decarbonizing Bitcoin: Law and policy choices for reducing the energy consumption of Blockchain technologies and digital currencies. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2018, 44, 399–410.

Mora, C.; Rollins, R.L.; Taladay, K.; Kantar, M.B.; Chock, M.K.; Shimada, M.; Franklin, E.C. Bitcoin emissions alone could push global warming above 2 °C. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2018, 8, 931–933.

Masanet, E.; Shehabi, A.; Lei, N.; Vranken, H.; Koomey, J.; Malmodin, J. Implausible projections overestimate near-term Bitcoin CO₂ emissions. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2019, 9, 653–654

Houy, N. Rational mining limits Bitcoin emissions. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2019, 9, 655

Aste, T. The fair cost of bitcoin proof of work. SSRN Electron. J. 2016.

Náñez Alonso, S. L., Jorge-Vázquez, J., Echarte Fernández, M. Á., & Reier Forradellas, R. F. (2021). Cryptocurrency Mining from an Economic and Environmental Perspective. Analysis of the Most and Least Sustainable Countries. Energies, 14(14), 4254. MDPI AG. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en14144254

Hoang, A.; Nguyen, T. Theseus: Reusing Waste Heat from Cryptocurrency Mining to Heat Multi-Family House. Theseus. Available online: https://www.theseus.fi/handle/10024/149939

Meynkhard, A. Energy efficient development model for regions of the Russian federation: Evidence of crypto mining. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 2019, 9, 16–21

Regarding the methodology, this section is really not very successful on the part of the authors. It is certainly not entirely clear to me here how they execute it and what the objective is. Several issues are mixed up. It needs to be improved by the authors.
They simply point out in 3-4 sentences a very generic description of their method.
On the other hand, point 4 should be integrated in section 3 of methodology or, failing that, partially divided between the introduction or the literature review and leave the method part in the methodology section.
Regarding the possible impact of complementary currencies, cryptocurrencies already operating in the market, their impact can be estimated thanks to the data published by CBECI.  
This is the biggest problem, I think they should work on strengthening this issue.

Point 5, does not make sense, at least where it is located. The manuscript itself is very chaotic. This for example could be part of the literature review. Since normally in any academic article, after the methodology go the results.
I fail to see the real value of the results in this manuscript. For example, the table in lines 359-360 where does it come from? How are these results reached? Is it self-made?
I can say the same for the table inserted in lines 505-506.
On the other hand, I would like to hear the authors talk about the effect of proximity, financial inclusion and its possible impact on CO2 reductions. In this regard, there are recent studies that talk about it, and that the author has also not taken into account in his review. For example

Montero, J. M., Chasco, C., & Larraz, B. (2010). Building an environmental quality index for a big city: a spatial interpolation approach combined with a distance indicator. Journal of Geographical Systems, 12(4), 435-459.
Bartiromo, M., Ciacci, A., & Ivaldi, E. (2022). Measuring Sustainable Development at the NUTS2 Level: Differences and Future Prospects1. In Globalization, Income Distribution and Sustainable Development (pp. 95-116). Emerald Publishing Limited.
Quiroz, J. L., Peeters, L., Chasco, C., & Aroca, P. (2022). Equal Access to University Education in Chile? An Application Using Spatial Heckman Probit Models. Mathematics, 10(2), 280.
Náñez Alonso, S. L., Jorge-Vazquez, J., Reier Forradellas, R. F., & Ahijado Dochado, E. (2022). Solutions to Financial Exclusion in Rural and Depopulated Areas: Evidence Based in Castilla y León (Spain). Land, 11(1), 74.
Náñez Alonso, S. L., Jorge-Vazquez, J., Echarte Fernández, M. Á., Kolegowicz, K., & Szymla, W. (2022). Financial Exclusion in Rural and Urban Contexts in Poland: A Threat to Achieving SDG Eight? Land, 11(4), 539.

Moreno, C., Allam, Z., Chabaud, D., Gall, C., & Pratlong, F. (2021). Introducing the "15-Minute City": Sustainability, resilience and place identity in future post-pandemic cities. Smart Cities, 4(1), 93-111.
Allam, Z., Moreno, C., Chabaud, D., & Pratlong, F. (2021). Proximity-Based Planning and the "15-Minute City": A Sustainable Model for the City of the Future. In The Palgrave Handbook of Global Sustainability (pp. 1-20). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Results section.
In this case, in my opinion, the authors have to work on the way they present their results.
On the one hand, where the estimation and cost calculations come from.
Finally, in their discussion of results etc. it is necessary to include the limits of their study, the difficulties and future lines. But above all, what are your most important findings and what does this article contribute to the advancement of scientific knowledge.

Author Response

Dear Sir or Madam,

thank you for the review. Please find my answers in the word-file.

Kind regards
Christian Gelleri

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for this interesting case study. You could be a little clearer about the aim of the study. It would also be interesting to know if there have been any practical problems since Chiemgauer was created and how to solve these problems. Also be clearer when it comes to the rules for regulating the money supply.

Author Response

Dear Sir or Madam,

many thanks for your review. I hope I could clarify your remarks in the revision. Please find my answers in the word-file.

Kind regards
Christian Gelleri

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

 

There is a clear improvement of the paper. A lot of comments have been considered. The core questions addressed and the contributions are clearer. The structure of the paper has been improved. The statement has been refocused on the main points. The role and actions of the researcher has been made clearer, as well as the added value of the paper. The link between climate bonuses and the local currency Chimgauer is more detailed and the steps of the collaboration between the two.

 

The more detailed presentation of how climate bonuses work is also a big improvement.

Nevertheless, there are still imperfections that need to be corrected before considering publishing it.

 

The introduction needs adjustments. In lines 39-43, the case of Bitcoin is mentioned, but I do not see the link with the topic of the paper. It must be more a comparison between the energetic expenses generated by the use and emission of fiat currencies rather than with Bitcoin. For me, this is out of topic. Again, line 107 Bitcoin is given as an example of a currency having negative effects. But it will be more relevant to speak about the consequences of fiat currencies.  

Line 121 to 126, the author speaks about degrowth without saying it. It is a good idea, but it would be better to say it and to give references to this concept. Line 124-126 refers to the need of other economic wealth assessment tools, but it lacks the link with the topic.

Line 128-130: the transition from one idea to the other misses.  And why researchers should involve only in small structures? I disagree with this point.

Line 367: some examples of crypto-currencies rewarding eco-friendly behaviours are presented, in particular Solarcoin. Rather than focusing on the weakness of exchange of Solarcoin with other crypto-currencies or fiat money, it should be more interesting to focus on the potential expenses, acceptation and use of the coins. Does the author have any information about this?

Line 441: I don’t understand the sentence “it switches back to the global value circle”. It doesn’t make any sense to me.

Line 474-475: The author says that the problem generated by the presence of paid researchers and volunteer practitioners is eliminated. What problem? And how is it eliminated?

 Figure 3 is not that clear to me.

Line 577: the case of the city of Marburg is not presented. To me it doesn’t worth saying it as the paper focuses on Traunstein.

Line 754: the sentence must be edited.

Line 787 and further: what is “deregistration of a registered vehicle”? It is not defined.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you very much for the valuable comments that I have tried to implement in the best possible way.   Please find my answers in the word-document.   Kind regards
Christian Gelleri

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear author, thank you for responding to my indications and making the suggested changes.
Best regards

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you very much for your indications and inspirational comments!

Kind regards
Christian Gelleri