Influence of Financial Support to Agriculture on Carbon Emission Intensity of the Industry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The theme of this paper is critical as the global community has been fighting global warming. The article's structure is also clear, and I enjoyed reading the manuscript. However, several points need to be strengthened.

 

1. Some of the key concepts and data need to be explained in detail. For instance, what is the content of "financial support"? The financial support could be many things. For example, it could support using more fertiliser or introducing better environmentally friendly machines or technology. Depending on the contents of financial support, the impact on carbon emissions becomes different. The author also uses the expenditure ratio to support agriculture to total fiscal expenditure rather than absolute value. It is difficult to know why the author needs to use this "relative importance" data. The ratio could fluctuate depending on other expenditures, such as social security. Then, it is difficult to interpret the estimation result by agricultural financial support. If the author uses absolute value (amount of expenditure) or growth of the spending, it is easy to interpret the result. 

2. A similar question comes to mind in Table 1. This table shows the CE coefficient by several different CE sources. First of all, is the coefficient fixed over time? With technological improvement, the CE factor must be changed. Second, where do these coefficients come from? As these coefficients are key for analysis, they should be explained in detail. Thirdly, does the author disaggregate financial support into these factors such as fertiliser, pesticide, irrigation, and others? If so, please add an explanation. If not, it would be better to disaggregate the financial support data into these factors.

3. Regarding figure 1, does the total carbon emission data include only agriculture, not other sectors such as manufacturing? If so, it would be better to mention so.

4. The data on disasters could be of many different kinds, from earthquakes to droughts. What is the definition of disasters?

5. In the analysis and discussion section, the author discussed that: (1) necessary to optimise the structure of financial support to agriculture; and (2) necessary to implement reasonable subsidies for agricultural production. However, these things are beyond the discussion of this paper because the author does not discuss the contents of financial support.

Author Response

Thank the reviewers for their suggestions and opinions, which have greatly helped our article. We have carefully revised each suggestion. Please see the attached document for the revision response and the newly submitted manuscript for the revised version. Thank you.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1.Line 43: As an international journal, is it appropriate for the author to use Foreign scholars?

2.Line 89-92:Why can spatial effect research provide policy support for the government? The author needs to provide more literature review on spatial effects

3.The topic of this paper is to explore the impact of financial support for agriculture on industrial carbon emissions. The author needs to add a chapter on theoretical mechanism analysis to explain the relationship .

4.Table 1: Where do these coefficients come from?

5.Analysis and discussion:The author needs to discuss with existing research

Author Response

Thank the reviewers for their suggestions and opinions, which have greatly helped our article. We have carefully revised each suggestion. Please see the attached document for the revision response and the newly submitted manuscript for the revised version. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1)      The study use as the calculation method of agricultural CE intensity is expressed as [17]: in line  108

Agricultural carbon intensity= Total agricultural carbon emissions /Agricultural output value + animal husbandry output value

 

In this formula denominator variables have been used as value denominated. AS known prices (nominal values) of the agricultural products, including animal products change by day to day therefore usage of the values of variables may cause mistakes. If authors use the “value” as physical quantities no problem.

 

2)      In the text “The main CE sources of agriculture (planting industry) and their CE coefficients.” listed in line 118

 

There is not GE from animal husbandry in the list.

 

3)      The text says “From the empirical analysis results, it can be seen that every 1% increase in the level of financial support to agriculture will cause a 0.2071% increase in CE intensity.” In line 269 as final evaluation.

 

There is this info  “The level of financial support to agriculture is the core explanatory variable of this paper. It is measured by the ratio of fiscal expenditure to support agriculture to total fiscal expenditure. This indicator can show the importance of fiscal expenditure on agriculture.” In line 162-163

 

And

There is statistical values in Table 2. as Descriptive statistics of each variable.

 

“the authors use the DEA method to calculate that the comprehensive efficiency of financial support to agriculture in the western, central and eastern regions is increasing in turn, and the scale efficiency of the central region is the highest, indicating that the scale of financial support to agriculture is more reasonable.” In line 50-53

 

But there is not any numerical financial information, data about financial support. Moreover there is no info if the financial support what kinds. May be some financial support accelerate to GE level some other reduce it. Therefore authors must show how the financial support affect to AGE, what is affecting of way, mechanism? For example  financial support can about to support agroecological methods, products or mechanisation?

 

4)      During this period (from 2000 to 2020) is there any changes product composition, watering method, usage of fertiliser types, agroecological method usage, changes in cultivated area, changes in types of agricultural machines (for example less fuel consume machine rises), animal number and type, legal regulation…? All these variables may affected AGE also but the the research does not say anything.

Author Response

Thank the reviewers for their suggestions and opinions, which have greatly helped our article. We have carefully revised each suggestion. Please see the attached document for the revision response and the newly submitted manuscript for the revised version. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I have two minor comments.

1. The definition of disasters is usually defined in more detail in the disaster literature. For instance, not all earthquakes are disasters. If a huge earthquake happens in a remote rural area where nobody lives, then we need to consider whether it is a disaster. It depends on the definition. If nobody dies, it could be considered not a disaster. If the definition says disaster is above some certain earthquake intensity, then even if nobody dies, it should be counted as a disaster. 

2. Regarding figure 1, it would be better not to use exponential notation. 

 

Author Response

Thank the reviewers for their suggestions again, which have helped me a lot. I have made serious amendments. Please see the attached reply and the resubmitted revised version.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The author has revised the paper according to my suggestions.

Author Response

Thank the reviewers for their suggestions and comments. Thank you.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for your responses. I think so this subject is very important. Your study will makes some new contributions. I hope you and other colleagues continue these researches.

Kind regards,

  

Author Response

Thank the reviewers for their suggestions and comments. Thank you.