Next Article in Journal
In Vitro Culture Initiation and Micropropagation Optimization of Plantago Halophytes: A Sustainable Approach to Exploring Valuable Plant Species
Previous Article in Journal
Phosphorus Mobilization from Lake Sediments Driven by Silver Carp Fecal Inputs: A Microcosm Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Open Energy Data in Spain and Its Contribution to Sustainability: Content and Reuse Potential
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Assessing Global Responsibility: Comparative Analysis of Fairness in Energy Transition Between Developing and Developed Countries

Sustainability 2025, 17(16), 7470; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167470
by Jihan Ahmad As-sya’bani *, Muhammad Zubair Abbas, Alzobaer Alshaeki and Herena Torio
Reviewer 1:
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3:
Sustainability 2025, 17(16), 7470; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167470
Submission received: 30 May 2025 / Revised: 8 August 2025 / Accepted: 11 August 2025 / Published: 18 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Energy Storage, Conversion and Sustainable Management)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is academically and socially significant. It is of great importance in the field of sustainability studies, particularly in the context of fair global burden-sharing, as the international community aims to mitigate climate change and decarbonize society. The theme is consequential in support of one of the essential international norms: common but differential responsibility and respective capabilities (CBDR/RC). However, this norm has been contentious from its inception. This article effectively presents its argument in support of the CBDR/RC principle, based on the concept of "objective responsibility," by providing sufficient and relevant data. It also highlights the need and responsibility for financial and technological assistance from developed countries to vulnerable, underdeveloped countries.
It is an excellent article that addresses the issue of fairness and responsibility for climate change mitigation through decarbonization. 

There are some minor suggestions for further improvement of this article.
(1) The conclusion needs more summation of the main body. Two subsections of the implications of this study overstep its scope. Understandably, any study is motivated by preconceived ideas, and this study is likely to be driven by the recognition of the lack of required financial and appropriate technological assistance to vulnerable countries facing climate crises. Therefore, the conclusion is more closely aligned with the main findings and arguments presented in the body. For instance, it is noteworthy that only China, among the selected countries, exhibits a backward trend in the energy transition between 1990 and 2020.  
(2) Several suggestions for minor revisions:
a. Line 175 "causes and prime movers": No brief explanation about them.
b. Line 262, Table 4: The table would be better placed at the end of Section 2.3.6. (right before 3. Methods). It is also desirable to provide a brief explanation of how to read this table.
c. Line 567, Figure 4 (b): The line colors of the countries are different from those in other graphs. It is better to use the same color for each country.
d. Line 669, Figure (b): It needs to briefly explain the spikes in Pakistan in 2005 and 2020 and, to a lesser extent, about China in the 1990s and 2007/2008.  
e. Lines 671 through 675: The reader cannot read these explanations from figures (a) and (b).

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking your time to review the manuscript. We appreciate the positive feedbacks and suggestions for the manuscript improvement. The followings are our response towards the comments and suggestions:

Comment 1: The conclusion needs more summation of the main body. Two subsections of the implications of this study overstep its scope. Understandably, any study is motivated by preconceived ideas, and this study is likely to be driven by the recognition of the lack of required financial and appropriate technological assistance to vulnerable countries facing climate crises. Therefore, the conclusion is more closely aligned with the main findings and arguments presented in the body. For instance, it is noteworthy that only China, among the selected countries, exhibits a backward trend in the energy transition between 1990 and 2020.  

Response 1: The conclusion has now been revised and excluding the two subsections of the implications. 

 

Comment 2(a): Line 175 "causes and prime movers": No brief explanation about them.

Response 2(a): Despite a formal definition is not given, we assume that examples of prime movers will sufficiently clarify the meaning. In the revised manuscript, it is given in line 186-188.
"This is usually driven by a certain prime mover, such as economic incentives, policy interventions, technological innovation, or environmental pressures."

 

Comment 2(b):  Line 262, Table 4: The table would be better placed at the end of Section 2.3.6. (right before 3. Methods). It is also desirable to provide a brief explanation of how to read this table.

