Biofuels Induced Land Use Change Emissions: The Role of Implemented Land Use Emission Factors
, Steffen Mueller 2, Isaac Emery 3, Omid Karami 1, Ehsanreza Sajedinia 1, Qianlai Zhuang 4 and Michael Wang 5Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript discusses variations in assessing biofuels induced land use changes emissions due to uncertainties in land use emission factors, using two sets of emissions factors known as CCLUB and AEZ-EF. It can provide insights to improve the estimation on biofuels induced land use change emissions through refining refine emission factor quantifications. It is well written in general, but needs some clarification as below to warrant publication:
Line 2-3: suggest to revise the title more straightforward, e.g. deleting ‘in assessing terrestrial carbon fluxes’;
Line 34: the definition of Land Use Emission Factors (LUEFs)?
Line 131: suggest to delete ‘Winrock’
Line 217: in Table 1, please add the sources of data
Line 233: in Figure 1, please add the sources of data and the meaning of some region codes e.g. S_O_Amer and Mala_Indo
Line 246-249: the discussion is rather general. Is it possible to expand the discussion here?
Line 317: in Table 2, were the IPCC (2006) or IPCC (2019) SOC reference values used in the AEZ-EF model to ILUC obtain ILUC?
Author Response
Please read the atatched file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper ‘Biofuels induced land use change emissions: The role of implemented emission factors in assessing terrestrial carbon fluxes’ provides an interesting study, however, it needs adjustments and formatting to be published. I have some additional comments that may help with these reviews.
- It is necessary to address the importance and context of the research at the beginning of the abstract. Justify the reason for this study (line 15 to 25).
- Present some numerical results in the abstract to support your conclusions.
- Do I need so many compound keywords? Check this question (line 26).
- Figures and Tables must be independent of the text and therefore define all acronyms used in Figures and Tables in the footnotes.
- Do not use Results but Results and Discussion (line 218).
- The discussion needs to be improved. Insert more research articles that are related to the topic of this work and compare results if possible.
So my recommendation was for 'Accept after minor revision’.
Author Response
Plesae read the atatched file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a very interesting article, but not very well organized. My advice:
1. In the summary and conclusion, I suggest that the authors write the main conclusion of the paper. For example, the authors write, "our study highlights the causes of the differences between the results of these models, "but what are the causes?
2. In Figures 1 and 2, the meaning of each abbreviation should be explained.
3. I recommend that the authors analyze the findings in more depth than simply reporting them.
Author Response
Plesae read the atatched file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript under review explores the application of emission factors in evaluating terrestrial carbon fluxes. However, the research question posed lacks clarity, and the topic has been thoroughly examined in previous literature. The analytical methods employed in the study are somewhat rudimentary. Moreover, the theoretical and practical implications of the findings are not adequately substantiated. As such, the manuscript requires substantial enhancement to effectively demonstrate its scholarly and practical contributions. Given the present state of the manuscript, it is recommended that it not be accepted.
Author Response
Please read the attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAfter revision by the authors, the quality of this article has been greatly improved. Before publication, I suggest that the authors revise.
1. I suggest that authors add a technical framework and move the review from method to introduction.
2. I suggest that the authors write an independent discussion section.The article needs to make a clear distinction between the main results and those that have been speculated.
Author Response
Plese see the attached
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt is great to see that the manuscript has been significantly improved in the last round of revision. However, the reviewer still believes that the analysis and the discussion of the manuscript are not strong enough and it can hardly present strong novelty and sufficient implications to the industry.
Author Response
Plese see attached
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe quality of the manuscript has been greatly improved due to the author's efforts. However, the reviewer still suggested that the author should go deeper into the discussion section and re-develop the implication as a separate section to highlight the contribution of this study.
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer 4
Comments and Suggestions for Authors: The quality of the manuscript has been greatly improved due to the author's efforts. However, the reviewer still suggested that the author should go deeper into the discussion section and re-develop the implication as a separate section to highlight the contribution of this study
Response: Thanks for your support and suggesting to extend the discussion section regarding the “implication”. In response, we added the following new paragraph which addresses your point.
“As recommended by the Committee on Current Methods for Life Cycle Analyses of Low-Carbon Transportation Fuels in the United States [1], with up-to-date data sources, additional research should be made to improve and validate LUEFs. These improvement and validation efforts are needed to better estimate change in GHG emissions by displacing fossil fuels with biofuels. This will help to guide policies and programs that support expansions in biofuels to ensure savings in GHG in transportation sectors by biofuels. Key policies and programs (e.g., the US Renewable Fuel Standard, the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and the ICAO-CORSIA program) rely on life cycle analyses and estimations of ILUC emissions to calculate GHG emission intensities of biofuels. With new research activities that improve and validate the LUEFs we could enhance effectiveness of the public policies in reducing GHG emissions. Without developing these crucial new studies, public policy may have unintended consequences of supporting fuel options that may have high ILUC GHG emissions.”
We made minor changes in the introduction section to bring the National Academy of Sciences report into the list of our references.
