Scenario Analysis of Energy-Related CO2 Emissions from Current Policies: A Case Study of Guangdong Province
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
The paper must be significantly improved. Please consider the following remarks:
Major comments:
(1) Please explain novelty. Please compare results with other studies. You can use table in Introduction part. There is lack of scientific references in Introduction part.
(2) Please improve abstract part. Please answer the questions:
a) What problem did you study and why is it important?
b) What methods did you use?
c) What were your main results?
d) What conclusions can you draw from your results?
Please make your abstract with more specific and quantitative results while it suits broader audiences.
(3) Please add references to discussion part
(4) Methodology part: Please improve. There is no clear how results (for example Figure 6) were obtained.
Minor comments:
(1) Page 4. “technology framework” Please explain
(2) Please add nomenclature and abbreviations table
(3) Please improve reference part in line with journal template.
(4) Table 4. Please add source
(5) Table A1 10^4 kW -> … GW
Typos:
Line 37: [4] [4] [4]
Line 9: Reginal
Line 13: tragedies
Figure 1. “Stetting”
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Many thanks for your attention and suggestions for our paper. These valuable comments and suggestions have considerably improved the clarity of the paper. The manuscript has been carefully revised in response to the comments with the modifications listed in the attachment.
Best Regards
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The study is well written and dealing with an important issue regarding energy-related CO2 emissions from current polices in Guangdong province. Following changes should be done before the consideration:
Abstract: The abstract is not written very well, need to improve its quality by making it more constructive.
Keywords: Should be five and more good.
Introduction: In the line 37, [4] is repeated three times need to correct. Line 42-44, citation is missing. The quality of figure 1 is not good, need to improve. Further, clearly demonstrate the major objective of this study in the last paragraph that whats novel in it and how it is going to contribute in the existing literature.
Historical energy-related carbon emissions and related polices: There is also need to improve the quality of figure 5.
Analysis on sectoral drivers (Calculation of CO2 emissions): Need to check the sequence of equations, for some equations numbering is missing.
Results and Discussions: Need to compare with previous published studies.
Conclusions: Should be conclusion and policy implications. Further, need to add limitations and future research directions.
Language Quality: The language should be check with the help of a native English speaker.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Many thanks for your attention and suggestions for our paper. These valuable comments and suggestions have considerably improved the clarity of the paper. The manuscript has been carefully revised in response to the comments with the modifications listed in the attachment.
Best Regards
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors;
My suggestions about your paper are as following:
The paper should be reviewed for typos and acronyms should be written as full form in the first place of the article.
The introduction is fully focused on China. I think that it will be better if the authors make a global evaluation and then transit to China and its provinces. Furthermore, climate change is not the only motivation behind lowering the CO2 emissions.
The authors clearly express the novelty of the study in the introduction. Furthermore, discussion part should be improved considering the similar studies.
The authors should write the limitation of study especially considering the scenarios and improvements in green technologies and renewable energy employment.
The authors should improve their recommendations considering sectoral projections and give suggestions for possible future studies.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Many thanks for your attention and suggestions for our paper. These valuable comments and suggestions have considerably improved the clarity of the paper. The manuscript has been carefully revised in response to the comments with the modifications listed in the attachment.
Best Regards
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for improving manuscript.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Many thanks for your acceptance and suggestions for our paper. These valuable comments and suggestions have considerably improved the clarity of the paper.
Best Regards
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper was sufficiently revised considering the suggestions. It can be accepted in its present form.
Congratulations.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Many thanks for your acceptance and suggestions for our paper. These valuable comments and suggestions have considerably improved the clarity of the paper.
Best Regards
