Who Is Responsible for Embodied CO2?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
My comments were satisfyingly addressed by the author. There are now more details about the different methods of assessing GHG emissions. This significantly improves the value of this communication and the understanding for readers. I respect the decision to keep the parts about Ulrich Beck - I do not consider them unimportant, but was just thinking what could be shortened if the other part is extended. If both can be retained, this is the best solution.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for your revisions. This communication looks fine to me now.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents general information on GHG emission. There is no scientific contribution offered, however.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is accepted in the current format and I have no furthur comments.
Reviewer 3 Report
I missed the novelty of the paper. The section of methodology. Furthermore, the literature review is rather vague. I do not think that the structure of the paper is suitable for scientific paper. Authors should more expand the idea, describe the methods and provide serious discussion.
Reviewer 4 Report
I have added some grammatical corrections in the attached PDF (with mark up) and made two suggestions that the author may want to include (not obligatory).
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
The communication deals with the topic of how to account for embedded GHG emissions, i.e. emissions that occur through the production of goods but that are not reported by the "enduser" or consumer because the good was imported from another country or received by another company for further usage. The current reporting system of the Kyoto Protocol leaves the responsibility for emission with the producers. The author rightly identifies this as an unjust practice because rich countries and technologically more advances companies can outsource their emission intensive activities and important the pre-processed goods. The author suggests that more refined methods of assessing and reporting GHG emissions to COP are implemented at the upcoming COP 26 in Glasgow. This is an important and publishable message.
There are only three things to improve in the communication in my opinion:
- There are a lot of spelling issues in the text, they need to be addressed before publication
- I see an imbalance between the parts of the communication:
1) the most important core of the text, the suggested alternative methods of assessing GHG emission are described rather shortly and not much in detail – this part should be improved and more elaborated
2) On the other side, the part with Ulrich Beck and risks and un-goods is interesting but, I think, not necessary for this text and its message. I think it complicates things more than it would create clarity. The readership of the communication is very aware of the problems of measuring externalities, embedded emissions and double counting. So, I would not add just another terminology here, shorten this part and instead elaborate more on the other measuring methods like LCA and EEIO
Keep up the good work and good luck!
