The Regime Complexes for Global Climate Governance
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall assessment is that the manuscript does not reach the quality and depth of analysis required for an international peer-review journal. Nonetheless the authors attempt to tackle a relevant, interesting but very broad topic. Authors seem very familiarized with a specific perspective on governance and global governance, (personally I feel its not very useful to explain the functioning of global governance arrangements or propose alternatives) however narrow the theoretical and conceptual framework, it could be useful in describing a certain mechanism; for example overlapping roles. So instead of setting out to understand global governance arrangements for climate change, authors could instead set out to explain the overlap of roles in global governance arrangements for climate change. This would be easier if authors were to focus on a particular issue or area of climate governance; adaptation mechanisms or mitigation mechanisms or compensation mechanisms or financing mechanisms etc etc. This would mean rewriting the manuscript almost entirely. In any case it is important for authors to address important questions and assumptions – for this or any study to be published at this level. If perhaps the authors are willing to embark on such challenge the manuscript could maybe be considered for publication.
Bellow more specific comments.
Important questions/assumptions that need to be addressed :
How do you understand power? In this case how are alliances established, changed or undone?
Are you assuming there is one form of efficient governance?
What is your definition or interpretation of governance?
Are you assuming overlap of roles or contradictions of rules or fragmentation is inefficient or problematic? Why?
The distinction between actors and institutions needs to be more specific. Which are the actors you are referring to? Not all nations play the same role so nation as actor is not very telling of their role in governance, it doesn’t say much about their role. Same goes for institutions.
Do you assume all nations believe in global governance as a valid path to coordinate action? It is very likely that the climate agenda is reflecting more complicated economic and political interests, not simply an intention to fix climate related issues.
Unclear terms highlighted in yellow
supply deficit, non-traditional security, complex of mechanisms vs series of mechanisms
Referencing:
the information on the figure 1 has no reference
Frank Biermann (year)
Rostira and Victor (year)
Statements like this require referencing:
the climate issue, as an object of governance for the international community, remains shrouded in the shadow of divergent interests and power politics among the actors in governance, which can both expand the overlap of climate governance mechanisms and influence the direction of a particular regime complex.
The rapid rise of China, prominence of India's carbon emissions, and the changing perceptions of academics and the general public about the dangers of climate change are all representative of this
Most scholars do not believe that regime complexes evolve naturally.
anarchy of the international community
From line 311-349 you have 1 reference this happens also throughout section 4 and 5.
Incomplete ideas:
On the theory of international mechanisms.
atomized" approach to global climate issues.
Actors cannot leave society.
Introduction
The main function of an introduction is to make clear your contribution as a scientist, from the object of the manuscript, in other words from the structure of the paper. It should also prepare the reader of what is to come [lit review, method, results, etc]
In this case the purpose of the paper is not clear- what is the key finding you are presenting?
You focus mostly on the context and provide information about the changing climate but the need of exploring the global climate governance regime is not clear.
Literature review
Overall limited considering the vast amount of literature that exists on global governance and global governance experiments [for example global constitutionalism]
The figures in this section should aim at summarizing the literature or making connections between the already existing ideas, it looks more like you are already presenting an analysis in this section of your own interpretations
Why are those particular sets of ideas [literature] relevant or important to discuss? Are they being followed by governments or global organizations?
Analysis: 3. The causes of the institutional complex of global climate change
Overall very general statements.
What is the system that you are referring to specifically; what are its elements and main interactions between elements? You mention strong issue linkages for example, what does that mean? By definition climate change issues are interconnected, the temperature does not change for one nation or region, its implied in the term.
What is the boundary of that system? What do you mean by core? What are the institutions you are referring to, are those agreements or informal arrangements?
Analysis/Discussion: 4. The inherent evolutionary logic of the global climate governance regime complex / 5. The impact of regime complexes of governance on global climate
You base your discussion on the work of Kenneth and Joseph (years) assuming this is a valid perspective to analyze this situation but you need to consider the possibility that there are other perspectives and ways of understanding the workings of global governance arrangements. Perhaps it would help the Analysis/Discussion of your ideas if you could focus on an example or cases. Taking for example an issue on the agenda of global climate decisions, say reducing emissions or adaptation strategies, etc..
