Ocean-Based Solutions Can Help Close the Climate Emissions Gap

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper entitled "Ocean-Based Solutions can help Bridge the Climate Emissions Gap" was submitted for review for possible publications. 

Here are my comments: 

1. The paper was entitles "Ocean-Based Solutions can help Bridge the Climate Emissions Gap", while there is no discussion about Climate Emissions Gap in the manuscript.
2. Line 17-18:  " Here we call policy makers, financial institutions and civil societies to emnbrace this ..."  Be mindful that an abstract is not the portion of the paper where you can provide "call to actions". The abstract is not a portion to advertise, it is a portion of the paper that provides the totality of the paper.  The same call to actions was not found anywhere in the manuscript" 
3. Line 19 - 21 "Achieving full potentials of ocean climate solutions..." This is highly opinionated, and the abstract again is not the room for this.  Recall Research 101 class and tighten up the contents of your abstract. 
4. Line 32: The use of the word "fore" is confusing. Use terminologies that must be easily understood by the readers. 
5. Line 39-40. Another highly opinionated statement without supplements. 
6. Table 1 The table alone is just an enumeration of what was available all over the publications and the internet.  Though it provides the 7 ocean-based sectors and associated climate mitigation opportunities and their description it does not provide information on its effect and outlook for the sectors as well as what are the current status of the mitigation and the opportunities. It is better if the authors and present the long-term impacts of these opportunities and sectoral updates on such. 
7. I cannot understand the statement under Table 7: " Adopted from Hoegh-Guldberg, Northrop et al.." means. If this is a reference or citation, I cannot describe what format is this. The authors are therefore advised to stick to the citation format of the journal. 
8. Sector Insights 2.1 to 2.7 are not insights at all but just a collection of related literature. There should be an exhaustive review of this information, and authors must generate their own insights and not insights already published by other authors. 
9. Opportunities for Action presented in this are opportunities that are considered "generic". There is nothing new or novel presented.
10. Finance: Missing link section did not discuss why is it considered as the missing link. In this sense is there an interlink between climate emissions gap and finance. This must be one of the highlights of the paper. 
11. The conclusions do not communicate the other parts of the paper.  It seems it discusses a totally new subject

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript-3760478

Comments:

The topic of this study is quite novel. The implementation of today’s marine strategy can help mitigate the greenhouse effect and thereby reduce disparities in climate emissions. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate for this research to be published in the journal *Sustainability*. However, I have some suggestions that I hope can enhance the quality of this research.

1/The abstract is advised to highlight the innovation of this research.

2/The "Introduction" section is well-written and provides a statistical overview of the responsibilities of some departments. However, I suggest that the authors add information about the correlation between the marine economy and marine geology, as well as the policies implemented by government departments in this regard. It is recommended to refer to the following related literature:

Balancing Submarine Landslides and the Marine Economy for Sustainable Development: A Review and Future Prospects. Doi: 10.3390/su16156490.

3/In the second section, there are many analyses of marine carbon reduction. However, I suggest briefly supplementing this chapter with information on how new energy sources, such as hydrogen production from the ocean, can assist in the implementation of marine strategies, or what impact the utilization of clean energy hydrogen at sea can have on the marine climate emissions gap.

4/It is suggested that further predictions and prospects be made regarding future development.

5/It is suggested that the repetition rate of the main text in the manuscript be appropriately reduced, as the system indicates that the Percent Match has reached 31%.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of “Ocean-Based Solutions can help Bridge the Climate Emissions 2 Gap” by Pickerell and Ashford.

This manuscript provides a general aspect on the ocean-based solutions for climate change mitigation. It is well-organized and I only have a few comments.

Is it possible to include some discussions on uncertainties of the mitigation potential of these ocean-based solutions and their financial costs.

L11, remove extra dots after the “reach”

L17 add a space after the “tourism.”

L20, can you provide some quantitative evidence of co-benefit from an economical perspective? Is it comparable to the mitigation cost?

L38-39, Can you mention the absolute value of GtC needed for meeting the 1.5 deg warming target, so that it can be compared to the absolute GtC values for each mitigation sector showing below.

L43, can you spell out the “UNFCCC COP”.

L48: remove extra dots in the end of the sentence and add the date of the reference.

In table 1, I am less clear to what extent the “Reducing emissions
from aquaculture” is related to “Complete avoidance of deforestation in the supply chains of feed ingredients from soy, palm, and other crops as well as in the feeds of poultry and livestock systems providing by-products”.

L54, what’s the percentage of 0.285 Gt CO2e/year within the total carbon budget?

L109, what the MRV stands for? It seems to be less straightforward and not match with the initial of each character.

