National Limits of Sustainability: The Czech Republic’s CO2 Emissions in the Perspective of Planetary Boundaries
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please, remove from the abstract the acronyms you have not define yet (Line 24).
Line 31; remove “,” after “21st”.
The introduction needs to be revised and new references added. For instance, bioeconomy (line 39) has only one reference.
Line 39-40; rephrase the sentence, as it is incoherent.
Line 54; please give few examples of the “irreversible environmental changes” you are referring to.
Line 101; what is the purpose of the reference no. 24 here?
Line 115; add a full stop at the end of the sentence.
Line 125; would replacing parentheses with brackets be more suitable here?
Line 176; the selection of the indicator cannot be based on somebody else’s literature review. Delete this and add your references.
Line 182; is the Ref. 42 correctly used here?
Line 199; “set as” should be replaced with “set to”. Also, check lines 354 and 464.
Make sure to refer to all tables within the manuscript.
Line 249-251; please, rewrite the sentence to be clearer.
Line 265-266; only one reference is here, but the authors mention “numerous studies”. Please, add more references.
Line 275, could “authors’” be omitted?
Line 283; “Methods and Data” should be replaced with “Materials and Methods”.
Line 285; “rise to” should be replaced with “rise of”.
Line 288; please be specific about the references that were “cited in the Introduction section”.
Line 305-311; I suggest the recommendations for future studies to be placed at the end of the Discussion section.
Line 316; delete “it” from the sentence.
Line 362; “could” should be placed after “the Czech Republic”.
Line 366; please, write a short note on Visegrad Group.
Line 371-374; rewrite the sentence, specify the model, explain the figure clearly.
Line 388; would “policy” instead of “document’s” be more appropriate?
Line 389; add “off” before “32”, and “,” after “2030”.
Line 397; is the source defined correctly?
Line 406; suggestion: change “under all models’ scenarios” for “in all scenarios”.
Line 435; isn’t this the Discussion section?
Line 444; “also” could be omitted.
Line 481; this should be “Table 5”.
Paragraphs from line 471 to 489 could be moved to the Results section.
The conclusion needs to be revised.
Line 491; add “that” before “the GDP”. Also, “more complete” should be replaced with a more appropriate adjective.
Line 494; what is the meaning of “formulaic” here?
Line 497; is “above 2°C”correct? Could it be “by more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels”?
Line 507-508; could “regarding” be replaced with “with respect to”?
Line 510-511; could “is being met” be replaced with “could be met”?
Be consistent with the acronyms throughout the article.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
it is a very nice paper related to Sustainability and valuable for Czech Republic. The layout and content is clear and clean. My general comments are the following:
- Check again the references.
- Check the units
- Check the tables
Also I would like to read a few lines on the global scale at the conclusions.