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
English language is coherent, sentences well written and structured. in some places typos or punctuation is needed (some comments included in the comments above).
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: Overall assessment is that the manuscript does not reach the quality and depth of analysis required for an international peer-review journal. Nonetheless the authors attempt to tackle a relevant, interesting but very broad topic. Authors seem very familiarized with a specific perspective on governance and global governance, (personally I feel its not very useful to explain the functioning of global governance arrangements or propose alternatives) however narrow the theoretical and conceptual framework, it could be useful in describing a certain mechanism; for example overlapping roles. So instead of setting out to understand global governance arrangements for climate change, authors could instead set out to explain the overlap of roles in global governance arrangements for climate change. This would be easier if authors were to focus on a particular issue or area of climate governance; adaptation mechanisms or mitigation mechanisms or compensation mechanisms or financing mechanisms etc etc. This would mean rewriting the manuscript almost entirely. In any case it is important for authors to address important questions and assumptions – for this or any study to be published at this level. If perhaps the authors are willing to embark on such challenge the manuscript could maybe be considered for publication.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your suggestion that "instead of starting to understand the global governance arrangements for climate change, the author could start to explain the overlapping roles in the global governance arrangements for climate change, which would be easier if the author focused on a particular issue or area of climate governance; adaptation mechanisms or mitigation mechanisms or compensation mechanisms or financing mechanisms, etc. ". We have carefully thought about your suggestion and we can use this as a direction for our research in the next studies.
Point 2: Important questions/assumptions that need to be addressed :
(1) How do you understand power? In this case how are alliances established, changed or undone?
Response (1): The understanding of power in the field of international political studies is based on Robert Dahl's definition of power, which implies that A has power over B if A makes B do something that B does not want to do. Based on this classical understanding, power evolved into institutional power in the study of international institutions. Institutional power is the ability of actors to influence the perceptions and behavior of other actors in the international community based on their strength and willingness during the formation, survival, and change of norms, rules, and organizations. This power has two major sources: first, established state power, i.e., the extension and transformation of state power into the international community through the international system; and second, the autonomy of the international system, i.e., the power that an international system with relative autonomy brings to actors in specific issue areas. In a macro sense, international regimes and alliances overlap and intersect. The formation of alliances requires a certain form of regime as a guarantee of their legitimacy and a constraint to fulfill their commitments. States in an international regime can also be seen as alliances in a broad sense in a particular area. In the meso sense, there may be different alliances in a given issue area, for example, on the issue of carbon emissions in the climate field, where developed countries and developing countries have different positions and therefore have developed common but differentiated principles of responsibility, both of which can be considered as different alliances, even if such alliances are loose and not marked by a formal regime. In a micro sense, different alliances may also exist in a given international regime. At different levels, alliances are created, changed, or abolished stemming from the differentiated strengths and willingness of different actors. For example, Pacific island countries may lose their homes due to sea level rise, and such countries unite to form alliances due to possible future encounters. Such alliances are mostly formed out of common will. However, because they are not strong enough to provide public goods such as international regimes, Pacific island countries may form alliances with more powerful powers to realize their own demands. Such alliances are formed because of the differences in power between actors. In terms of changes in alliances, states may strengthen or weaken or even end alliances under the same issue due to changes in power contrasts, or changes in political relations may affect cooperation and competition under that issue. Within the same regime, alliances within that regime may tend to end when the regime itself fails to meet state demands, or alliances may be perpetuated in improving existing regimes and creating similar regimes.
(2) Are you assuming there is one form of efficient governance?
