Does the Carbon Emissions Trading Pilot Policy Have a Demonstrated Impact on Advancing Low-Carbon Technology? Evidence from a Case Study in Beijing, China

Response to Reviewer X Comments

1. Summary

We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. According to your nice suggestions, we have made extensive corrections to our previous draft, the detailed corrections are listed below, and the revisions in the manuscript are in red.

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1:

I. First, mention is made of the choice of most other scholars combining the all seven pilot cities into one treatment group against the choice of this study to choose Beijing as the treatment group in order to eliminate fitting effect error due to heterogeneity.

A.      Can more be added to explain the fitting effect error due to heterogeneity?

1.       What problems have been raised in other studies?

2.       What is the nature of the heterogeneity, especially for those readers who may not be familiar with the distinctions between the provinces and cities in question?

B.      Beijing is quite unique, has very different features relative to the rest of the pilot cities and provinces, and is also very prominent relative to the rest of the PRC. It seems that this may have advantages as well as disadvantages relative to this study.

1.       What problems arise relative to the generalization of these results? 

2.       What caveats need to be considered based on comparing the capital to much of the rest of China?

3.       Are there going to be different administrative, regional, or structural considerations in applying this pilot program to other areas in China? Is it possible that the heterogeneity difficulties relate to the difficulty in expanding this program?

Response 1:

We are very grateful for your comments on reminding us to elaborate on the reasons for choosing the research methods in this paper. We read more literature and thought more deeply about our research methodology.

We mentioned the reasons of the heterogeneity in as much detail as possible, but since the heterogeneity of China's provinces and cities is generally large in most studies, we have made an added modification in 3.2 Description of Study Area in order not to complicate this  with too much elaboration.

In terms of the generalization of the results, we added the relevant explanations in the Section 5 and 6, from line 427 to 441 and line 455 to 464.

    Hoping the added explanations in the 3 sections could be much clearer.

Comments 2:

II. Secondly, the conclusion is very thin for the nature of the findings.

A.      The end of the discussion from line 347 discusses policy implications that would seem more appropriate in the conclusion and could be expanded.

B.      The conclusion makes mention of special national conditions, which would seem to be a major and underdeveloped part of the conclusions. An explanation of the conditions and how they may affect the implementation of an expansion of the pilot program would have a strong and intuitive utility for policymakers outside of China considering adopting similar policies. This would potentially include mention of administrative factors, scale, and levels of development and urbanization.

Response 2: 

Thank you for your constructive and thoughtful suggestions.

We changed the position of policy implications to Section 6, supplemented and modified after careful consideration in the Section 5 and 6.

We considered regional heterogeneity within the country in the Section 5, and elaborated on the aspects in which heterogeneity specifically exists in the Section 3.2 Description of the study area.

We also put forward corresponding opinions for international heterogeneity in the Section 6.

Hope such modifications can make our policy recommendations clearer.

Comment 3:

III. There are a number of English issues, including some systematic ones. For example, there are several contractions used, which are fine in informal writing but not acceptable in a formal paper. There is a failure to use articles. There are numerous apparent first language artifacts, particularly reversal of the order of clauses and phrases in ways that make the emphasis of the English confusing.

A.      The writing is highly uneven, ranging from very proficient to hard to read. The paper should be closely proofread and edited by someone with native or near native-level proficiency.

B.      Furthermore, the use of first-person plural (we) gives the paper the sound of a paper presented at a conference but undermines the credibility and formality of the research and it would sound better written in third person.

Response 3:

Thank you for your suggestions and we re-examined the English of this article. We have carefully checked the English spelling, reduced the use of abbreviations, and used the third person instead of the first person(We) to make the article more professional, and hope that our changes will meet the requirements.

3. Additional clarifications

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made revisions marked in red in revised manuscript which will not influence the main content and framework of this paper. We appreciate for your warm work earnestly, and hope the corrections will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Response to Reviewer X Comments

1. Summary

We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. According to your nice suggestions, we have made extensive corrections to our previous draft, the detailed corrections are listed below, and the revisions in the manuscript are in red.

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1:

1 Research Contribution and Originality: The authors claim that few studies have analyzed the impact of the policy from the perspective of low-carbon technology innovation, and most have amalgamated the seven pilot cities into one treated group, which obscures the heterogeneity effects. The authors then apply the SCM solely to Beijing, arguing it offers a clearer effect on low-carbon technology innovation. However, this argument lacks depth as it appears the authors have merely changed the case study without introducing other novel elements.

1.1 I suggest that the authors significantly enhance the discussion in Section 5 (Discussion) to compare and contrast their findings with existing studies. It should be clearly articulated how this study contributes novel insights, especially focusing on the use of a single city versus multiple cities as a treated group, and the intermediary role of low-carbon technology innovation in previous works. Proper citations are necessary to support these discussions.

1.2 Based on the above, the authors should revise Section 1 (Introduction) to more clearly define the research gap and explicitly highlight the novelty of this study with appropriate citations.

