Innovative Solutions for Combating Climate Change: Advancing Sustainable Energy and Consumption Practices for a Greener Future

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper addresses an important issue and is, generally speaking, rather well constructed. The model is sometimes not very clearly illustrated and there are some passages that would require more synthesis and clarity.

There are also a few redundancies and repetitions that should be avoided.

A significant revision of the structure and narrative of the paper would certainly help readers focus on the main messages of the paper. I would encourage a resubmission.

Specific observations.

55. 2, Line 55. I would not argue that it concerns only the reduction of carbon emissions, but the reduction of all negative externalities related t the production and consumption of goods and services.
56. 3, lines 125 ff. I agree that anticipating some findings of the paper may guide the reader, but presenting the figure with a scale towards renewables is a bit too much… It is like suggesting that there is no need in reading the paper, as conclusions are there already.

Furthermore, in the introduction I would stick to the introducing the topic, not to presenting detailed descriptions like the figures displayed.

I would introduce the methodology (1.2 and 1.3) but that is all.

1. 3, lines 189-198 redundant. Erase.

Lines 207-208. Why a specific box? Why not in the text? It does not seem to be something which the reader might skip…

Paragraph 2.1. is a bit naif…

The model is presented in a very extensive and sometimes redundant way. I would stick to the presentation of the different parts of the model, avoiding repetitions of concepts.

Pages 24 and following are presented in a not very clear way.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Your insightful comments and constructive suggestions have been invaluable in enhancing the quality and clarity of our work. We have carefully considered each of your suggestions and have made the necessary revisions to address your concerns.

In the following of this document, we have provided detailed responses to each of your comments. Adjustments made in the main manuscript are in green color to facilitate your review. We hope that these revisions meet your expectations and improve the overall quality of our research.

Comments 1:

“The paper addresses an important issue and is, generally speaking, rather well constructed. The model is sometimes not very clearly illustrated and there are some passages that would require more synthesis and clarity.”

Response 1:

We added the following text.

“Climate change presents one of the most significant challenges of the 21st century, necessitating urgent and innovative solutions to mitigate its adverse effects. The transition to sustainable energy systems is critical to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, conserving natural resources, and ensuring long-term environmental stability. This study explores sustainability-driven technological advancements, policy interventions, and economic strategies designed to combat climate change. The research focuses on the role of renewable energy, energy efficiency optimization, and sustainable resource management in achieving a low-carbon economy. By analyzing the effectiveness of different sustainability approaches, this paper aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of innovative solutions that can drive meaningful change in climate action and environmental stewardship.”

Comments 2:

“There are also a few redundancies and repetitions that should be avoided.”

Response 2:

We avoided repetitions. Foe example:

Lines 189-198: Removed redundant text that restated previously covered information.

Lines 207-208: Integrated the content from a previously boxed section directly into the main text for improved readability and coherence.

Paragraph 2.1: Refined the discussion of renewable energy solutions, making it more precise and eliminating vague statements.

Model Explanation: The model’s structure has been streamlined to remove unnecessary repetitions while maintaining a clear and logical presentation of its components.

Comments 3:

“55. 2, Line 55. I would not argue that it concerns only the reduction of carbon emissions, but the reduction of all negative externalities related to the production and consumption of goods and services.”

Response 3:

We added the paragraph given below.

“Its primary objective is to harmonize economic growth with ecological sustainability through practices like the widespread adoption of renewable energy, the advancement of green technologies, and the implementation of sustainable production and consumption systems.”

Comments 4:

56. 3, lines 125 ff. I agree that anticipating some findings of the paper may guide the reader, but presenting the figure with a scale towards renewables is a bit too much… It is like suggesting that there is no need in reading the paper, as conclusions are there already.”

Response 4:

We added a paragraph before the figure.

Comments 5:

“I would introduce the methodology (1.2 and 1.3) but that is all. 1. 3, lines 189-198 redundant. Erase.”

Response 5:

We changed these lines. You can see below:

“In the revised introduction, we explicitly establish the link between energy optimization and circular economy principles by explaining how circular economy strategies, such as recycling and waste-to-energy technologies, enhance energy efficiency and contribute to reducing reliance on fossil fuels. This integration highlights their combined role in mitigating climate change.”

