Enablers of Carbon Neutrality in China’s Energy Sector: A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors explored the pivotal role of China in advancing clean energy, energy storage systems, and ultra-high voltage transmission technologies in response to global warming challenges. This article combines data and analytical discussion, but lacks theoretical depth and presents a relatively one-sided perspective. So it needs a major revision and the specific modifications are as follows.

(1) Organize the content more systematically by categorizing key topics, such as China's technological advancements, global cooperation, and climate policy. This would make the arguments easier to follow and more persuasive.

(2) The conclusion could also benefit from a discussion on future research areas or technological innovations that could further enhance China’s role in global climate change mitigation.

(3) The article summarizes the key enablers in China's energy sector in achieving carbon neutrality, with a greater emphasis on technological factors while neglecting policy and market factors, such as policy support and implementation, market mechanisms and investment, and the low-carbon economy. It is suggested that the author provide a more comprehensive perspective in the conclusion.

(4) A more detailed discussion of China’s role in global climate agreements and its impact on international energy markets would provide a more comprehensive perspective.

(5) It is recommended to enrich the reference list by including a wider range of recent studies, reports and international perspectives to strengthen the academic foundation and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.

(6) The format needs to be more standardized, as there are references in Chinese, which should be unified in English.

 

Author Response

(1) Organize the content more systematically by categorizing key topics, such as China's technological advancements, global cooperation, and climate policy. This would make the arguments easier to follow and more persuasive.

Response Comment 1. Thanks for pointing out this point. We found that the previous manuscript's analysis of how China emerged as a leader in various fields was too fragmented. Therefore, based on your suggestion, we added a chapter at the end to discuss this systematically.

(2) The conclusion could also benefit from a discussion on future research areas or technological innovations that could further enhance China’s role in global climate change mitigation.

Response to comment 2: Thank you to point out what we missed in the conclusion section. The authors enriched 4 area need be strengthen from a country level.

(3) The article summarizes the key enablers in China's energy sector in achieving carbon neutrality, with a greater emphasis on technological factors while neglecting policy and market factors, such as policy support and implementation, market mechanisms and investment, and the low-carbon economy. It is suggested that the author provide a more comprehensive perspective in the conclusion.

Response to comment 3 Thank you for this point and we combined this one with comment1， we commented this topic in additional Chapter 6.

（4） A more detailed discussion of China’s role in global climate agreements and its impact on international energy markets would provide a more comprehensive perspective.

Response Comment 4. Thank you for this point and we combined this one with comment1, In particular, it discusses the impact of China's climate change policies on the world.

5） It is recommended to enrich the reference list by including a wider range of recent studies, reports and international perspectives to strengthen the academic foundation and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.

Response Comment 5: Thank you for your comment. Some paragraph was written rung 2022 which make the content is out of date. We have update some lines/paragraphs in the manuscript, such as status of COP29 and carbon emission embedded in product

（6） The format needs to be more standardized, as there are references in Chinese, which should be unified in English.

Response: Thank you for your pointing out this point, and we have changed the format of the document entirely.  All cited material were translated into English.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

 

I would like to congratulate you on your work. The study is very pertinent and the aspects addressed certainly deserve to be published, first and foremost as a way of discerning our collective and individual responsibility with regard to greenhouse gas emissions, present and past, local or global, both from the perspective of the producer and that of the consumer, i.e. taking into account trade flows.

However, the manuscript is written in a defensive language, almost like a response to an unfair accusation, which however is not explicitly characterized in the literature review done. In fact, the study's motivations are unclear and writing it almost as a moral imperative is certainly an unsound scientific approach. The authors defend the need to revise the way China is seen in the West with regard to its efforts to control climate change, but this is done in a diffuse way that risks being interpreted almost as a propaganda effort, even if that is not the intention, and not as a scientific study, when the aspects addressed undoubtedly have merit and should be dealt with in more neutral language.

The question is in what forum there is such need, for reviewing the way China is seen in the West? In the academic community, in the media or in the sphere of political decision-makers, as a way of justifying government and regulatory action?

These actors are very different, with different responsibilities and interests, hence the importance and need to clarify in the literature review the actors and their points of view regarding China's role, which justifies the approach adopted by the authors when they state, regarding the objectives of the study: “This will clarify China's truth about global carbon emissions and increase global confidence in addressing climate change.”, line 24.

 

That said, some aspects should be improved to increase the visibility of the study and its scientific soundness:

1. Starting with the nature of the manuscript, that does not resemble that of a systematic literature review, but rather an article analyzing statistical data, the objectives of the study should be clarified;

2. The novelty of the study should be highlighted, against an adequate literature review that should demonstrate either a gap in the literature or an approach already existent that should be revised or improved;

3. In this regard, the study methodology should be presented explicitly;

4. The language used should be neutral and non-defensive, i.e., the merits of China’s efforts regarding climate change control and that of other geographical and economic spaces should be presented in a neutral factual manner, without any opinionative bias;

5. Also, whenever authors present statistical data, the sources consulted must be presented, either in the text or in the tables: by table if the source is the same, or line by line if the sources differ. This increases the reader's confidence in the study.

