Social Cost of Carbon as an International Benchmark to Drive Countries’ Carbon Pricing during the Transition

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see attached for detailed comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language needs to refined to be more academic and understandable.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 1

We thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions which, together with those of the other reviewers, have enabled us to make reasoned and balanced revisions. In the attached word file we provide a response to each of your points, indicating in red the new paragraphs of text that are inserted or replace previous paragraphs of the article. Line numbers for new paragraphs in red refer to the new version.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Here are my comments and suggestions for improvement:

1)      The article provides a comprehensive overview of the concept of social cost of carbon (SCC) and its application as an international benchmark for carbon pricing. However, the structure could benefit from clearer delineation between sections such as literature review, methodology, results, and policy recommendations. This would enhance readability and aid in following the logical flow of arguments.

2)      While the literature review extensively covers different perspectives on carbon pricing and the SCC, it would be helpful to include a critical synthesis of recent debates and conflicting viewpoints regarding the efficacy and reliability of SCC estimates. Addressing these controversies would provide a balanced view for readers.

3)      Given the dynamic nature of climate policy and SCC estimates, incorporating the latest updates and future projections of SCC values would enhance the article’s relevance and applicability to current policy debates.

4)      Consider providing a brief introductory paragraph at the beginning of the methodology section that summarizes the overall approach and objectives.

5)      Clarify how the selected SCC values and benchmark approach differ from existing frameworks or studies in the field.

6)      Elaborate on specific policy recommendations or measures proposed to address the regressive income effects highlighted in your analysis.

7)      Discuss potential challenges or barriers to implementing the SCC-based benchmark on a global scale and how these could be overcome through international collaboration.

8)      The authors appropriately acknowledge the limitations of their analysis, such as the exclusion of non-OECD countries and the reliance on existing models. Suggesting avenues for future research to address these limitations, particularly expanding the analysis to include more countries and refining the modeling approach, would enhance the manuscript.

9)      The depth of the reviewed literature can still be improved. It is suggested to consider the following latest studies:

Ø  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2023.06.135

Ø  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2024.131817

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate

Author Response

We thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions which, together with those of the other reviewers, have enabled us to make reasoned and balanced revisions.

In the attached word file we provide a response to each of your points, indicating in red the new paragraphs of text that are inserted or replace previous paragraphs of the article. Line numbers for new paragraphs in red refer to the new version.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study examines the social cost of carbon (SCC) and introduces a SCC-based benchmark for carbon pricing policies extending to 2050, consistent with the Paris Agreement targets. Utilizing OECD data, the authors compare 2021 carbon pricing across 71 countries with the proposed benchmark, uncovering a significant disparity between current policies and the required pricing levels for effective emission reductions. Additionally, the study evaluates the economic feasibility of adopting this benchmark and recommends establishing an international cooperative fund. This fund would allocate revenues from high-income countries to lower-income nations to mitigate the regressive impact of carbon pricing on global income inequality, offering practical recommendations for aligning climate policies effectively. 

Few comments:

Abstract and text: OECD: in the text the acronym has not been specified.

                             GDP: in the text the acronym was not specified

                             DICE: please specify

Introduction: the first sentence is too long and difficult to follow. Please rephrase.

The authors present a convincing, science-based perspective that could be more robust than that of other authors. However, do the authors believe that their proposed SCC-benchmark policy would be feasible in practice, and that high-income countries would actually adopt and implement it?

Pag 7: dot missing after note 7

Pag 10 figure 2: on which basis did you interpolate linearly data reported from the values updated to 2021? Please explain the reasoning behind this assumption.

Pag 11 line 403: CO2, 2 lower case

Pag 11: the graph in figure 4 show the disparities in carbon pricing among different countries. Do the authors believe that with their methodology this disparity could be reduced?

Do the authors have a strategy to address the limitations of their work? more specifically, the fact that only 71 countries were included in the analysis, or the absence of an original integrated assessment model in the development and assessment of their SCC-based benchmark? It would be beneficial for the authors to specify ways to overcome such limitations, making the study more comprehensive.

Appendixes should be moved to supplementary.

Author Response

We thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions which, together with those of the other reviewers, have enabled us to make reasoned and balanced revisions.

In the attached word file  we provide a response to each of your points, indicating in red the new paragraphs of text that are inserted or replace previous paragraphs of the article. Line numbers for new paragraphs in red refer to the new version.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments are included in the attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor edits needed. I would recommend proofreading the document.

Author Response

We thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions which, together with those of the other reviewers, have enabled us to make reasoned and balanced revisions.

In the attached word file  we provide a response to each of your points, indicating in red the new paragraphs of text that are inserted or replace previous paragraphs of the article. Line numbers for new paragraphs in red refer to the new version.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper proposes using the social cost of carbon (SCC) as a global benchmark for guiding carbon pricing policies. It evaluates current carbon pricing mechanisms across 71 OECD and non-OECD countries against this benchmark, highlighting significant gaps in achieving optimal pricing to mitigate climate change. The analysis focuses on two indicators: SCC tax revenue and SCC tax revenue/GDP ratio, assessing the feasibility of implementing SCC-based carbon pricing across different countries. The authors estimate that global implementation of the SCC-based benchmark would generate sufficient revenue from high-income countries to cover all expenses in middle- and low-income countries by recycling just 29% of high-income countries' revenues.

The paper introduces a novel approach to establishing an international benchmark for carbon pricing, grounded in current research and policy frameworks. Although there are areas for improvement, particularly in addressing limitations and implementation challenges, the research's overall quality and potential impact suggest it could be suitable for publication after addressing the suggested revisions:

1. The introduction would benefit from a clearer outline of the paper’s structure and key arguments to help readers understand the flow from the beginning.
2. Adding detailed case studies of specific countries or regions would enhance the analysis by illustrating the practical application of the SCC benchmark and showcasing the challenges and successes of various carbon pricing strategies.
3. Including a sensitivity analysis on the SCC estimates could offer a range of outcomes, strengthening the policy recommendations.
4. Examining the effects on different socioeconomic groups and suggesting targeted measures to mitigate negative impacts would enhance the policy recommendations. The authors should include additional indicators such as SCC tax revenue per capita GDP, poverty and inequality measures, and GINI coefficients for a more comprehensive analysis.
5. The paper should emphasize the role of technological innovation in achieving the emission reductions necessary to meet the Paris Agreement targets. Discussing how carbon pricing can drive innovation and investment in low-carbon technologies would add depth to the analysis.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The authors are advised to check the paper for grammar issues. Additionally, to effectively convey their points, they should use short sentences. Long and complex sentences can make it difficult for readers to follow the arguments being presented.

Author Response

We thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions which, together with those of the other reviewers, have enabled us to make reasoned and balanced revisions.

In the attached word file  we provide a response to each of your points, indicating in red the new paragraphs of text that are inserted or replace previous paragraphs of the article. Line numbers for new paragraphs in red refer to the new version.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think the revision version addresses my suggestions perfectly and no further comments made.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors sufficiently addressed all the review comments, and the quality of the manuscript improved. Therefore I recommend it’s publication.