Response 2(b): This table has been revised and placed before Section 3, with UK is now added to the table. A paragraph that briefly explains it in the new manuscript is given in line 285-296: "United Kingdom and Germany are both performing well in all indexes. United States has a very low performance related to the CCPI (very low; due to its GHG emissions, low share of renewable as well as high energy use) and NZEI (high energy intensity). Brazil performs well in GFI, ETI, and RISE, with “Medium” label in CCPI, and only has high energy intensity problem according to NZEI. China also performs well by GFI, ETI, and RISE, but underperforms by CCPI (low; only performs well in renewable energy aspect) and NZEI since it is high in both, energy intensity and fuel factor. Lastly, Pakistan is considered as not performing well in GFI and ETI, but medium by CCPI and RISE, while NZEI is not applicable."

 

Comment 2(c):  Line 567, Figure 4 (b): The line colors of the countries are different from those in other graphs. It is better to use the same color for each country.

Response 2(c): All figures have been revised to use the same order and color.

 

Comments 2(d): Line 669, Figure (b): It needs to briefly explain the spikes in Pakistan in 2005 and 2020 and, to a lesser extent, about China in the 1990s and 2007/2008.  

Response 2(d): Several notable disaster events are now indicated in the plots to help clearly compare each cases.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors
  1. This paper introduces various emission allocationschemes and indexes in presenting state of Climate Action, but it is not closely related to the following.
  2. The paper does not elaborate the logical relationship between the concept of fairness in greenhouse gas emission distribution and climate change, the definition of energy transitionand fairness in energy transition, and does not clearly define fairness in energy transition.
  3. The language and characters are too long when describing various indexes, which can be simplified.
  4. The reasons for choosing the United States, China, Germany, Brazil, Pakistan and Britain as representatives of developed and developing countries are not clearly explained.
  5. In the fourth chapter, only the meaning of the index is analyzed, and the fairness contained in it is not further analyzed, so the discussion on fairness is not clear enough.
  6. Most of the article analyzes the fairness of energy transition, and then analyzes the cost and financing of climate disasters. The correlation between them is not strong, and the logical relationship between them needs to be further clarified.
  7. The article only uses various indexes to analyze the energy transition situation of different countries, and makes no suggestions on how to improve fairness.

Author Response

We appreciate for taking your time to review and your suggestions to improve this manuscript. The followings are our response.

Comment 1: This paper introduces various emission allocation schemes and indexes in presenting state of Climate Action, but it is not closely related to the following.

Response 1: The emission allocation scheme is used as basis since the discussion on its fair allocation has been around as compared to fairness in energy transition. In the energy justice concept itself, the context of its application is to policy making in a country level. Since the importance of energy transition in this context is the resulted emission reduction, therefore it is relevant in the discussion. On the other side, an index is an approach to quantitatively to state the fairness level. The literature review on Section 2 is to compare and evaluate this state of fairness in energy transition that derived from the GHG emission fairness.  

 

Comment 2: The paper does not elaborate the logical relationship between the concept of fairness in greenhouse gas emission distribution and climate change, the definition of energy transition and fairness in energy transition, and does not clearly define fairness in energy transition.

Respone 2: The fairness in energy transition in the context of international community, to our knowledge, is not available. Despite the energy concept of energy justice has been around for some times, this is applicable in the context of policy making within a country, not  between countries. On the other side, concept of fair GHG distribution discourse is more available. hence we used it as the starting point. We then reviews the concepts on energy transition and energy justice principles, and merge the two to define fairness in energy transition in the context of international community and global mitigation effort. In the revised manuscript, we defines fairness in energy transition in line 227-231:

Summarizing the last two sections, this research considers fair energy transition as transition in the energy sector from high to lower, neutral or zero carbon intensity energy source that considering historical responsibility (restorative justice), financial capacity (distributive & recognition justice), and country-specific opportunities (cosmopolitan) to support global climate mitigation effort. 

 

Comment 3: The language and characters are too long when describing various indexes, which can be simplified.

Response 3: The section that explain indexes in literature review and methodology has been revisied and shortened with the essential information. 

 

Comment 4: The reasons for choosing the United States, China, Germany, Brazil, Pakistan and Britain as representatives of developed and developing countries are not clearly explained.