Response (2): If one holds a progressivist view of history, an effective form of governance does exist at different stages of history. The complex of international mechanisms has not only emerged in the field of climate governance, but this phenomenon is common in the areas covered by the current international regime. This implies, to some extent, that the complex nesting and interplay between the current international regimes may be an effective form of governance in line with the current state of global issues. Perhaps this form of governance is less efficient and less effective, but the process is useful and necessary in terms of the evolutionary development of the form of governance itself.
(3) What is your definition or interpretation of governance?
Response (3): There is no single definition of governance in academic circles, but among the various definitions of governance, the Commission on Global Governance has a very representative and authoritative formulation. The Commission defined governance in 1995 as follows: Governance is the sum of the many ways in which individuals and institutions, public or private, manage the same affairs. It is the ongoing process by which conflicting or divergent interests are reconciled and joint action is taken. It includes formal institutions and regulations that have the power to compel compliance, as well as informal arrangements. All of these are delegated by people and institutions either with their consent or because they believe it is in their interest to do so. It has four characteristics: governance is not a set of rules and regulations, nor is it an activity, but a process; governance is not established on the basis of domination, but on the basis of accommodation; governance involves both the public and private sectors; and governance does not imply a formal system, but does depend on ongoing interactions. The subject of these governance activities is not necessarily the government, nor does it have to rely on the coercive power of the state to achieve them. Thus, governance emphasizes that its subjects are pluralistic.
(4) Are you assuming overlap of roles or contradictions of rules or fragmentation is inefficient or problematic? Why?
Response (4): For alleviating or solving specific global problems, overlapping roles make actors pay more costs and are not conducive to clearly quantifying their specific responsibilities; contradictions or fragmentation of rules increase competition among systems and raise the costs of system operation, which increases costs and reduces efficiency for solving problems. However, since global problems need to be solved by multiple actors, and there is no one world government to coordinate and supervise the actions of actors, overlapping roles and split rules are inevitable to a certain extent. If a single actor does not have the ability and willingness to solve global problems on its own, and the possibility of establishing a world government is close to zero, then even if the roles of actors overlap, even if the rules are split, and even if problem solving is inefficient, it is still in the process of solving the problem, and this is the right direction.
(5) The distinction between actors and institutions needs to be more specific. Which are the actors you are referring to? Not all nations play the same role so nation as actor is not very telling of their role in governance, it doesn’t say much about their role. Same goes for institutions.
Response (5): Actors and institutions refer to state and intergovernmental organizations and nongovernmental organizations. The distinction between these three is clear. A state, or sovereign state, is a state that is independent and autonomous in conducting its domestic and international affairs without interference or restrictions from other states. A sovereign state is a political unit with a fixed territory, a certain number of inhabitants, a certain form of regime organization and sovereignty. In international law, a sovereign state is an immaterial legal entity that has sovereignty over a geographical area and is represented by a legal body of authority to exercise sovereignty. Sovereignty is the hallmark of an independent state. Intergovernmental organizations, represented by international organizations, are those that enjoy an independent status to participate in the activities of international affairs, within the limits set by treaties and purposes, and have the ability to directly bear the rights and obligations of international law, without being subject to the authority of the state. This is the basic characteristic of intergovernmental international organizations. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are civil society organizations established by unofficial agreement across national borders, which are sometimes called non-profit organizations. NGOs are neither subordinate to the government nor to business, and include independent organizations, civil society organizations, the third sector, voluntary associations, etc. At present, NGOs have, in a large sense, formed a special interest group, which is not what we usually understand in the sense of domestic political life; NGOs are transnational interest groups that are having a growing influence on domestic and international affairs. Different countries play different roles in governance and assume different responsibilities and functions. For example, the advocate or dominant state in an international regime has more voting power or voice because it bears more of the operating costs. Large and small countries in a given international system differ in their capabilities and assume different responsibilities in the night of action. Intra- and extra-territorial countries under a particular issue also assume different roles and responsibilities. This is also true for intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations.
（6）Do you assume all nations believe in global governance as a valid path to coordinate action? It is very likely that the climate agenda is reflecting more complicated economic and political interests, not simply an intention to fix climate related issues.