Comments 6:

“Lines 207-208. Why a specific box? Why not in the text? It does not seem to be something which the reader might skip…”

Response 6:

In order to emphasize the importance of the subject, the text "Pomoting Sustainability through Technology, Energy Efficiency, and Environmental Conservation" is given in the text box. We explained it briefly in the paragraph below the text box.

Comments 7:

“Paragraph 2.1. is a bit naif…”

Response 7:

We tried to change it. “Refined the discussion of renewable energy solutions, making it more precise and eliminating vague statements. Model Explanation: The model’s structure has been streamlined to remove unnecessary repetitions while maintaining a clear and logical presentation of its components.”

 Comments 8:

“The model is presented in a very extensive and sometimes redundant way. I would stick to the presentation of the different parts of the model, avoiding repetitions of concepts.”

Response 8:

We tried to avoid repetitions of concepts. We have changed this section. You can see in the manuscript.

Comments 9:

“Pages 24 and following are presented in a not very clear way.”

Response 9:

We tried to explain it detailed in the page. You can see in the manuscript.

 

Final Comment:

We believe these revisions have significantly improved the clarity and robustness of our manuscript. Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.

Best regards.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a comprehensive investigation into sustainable energy solutions and optimization strategies to combat climate change, leveraging genetic algorithms (GA) and regional data analysis. The integration of computational methods with policy recommendations offers valuable insights into renewable energy adoption and environmental-economic trade-offs. However, several areas require clarification, methodological rigor, and expanded discussion to strengthen the paper's contribution and applicability.

1. The introduction mentions both energy optimization and circular economy practices but does not explicitly link these themes in the research objectives. Clarify how the study cohesively addresses these interconnected topics and their combined impact on climate mitigation.
2. The GA implementation details (e.g., population size, crossover/mutation rates, termination criteria) are insufficiently described. Provide a full parameter set and justify their selection to ensure reproducibility.
3. The analysis aggregates data across continents but does not address intra-regional variability (e.g., Africa’s diverse energy landscapes). Disaggregate results or justify the continental-scale approach to enhance policy relevance.
4. The literature review should be upgraded adding the latest development in literature. The following studies should be added: doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2025.134902; doi.org/10.3390/en16031328.
5. The circular economy section (Section 2.4) is underdeveloped compared to energy optimization. Expand on specific case studies or metrics (e.g., recycling rates, material flow analyses) to demonstrate its role in reducing emissions.
6. The assumption that public-sector R&D capital remains constant (Section 4.6) is unrealistic. Discuss how fluctuations in R&D funding might impact the model’s projections.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Your insightful comments and constructive suggestions have been invaluable in enhancing the quality and clarity of our work. We have carefully considered each of your suggestions and have made the necessary revisions to address your concerns.

In the following of this document, we have provided detailed responses to each of your comments. Adjustments made in the main manuscript are in green color to facilitate your review. We hope that these revisions meet your expectations and improve the overall quality of our research.

Comments 1:

“The paper presents a comprehensive investigation into sustainable energy solutions and optimization strategies to combat climate change, leveraging genetic algorithms (GA) and regional data analysis. The integration of computational methods with policy recommendations offers valuable insights into renewable energy adoption and environmental-economic tradeoffs. However, several areas require clarification, methodological rigor, and expanded discussion to strengthen the paper's contribution and applicability.”

Response 1:

Thank you very much your contribution. We have made the corrections you specified in the manuscript.

Comments 2:

“The introduction mentions both energy optimization and circular economy practices but does not explicitly link these themes in the research objectives. Clarify how the study cohesively addresses these interconnected topics and their combined impact on climate mitigation.”

Response 2:

We acknowledge the need for a clearer integration of these themes. In the revised introduction, we explicitly establish the link between energy optimization and circular economy principles by explaining how circular economy strategies, such as recycling and waste-to-energy technologies, enhance energy efficiency and contribute to reducing reliance on fossil fuels. This integration highlights their combined role in mitigating climate change.

Comments 3:

“The GA implementation details (e.g., population size, crossover/mutation rates, termination criteria) are insufficiently described. Provide a full parameter set and justify their selection to ensure reproducibility.”