Response 4: The reasons for these countries are chosen is more elaborated in the second paragraph of Section 3.1 in the new manuscript (line 314-326): 

In Section 4 we applied our method to 6 different countries selected as case studies: United States, United Kingdom, and Germany (representing the Annex I countries), then Brazil, China, and Pakistan (representing non-Annex I countries). The choice of United States, United Kingdom, and Germany also representing early industrialized countries that has enjoy the benefit of fossil based economic growth. China in particular is chosen as an emerging economy with fast pace of economic growth and energy consumption. Brazil represents an emerging economy with a moderate positive GDP growth rate while Pakistan represents a developing country with very low GDP growth rates. (GDP growth (annual %) | Data) The last two countries are also chosen due to their likelihood of suffering climate disasters in the context of climate change (Climate Risk Country Profiles | Climate Change Knowledge Portal).  The chosen countries allow a comparison on the fairness state of the global energy transition, in terms of historical responsibility, energy transition rate, and economic growth perspective.

 

Comment 5: In the fourth chapter, only the meaning of the index is analyzed, and the fairness contained in it is not further analyzed, so the discussion on fairness is not clear enough.

Response 5: We have added Section 4.4 that specifically discuss the state of fairness in the energy transition in relation with the climate disasters and climate financing. 

 

Comment 6: Most of the article analyzes the fairness of energy transition, and then analyzes the cost and financing of climate disasters. The correlation between them is not strong, and the logical relationship between them needs to be further clarified.

Response 6: This paper presents climate induced disasters as potential source of financial retardants to energy transition, especially for non Annex-I countries which its GDP remains below development threshold and vulnerable to these disasters. In order for these countries met the global climate goal, therefore a sufficient climate financing is required (based on their respective's NDC) and is compared to the amount that they have received. On the other side, energy transition by Annex-I countries that have to lead climate actions is evaluated whether their current pace is sufficient, and whether their contribution to climate financing is also sufficient. It is actually will be more precise when specific financing costs/contribution for energy transition data is used, however due to the limited data availability, we uses general climate financing mechanism as a proxy. 

We have restructure the paper by starting with financial costs of climate disasters then followed by evaluation of the transition index, then the state of climate financing, and followed by the fairness discussion in hope to better demonstrate the linkage between them. 

 

Comment 7: The article only uses various indexes to analyze the energy transition situation of different countries, and makes no suggestions on how to improve fairness.

Response 7: This suggestion is also now discussed in Section 4.4 in the revised manuscript. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very interesting, original, and innovative article filling an important gap in climate change financing analysis, therefore it is worth publishing after some revisions.

Comments to the Author:

The abstract Is not as informative as expected. A standard abstract must present, without leaving any doubt, the objective of the paper precisely; source of data (which is not present in your abstract) and analytical approach used; key findings and any policy implication and recommendations.

I suggest the authors to improve the introduction section. Authors should better highlight the objective of their work and to what extent it contributes to close a gap in the existing literature and/or practice.  The paper should start from  GHG emissions (historical or future) and remaining GHG budget per country (with different scenarios at 1.5 C or 2.0 C) and how to possible to allocate it to countries in the most fair and equitable manner. The energy transition is a key component for limiting the GHG, but there are also other assumption, such as reduction in demand for energy, services and goods,  changing diet, forestation (sink), etc. Climate change mitigation is a complex systematic approach, see for example the nexus between energy, food and water.

 Which is the innovative value of the contribution proposed by the authors to the current literature?

Some key and recent literature is not cited,  for example:  other relevant chapters of the IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It is suggested to read and analyse the following relevant papers:  for example:. https://www.eceee.org/library/conference_proceedings/eceee_Summer_Studies/2022/3-policy-finance-and-governance/from-kyoto-to-paris-and-glasgow-overview-of-international-climate-agreements-and-regimes-their-limitations-and-the-role-of-energy-efficiency-and-sufficiency/;

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2024.103789.

While the title and the paper is focused on the “Comparative Analysis of Fairness in Energy Transition  between Developing and Developed Countries”, the paper start to discuss the needed financing in developing countries in particular for climate adaptation. This is very important topics and would need to be dealt is a separate paper, what is the nexus in the present paper? What about climate financing for mitigation and the energy transition. The paper should focus on its key research question

In the Conclusion section, the policy recommendations are missing: e.g. how to enforce equity concept in climate negotiations (i.e. is the Paris Agreement enough for this?), would a global carbon tax be effective to raising the needed financing, why Loss and Damage discussion and new fund is not mentioned.

Author Response

We would like to thank you for taking your time to review the manuscript. We really appreciate the positive response and suggestions, including suggested references, to improve the manuscript. In addition to the revised manuscript. The followings are our response to the comment. 

