Temporal and Spatial Divergence of Embodied Carbon Emissions Transfer and the Drivers—Evidence from China’s Domestic Trade

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

To understand the embodied carbon transfer in China’s domestic trade from 2007-2017 and its driving forces,  authors quantitatively measured the embodied carbon transfer among 30 provinces by using the MRIO model,

 

1)     Please define MRIO model the first time use acronyms.

The manuscript is interesting and the resutls sound.

 

Table 1. China MRIO…column 1 and 2 are not well distributed, words are splitted, please fix.

Table 2. Department merger….no need of final point at Table title

 

Fig 1 title is located in another page,    must be with the plot.

 

Fig 4 do not fit the page..it covers two journal pages, fix

 

Conclusion section must be shortened by 30% it is too long

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is well-written. It investigated the carbon transfer, production- and consumption- based carbon emissions among 30 provinces in China during 2007-2017 using the MICRO model. One of my main concern is that the study period of 2007-2017 is kind of old and the policy and carbon emissions may change a lot due to recent international situations and COVID-19. The results and conclusion may not reflect current carbon emissions in China and may not able be applied for new policy making. Another concern is that the research object of this study is very unique and may not be applied to the global scale. And the policies in each province may be different even with a same national policy. What are the practical values of this study for other countries? And how could this study assist to reduce the carbon emission?

Another issue is that section 3 and section 4 are combined with results and discussion. In general, Section 3 is “Results” showing all the important results from analyses and Section 4 is “Discussion”. I recommend to separate the results and discussion to make them more organized and logic.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is well improved by previous comments. And the authors still need to double check the spellings of some words. The revised version is more logic and clear to emphasize their findings and contributions to recent scholarship.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf