Since there are no currently active contests, we have switched Climate CoLab to read-only mode.
Learn more at https://climatecolab.org/page/readonly.
Skip navigation
4comments
Share conversation: Share via:

Michael Hayes

Oct 2, 2015
06:21

Member


1 |
Share via:

I find Dr. dos Santos's focus upon using the INDC pledges as a pivot point in proposals to be a highly supportable strategy for addressing regional level challenges.

I became aware of the potential of using that strategy towards the end of this years national/regional challenges yet could not invest the time needed in doing the proper background research for each nation/region. Fortunately, Dr. dos Santos has discovered that logic on her own and is doing an outstanding job of bringing many important details to light through that strategy.

Excellent work Dr. dos Santos!

On a general note concerning marshalling funding knowledge for our mutual benefit as authors, I would like to suggest that we as authors begin to build an open library of green grant and green bond resources and knowledge. This could be done by simply posting green grant/bond information in a dummy proposal space which would be set up to be modified by all.

I'll start such an effort and I hope it is both a help to the other authors as well as a place to deposit knowledge which we can all use. If we can keep this library moving from one challenge to another and do so for years, the funding knowledge base could evolve into a powerful tool.

The working title will simply be "The Open Funding Knowledge Library"

Best regards.

  


Michael Hayes

Oct 13, 2015
04:06

Member


2 |
Share via:

A message to all national/regional plan authors:

There has been a recent change in the judging rules which greatly devalues (if not eliminates) any attempt by the authors to weave into their national/regional plans 'global scale' concepts. This rule change reads: "plans will not be advanced that offer a singular idea that can be applied globally."

This is simply illogical and wrong on multiple levels.

The below text will be inserted into my global plan as a protest concerning our rights as authors to think and write our own thoughts.

The use of logic should not be a negative/limiting factor in the judging of proposals! 

Global Plan Text within: The iWENN Carbon Negative Infrastructure Investment Strategy

The logical basis and the three key elements of a global plan proposal, as envisioned by the CoLab team, is stated as:

“Any comprehensive combination of actions to address climate change across the world as a whole must necessarily involve:

  • multiple sectors of the economy, especially segments of the energy and agricultural industries;

  • activity at multiple geographic levels (international, national, regional, and local),

  • interventions in the technical, biological, and geological systems that directly affect the earth’s carbon cycle as well as interventions in the economic and political systems, and behavioral patterns, that shape the relevant physical systems.”

The most seemingly logical and common sense approach to addressing the above widely diverse 3 problem sets first requires that the most common denominators, at the STEM problem set level, be isolated and that the most appropriate STEM solution(s) be adopted as the pivot or starting point for the balance of the global plan.

This reductionist approach to complex problem set evaluation and resolution is well understood and long recognized in multiple professional fields such as science, technology, engineering, business and policy development.

On the subject of ‘the most appropriate STEM solution’, in general, most well informed researchers now understand that the carbon emissions problem is so immense that there is now a critical need for large scale investments (trillions of dollars) in massive scale carbon negative infrastructure development programs. We need to remove, properly utilize and then sequester 10 trillion tons of carbon or the environment and thus society will become highly dysfunctional...within a few decades...not centuries.  

In simple words:logic encourages us to find a singular concept for managing vast amounts of carbon, which will require vast investments in infrastructure and such an idea is available through carbon negative technology.  

However, in this MIT Climate Colab Global Plan challenge, the CoLab team informs the authors that global plans will be rejected if they follow well accepted problem set evaluation and resolution logic.

As stated in a recent CoLab alert message to all Global Plan authors: “IMPORTANT **For example, plans will not be advanced that offer a singular idea that can be applied globally.”In view of how complex problems are routinely solved by most professionals,this judging standard and its logic should not be set aside lightly. It should be hurled with great force!

Michael


Michael Hayes

Oct 24, 2015
04:36

Member


3 |
Share via:

Alumni/VMS/CoLab Hybrid Initiative: Alumni Mentors Fast Tract CoLab Concept

 

The proposal authors may wish to review the above proposal for the creation of an alumni mentoring service and, if found to be logical, support it.

 

Best regards,

 

Michael


Michael Hayes

Dec 4, 2015
06:21

Member


4 |
Share via:

I would like to draw the attention of reader to the below 'Global Plan' which is currently in the last days of voting. Although my past work is used in this proposal and I have joined the team (and given my vote to the effort) many others have contributed. The following text was posted today within the Global Plan in support of the proposal and I ask all readers to spend a few minutes in reviewing the options and place your vote before the deadline.

The Global Plan: Make Climate a Top Priority for Action by Every Global Citizen and Organization is, without exception, the most well thought out, actionable and inclusive of any proposal ever submitted within the CoLab experiment and should be selected/supported by those that truly understand that we need such broad based efforts if we are to realistically challenge the power base which has brought us to this global scale point of collective suicide.

All of the other 4 Global Plan proposals, currently in the voting stage, are supported, either directly or indirectly, within this proposal (including my own) and thus voting for this highly inclusive plan would be supporting the entire spectrum of proposals.

In brief, we fundamentally need to rally around a comprehensive and inclusive central plan, such as this proposal offers, so that the effort(s) and funding can be focused with the most strength and done so in the shortest possible time: for time is not our ally in this life or death struggle.

To reject this proposal would be to be to reject the existential need to substantially confront the power base which threatens our very existence. 

In the simplest words: which side of the struggle do you wish to support?


Michael