 

Comment 1: The abstract Is not as informative as expected. A standard abstract must present, without leaving any doubt, the objective of the paper precisely; source of data (which is not present in your abstract) and analytical approach used; key findings and any policy implication and recommendations.

Response 1: The abstract has now been revised to include the suggested components.

 

Comment 2: I suggest the authors to improve the introduction section. Authors should better highlight the objective of their work and to what extent it contributes to close a gap in the existing literature and/or practice.  The paper should start from  GHG emissions (historical or future) and remaining GHG budget per country (with different scenarios at 1.5 C or 2.0 C) and how to possible to allocate it to countries in the most fair and equitable manner. The energy transition is a key component for limiting the GHG, but there are also other assumption, such as reduction in demand for energy, services and goods,  changing diet, forestation (sink), etc. Climate change mitigation is a complex systematic approach, see for example the nexus between energy, food and water.

Response 2: Global carbon budget to 2.0 C is now included in the introduction, but the nexus considered in this article is between warming climate and weather and climate extremes that becomes the direct consequences. Energy  transition, is indeed complex and only a part of mitigation strategy that prevent further warming but it takes the largest part of emission source of modern civilization.

Nexus between energy, water and food is beyond the scope of this article.

 

Comment 3: Which is the innovative value of the contribution proposed by the authors to the current literature?

Response 3: The innovative value that we offer in this article is that to fairly evaluate of one country's energy transition is not only viewed from how much share or clean energy in the primary energy mix, but also has to consider its historical emission, and financial capacity above development threshold.

 

Comment 4: Some key and recent literature is not cited,  for example:  other relevant chapters of the

  • IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

It is suggested to read and analyse the following relevant papers:  for example:.

  • https://www.eceee.org/library/conference_proceedings/eceee_Summer_Studies/2022/3-policy-finance-and-governance/from-kyoto-to-paris-and-glasgow-overview-of-international-climate-agreements-and-regimes-their-limitations-and-the-role-of-energy-efficiency-and-sufficiency/;
  • https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2024.103789.

Response 4:

  • IPCC AR6 from WGII and WGIII has been included in the introduction part.
  • The second suggested reference is not accessible
  • The third suggested reference is now accommodated when discussing energy justice in Section 2.

 

Comment 5: While the title and the paper is focused on the “Comparative Analysis of Fairness in Energy Transition  between Developing and Developed Countries”, the paper start to discuss the needed financing in developing countries in particular for climate adaptation. This is very important topics and would need to be dealt is a separate paper, what is the nexus in the present paper? What about climate financing for mitigation and the energy transition. The paper should focus on its key research question. 

Response 5: This paper presents climate induced disasters as potential source of financial retardants to energy transition, especially for non Annex-I countries which its GDP remains below development threshold and vulnerable to these disasters. In order for these countries met the global climate goal, therefore a sufficient climate financing is required (based on their respective NDC) and is compared to the amount that they have received. On the other side, energy transition by Annex-I countries that have to lead climate actions is evaluated whether their current pace is sufficient, and whether their contribution to climate financing is also sufficient. It is actually will be more precise when specific financing costs/contribution for energy transition data is used, however due to the limited data availability, we uses general climate financing mechanism as a proxy. 

We have restructure the paper by starting with financial costs of climate disasters then followed by evaluation of the transition index, then the state of climate financing, and followed by the fairness discussion in hope to better demonstrate the linkage between them. 

 

Comment 6: In the Conclusion section, the policy recommendations are missing: e.g. how to enforce equity concept in climate negotiations (i.e. is the Paris Agreement enough for this?), would a global carbon tax be effective to raising the needed financing, why Loss and Damage discussion and new fund is not mentioned.

Response 6: Aligned with inputs from other reviewers, since this paper does not specifically addressing the policy and potentially discussing topics that are beyond the scope of the paper. We limit the conclusion/implications towards suggested approach to increase the fairness in energy transition. 

In relation to global carbon tax, we believe a separate dedicated papers would be necessary to discuss this part. 

Loss and Damage fund is not mentioned and not part of the study since it is quite recently established as compare to the period in which the data is used.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Suggestion for Authors:
1. In the manuscript, the connection between the fairness of energy transition and the issues of cost and financing related to climate disasters remains unclear, and their logical relationship needs to be further clarified.
2. The suggestions on how to enhance fairness appear disorganized in the manuscript and need to be put forward in a systematic manner.
3. The author has already made substantial revisions to the other issues.

Back to TopTop