Climate Change Mitigation vs. Renewable Energy Consumption and Biomass Demand

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think the paper you wrote is significant in that it comprehensively shows the material and energy substitution effects of wood use at the EU national level. I think it has provided a basis for policy promotion by potentially estimating the expected greenhouse gas reduction effect due to the bioeconomy transition. However, I think a more specific approach should be taken in the analysis method. I would like to offer a few comments for the publication of a better paper.

1. (5p) I think the scope of wood products presented as the analysis target in the materials and methods should be more clearly distinguished. First, among the biomass used for energy, are those generated outside of forests such as agriculture excluded? Second, the material substitution unit is carbon/carbon, and 1.2 is applied. I wonder if the unit was converted or to what value. Third, does the meaning of wood residue refer to branches or low-quality logs left after wood harvest? Additional explanation is needed as to whether it includes byproducts generated in the wood product production process.

2. (6p) It seems that the substitution effect was applied based on the entire wood product in the analysis. However, I think that considering all existing wood products that were essential as targets of the substitution effect is the cause of excessive results. If possible, it would be more reasonable to exclude them or to target only products above the baseline based on past usage trends.

3. (8p) If the substitution effect is considered equally at the level of total greenhouse gas emissions, concerns about redundancy are expected. It is assumed that emissions from the concrete and steel sectors have indirectly decreased as wood use has increased, so if the substitution effect is added to this, I think double counting will occur.

4. (12p) The conclusion section only summarizes and organizes the previous results. In order to supplement the fact that the research results were analyzed from a macroscopic perspective, it is judged that the description of the limitations of the research and future research plans should be supplemented.

Author Response

1st reviewer:

I think the paper you wrote is significant in that it comprehensively shows the material and energy substitution effects of wood use at the EU national level. I think it has provided a basis for policy promotion by potentially estimating the expected greenhouse gas reduction effect due to the bioeconomy transition. However, I think a more specific approach should be taken in the analysis method. I would like to offer a few comments for the publication of a better paper.

 

Thank you for overall positive attitude towards presented ideas and suggestions for manuscript improvement. Changes made according to Your suggestions are provided below and marked yellow in the manuscript.

 

1. (5p) I think the scope of wood products presented as the analysis target in the materials and methods should be more clearly distinguished. First, among the biomass used for energy, are those generated outside of forests such as agriculture excluded? Second, the material substitution unit is carbon/carbon, and 1.2 is applied. I wonder if the unit was converted or to what value. Third, does the meaning of wood residue refer to branches or low-quality logs left after wood harvest? Additional explanation is needed as to whether it includes byproducts generated in the wood product production process.

Comment is taken into account, to clarify harvested wood products analysed amendments of the methodology section are done. In this study only forest land biomass is included into analysis. Substitution factor 1.2 (Leskinen et al., 2018) was applied and carbon removals (t C) afterwards calculated into CO₂ based on ratio CO₂/C. Harvested wood products residues are considered as waste after their primary function for material substitution is met.  

 

2. (6p) It seems that the substitution effect was applied based on the entire wood product in the analysis. However, I think that considering all existing wood products that were essential as targets of the substitution effect is the cause of excessive results. If possible, it would be more reasonable to exclude them or to target only products above the baseline based on past usage trends.

 

Harvested wood products in the study are considered as reported in the National Inventory submissions under the UNFCCC requirements. This represents the volume of harvested wood products, particularly sawn wood, wood-based panels and paper and paperboard.

 

3. (8p) If the substitution effect is considered equally at the level of total greenhouse gas emissions, concerns about redundancy are expected. It is assumed that emissions from the concrete and steel sectors have indirectly decreased as wood use has increased, so if the substitution effect is added to this, I think double counting will occur.

The substitution effect allows to see the whole picture of LULUCF contribution to GHG mitigation in other sectors. Accounting only for LULUCF GHG, the potential risk of double counting is minimal. But we agree that including substitution effect in national accounts can rise some double counting issues. The need of further development of substitution effect accounting methods is acknowledged in the discussion section, lines 381 – 384, and in the conclusions.