Response 1:

We are very grateful for your comments on reminding us to elaborate on the reasons for choosing the research methods in this paper and to supplement the innovation points of this paper.

We read more recently published related literature, and concluded the contributions of this paper. Therefore, we listed out our contributions respectively in the Section 1 Introduction, from line 56-70.

We also carried out detailed explanations for the reasons of choosing the SCM and Beijing in Section 3, 3.2 Description of Study Area and 3.3 Synthetic Control Method. We added the theoretical derivation accordingly to improve the scientific results in Section 2.2.

Comments 2:

Theoretical Foundation: The manuscript lacks a solid theoretical foundation; the link between carbon emissions trading policy and low-carbon technology innovation is loosely explained as the “green premium exceeding a threshold” in Section 3.1 (Assumptions). This section should be expanded to include an in-depth discussion of related theories and requisite citations before formulating the hypothesis.

Response 2: 

We sincerely appreciate this valuable comment on adding a solid theoretical foundation. We added deviation of economic theory and figure 1 to illustrate the relationship between carbon emissions trading market and low-carbon technology innovation. We also removed some theories that are not sufficient to support the thesis of this paper.

Comment 3:

Control Group Selection: The choice of the control group is pivotal in the Synthetic Control Method (SCM), and as such, it must be thoroughly justified. The authors should clearly outline in Section 3 (Methodology and Data) which cities are included in the control group and the reasons for their inclusion. There is a need for a detailed discussion on the rationale behind selecting the 24 non-pilot provinces and cities as the control group. The manuscript currently lacks specifics, such as the names of these cities and the criteria for their selection, which are crucial for validating the study’s methodology.

Response 3:

Thank you for pointing this out. Since China's 34 provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities have always been fixed, listing the remaining 24 provinces and cities may make this paper seem cumbersome, so we focus on why Beijing was selected as the only  treated group which can be found in 3.2 Description of Study Area. We hope that our supplementary points in the Section 3.2 could make the article more convincing.

Comment 4:

Importance of Control Variables: Control variables play a crucial role in SCM. The manuscript must discuss deeper into the interaction between these variables and low-carbon technology innovation. Section 3.4 (Selection of Variables) requires a substantial revision to include clear theoretical backing and pertinent citations that support the choice and impact of these variables. This will strengthen the credibility and scholarly foundation of the research.

Response 4:

Thank you very much for reminding us to add more explanations for improving Section 3.4. We have therefore increased our reading of the references and, as appropriate, added explanations of the choices in the Selection 3.4 Selections of Variables.

Comment 5:

Location of Policy Implications: The discussion of policy implications is currently placed in Section 5 (Discussion). To enhance the flow and effectiveness of the manuscript, this discussion should be relocated to Section 6 (Conclusions). This restructuring will align the implications more directly with the study's outcomes and recommendations.

Response 5:

We are sorry for our careless mistake on format writing, and we changed the position of policy implications to the Section 6.

Comment 6:

Formatting of the Abstract: I recommend revising the enumeration format in the abstract from “①, …” to “first, second, …” for clarity and to maintain consistency with standard academic practices.

Response 6:

Thank you very much for your suggestions on format writing, we changed it accordingly in the Section Abstract.

3. Additional clarifications

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made revisions marked in red in revised manuscript which will not influence the main content and framework of this paper. We appreciate for your warm work earnestly, and hope the corrections will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Response to Reviewer X Comments

1. Summary

We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. According to your nice suggestions, we have made extensive corrections to our previous draft, the detailed corrections are listed below, and the revisions in the manuscript are in red.

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1:

The abstract of this manuscript includes the background of the study, the methodology, the content of the study, and the conclusions of the study, but elaborating on the innovations of the conclusions of the study clearly should highlight the main innovations of this manuscript.

Response 1:

We are very grateful for your comments on reminding us to supplement the innovation points of this paper in the Section Abstract. We read more recently published related literature, and concluded the contributions of this paper after comparing. Therefore, we briefly listed out our contributions from line 20-23.

Comments 2:

In Introduction section, please tell the gaps of the literature by comparing the current research.This text seem like a thesis. Please read successful examples.

Response 2: 

Thank you for reminding us on adding the gaps with the current research, we have read more literature and come to this brief conclusions in the Section 1 Introduction from line 70 to 72. In the following Section 5 Discussion, the weaknesses of this paper are elaborated in detail by comparing with other recent studies at home and abroad.

Comment 3:

The citation structure of this manuscript needs to be further adjusted, the citation starts to state the research problem of this manuscript without elaborating the research background and linkages clearly, and then elaborates other studies, it is recommended that the authors state the innovation of this manuscript after elaborating the research background and the gaps of other studies clearly.

Response 3:

Thank you very much for this constructive suggestion. We modified the presentation in the Section 2 from title to content and we added deviation of economic theory and figure 1 to illustrate the relationship between carbon emissions trading market and low-carbon technology innovation. We also removed some theories that are not sufficient to support the thesis of this paper.

