The Climate Change Challenge: A Review of the Barriers and Solutions to Deliver a Paris Solution

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic is interesting and the analysis is well developed. Thus, I recommend the publication.

Author Response

Thank you. Wishing you a good day! 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript "The climate change problem: Is it still possible to deliver a Paris solution?" represents a complex text. The structure of the article is good. I only have a few observations.
1) Avoid using abbreviations in the abstract.
2) The manuscript is quite extensive. Consider possible condensation of some parts of the text.
3) The contribution of the work needs to be described more. What is the motivation for this article? It is necessary to describe the novelty of the work more in relation to the existing articles.

Author Response

Thank you. We have considered your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1. This paper is in general very informative. Some important problems remain to clarify or improve.
2. There are two ‘Figure 3’s: One is on p. 9. The other is on pp. 10-11.  Please check the numbering of figures.
3. As Figures 2, 3, and the second 3 indicate, this paper uses the historic data up to the year of 2020. However, the historic data or scenarios by 2021 have already taken place.  For the climate change problem, more discussions are on the possible future paths (or scenarios).  Most of the reviewed contents of this paper are on the past.  However, the question asked by this paper, “Is it still possible to deliver a Paris solution?”, is about the future.  The current Section 4 summarizes different efforts and opinions without a clear framework from the authors themselves on the possible future paths (and solutions).
4. Discussions and conclusions now are in one section. They should be separated into two sections.
5. Even though this paper reviews 251 documents, the criteria to select these documents remain not specified. There should be explicit criteria to select these documents.  These criteria should be in line with the conceptual framework in Figure 1.
6. Even though this paper reviews 251 documents, the framework of the discussion remains unclear. Even though Figure 1 gives a well-set framework, the mapping correlations on pp. 5-22 to this framework are still not clear.  It is strongly advised that the abundant information on pp. 5-22 should be re-organized to map with the conceptual framework in Figure 1.
7. The conclusion says, for instance, “We conclude that the constraints imposed by ME must be superseded by an approach based on ethical grounds that addresses the issues of climate justice and human rights. This approach requires phasing out fossil fuel subsidies and faster divesting from fossil fuels. It also requires the technological support and investment of OECD countries to decarbonise the non-OECD countries and help them adapt to the increasingly adverse climate change impacts.” However, these conclusions are still very vague to readers.  More specific proposals for actions or policies should be explicitly given, explicitly linked with the Paris Agreement.  The review parts of this paper are full of numbers, trends, events, and actions, which are relatively concrete.  However, the discussion and conclusion parts of this paper remain rough and unclear.
8. The formats and alignments in the references are seriously inconsistent. Please follow this journal’s guidelines to adjust them.

Author Response

Thank you. We have considered your comments and integrated most of them.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Introduction part – lines 44-45 – Authors wrote: However, no significant structural changes in the global energy system have been recorded, and global fossil CO2 emissions are projected to rebound in 2021. I think that in March 2022 we already know what happened and we don’t need to predict. Authors made citation from the report published in April 2021, so these words: In 2021 global energy-related CO2 emissions are projected to rebound and grow by 4.8% as demand for coal, oil and gas rebounds with the economy” were correct ( https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2021/co2-emissions). But now we have March 2022 and the Authors should adjust new information to the new situation. From every papers, we want to know something new.

In line 73 there are references: “the social price of carbon [32, 40, 41, 42]” and in the line 76 there are references: “harmful climate impacts [32, 35]”. I can’t see references 33 and 34.

Moreover, after reference 32 Authors wrote 40. Where are there references 33-39?

I also can’t find references between [83] and [207]. Please check the paragraph started from words: Recently, the energy transition has become a security issue. Where there is 211 and 212.

I think that in that way, the Authors made full of mistakes with references and citations. I am not sure that references and citations are correct. Maybe there are mistakes and cited sentences don’t belong to the indicated references?

After reading these parts of the article it seems that Author put some parts in this place, next moved to another place and it is difficult to find the main idea of the research.

Have the authors carried out any research on the impact of the Russian war on climate change or possible predictions? Where did the authors read about the growing interest in renewable energy sources in the EU in light of the war (line 331)? Please provide any official sources. In my opinion, this is the Authors' wish for it to be so, but in the EU we do not see any fundamental changes in this matter yet. There are only meetings and discussions.

Line 219 – The authors wrote about weak governments in African countries but in references 72-74 there is information about Mozambique. UK and other countries US, Italy wants to support gas company in Mozambique and explore them. The authors cannot generalize to the other African countries an example from only one country. Moreover, it is a description of gas. Please read other articles about Africa, about energy in African countries, and support your opinion with other quotations.