Response (6): Complex economic and political interests, rather than simply intending to solve climate-related problems. From the perspective of solving global problems, no single country has the power and will to solve global problems alone. Therefore, to some extent the solution to global problems must rely on global governance, which does not depend on whether countries believe in it or not, but is a reality at the current level of productivity. Second, for developed countries or large countries, global governance needs to be accomplished with the help of certain institutional platforms. Some countries, such as the United States, may bear more running costs, but they also gain more institutional power accordingly. For developing countries, because they are at different historical stages, they may face many global problems at the same stage but cannot rely on their own ability to solve them, and their dependence on global governance is thus highlighted.
Point 3: Unclear terms highlighted in yellow
supply deficit, non-traditional security, complex of mechanisms vs series of mechanisms
Response 3: Thank you very much for your suggestions! For the unclear terms marked in yellow, we have revised the original text in the corresponding position and removed the unclear terms to avoid ambiguity.
Point 4. Referencing:
the information on the figure 1 has no reference
Frank Biermann (year)
Rostira and Victor (year)
Statements like this require referencing:
the climate issue, as an object of governance for the international community, remains shrouded in the shadow of divergent interests and power politics among the actors in governance, which can both expand the overlap of climate governance mechanisms and influence the direction of a particular regime complex.
prominence of India's carbon emissions, and the changing perceptions of academics and the general public about the dangers of climate change are all representative of this
Most scholars do not believe that regime complexes evolve naturally.
anarchy of the international community
Response 4: Thank you very much for your suggestions! For the unclear terms marked in yellow, we have revised the original text in the corresponding position and removed the unclear terms to avoid ambiguity.
Point 5: From line 311-349 you have 1 reference this happens also throughout section 4 and 5.
Response 5: Thank you very much for your suggestion. However, not all lines 311-349 make this one bibliographic6 citation, but the bibliographic citation is made after the period in the previous sentence, the one in which the reference identifier is located. Same for the others.
Point 6: Incomplete ideas:
On the theory of international mechanisms.
atomized" approach to global climate issues.
Actors cannot leave society.
Response 6: Thank you very much for your suggestions! For the incomplete ideas you have presented, we have removed the incomplete ideas that appear in the article in order to avoid difficulties for the readers to understand the content of the article.
Point 7: Introduction
The main function of an introduction is to make clear your contribution as a scientist, from the object of the manuscript, in other words from the structure of the paper. It should also prepare the reader of what is to come [lit review, method, results, etc]
In this case the purpose of the paper is not clear- what is the key finding you are presenting?
You focus mostly on the context and provide information about the changing climate but the need of exploring the global climate governance regime is not clear.
Response 7: Thank you very much for your suggestions! The mechanism complex is an emerging cross-research hotspot in the field of institutional research and global governance research, which profoundly points out the current situation of global governance at the mechanism level and also puts forward a contemporary proposition for theoretical research. Climate governance, as an important aspect of global governance, has also emerged as a situation of overlapping and nested governance mechanisms in its real development. As the core approach to address global climate change, the development of global climate governance has a bearing on the future fate of human development, and should be given attention and care in research. Therefore, it has become a very practical and theoretical research agenda to analyze the reasons for the emergence, the logic of development and the impact of the mechanism complex in the field of global climate governance, and the answers to these questions are also the purpose of this paper. Most of the current research on global climate governance focuses on the ethics and morality of different actors in responding to climate change, the effectiveness of existing mechanisms in responding to climate change, and the game between countries in a certain issue, but less on the climate change governance mechanism itself. In addition, the existing studies on the mechanism complex in the field of climate governance have mostly focused on the micro level, preferring to adopt quantitative research methods, and have seldom drawn generalized conclusions on the answers to questions such as the causes of the mechanism complex and its development logic. Therefore, the innovation of this paper lies in both the topic selection and the research methodology, i.e., it focuses on the changes in climate governance at the mechanism level and tries to answer the corresponding research questions with a qualitative research method.
