Since there are no currently active contests, we have switched Climate CoLab to read-only mode.
Learn more at
Skip navigation

Please find below the judging results for your proposal.

Finalist Evaluation

Judges'' comments

This proposal was not advanced to the Finalist round.

Comments from Judges:
This is an interesting and new approach that builds upon the idea of energy consumption "contests" among entities, e.g., dormitories.

We found that the proposal lacks a level of explanation and substance needed to really evaluate its effectiveness and impact. One question that arose was, how do you ensure a high enough participation in order to be truly effective? (As participation is voluntary, as with most opt-in approaches, we would expect participation to be very low.)

Another point is consider is that we would expect the parties who would decide to participate to be largely over-represented by people who are already heavily invested in energy efficiency/sustainability.

Semi-Finalist Evaluation

Judges'' ratings


Judges'' comments

The idea is a good one. Games have long been shown to be a motivator for all kinds of human activity. Would households pay for a "bet" even if they were interested in saving energy? Where would the money come from to pay for winners? Would it come from the money paid for in bets? That seems unfeasible given that the game is likely to feature a high percentage of highly motivated participants, such that far more than one out of thirty are likely to succeed. How would savings be determined? Indeed, it seems as though most of the savings are likely to come from deprivation, such as living in the backyard in a tent for a few months. Where would the money come from to pay for expensive efficiency improvements like new windows? To give my thoughts on the individual judging categories, there are companies in the US that run games to drive utility efficiency program savings, so the idea is not completely novel, although it does take a slightly different form. How it would work is only described in sketchy language, such that I can't tell if it's workable or not. Far too many details are left unaccounted for, even given the format of the application. The idea is indeed appealing, but the submission is far from clear or appealing. Given the entrant's enthusiasm, I'd suggest trying it out on a small scale, such as with a single group of families.

Share conversation: Share via:
No comments have been posted.