Line 220 - I can’t see subsection 2.3.10. The authors want to add this issue, but please make any research in that field. Not only overall wording.

As the main advice: please reduce the number of pages to show the most important information concerning the subject. E.g. Authors in the title used the word: barriers, but in the text, it is difficult to find these barriers. The authors wrote many pages but the core information is lacking. Please believe that fewer pages will be the advantage of this paper. Non quantity sed quality.

Author Response

Thank you. We have considered your comments. 

PS: Emissions take time to estimate - the newest available data are from 2018, 2019, and 2020, depending on the inventories. 2021 data will be probably available around sep-now 2022.  

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The authors have followed most of the suggestions from this reviewer and made substantial improvements. However, two important points remain to clarify or improve.
2. The misunderstood the suggestion from this reviewer to map the information on now pp. 6-25. This reviewer was suggesting to map the abundant information on now pp. 6-25 to the conceptual framework in Figure 1.  For instance, the authors can mention in each section or subsection which part in Figure 1 this section or subsection is corresponding to.  Instead, the authors replied, “Furthermore, we feel that adding this re-organized map will substantially increase the paper's length. In our opinion, the reader can do the mapping using Figure 1.”  This reviewer never asked for another re-organized map!  However, it will be much better to clearly map the corresponding relations between sections (subsections) to Figure 1.
3. Concrete policy or action proposals remain unmentioned in the conclusion. The authors did some substantial improvements in the conclusion.  Since this paper is talking about the Paris Solution, some concrete action suggestions directly related to the Paris Agreement can be further pointed out.

Author Response

Thank you for the commets. We considered them. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

Please make correction of reference 77. 

Reference 77 - Please write Harvey, not harvey. Please add full source according to mdpi requirements. Please check all paper again.

I will accept this paper, but in my opinion, it is too long and has too much not useful information. 

Best regards.

Author Response

Thank you for your sharp eye! Ref 77 is adjusted.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

I have read the text and I have one crucial point: the text is too long and the detailed comments are below.

Line 51 - Please check the O and 0 in the N2O formula.

In my opinion, the article is too long. The authors wanted to show too much, and therefore the authors included too much uneven information. Please check the years: sometimes 1820-2006 or 1800 and 2019 or 1850-1900. For the last year of the research, for example, consider 2020. The time is now 2019 or 2020. This shows that there is no guiding principle. The same with the beginning of the period, it may be worth taking one year as the initial year, e.g. 1820. And please include all information regarding this period 1820-2020. I propose to use the timeline what the Authors want to show. Please see the article Significance and directions of energy development in African countries (Energies 2021) where an idea related to hydropower is shown in the timeline and it is easier to understand the assumptions of the article.

Section 2.3.1 is for 1970, and the following section 2.3.2 is for Covid19. Again, I feel that the authors did not have the main core of their research and provided a lot of information on everything related to climate protection.

Check chapter 1.1.1 - this is a mistake. I think there are too many chapters and information that even authors are able to scrutinize and follow up on their article.

The discussion and conclusion chapter is too short compared to the previous chapter.

Please reduce the number of pages and try to plan the paper, and then follow the main topic of the paper.

In my opinion, the text requires a thorough rethinking once again. Please resubmit the paper again after changes.

Author Response

See attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. This paper is a review article. It generally provides a detailed review of the existing literature on complexity of climate change problem.  Some important questions remain to clarify or improve.
2. There is no conceptual framework diagram in this paper yet. It is strongly advised that a diagram depicting the structural relations of the dimensions of the climate change problem is provided.  Moreover, the literature review should be corresponding to this conceptual framework in a well-organized way.
3. In addition to the big financial events marked in Figure 1, it is better to mark the big climate change conventions and events on the time line. After all, this paper focuses on climate change instead of financial crisis issues.
4. The idea of complexity indicated in the title of this paper remains unclear. Usually complexity in science research refers to a system of complexity and this paper may use the complexity system to describe and analyze the climate change.  This paper does not provide a systematic review of literature from the complexity system at all.  Instead, it merely says that this problem is complex.
5. There should some criteria to select the documents reviewed by this paper. Many of the documents reviewed here are from international organizations instead of academic journal articles.  This may be fine but the selection criteria of documents to review should be addressed in this paper.
6. If possible, the conclusion and recommendation can be summarized in numbered items. The current discussion and conclusion on pp. 28-29 have many paragraphs based on the literature review.  However, it is still not clear whether or not there is a feasible solution as the title of this paper indicates.  Moreover, the discussion and conclusion should be well organized to correspond to the conceptual framework.
7. If there is a solution, then what the possible solutions can be? The nuclear fusion mentioned in the conclusion may still be extremely controversial.  The abstract says, “The crucial task is to integrate them in a globally cooperative way,” which is still a rough statement that anyone can make a call to the world. This review article may raise a too big question to answer starting from its title of the paper.  As the last two paragraphs of this paper show, this paper does not summarize a few feasible solutions in this current version.  A possible way is to narrow down the title and scope of this paper to indicate the components of complexity of the climate change problem and remind readers to pay attention to the integration and interaction of all of these components.