In the introduction, the paper adds the purpose of the study, its innovation, and discusses the need for a global climate governance regime.
Point 8: Literature review
Overall limited considering the vast amount of literature that exists on global governance and global governance experiments [for example global constitutionalism]
The figures in this section should aim at summarizing the literature or making connections between the already existing ideas, it looks more like you are already presenting an analysis in this section of your own interpretations
Why are those particular sets of ideas [literature] relevant or important to discuss? Are they being followed by governments or global organizations?
Response 8: Thank you very much for your suggestions! The authors divide this literature review into two main parts, including a review of the theory of mechanism complexes in global climate governance mechanisms, and a study of the interaction and impact of mechanism fragmentation. Therefore, it is clear from the comparison that most of the current research on global climate governance has focused on the ethical and moral analysis of different actors in addressing climate change, the analysis of the effectiveness of existing mechanisms in addressing climate change, and the game between countries in a particular issue, and less on the study of climate change governance mechanisms themselves. In addition, most of the existing studies on mechanism complexes in the field of climate governance have focused on the micro level, preferring quantitative research methods, and have seldom drawn generalized conclusions about the causes of mechanism complexes and their development logic.
Point 9: Analysis: 3. The causes of the institutional complex of global climate change
Overall very general statements.
Response 9: Thank you very much for your suggestions! From the perspective of the universal reasons for the emergence of institutional complexity in the field of climate governance, objectively the new trends, phenomena, and issues emerging from climate change do require cooperation among actors to address them based on certain institutional platforms, so the increase in the number of institutions may be unavoidable. Subjectively, if climate issues are considered as part of non-traditional security issues, the importance of security to the state will make the state take the initiative to create institutions, although this behavior will also be based on the purpose of power checks and balances among states and preventing the interconversion of non-traditional security issues, but the active creation behavior of the state is also the reason for the emergence of institutional complexity. Based on this, this paper attributes the reasons for the emergence of institutional complexity in the field of climate governance to two levels, namely, the internal level and the external level. At the internal level, the uncertainty of the linkages and benefits of the climate issue itself, the institutional implications of the four types of issues that arise in this area of cooperation, and the divergent interests of power politics and actors, actually summarize the causes of this area itself from both objective and subjective perspectives. At the external level, the development trend of globalization and the anarchy of the international system, which are jointly promoted by multiple actors, also respond to the external causes of the emergence of institutional complexity from both subjective and objective aspects.
(1) What is the system that you are referring to specifically; what are its elements and main interactions between elements? You mention strong issue linkages for example, what does that mean? By definition climate change issues are interconnected, the temperature does not change for one nation or region, its implied in the term. What is the boundary of that system? What do you mean by core? What are the institutions you are referring to, are those agreements or informal arrangements?
Response (1): For this issue this paper has deleted the term system used in the paper and replaced it with a common term that is less likely to cause ambiguity. For the issue of issue linkage, such as carbon emissions, carbon emission standards are ostensibly set to mitigate climate problems, but they have a strong link to economic development. For developing countries, overly stringent carbon emission standards are essentially limiting their economic development, such as the need for additional environmental protection equipment to meet carbon emission standards, but this raises the cost of products and reduces their global competitiveness.
Point 11: Analysis/Discussion: 4. The inherent evolutionary logic of the global climate governance regime complex / 5. The impact of regime complexes of governance on global climate
You base your discussion on the work of Kenneth and Joseph (years) assuming this is a valid perspective to analyze this situation but you need to consider the possibility that there are other perspectives and ways of understanding the workings of global governance arrangements. Perhaps it would help the Analysis/Discussion of your ideas if you could focus on an example or cases. Taking for example an issue on the agenda of global climate decisions, say reducing emissions or adaptation strategies, etc..
Response 11: The issues discussed in this paper are discussed in more depth in Kenneth and Joseph, and due to time timing, in future research we will consider the possibility of other perspectives and approaches to understanding the operation of global governance arrangements. An issue on the global climate policy-making agenda, such as emission reduction or adaptation strategies, is used as an example for further research.
