An Analysis of Three Decades of Increasing Carbon Emissions: The Weight of the P Factor
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review Report
Journal: Sustainability
Manuscript Number: sustainability-2183059
Title: An analysis of three decades of increasing carbon emissions: the weight of the P factor
The paper is a scholarly article and can add to the knowledge domain. The paper has much relevance, is well contextualized, and the empirical results are nicely presented. I commend the innovative approach of the authors and recommend the manuscript for publication after the following minor comments have been adequately addressed.
Abstract
- In the abstract section, the author(s) must amend the fourth finding as the statement lacks clarity.
- What is/are the policy implication of your findings?
Introduction
1. Please change the language “ repeatedly reminded us” to “reported”. (Line 6 Page 2)
2. Also, the motivation behind the analyzed year range was clearly stated
3. Generally, the introduction is brilliantly written and the gap and objectives of the study were highlighted.
Methods
1. The choice of method used was adequately argued and very interesting to follow. Overall, the data capture was well-discussed and coherent.
Results
1. The presentation of the result is very interesting to follow and the writing style is commendable. However, the findings lack scientific backing or linkage to the literature. I miss a lot of interesting literature on the previous findings on emission, and population effect on the emission of developed, developing and under-developed nations. Please provide citations
2. Please revisit “On the other’ (line 211 page 13).
Conclusion
1. Why is the conclusion missing? Having a section that concluding section that provides key messages such as a take-home message is necessary for readers who may be interested in having a glance at your conclusion to understand the findings in a slightly elaborate manner compared to the words in the abstract. The discussion section was nice and very informative but not having a conclusion section reduced the quality of the paper.
Overall, this is very interesting research and will attract global readers and also contributes significantly to the body of literature. The quality of the writing didn’t give much to criticize but could only appreciate a good job done. I recommend the manuscript for publication after the minor amendments have been made.
Author Response
- In the abstract section, the author(s) must amend the fourth finding as the statement lacks clarity.
- What is/are the policy implication of your findings?
We improved the Abstract, following the Referee’s suggestions. Given the word limit in the Abstract, we only mentioned policy implications in the Abstract but added further considerations in the new Conclusions section.
- Please change the language “ repeatedly reminded us” to “reported”. (Line 6 Page 2)
Done.
- Also, the motivation behind the analyzed year range was clearly stated.
- Generally, the introduction is brilliantly written and the gap and objectives of the study were highlighted.
- The choice of method used was adequately argued and very interesting to follow. Overall, the data capture was well-discussed and coherent.
Thank you for appreciating this!
- The presentation of the result is very interesting to follow and the writing style is commendable. However, the findings lack scientific backing or linkage to the literature. I miss a lot of interesting literature on the previous findings on emission, and population effect on the emission of developed, developing and under-developed nations. Please provide citations
As we have two separate sections for Results and Discussion, we kept the Results section “as concise as possible” —in line with journal authors’ instructions— by simply presenting the outcome of our analysis. Interpretations in perspective of previous studies are placed in the Discussion and in the new Conclusions section. Following your suggestion, we have added here more references to relevant and recent literature discussing previous related findings.
- Please revisit “On the other’ (line 211 page 13).
We revised the sentence.
- Why is the conclusion missing? Having a section that concluding section that provides key messages such as a take-home message is necessary for readers who may be interested in having a glance at your conclusion to understand the findings in a slightly elaborate manner compared to the words in the abstract. The discussion section was nice and very informative but not having a conclusion section reduced the quality of the paper.
Thank you for your useful suggestion. We’ve now introduced a Conclusions section, with several paragraphs that reiterate and elaborate on our results and their implications going forward.
Reviewer 2 Report
1. he figure 3 should be inmproved.
2. The data need to be compared with the experimental data reported in other literatures.
3. This work suggests that the P factor should play an integrated role together with technology and consumption in considerations about the most appropriate climate-change mitigation strate-gies. The mechanism part needs to be further discussed.
Author Response
1. The figure 3 should be improved.
The referee does not specify how the figure should be amended. We tried to improve it by changing the curve thickness to make them more visible and the axis labels to make the figure easier to interpret.
2.The data need to be compared with the experimental data reported in other literatures.
We added new references to related research in the Discussion and the new Conclusions sections and compared our results with them.
