When writing this commentary, it was difficult to decide upon a unifying theme. The system the authors have proposed is meant to be all-encompassing and seems to promise something (meaningful) for just about everyone. I also found their argument to be internally consistent – or at least consistent enough for me. Someone else may find inconsistencies or flaws in their argument, and I would not argue with such a critique. Moreover, many of the technical details are outside of my areas of expertise. So, for purposes of this commentary I accept the validity of the authors’ proposed system in terms its internal consistency. Nevertheless, this still leaves unanswered questions about how well this system will advance the various goals the authors have proposed. Such questions can be understood in terms of the potential their system has to achieve their stated goals (can it do what the authors claim it can), and in terms of how likely is it that the system will be used as the authors want it to be (will researchers actually use this system). Even if the answer to the first question is yes, this does not mean that the answer to the second question is also yes. Scientists know how to reduce carbon emissions; yet many countries do not implement policies that incorporate such knowledge.

中文翻译：

---

系统代表设计：万能药？并不真地。有用？大概。

在撰写这篇评论时，很难决定一个统一的主题。作者提出的系统旨在包罗万象，似乎对几乎每个人都有一些（有意义的）承诺。我还发现他们的论点在内部是一致的——或者至少对我来说足够一致。其他人可能会在他们的论点中发现不一致或缺陷，我不会反对这样的批评。此外，许多技术细节超出了我的专业领域。因此，出于本评论的目的，我接受作者提议的系统在其内部一致性方面的有效性。尽管如此，关于该系统将如何推进作者提出的各种目标，这仍然留下了悬而未决的问题。这些问题可以从他们的系统实现其既定目标的潜力（它能否做到作者声称的那样）以及系统按照作者希望的方式使用的可能性方面来理解是（研究人员是否会实际使用该系统）。即使第一个问题的答案是肯定的，这并不意味着第二个问题的答案也是肯定的。科学家知道如何减少碳排放；然而，许多国家并未实施纳入此类知识的政策。科学家知道如何减少碳排放；然而，许多国家并未实施纳入此类知识的政策。科学家知道如何减少碳排放；然而，许多国家并未实施纳入此类知识的政策。