Point 12: Comments on the Quality of English Language
English language is coherent, sentences well written and structured. in some places typos or punctuation is needed (some comments included in the comments above).
Response 12: Thank you very much for your suggestions! We check the grammar of the entire essay during the revision process and hope it will help with the writing.
All changes in the article are highlighted in red.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Q1) The theoretical discussions on the environmental impact of the development in the introduction section were weak. The authors should pay specific attention to providing the required theoretical discussion in the related sections by incorporating theoretical evaluations by former literature. Particularly, authors should emphasize the role of MDGs and SDGs which have core significance for climate governance and environmental commitments. In this regard following papers can help authors to provide necessary discussions:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21278-8
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11096-1
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03085-4
Q2) Primary purpose of the paper was not clear in the introductions section. The authors should outline the primary purpose of the paper in the introduction section by outlining the research gap.
Q3) Fig.2 and 3 are not enough informative to be reader-friendly. The current form of these figures seems to be retrieved from a standard textbook.
Q4) The study was ill-organized and some sections are too confusing to read. For instance, section 3.1. is composed of a single paragraph that equals 1 total page and similar examples can be increased. Therefore, the study should be reorganized for making more reader-friendly.
Q5) Conclusion and policy recommendation section was also weak. Therefore, there is e need for improvement on this section.
1) Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: The theoretical discussions on the environmental impact of the development in the introduction section were weak. The authors should pay specific attention to providing the required theoretical discussion in the related sections by incorporating theoretical evaluations by former literature. Particularly, authors should emphasize the role of MDGs and SDGs which have core significance for climate governance and environmental commitments. In this regard following papers can help authors to provide necessary discussions:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21278-8
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-11096-1
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03085-4
Response 1: Thank you very much for your suggestion, and we will revise the introductory part through an in-depth analysis of the paper you have provided. The mechanism complex is an emerging intersectional research hotspot in the field of institutional research and global governance research, which profoundly points out the current situation of global governance at the mechanism level and also puts forward the contemporary proposition for theoretical research. Climate governance, as an important aspect of global governance, has also emerged as a situation of overlapping and nested governance mechanisms in its real development. As the core approach to address global climate change, the development of global climate governance has a bearing on the future fate of human development, and should be given attention and care in research. Therefore, it has become a very practical and theoretical research agenda to analyze the reasons for the emergence, the logic of development and the impact of the mechanism complex in the field of global climate governance, and the answers to these questions are also the purpose of this paper. Most of the current research on global climate governance focuses on the ethics and morality of different actors in responding to climate change, the effectiveness of existing mechanisms in responding to climate change, and the game between countries in a certain issue, but less on the climate change governance mechanism itself. In addition, the existing studies on the mechanism complex in the field of climate governance have mostly focused on the micro level, preferring to adopt quantitative research methods, and have seldom drawn generalized conclusions on the answers to questions such as the causes of the mechanism complex and its development logic. Therefore, the innovation of this paper lies in both the topic selection and the research methodology, i.e., it focuses on the changes in climate governance at the mechanism level, and tries to answer the corresponding research questions with a qualitative research method.
Point 2: Primary purpose of the paper was not clear in the introductions section. The authors should outline the primary purpose of the paper in the introduction section by outlining the research gap.
Response 2: Thank you very much for your suggestions! Your suggestion is much appreciated and we have added the main contributions and innovations of the article in the introduction section and analyzed the gaps in the existing research on mechanism complexes in the field of climate governance.
Point 3: Fig.2 and 3 are not enough informative to be reader-friendly. The current form of these figures seems to be retrieved from a standard textbook.
Response 3: Thank you very much for your suggestions! Figure 2 is a diagram of the complex governance mechanisms that Robert Keohane has put together in a holistic governance context and given the concept and meaning of a "climate change regime complex," while Figure 3 is. Keohane has organized the existing climate change mechanisms into a diagram. The diagram clearly summarizes the complex governance models, issues and related governance functions of the current climate change response. The author believes that the diagram can clearly show the research direction and content of the earlier researchers on the complex of mechanisms, so that the reader can better understand and compare the gap between this paper and the previous research.
