Analysis of Synergistic Benefits between Carbon Emissions and Air Pollution Based on Remote Sensing Observations: A Case Study of the Central Henan Urban Agglomeration

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reading this article, I am deeply impressed and make the following suggestions:

1.Why is the case area selected in this article in Henan, rather than a province with dense population (such as first-level cities) or dense industry (Northeast China)? Although there are explanations in this article, readers who are not familiar with China do not know the particularity, so it is recommended to add additional explanations.

2. According to the analysis results of this article, carbon emissions and concentrations of PM2.5, O3, SO2, and CO in the urban agglomeration in central Henan Province continue to rise, and there are regional differences. Carbon emissions show the spatial distribution characteristics of "one center and two belts", with the center of carbon emissions moving from southeast to northwest. The above are all important findings. What are the actual population, industry and economic activities in the local area? This article does not elaborate much. For readers, they only see changes and do not know what the main cause of the actual changes in carbon emissions is. It is recommended that additional clarification be required.

 

3.Similarly, the research findings presented in this article e (there are significant differences between cities in the degree of coupling coordination of CEAP, and socioeconomic factors have a stronger impact on the co-benefits of CEAP than natural ecological factors). There are also similar situations in unknown places. When looking at the actual appearance and socio-economic distribution of cities, we can only see data changes from the analysis results, but we cannot know the real reasons. It is recommended that the authors add appropriate explanations.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accurately emphasize the purpose of the study.

In the literature review 158-165, please indicate precisely whether the consumption of natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, energy consumption per month/year/so far?

The literature review itself is too extensive - maybe draw conclusions rather than describe exactly different cases?

Please propose something in return in your applications - to reduce the level of pollution and not spread it to other areas of cities/regions.

Poor quality of drawing no. 2.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

- You must introduce "MGWR" acronym.

 - Line 167: add "n" to "configuratio"

- Line 298: add space before the word "However", after the point.

- Line 342: change "For PM2.5, the concentration of PM2.5...", for "The concentration of PM2.5..."

- Line 725: after ";" you must continue with lowercase and not uppercase, in the word "for".

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All comments have been taken into account.