4. (12p) The conclusion section only summarizes and organizes the previous results. In order to supplement the fact that the research results were analyzed from a macroscopic perspective, it is judged that the description of the limitations of the research and future research plans should be supplemented.

Thank you for this suggestion, limitation section is added as well as future research plans are elaborated. We have added a separate section on limitations. Future research plans are included in the conclusion section.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments.

Since the manuscript was not numbered, it was had for me to refer to a particular concern that needed to be addressed. How ever I made most of my comment in the attached PDF that I have reviewed.

The author has done a detailed study on how we can improve the use of our bioresources and reduce GHGS without compromising our forests. However, some concerns need to be addressed to make the work more precise.

Below are my concerns, and the one attached also has some concerns that need to be addressed.

1. The author could have numbered the manuscript for easy reference.
2. The author could describe in a little detail the method that was used to measure the decoupling trend in the abstract.
3. The description of the data, the method or approach used for the data extraction, has not been clearly explained. What information was extracted from the UNNFCC database, the kind of variables that were extracted, how it was extracted, and the software or programs that were used for the data extraction should be explained in detail.
4. How the data analysis was carried out is missing.

 

4. Why not compare LULUCF GHG removals and Total GHG emissions, or Final energy consumption and Share of renewable energy for direct decoupling effects assessment? I see that measuring GDP and GHG does not really match.

 

5. It will be ideal to present the 27 countries with their GDP and their energy consumption pattern, backed by literature in the methodology section, to give a fair idea of these countries.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This can be improved

Author Response

2^nd reviewer:

Since the manuscript was not numbered, it was had for me to refer to a particular concern that needed to be addressed. How ever I made most of my comment in the attached PDF that I have reviewed.

The author has done a detailed study on how we can improve the use of our bioresources and reduce GHGS without compromising our forests. However, some concerns need to be addressed to make the work more precise.

Thank you for expressing overall positive attitude towards our research. The responses to Yous comments and suggestions are provided below, changes marked yellow in the manuscript text.

1. The author could have numbered the manuscript for easy reference.

Suggestion is taken into account; manuscript is numbered for easier navigation.

2. The author could describe in a little detail the method that was used to measure the decoupling trend in the abstract.

The short description of how decoupling was evaluated is provided in lines 205-208, in the method section.

3. The description of the data, the method or approach used for the data extraction, has not been clearly explained. What information was extracted from the UNNFCC database, the kind of variables that were extracted, how it was extracted, and the software or programs that were used for the data extraction should be explained in detail.

Corresponding information is added into methods section.  

4. How the data analysis was carried out is missing.

The following is added to the methods section: The data analysis was carried out using MS Excel and IBM SPSS. To present decoupling trends, corresponding data was recalculated in relation to 1990-year level. To plot wood extraction in contrast to the share of renewables, changes in % over 2010 – 2020 period were calculated.

5. Why not compare LULUCF GHG removals and Total GHG emissions, or Final energy consumption and Share of renewable energy for direct decoupling effects assessment? I see that measuring GDP and GHG does not really match. 

We added shortly on final energy consumption decoupling from GDP and changes in total GHG emissions and LULUCF GHG removals in section 4.1. Some indicated interrelationships are already shortly discussed in section 4.2. We think, that decoupling of resource use and environmental pollution from GDP (economy) is valuable indicator.

6. It will be ideal to present the 27 countries with their GDP and their energy consumption pattern, backed by literature in the methodology section, to give a fair idea of these countries.

We agree that this would be helpful to have the full picture, however, this might overload results section. Nevertheless, we will consider this suggestion for future research.

Comments from PDF:

7. Why 2021 not added? in in the first paragraph for the periods? or does it mean the EU database has it only upto 2020?

Year 2020 were selected as the latest to show in the result section since some of the indicators from the Eurostat database were indeed only up to 2020.

8. This graph (i.e. Figure 6) should have the full name or have a legend for the list of coutries. I will recommend it haveing the same name pattern as Fig 3.

Thank You for the suggestion, we decided to keep the names of the countries in abbreviations for better visibility of the results.