Author Response

See attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1) typing error: "; 6) their increasing severity and the limits to adaptation; 6) the pressure for public funding of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) geoengineering; 7) the growth and visibility of climate social movements; 7)"
2) Abstract is too long. There is no need to list specific points, see 1-8.
3) Using a list of lumped references is not helpful to the readers. At least a short justification should be provided - individually.
4) Unify the references in the text, see L109: "(Stern, 2007; Kiley, 2021)".
5) The article is generally quite long. It is useful to think about the benefits of individual sections. E.g. the section "2.1 Historical developments" does not seem to be very beneficial from today's point of view.
6) Chapter 2 offers a lot of fairly known information. This is more of a historical context than a professional article. It would be good to restructure this chapter appropriately.
7) typing error: "1.1.1 The new net-zero targets [Heading 4]". Check section numbering.
8) The next section again deals with a large number of well-known things, and by its nature, it is more of a report than a professional article.
9) It is necessary to describe the novelty of the work more in relation to the existing articles. There is a need to comment more on the benefits and weaknesses in existing publications. And describe the motivation for the creation of this article. This point is described very briefly in the text.

Author Response

See attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The review "The complexity of the climate change problem:

Is it still possible to deliver a solution?" is interesting for journal readers, but there some improvements to deal with.

The methdology proposed to develop the review process should be further described.

Moreover, the conclusions should be improved with the weaknesses of the analysis and the insights for future research.

Author Response

See attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

The paper is still long and difficult to read it as a article. It looks like a chapter in the book. I understand, that Authors don’t like to reduce their work, but it would be with value for that text. 20-22 pages of the main text will be enough to indicate really necessary information.

What Authors wanted to say by these sentences? “The time limit was too short to do it in this window”, “However, we the time limit was short, and we have several other obligations” – if Authors have no time, please ask the Editor of mdpi to receive more time for re-submission.

Dear Authors, I asked to write In correct way the N₂O. Your answer was done, but you didn’t make changes. Still is incorrect.

Please look at this: Fourier [25, 26], Tyndall (1863) – in one place you put numbers of references and in second place you put year.  It is very strange. Please make the same style.

Again the same problem: (Nordhaus, 1992) – next style of citation. Please read the rules for mdpi references/citations

Please don’t write the dates of birth and dead of selected people: James F. Black (1919-1988). Why Authors put this information about James Black and didn’t put for others? Please try to unify many different style in your paper. Please indicate what that people added to the worldwide knowledge not their biography.

2.3.3.1 [Heading 4]; 2.3.3.2 [Heading 4]– what does this numbering mean?

Why Authors used new style of references? e [e.g., 82–85]. “E.g.” – please check the paper and make correction of different styles.

What does “(see 433 section 0)” mean?

Is it necessary so deep information? David Keith in Harvard University and Ken Caldeira from the Carnegie Institution for Science at Stanford University? Is it really important where they work?

Author Response

Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have adopted all suggestions from this reviewer and made substantial changes in accordance. Especially, they revised the title of this paper and added a conceptual framework, according to this reviewer's suggestions. Their efforts in revising this paper should be positively affirmed. 

Author Response

Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1) Using a list of lumped references is not helpful to the readers. At least a short justification should be provided - individually. See L64: "[11–13]"; L2 "[12, 16]" and "[12, 17]"; L99 "[23, 24]" etc.
2) Unify the references in the text, see L109: "[33–35]" vs. L110: "(Levin et al., 2012; Auld, 2007; Lazarus, 2009)".
3) The article is generally quite long. It is useful to think about the benefits of individual sections. E.g. the section "2.1 Historical developments" does not seem to be very beneficial from today's point of view. As other reviewers mentioned, there is too much information in the article. It is only necessary to focus on the goals, contribution, and novelty of the article.
4) R1: "Section 2 offers a lot of fairly known information. This is more of a historical context than a professional article. It would be good to restructure this chapter appropriately". I do not see a significant difference compared to the introductory version of the text.
5) The text should clearly state why the article was created. Who is the text for? How the outputs of the article will be used. What is its added value? What's new about the article? So far, it is mostly a historical view with many links and a lot of information. It is necessary to specify more the motivation for the creation of this text.

Author Response

Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.docx