Comment 4:

This paper is limited in depth and lacks further mechanism analysis, so it is recommended to refer to and cite:The spatial spillover effect of innovative city policy on carbon efficiency: Evidence from China;Unlocking sustainability potential: The impact of green finance reform on corporate ESG performance;Unlocking sustainable growth: exploring the catalytic role of green finance in firms’ green total factor productivity.

Response 4:

We sincerely appreciate the valuable comments. After reading these literature, we  enhanced the research and discussions on mechanism analysis, which is reflected in the Section Discussion. We also added more relevant references to make the research results  more convincing.

Comment 5:

The theories underlying each hypothesis is not sufficient, and the authors are advised to revise and improve them. A persuasive theoretical analysis either integrates economic theory to support your hypothesis from multiple perspectives, or uses theoretical derivation to fully demonstrate your hypothesis.

Response 5:

Thank you very much for pointing out this constructive. As we discussed in Response 3, we added deviation of economic theory and figure 1 in the Section 2 to illustrate the economic theories we used. We also removed some that are not sufficient to express our opinions.

Comment 6:

The conclusion section should summarize the main research results and provide corresponding policy recommendations for each research result, and it is recommended that the authors revise and improve them.

Response 6:

Thank you for your thoughtful suggestions. In the Section 6 Conclusions, we strengthened the concise conclusions and put forward corresponding policy suggestions.

3. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:

Moderate editing of English language required.

Response 1:

Thank you for your suggestions and we re-examined the English of this article. We have carefully checked the English spelling, reduced the use of abbreviations, and used the third person instead of the first person(We) to make the article more professional, and hope that our changes will meet the requirements.

4. Additional clarifications

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made revisions marked in red in revised manuscript which will not influence the main content and framework of this paper. We appreciate for your warm work earnestly, and hope the corrections will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Response to Reviewer X Comments

1. Summary

We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. According to your nice suggestions, we have made extensive corrections to our previous draft, the detailed corrections are listed below, and the revisions in the manuscript are in red.

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1:

The introduction should be elaborated for more clarity.

Response 1:

We are very grateful for your comments on reminding us to elaborate more clearly on Section 1 (Introduction). We read more recently published related literature, and concluded the contributions of this paper after comparing. Therefore, we listed out our contributions respectively in the Section 1 Introduction, from line 56-72 in this section.

Comments 2:

The synthetic control method is a statistical method used to evaluate the effect of an intervention in comparative case studies, however the study has selected only one case study (Beijing city).

Response 2: 

We are very grateful for your comments on reminding us to elaborate on the reasons for choosing the research methods in this paper.

In order to evaluate the influence mechanism of carbon emissions trading market, scholars choose a variety of policy evaluation methods to conduct research. However, other methods have their own inherent large errors, so this paper chooses SCM and Beijing, the specific reasons can be seen in Section 3, 3.2 Description of Study Area and 3.3 Synthetic Control Method.

And in our references (which have been listed in the revised manuscript), many scholars also choose one province as the treated group to avoid the errors caused by the urban heterogeneity.

Comment 3:

The justification for SCM, Placebo Test and Permutation Test is not justified with references.

Response 3:

Thank you very much for reminding us for elaborating on our choice of the SCM and  robustness test. We added more reasons in the Section 3.3 Synthetic Control Method and the references in the revised manuscript. The corresponding explanation and conclusion also have been added which from line 373-376.

Comment 4:

The authors do not look into the latest research and methodological approaches. It does not summaries what has been achieved in most recent studies.

Response 4:

Thank you very much for reminding us for improving the completeness of this paper. We checked more recently published literature and marked them in the revised manuscript, especially in the Section 1 Introduction and Section 3 Methodology and Data. And we also added the summaries that have been achieved in recent studies in the Section 2 Literature Review, and they are also reflected in the comparison between this paper and other studies .

Comment 5:

This study is not compared with other research carried out in other countries.

Response 5:

Thank you very much for pointing out this constructive suggestion. We've added case studies from other countries, especially the EU, and summarized in the Section 5 from line 442 to 448. As China implements different market systems from other countries, we pay more attention to the latest research progress in China, and make more elaboration on domestic regional heterogeneity which is in the Section 5 from line 427 to 441 and Section 6 from line 455 to 464.

Comment 6:

The discussion and conclusion is very general.

Response 6:

    Thank you for your kind suggestion on improving our paper sections of the discussion and conclusions.

We strengthened the discussions of the results after comparing between the results of this study and the existing domestic and foreign results.

We added the discussions of the policy significance from line 465 to 482 and application value of this study from line 56 to 70, the limitations and the core conclusions of this study form line 70 to 72.

3. Additional clarifications

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made revisions marked in red in revised manuscript which will not influence the main content and framework of this paper. We appreciate for your warm work earnestly, and hope the corrections will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.