Response 3:

We have expanded the methodology section to include a detailed table specifying GA parameters, including population size, crossover and mutation rates, and termination criteria. Additionally, we provide a justification for the chosen parameters based on prior studies and experimental optimization.

Comments 4:

“The analysis aggregates data across continents but does not address intra-regional variability (e.g., Africa’s diverse energy landscapes). Disaggregate results or justify the continental scale approach to enhance policy relevance.”

Response 4:

We now provide a justification for the continental-scale approach while acknowledging regional differences. Where possible, we have disaggregated data to highlight sub-regional variations, particularly within Africa, to reflect distinct energy landscapes. Additionally, we include case studies demonstrating policy responses in different regions.

Comments 5:

“The literature review should be upgraded adding the latest development in literature. The following studies should be added: doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2025.134902; doi.org/10.3390/en16031328.”

Response 5:

We have added the resources you suggested to the relevant places. Thank you for your suggestions.

Introduction

The authors discuss how integrating multiple renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind, and biomass, can enhance energy reliability and efficiency in off-grid and rural areas. They highlight key challenges in energy systems modeling, including technological, economic, and policy-related barriers to HRES implementation. The study emphasizes the need for advanced modeling techniques to optimize system design and economic feasibility, ensuring a balance between environmental sustainability and energy accessibility. The authors conclude that effective policy frameworks and strategic investments are essential for scaling up HRES solutions and achieving long-term sustainability in rural energy supply [6].

4.1. A Step-by-Step Methodology for Analyzing Renewable Energy Trends: Data Collection, Emissions, Efficiency, and Sustainable Consumption

investigates the impact of market-based energy allocation mechanisms, specifically energy quota trading, on regional energy efficiency. Utilizing a quasi-natural experimental design, the authors analyze spatial effects to understand how such market-based ap-proaches influence energy utilization across different regions. The study provides empiri-cal evidence on the effectiveness of energy quota trading systems in enhancing energy effi-ciency, offering valuable insights for policymakers aiming to implement market-based energy allocation strategies [74].

Comments 6:

“The circular economy section (Section 2.4) is underdeveloped compared to energy optimization. Expand on specific case studies or metrics (e.g., recycling rates, material flow analyses) to demonstrate its role in reducing emissions.”

Response 6:

We have significantly expanded the circular economy section by incorporating specific case studies that illustrate successful implementations of circular economy principles in reducing emissions. We also include metrics such as recycling rates and material flow analyses to quantify their impact.

Comments 7:

“The assumption that public-sector R&D capital remains constant (Section 4.6) is unrealistic. Discuss how fluctuations in R&D funding might impact the model’s projections.”

Response 7:

We have revised the discussion to account for potential fluctuations in public-sector R&D funding and its implications for model projections. A sensitivity analysis has been included to illustrate how variations in R&D investments could influence renewable energy adoption and technological advancements.

We have also added a separate explanation regarding the data in the appendix.

The appendices provide additional data and projections that support the findings of this study. They include:

Table A1: Realized and optimal values of the share of renewable energy from 2000 to 2025, demonstrating the gap between actual trends and ideal targets.

Table A2: Growth rates of renewable energy over the same period, comparing realized and projected optimal growth under different environmental scenarios.

Table A3: A combined dataset showing fossil energy growth, renewable energy share, and economic production forecasts, offering a comprehensive outlook on energy development.

These tables are referenced throughout the text where applicable to substantiate key arguments and highlight trends in renewable energy adoption and its economic implications. Readers interested in detailed numerical data supporting the discussion in the main text are encouraged to consult these appendices.

 

Final Comment:

We believe these revisions have significantly improved the clarity and robustness of our manuscript. Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for at least ackowledging my remarks.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Your insightful comments and constructive suggestions have been invaluable in enhancing the quality and clarity of our work. We have carefully considered each of your suggestions and have made the necessary revisions to address your concerns.
We believe these revisions have significantly improved the clarity and robustness of our manuscript. Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.
Best regards.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Your insightful comments and constructive suggestions have been invaluable in enhancing the quality and clarity of our work. We have carefully considered each of your suggestions and have made the necessary revisions to address your concerns.
We believe these revisions have significantly improved the clarity and robustness of our manuscript. Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.
Best regards.