Point 4: The study was ill-organized and some sections are too confusing to read. For instance, section 3.1. is composed of a single paragraph that equals 1 total page and similar examples can be increased. Therefore, the study should be reorganized for making more reader-friendly.
Response 4: Thank you very much for your suggestions! We have reorganized the structure of the article by adjusting the overall paragraphs to address your perceived confusion of sections.
Point 5: Conclusion and policy recommendation section was also weak. Therefore, there is e need for improvement on this section.
Response 5: Thank you very much for your suggestions! To address the weakness of the conclusion section, we have reworked the conclusion section.
Point 6: Comments on the Quality of English Language
Minor editing of English language required
Response 6: Thank you very much for your suggestions! We have reorganized and checked the overall English language of the article in the hope of improving it.
All changes in the article are highlighted in red.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I have reviewed the manuscript “The Regime Complexes for Global Climate Governance”. I have the following comments:
1) I need to see the relevant content on the links of global climate governance to IPCC.
2) Please provide a map about how global climate governance is related to Global Climate Model.
3) Future studies on global climate governance should be highlighted.
No.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: I need to see the relevant content on the links of global climate governance to IPCC.
Response 1: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific body created by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme in 1988. Its goal is to keep governments up to date on the latest climate science and to explain how climate change is likely to affect the world in the coming decades.
Currently, the IPCC has 195 member countries and brings together scientists from around the world who volunteer to contribute to its work. the IPCC does not conduct original research. Instead, hundreds of scientists examine the available scientific literature and distill it into comprehensive assessment reports. These reports provide insight into the drivers of climate change, the likely practical consequences of climate change, and how mitigation (limiting climate change) and adaptation can help protect people from the worst effects.
The IPCC has three working groups and one thematic group:
Working Group I assesses the climate system and the science of climate change.
Working Group II assesses the vulnerability of socioeconomic systems and natural systems to climate change, the positive and negative consequences of climate change, and options for adaptation to climate change.
Working Group III Assesses options for limiting greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating climate change.
National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Thematic Groups Responsible for the IPCC National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Program.
Each working group (thematic group) has two co-chairs, one from a developing country and one from a developed country, and a technical support group under it.
The first working group is on the scientific basis, which is responsible for assessing the climate system and change at the scientific level, i.e., reporting on existing knowledge of climate change, such as how it is occurring and at what rate. The second working group is on impacts, vulnerability, and adaptation, which assesses the extent of socio-economic and natural ecological damage from climate change, the negative and positive impacts of climate change, and ways to adapt to change, i.e., the impacts of climate change on people and the environment, and how these impacts can be reduced. The third working group, on climate change mitigation, assesses the possibilities of limiting greenhouse gas emissions or mitigating climate change, i.e., how to stop the anthropogenic factors that cause climate change or how to slow it down. The fourth group is the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Theme Group, which is responsible for the IPCC's National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Program.
The IPCC is open to all member countries of the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization. Decisions on its structure, principles, procedures, and work plan are made and a chair and bureau are elected at the approximately annual plenary session of the Commission. The plenary session is in the six official UN languages. Each working group (thematic group) has two co-chairs, one from a developing country and one from a developed country, and a technical support group under it.
The IPCC has no say in how governments choose to act on its findings. Its assessments are "policy-relevant" but not "policy-prescriptive," meaning that they inform policymakers of the potential outcomes of certain mitigation and adaptation actions, but do not tell them what to do.
The IPCC reports do not merely spell out a possible course of events. Instead, they describe multiple possible "scenarios" representing potential futures in which the impacts of climate change vary depending on a variety of factors, primarily human activity.
