Rescuing the Paris Agreement: Improving the Global Experimentalist Governance by Reclassifying Countries
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an original work on the problem of climate change by very bright younger Chinese scholars that can and should be turned into a publishable article. But it will take some additional work to realize the article's potential.
Here are my concerns:
1. The focus is almost entirely on mitigation in contrast to adaptation, though concern about adaptation is rising rapidly as exemplified in the recent COP 27. That's okay. But the article should make it clear that it deals primarily with mitigation.
2. The critique of the 2015 Paris Agreement is insightful. It offers some original observations. It does make sense to compare the climate regime and the ozone regimes with regard to effectiveness. But one thing I missed was a discussion of the differences between the two cases in terms of problem structure. The climate problem is a considerably more difficult nut to crack.
3. The most interesting and original part of the analysis is the section on reclassifying countries by capability and motivation. This can be turned into the article's major contribution. BUT I have several concerns about the analysis in its current form.
4. The article makes the observation that an "improved national classification system is a fundamental precondition to precise emission reduction" (pg. 8). I assume this means that reclassification is a necessary (though perhaps not sufficient) condition for success in the effort to deal with climate change. But the logic of this argument is unclear and underdeveloped. I am not convinced that the case is persuasive.
5. The 2x2 classification scheme is clever and, in my judgment, thought provoking. But it produces results that many will find somewhat unconvincing. Perhaps this arises from the fact that imposing dichotomies on a complex world is often difficult. But consider some cases in point. Is the US really a case of low motivation? Yes under Trump. But perhaps no under Biden. Is China really a case of low capability? It's getting harder and harder to make a convincing argument for this view based on the proposition that China is not an Annex 1 country. Is India really a case of low motivation and low capability, even though it is the 4th or 5th largest emitter of greenhouse gases and experiencing rapid economic development? Lumping India together with Afghanistan, PNG, and Yemen seems very odd.
6. Even if the argument is right, how would it be possible to bring about such a reclassification in the context of the UNFCCC? In other words, is there any reason to conclude that this analysis is anything but academic?
7. I was able to follow the argument pretty well, but the paper is in need of serious copyediting to improve the English. I admire the authors for doing so well with English as a second language. But copyediting is important in this case.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We are grateful to the reviewer for the valuable and constructive comments on our paper. Please see below our response to the questions and suggestions in the attached file. We also highlighted our main rectification areas. We hope this revised version adequately addresses the issues the reviewer has raised.
Sincerely yours
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The research is original, and a similar analysis has never been done. The authors have included a good number of top references. Nevertheless, the manuscript presents some major structures which should be revised to make it a paper for the Sustainability journal. See detailed comments in the attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We are grateful to the reviewer for the valuable and constructive comments on our paper. Please see our response to the questions and suggestions in attached file. We also highlighted our main rectification area. We hope this version adequately addresses the issues the reviewer has raised.
Sincerely yours
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a revised version of a paper I reviewed in its first version.
The authors have been responsive to the issues I raised in my review, and the paper is stronger now.
This paper certainly deserves to be accepted for publication. However, I'd like to suggest that the authors make one more effort to strengthen the text.
The basic idea is that there is a need to introduce a new system for classifying countries regarding their contributions to addressing the problem of climate change. This argument has merit. BUT what reason do we have to expect that the new classification system will be accepted by the parties to the UNFCCC? I understand there is no definitive answer to this question. But a discussion of the institutional bargaining that would be needed to achieve success in efforts to make this adjustment would help.
I am not suggesting that this become a major focus of the paper. Still, I think an effort to address this question of institutional feasibility would increase the influence of this paper significantly once it is published.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thanks for your constructive advice and your encouragement. We are very grateful for your suggestions on our revised paper.
In this minor revised version, we have added certain discussion on institutional feasibility in the second to last paragraph of section 3.4 (line 569-577) and the last paragraph of section 4 (line 604-610).
Sincerely yours
Reviewer 2 Report
I want to thank the authors for the changes they made to the second manuscript and for explaining the changes in point forms. Although the structure is of average quality, I believe it has demonstrated excellent originality, a contribution to research, academic soundness, engagement with sources, and recent scholarship. Overall, following some minor revisions, it warrants being included in the Sustainability publication.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thanks for your constructive advice and encouragement. We are very grateful for your suggestions on our revised paper.
In this minor revised version, we have deleted every “Source: made by authors” both in the figures (line 126 & 293) and tables (line 361 & 538).
Sincerely yours
