Skip navigation

Please find below the judging results for your proposal.

Semi-Finalist Evaluation

Judges'' ratings


Novelty:
Feasibility:
Impact:
Presentation:

Judges'' comments


General notice to Geoengineering proposal authors:
After much consideration, the Judges have decided that the submitted proposals did not address the contest prompt sufficiently enough to warrant awarding Finalists or Winners. However, the entries did present interesting ideas, and so a number of proposals have been selected to re-open and edit their proposals during the revision period to continue to refine their work with the Judges’ feedback, as well as vie for an Honorable Mention award. The recipient will be invited to showcase their work at the Climate CoLab conference.

John:
This is an interesting and persuasive research proposal. But it doesn't seem to be in scope for this particular competition. It isn't a governance proposal (and the governance aspects of the entry are minor and unremarkable). So it isn't really possible to rate it meaningfully.

Ted:
This is an attractive, provocative, and well detailed answer to a different question than the one posed by this contest. In other words, it's great but it's not on topic.This contest seeks ideas re how to govern and control research into climate engineering. The proposal advocates a specific technical form of climate engineering.

Anita and Ben: We were also very impressed by the plan itself and would love to hear more about it. Note that John and Ted's comments were made with the contest question in mind, but both were impressed by the idea and expressed an interest in learning more. Moving forward we would all like to see more of the technical details. All of us were intrigued by the narrative proposal, but want to hear more of the technical details. We've included a few suggestions for expanding the proposal below, but we would love to hear more of the technical details on all fronts.

1. Has anyone attempted to quantify the likely benefits of these two strategies either for the specific case of Hudson Bay or more generally?

2. In the timeline portion of your proposal you note that research will need to be conducted. Has any related research been done, if so what kind of research still needs to be conducted to establish proof of concept?

3. Are there any side effects (ecological or otherwise) of these strategies that decisions makers would need to be aware in order to make an informed decision about the plan?

0comments
Share conversation: Share via:
No comments have been posted.