These scenarios do not predict the likelihood of a particular outcome. Instead, they use climate models to describe how changes in certain factors, such as atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, may lead to different environmental and social impacts in the short or long term.
In this paper, on the other hand, IPCC is not the focus direction that this paper does to study, and therefore the authors believe that an IPCC focused description is not needed.
Point 2: Please provide a map about how global climate governance is related to Global Climate Model.
Response 2: Climate models attempt to predict future changes in climate in order to allow policy makers to make more accurate and impactful policies.
The climate system is a very complex system involving the atmosphere, the oceans, the ice, the land, all the organisms on Earth, and all the ways in which they interact with each other. As these elements interact, they are able to influence the climate system. Climate can also be forced to change by events that are not part of the natural climate system.
Climate models are the numerical representation of the climate system. They make predictions by simulating the interactions and external forces between different parts of the climate system. To do this, scientists must represent these processes in scientific equations. However, some processes (such as how growing trees affect the climate or how clouds form) are still quite uncertain and approximations have to be made. Past climate records are then used to refine these approximate equations that predict future climate.
Climate scientists then put all these different data sources, equations and approximations together and are able to create a climate model. These models can help us make predictions about potential future climate that depend on different amounts of anthropogenic CO2 emissions and other variables. All models are imperfect to some degree. If scientists want perfect models, they will need to understand and model every aspect of the climate system and know exactly how each of us will behave in the future. Despite some uncertainties in the predictions of climate models, they are still very useful. A key point to realize is that climate scientists do not need to predict the future to help policy makers. By using several different, well-thought-out scenarios of the human response to climate change (from doing nothing to rapidly reducing emissions), climate modelers can give policymakers an idea of the range of climate changes that different policy actions might bring about. Thus, climate models can provide policymakers with information and evidence to begin making well-informed decisions about future environmental actions. For example, models can be used to predict how human activities (e.g., increased emissions) will affect the climate and how quickly these emissions will be needed to limit warming to a specific level, such as the 1.5°C limit set by the Paris Agreement. All climate models have limitations, but when used properly, they can make important contributions to policymakers when thinking about how to address climate change.
Point 3: Future studies on global climate governance should be highlighted.
Response 3: Thank you very much for your suggestions! This paper adds future research directions on global climate governance to the conclusion section and improves the conclusion section as a whole.
Point 4: Comments on the Quality of English Language No.
Response 4: Thank you very much for your suggestions!
All changes in the article are highlighted in red.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Although there is an effort to address some of the issues pointed out in the previous comments the manuscript required a significant restructuring meaning an almost entire new manuscript. This revision is almost entirely the same previous manuscript with some additional clarifications but yet not enough to fix the conceptual and structural gaps from the previous version. For the ambition of this manuscript one would expect almost twice as many references cited including a more diverse pool of sources in reference to a)governance- specifically multilevel governance b)socio-technical transitions, c) policy learning. Although the topic is promising unfortunately its is still not at the level necessary for this kind of publication.
English is at a sufficient level.
Author Response
Point 1: Although there is an effort to address some of the issues pointed out in the previous comments the manuscript required a significant restructuring meaning an almost entire new manuscript. This revision is almost entirely the same previous manuscript with some additional clarifications but yet not enough to fix the conceptual and structural gaps from the previous version. For the ambition of this manuscript one would expect almost twice as many references cited including a more diverse pool of sources in reference to a)governance- specifically multilevel governance b)socio-technical transitions, c) policy learning. Although the topic is promising unfortunately its is still not at the level necessary for this kind of publication.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your patience and constructive comments. We have added references from three aspects of “a)governance- specifically multilevel governance, b)socio-technical transitions, c) policy learning” according to your suggestions for references. The keywords of the article were also revised, which we hope will be helpful. All new changes made in the text are highlighted in yellow.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors successfully addressed required revisions. Therefore, the editorial can consider new version of the paper for potential publication.
Author Response
Point 1: The authors successfully addressed required revisions. Therefore, the editorial can consider new version of the paper for potential publication.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your suggestion.