 

Best regards,

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English should be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

1. Starting with the nature of the manuscript, that does not resemble that of a systematic literature review, but rather an article analyzing statistical data, the objectives of the study should be clarified;

Response to comments 1: Thank you for pointing out this problem. The manuscript does have such a problem. We have added a paragraph in end of the first chapter to briefly explain the purpose and nature of this article: that is, to use analytical statistical data to analyze China's advantages in carbon neutrality. Thank you!

2. The novelty of the study should be highlighted, against an adequate literature review that should demonstrate either a gap in the literature or an approach already existent that should be revised or improved;
3. In this regard, the study methodology should be presented explicitly;
4. Response to comment 2&3. Thank you for your comment for the novelty and explicitly. The main objective of the manuscript is to study and summarize the China’s strength/enabler which could benefit global CO2 neutralization. And build confidence in public. But while the authors try to achieve such target, we find it’s quite difficult from tons of report, paper or news. So we collect and compare for more authoritative material we accept. As for study methodology novelty, is not main object at this manuscript. Anyway, we really appreciate for your comment that we will enrich this as next study direction.

The language used should be neutral and non-defensive, i.e., the merits of China’s efforts regarding climate change control and that of other geographical and economic spaces should be presented in a neutral factual manner, without any opinionative bias;

Response Comment 4: Totally we agree reviewer’s comment that the position of the paper should stay in a neutral factual manor, w/o bias. Appreciate it. We adjusted the tendency of many of the languages ​​in the article, deleted some potentially emotional sentences, weakened the stance and emphasized objectivity; especially the title of Chapter 2 and some statements.  To strengthen neutral position of the manuscript, we remove the paragraph of “DURATION FROM CARBON PEAKING TO NEUTRALIZATION”which could stimulate some image of aggressive idea.

5. Also, whenever authors present statistical data, the sources consulted must be presented, either in the text or in the tables: by table if the source is the same, or line by line if the sources differ. This increases the reader's confidence in the study.

Response to Comment 5: Thank you for pointing out this point. We have enriched necessary citation in the manuscript with proper position.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have achieved the set goal of the article, which is to explain the emission of carbon gases, i.e. reducing the emission of harmful elements from the point of view of the Chinese state, as well as highlighting the advantages that China's policy has on reducing the crisis and global warming. Considering that it is a review article, the reviewer believes that the paper has met all the requirements and is of sufficient quality in terms of social and academic contributions, and deserves to be published in the journal.

Author Response

The authors have achieved the set goal of the article, which is to explain the emission of carbon gases, i.e. reducing the emission of harmful elements from the point of view of the Chinese state, as well as highlighting the advantages that China's policy has on reducing the crisis and global warming. Considering that it is a review article, the reviewer believes that the paper has met all the requirements and is of sufficient quality in terms of social and academic contributions, and deserves to be published in the journal.

Response to comments: Thank you very much for the reviewer's comments and praise! Your evaluation has given us a lot of encouragement and confidence in our future work!

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

 

I would like to congratulate you on your efforts. You have improved the manuscript and it deserves to be publicly acknowledged, although some of the points raised previously have not been addressed in a fully consistent manner. 

 

That said, I would highlight just a few minor aspects that can easily be revised and should be:

1) In line 731, where it says “The author believes that (...)”, singular subject, it should read “The authors believe that (...)”, plural subject, no?

2) Another aspect is the somewhat bold statement, almost bordering on wishful thinking, that the 1.5ºC warming target can still be achieved, line 732, when many authors have already stated that this scenario is unrealistic. Perhaps you could elaborate a little more on this statement, because as it is written, it seems a little naive and out of touch with the current global context.

 

Best regards,

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English should be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

1) In line 731, where it says “The author believes that (...)”, singular subject, it should read “The authors believe that (...)”, plural subject, no?

Response to Comment 1: Thank you very much for pointing out this grammar error carefully. It is indeed a problem. And the authors read through the entire manuscript to make every effort to address similar issues as much as possible.

2) Another aspect is the somewhat bold statement, almost bordering on wishful thinking, that the 1.5ºC warming target can still be achieved, line 732, when many authors have already stated that this scenario is unrealistic. Perhaps you could elaborate a little more on this statement, because as it is written, it seems a little naive and out of touch with the current global context.

Response to Comment 2: Your comment is correct. We may have been a bit wishful and unrealistic, but the authors' hope of using this article to boost public opinion is too idealistic now. For this reason, we have made minor revisions to this language. Thank you!

Note: we have move these 2 sentences to 1442  in the new revision.

Appreciate for your great help!