The rest of the editorial suggestions of the reviewer 2 provided in the PDF file were at least partially taken into account in the revised text of the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Climate change mitigation vs. renewable energy consumption and biomass demand

The paper assesses whether climate change mitigation and bioeconomy goals are compatible from the LULUCF perspective on EU level. It is a very interesting topic. The authors analysed in the detail substitution effect if woody biomass extracted from forest is used instead of fossil fuels as well as wood substitution for other materials.

However, several issues need to be addressed before the paper can be considered for publication:

• It would be appropriate in the introduction to establish scientific hypotheses according to the substitution effect. The scientific hypotheses that were to be achieved through the analyses and would be evaluated in the discussions, it would contribute to a more scientific paper
• 7 the last paragraph, third line, says food fuel and it should probably be wood fuel
• 11 second and third paragraph, different font size
• the Discussion part is very poor, in my opinion, broader discussion about the achieved results, which are interesting, is missing in this chapter
• the manuscript, after minor revision, is worth publishing

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

3rd reviewer

The paper assesses whether climate change mitigation and bioeconomy goals are compatible from the LULUCF perspective on EU level. It is a very interesting topic. The authors analysed in the detail substitution effect if woody biomass extracted from forest is used instead of fossil fuels as well as wood substitution for other materials.

Thank you for expressing overall positive attitude towards our research. Responses to Your comments and suggestions are provided below, changes marked yellow in the manuscript text.

1. It would be appropriate in the introduction to establish scientific hypotheses according to the substitution effect. The scientific hypotheses that were to be achieved through the analyses and would be evaluated in the discussions, it would contribute to a more scientific paper.

We have considered this suggestion, however, decided to add research question instead.

2. 7 the last paragraph, third line, says food fuel and it should probably be wood fuel

Thank You, mistake is now corrected.

3. 11 second and third paragraph, different font size

Thank You, font size corrected.

4. the Discussion part is very poor, in my opinion, broader discussion about the achieved results, which are interesting, is missing in this chapter.

We have expanded discussion a little bit.

5. the manuscript, after minor revision, is worth publishing.

Thank You for the overall positive suggestion.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

(1) Please add the research objective and the structure of the paper in the introduction.

(2) The literature review lacks a clear structure. Please reorganize it to highlight the innovation of your research through a systematic review of the literature, and clarify how your study differs from existing research.

(3) It is recommended to supplement the latest data from 2021 to 2023.

(4) In some countries, LULUCF carbon sinks have decreased significantly. The analysis of the underlying causes is insufficient.

(5) Please expand the discussion to include the theoretical and practical significance of the research, as well as its limitations and future prospects.

(6) The paper lacks relevant policy recommendations. Please propose appropriate policies based on your findings and discuss how your recommendations may affect other regions.

Author Response

4th reviewer

Responses to Your comments and suggestions are provided below, changes marked yellow in manuscript text.

• Please add the research objective and the structure of the paper in the introduction.

 

The comment is taken into account. Objective and paper structure are presented in the introduction.

 

• The literature review lacks a clear structure. Please reorganize it to highlight the innovation of your research through a systematic review of the literature, and clarify how your study differs from existing research.

 

Relevance of the study and differences from the other studies are added at the end of the literature review.

 

(3) It is recommended to supplement the latest data from 2021 to 2023.

Thank You for the suggestion, update with the latest data is planned for future research.

(4) In some countries, LULUCF carbon sinks have decreased significantly. The analysis of the underlying causes is insufficient.

Some insights of the causes of decreasing forest land (and in turn – LULUCF sector as a whole) carbon sinks were added to the section 4.4 of the manuscript.

(5) Please expand the discussion to include the theoretical and practical significance of the research, as well as its limitations and future prospects.

Theoretical and practical significance is added into discussion section. Limitation section is added; some prospects are included in the conclusion.

(6) The paper lacks relevant policy recommendations. Please propose appropriate policies based on your findings and discuss how your recommendations may affect other regions.

We agree with this comment, but we have decided to limit this suggestion to some policy directions, presenting them shortly in the discussion section.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It appears to have been properly corrected.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Modify to meet the employment standards.