3.This work suggests that the P factor should play an integrated role together with technology and consumption in considerations about the most appropriate climate-change mitigation strategies. The mechanism part needs to be further discussed.
We are unsure about what the referee means with “mechanism part”. We now reiterate the need for a comprehensive approach to climate change policy, and discuss some population policy implications of our findings.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript is well structured and written.
The language is clear, all steps are adequately presented, the methods are easy to understand and the conclusions are supported by the obtained results
Using available date and simple equations, the authors bring conclusions that aim to raise new discussions about the contribution of population growth to the increasing carbon emissions.
Author Response
- The manuscript is well structured and written.
- The language is clear, all steps are adequately presented, the methods are easy to understand and the conclusions are supported by the obtained results.
- Using available date and simple equations, the authors bring conclusions that aim to raise new discussions about the contribution of population growth to the increasing carbon emissions.
Thank you for your warm support. We really hope this can really contribute to an important yet neglected discussion on this topic.
Reviewer 4 Report
This article is focused on “An analysis of three decades of increasing carbon emissions: the weight of the P factor”. The authors discussed the importance of P factor that play an integrated role together with technology and consumption in considerations about the most appropriate climate-change mitigation strategies. This Ms. is not acceptable in its current form. The comments are as following.
1. Abbreviations must be written in full at first time use. Like UNFCCC, IPCC , likewise throughout Ms. it must be check and written in full.
2. In Introduction section, only the most relevant and latest references should be cited. Introduction section can also cover research gap.
3. At page 4, line no. 77, In IPCC reports, the percent changes of different emissions factors are usually compared. What are different emissions factors? Authors should explain.
4. At page 6, line no. 92, …..our analyses cover the time span between 1992 —the year of the Rio Earth Summit— and 2019. Rio Earth Summit—?? Why authors are not including data of years 2020, 2021 and 2022?
5. Discussion can be strengthened by adding latest relevant studies and research directions.
6. Conclusions of this study should be added.
7. References must cross checked from text to list, vice versa.
Author Response
- Abbreviations must be written in full at first time use. Like UNFCCC, IPCC , likewise throughout Ms. it must be check and written in full.
Done, thank you for your suggestion.
- In Introduction section, only the most relevant and latest references should be cited. Introduction section can also cover research gap.
Following your suggestion, we made a selection of the references in the Introduction keeping only the most relevant and replacing some old references with newest ones. Moreover, we better emphasized the current research gaps.
- At page 4, line no. 77, In IPCC reports, the percent changes of different emissions factors are usually compared. What are different emissions factors? Authors should explain.
Done.
- At page 6, line no. 92, .....our analyses cover the time span between 1992 —the year of the Rio Earth Summit— and 2019. Rio Earth Summit—?? Why authors are not including data of years 2020, 2021 and 2022?
As explained in the Introduction, “The Rio de Janeiro Earth summit [...] was the first global UN conference to explicitly discuss climate change, and laid the foundations for all subsequent work done under the UNFCCC umbrella, such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement”. For this reason, we chose this Summit as a starting point for the time span in our analysis. Such a time span is sufficiently long to capture significant trends in the data. Before this date, statistics are less reliable and, in the case of the former Soviet Union and other communist countries, are aggregated in a way making the analysis difficult.
We limited our analysis to 2019 because it is the last one with consolidated emissions data for most world countries from official sources, such as the IEA and UNFCCC. These data are available with a 3-year lag. Newest data (currently updated up to 2021) present more incertitude in the estimate and do not include as many countries. In addition, 2020 was a clear outlier in the emissions trend due to the effects COVID pandemic.This is now clearly explained in the text.
- Discussion can be strengthened by adding latest relevant studies and research directions.
Thank you for this suggestion. We added new paragraphs in the Discussion and in the new Conclusions section advancing ideas for future research, along with references to relevant and recent literature.
- Conclusions of this study should be added
Thank you for your useful suggestion, which is also in agreement with the one by another referee. We’ve now introduced a Conclusions section.
- References must cross checked from text to list, vice versa.
Our paper is prepared using the Latex platform with automatic bibliography generation, which ensures consistency between the quotes in the text and the reference list.
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
The Ms. is now acceptable.