L116, you can use NDCs directly, as it has been defined before (L42).

L158, put an “over” before the 3 trillion to make it more accurate.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper entitled "Ocean-Based Solutions can help Bridge the Climate Emissions Gap" was submitted for rebuttal. 

Here are my comments: 

1. Introduction is still very short to understand Ocen-based Solutions to bridge climate emission gap. Still what is the gap that was identified here? how was it identified and validated? what gap analysis methodology was implemented to identify and optimise the gap/gaps. 
2. Ocean-Based Mitigation Potential  was introduced as a replacement title for the previously labelled " Ocean-Based Mitigation Insights" which makes the paper more confusing in addition to the fact that there was no description or context provided why it was a mitigation potential.
3. Still under Ocean-Based Mitigation Potential, what is your delineation between a "potential" and an "opportunity". These two terms are used frequently in exchange of the other. On the other hand, discussions on each potential is more of a literature review rather than identification of potential or determination of opportunities. 
4. Is the section key actions to achieving the  potentials of ocean-based climate mitigation the ocean-based solutions to bridge climate emission gaps? what are these gaps again? 
5.  (1) discuss first the context of the climate emission gaps you are trying to address.  how did you know about this and why is this should be a focus in the first place? (2) how was/were those gaps are determined? what is the methodology? (3) are these gaps interlinked to the ocean? how? (4) Provide context why Ocean can be a solution (5) what are current ocean-based solutions being currently employed globally ( I am sure there's a lot! (6) To these solutions being employed what are currently working and what are not? (7) to those that are not working, what are the reasons why? what is your insights on the provided reasons/? 
6. why is the conclusion part removed? This makes the major parts of the paper not confirming to the basic requirements of a publishable material. Indeed, you have a purpose and an objective but there is no part in the papers that tells us you have achieved that objective

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. On the Ten Key Actions, you gave examples. So what is the outcome off these examples? Of such resulted on a positive impact to the environment and the society, then it is considered as a best practice.
2. On the conclusions, what is therefore achieved. By this paper? And what its impact/implication to theSDG framework as the ESG framework of a country?
3. Of all the changes made, what is now the primary objective of your paper? Was it achieved? How? 

 

Author Response

Comment 1: On the Ten Key Actions, you gave examples. So what is the outcome off these examples? Of such resulted on a positive impact to the environment and the society, then it is considered as a best practice.

Response 1: Thank you for this observation. As this paper is a opinion piece, the examples provided under the Ten Key Actions are intended to illustrate current initiatives and commitments rather than evaluate their outcomes. The paper does not assess the environmental or social impacts of these examples, as such an assessment would require empirical analysis beyond the scope of this opinion. Instead, these examples demonstrate how governments and organisations are beginning to operationalise ocean-based climate solutions. Where available, the cited literature indicates that these actions are aligned with best practices and have the potential to deliver significant co-benefits for climate mitigation, biodiversity, and livelihoods if fully implemented.

Comment 2: On the conclusions, what is therefore achieved. By this paper? And what its impact/implication to theSDG framework as the ESG framework of a country?

Response 2: Thank you for this question. As an opinion piece, the paper does not present new empirical findings or evaluate the success of specific initiatives. Instead, its achievement lies in synthesising the most recent evidence on the mitigation potential of ocean-based climate solutions and identifying enabling actions required to realise this potential. By consolidating knowledge across seven key sectors, the paper provides a strategic overview and highlights opportunities for policy integration, finance, and governance. In terms of implications, the review demonstrates how ocean-based actions align with SDG 13 (Climate Action) and SDG 14 (Life Below Water), while also supporting co-benefits for other SDGs such as food security and energy. For ESG frameworks, the paper emphasises that effective implementation of these solutions depends on strong governance, equitable social outcomes, and transparent financial mechanisms: all core elements of ESG performance. The paper’s contribution is therefore conceptual and strategic, offering a roadmap for decision-makers rather than an assessment of project-level impacts.

Comment 3: Of all the changes made, what is now the primary objective of your paper? Was it achieved? How? 

Response 3: The primary objective of the paper is to present a review and synthesis of current knowledge on the role of ocean-based solutions in closing the climate emissions gap and to identify key actions needed to unlock this potential. This objective has been achieved by:

• Summarising the mitigation potential across seven ocean-based sectors.
• Highlighting enabling conditions such as finance, governance, and international cooperation.
• Discussing wider impacts and trade-offs to inform policy and practice.

The paper does not present new empirical findings but provides a comprehensive, evidence-based overview to guide decision-makers, researchers, and practitioners in mainstreaming ocean solutions into climate strategies.