the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Drivers and implications of declining fossil fuel CO2 in Chinese cities revealed by radiocarbon measurements
Abstract. China’s clean air policies have successfully mitigated fossil fuel CO2 (CO2ff) emissions in bottom-up inventories since 2013. Yet, evidence from top-down measurements and their underlying drivers remains lacking. Here, we quantify CO2ff concentrations and fuel-specific contributions using atmospheric Δ(14CO2) and δ(13CO2) measurements across representative Chinese cities. We found distinct regional trends: megacities like Guangzhou show significant CO2ff declines (35 % decrease from 2011 to 2022) along with their source regions, while smaller cities have yet to demonstrate similar reductions. These improvements can be attributed to a 23 % coal consumption reduction, 17 % increased natural gas use (evidenced by stable isotope analysis), and improved combustion efficiency (indicated by 63 % falling RCO/CO2ff ratios). Notably, the three-decade observational record shows steeper declines in urban RCO/CO2ff ratios than inventory estimates, suggesting current emission inventories may underestimate combustion efficiency improvements and CO emission reductions relative to CO2ff mitigations. These findings indicate nationwide progress toward CO2ff emission peaks, with megacities leading the transition. They also underscore how coal-to-gas transitions and technological upgrades simultaneously advance air quality and climate goals. Importantly, our results highlight the critical need to integrate top-down observational frameworks (e.g. radiocarbon measurements) with traditional inventories to better capture rapid, policy-driven emission changes and inform future co-benefit optimization strategies.
- Preprint
(5673 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(53 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1931', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Aug 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1931', Anonymous Referee #2, 02 Sep 2025
I reviewed two previous versions of this manuscript that was submitted to another journal. This new version has incorporated some of my recommendations in a cursory way, but unfortunately major scientific flaws remain, and I have no choice but to recommend rejection of the paper. While this paper has very interesting data and results, the current presentation and interpretation is not of sufficient quality for publication.
Because these are so many major issues, I found it difficult to go line-by-line, instead giving my overall view of the paper:
- This paper presents a set of atmospheric ∆14C measurements, from which fossil fuel CO2 (CO2ff) can be calculated. The authors have made some problematic assumptions in their CO2ff calculation, particularly regarding the choice of background. Figure 3 shows very clearly that winds are very different in summer and winter in this region, and therefore using a single background site is likely to be problematic.
- The ∂13C analysis is difficult, because there is not much separation between isotopic values of sources, the biogenic CO2 ∂13C value is not well constrained, and the atmospheric signals are also small, which results in very large uncertainties of ~25% for the partitioning. Thus, the interpretations of changing source sectors made in Figure 5 are not valid.
- In the discussion of the CO2ff spatial variability shown in Figure 1, the authors seem to equate the patterns of CO2ff mole fractions to spatial patterns in emissions. Since mole fractions are influenced by emissions and atmospheric variability, there is no direct connection between mole fractions and emissions, and therefore this analysis is not valid. The authors include FLEXPART footprints (Figure 3), but do not attempt to use them to relate emissions to the observations – this would be a sensible way to make such a comparison.
- The authors compare their CO2ff mole fractions with other datasets measured in the same cities in earlier years, and claim that they can observe changes in CO2ff emission rates. Again, mole fractions are influenced by emissions and atmospheric variability, and for this comparison, the specific locations of the measurements much also be taken into consideration. Therefore this comparison is also not valid.
- The examination of CO:CO2ff ratios is more compelling, and the authors could reformulate a paper that removes the problematic points and focuses on these results.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1931-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
457 | 80 | 15 | 552 | 14 | 11 | 20 |
- HTML: 457
- PDF: 80
- XML: 15
- Total: 552
- Supplement: 14
- BibTeX: 11
- EndNote: 20
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1