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.

Semi-Finalist Evaluation

Judges'' comments

There is a real opportunity in exploring the basic concept outlined here, but more work needs to be done to understand the cost, benefits, opportunities and barriers to implementation. Specifically, below are some thoughts to consider in relation to refining this proposal for subsequent re-submission to this contest:

• The proposal rests on the assumption that we can optimize recycling, but there is no discussion of how to achieve this. The proposed actions include involving municipal and state stakeholders in solving this problem, but presumably these same stakeholders have already been trying to increase recycling.

• Discuss the sourcing of the sustainable biomass. The Massachusetts sustainable forestry initiative and biomass sludge are mentioned in the summary, but we need more detail about this. For example:
o Sustainable forestry product is very expensive and highly coveted for a variety of purposes. Are there concerns about demand competition?
o What are the GHG implications of burning biomass? Different types of biomass have very different lifecycle emissions.
• The proposal mentions that siting biomass incinerators is very expensive and contentious, but support for this argument should be included.
• Work should be done to calculate the approximate GHG savings.
• The proposal mentions that incinerators need the high-energy product that is being recycled, but there is no evidence provided to support this claim.

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