- Review: found
Review of 'A virtual global carbon price enabling engineers to drive essential and rapid decarbonization'
Average rating: | Rated 2.5 of 5. |
Level of importance: | Rated 3 of 5. |
Level of validity: | Rated 2 of 5. |
Level of completeness: | Rated 2 of 5. |
Level of comprehensibility: | Rated 2 of 5. |
Competing interests: | None |
Reviewed article
- Record: found
- Abstract: found
- Article: found
A virtual global carbon price enabling engineers to drive essential and rapid decarbonization
Review information
Review text
Please find below my comments on the paper
Title: A virtual global carbon price enabling engineers to drive essential and rapid decarbonization
The abstract states that our energy generation must be switched to RE within the next 30 years. This is not very accurate as eneregy generation via fossil fuel will still be made, but at a reduced level. Also, please remove citation (Clarke and Maslin, 2022) from the abstract.
The Introduction section is rather short and does not offer clear description/discussion of the research problem and does not offer motivations for the study. what is the research query/questions?
Discussion of data lacks coherance. why such data was collected? links between the research query and data is key
Discussion of Methods: [Secondly, to ensure continuing best practice it will be necessary, from the very start, to link the carbon prices to all energy types and not just fossil fuels.] It is not clear how and why apply cabon prices on RE options. Energy generated by RE does not result in emissions.
Carbon Pricing and Engineering: [An alternative approach is to address the loss and damage caused by CO₂ specifically] alternative to what?
you need to explain what you mean by [loss and damage-based carbon price], also to justfiy you suggestion that this approach to be used. how the damage will be estimated? much subjectivity may involve much subjectivity - needs further discussion.
what is really lacking from this study is a discussion of similar and related literature.
In this discussion section [On every board and division, there needs to be an executive level officer who is responsible for transition compliance and lifecycle engineering.] this suggestion is not based on emperical evidence. it is a mere suggestion, and therefore needs to be removed from this section.
the four recommendations need to be reviewed and aligned with the emperical results of the paper
Overall, I found this a rather weak article, however for an online publishing it may be fit but only after being reviweed and strengthened further