Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript provides a comprehensive examination of the relationship between environmental management and decarbonization within the energy sector. It explores various strategies for sustainable development, including renewable energy adoption, CCSU, and circular economy principles. While the breadth of content covered is commendable, several areas require revision to enhance clarity and depth.

1.        The abstract might be streamlined to focus on key findings and implications, making it easier for readers to quickly grasp the paper's significance.

2.        The paper makes broad statements about the benefits of integrating environmental management with decarbonization strategies but lacks empirical data to substantiate these claims. Could the authors include case studies or quantitative data that demonstrate the effectiveness of these strategies in real-world settings?

3.        The literature review needs to be expanded to cover critical and recent studies that discuss the challenges and limitations of current decarbonization strategies and their practical implications in the energy sector. Could the authors discuss any conflicting evidence or critiques from the literature and how their findings address these critiques?

4.        While the manuscript offers policy recommendations, these are somewhat generic. Can the authors provide specific examples of policies that have successfully implemented similar frameworks, and discuss any lessons learned or challenges faced during their implementation?

 

Author Response

Please refer to attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

[1]. The introduction mentions terms like “carbon capture, storage, and utilization (CCSU) innovative technologies,” which could be expanded briefly with definitions or descriptions for a broader audience, especially those not specialized in the field.

[2]. Abbreviations such as "GHGs" (Greenhouse Gases) should be expanded at least once in the text for clarity before being used consistently. This improves accessibility for readers unfamiliar with the term.

[3]. Some sentences could be restructured for better flow. For instance, the abstract: “The paper discusses the environmental management and decarbonization nexus towards sustainable futures...” could be streamlined for clarity: “This paper discusses how the environmental management and decarbonization nexus contributes to sustainable futures...”.

[4]. The section headings could be more descriptive. For example, the "Introduction" is clear, but the heading for the "Discussion" section could better reflect its contents (e.g., "Sustainable Practices in Energy and Environmental Management").

[5]. While the introduction touches upon the importance of environmental management and decarbonization, a deeper contextual background on global energy sustainability trends and the urgency of decarbonization could enhance the paper. Consider referencing recent reports or statistics from global organizations to strengthen the context.

[6]. The literature review appears sparse. It would benefit from a more thorough survey of the existing body of research, particularly focusing on key case studies, technological innovations, or regional practices in decarbonization. This will provide a clearer understanding of the paper's contribution to the field.

[7]. The methodology section in the excerpt provided is either missing or underdeveloped. It's crucial to detail the research approach, whether it’s qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods, and explain the rationale behind choosing specific methods. This is essential for evaluating the credibility and reliability of the paper's findings.

[8]. If the paper includes data analysis, this needs to be made more explicit. Providing concrete data, case studies, or quantitative analysis would greatly strengthen the argument. For example, it would be valuable to show how specific decarbonization technologies (such as CCSU) impact sustainability metrics.

[9]. While the paper aims to discuss the nexus between environmental management and decarbonization, the actual connection between the two could be elaborated more. A clearer framework or model illustrating how these areas overlap or influence each other would make the argument more robust.

[10].         The paper introduces circular economy principles and green technologies but doesn’t fully explain how they can be practically implemented in energy sectors. It would be beneficial to provide detailed examples or case studies of successful applications.

 

[11].         The conclusion should more explicitly tie together the paper's main findings and contributions to the field of energy sustainability. Also, suggesting areas for future research would give the paper a forward-looking perspective, encouraging further exploration in this vital area. I also suggested some articles on DOIs to get some ideas from them (https://doi.org/10.1002/gj.4922 ,doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03315-9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2019.12.001, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03843-4)

Author Response

Please refer to attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1: This paper explores the intricate relationship between environmental management and decarbonization, demonstrating how these two areas can be effectively integrated to produce a wide-ranging framework for sustainability. The paper discusses the environmental management and decarbonization nexus towards sustainable futures in the energy sector through the conversion to green technologies, energy efficiency, and carbon capture, storage and utilization (CCSU) innovative technologies and infrastructures. The paper is not well-written and presented in an appropriate way. Also, the novelty of the paper is not clear. The reviewer has several concerns:

-The purpose of the study is not clear. It should be explained in detail. What are the differences from similar studies?

- The importance of the research topic and why it is being studied should be explained with justification

-. In fig.1, Please indicate what is CO₂ emission unit “t”.

-.Some latest studies on the topic may be added:

http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su16073033

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2023.101252

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.100991

-. The author did not discuss the important differences between the findings and other studies.

-.The style of Tables and Figures must be consistent throughout the article.. The concrete conclusions have not been drawn as per the carried-out study. Also, the limitations have not been highlighted that suggests the plausible exploration of the future research.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The writing and presentation of the paper are poor. Please clear the paper.

Author Response

Please refer to attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No more comments 

Author Response

please refer to attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Please read the manuscript carefully and clear it.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

*  The writing and presentation of the paper are poor. Please clear the paper.

Author Response

please refer to attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author,

The paper is ready for sunmission, but once again plaese go through the english in the whole manuscript. Thanks 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Dear Author,

The paper is ready for sunmission, but once again plaese go through the english in the whole manuscript. Thanks