Skip navigation
7comments
Share conversation: Share via:

Michael Hayes

Oct 13, 2015
09:33

Member


1 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor

Dear Judges, Fellows and Advisors,

There has been a judging rule change which is clearly directed at eliminating the value of any national/regional proposal which anticipates 'Global Plan' needs.

Does the following change to the judging rules help address the need for an effective global plan? "IMPORTANT **For example, plans will not be advanced that offer a singular idea that can be applied globally[...]". 

This rule change fundamentally limits both the judge's freedom of thought and action and that of the authors. 

As an author who anticipated the needs of the global plan within the national/regional plans, I ask that you exercise logic over adherence to arbitrary limitations to your thoughts and actions.

The following draft of protest language, will be inserted into the proposal:  The iWENN Carbon Negative Infrastructure Investment Strategy  

 

Draft of Protest Text:

 

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, such as Dr. S. Solomon, 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 (even if it is complex) for managing vast amounts of carbon, which will require vast amounts of investments in carbon negative infrastructure.

However, in this MIT Climate Colab Global Plan challenge, the CoLab team informs the authors and judges that global plans will be rejected if they include 'singular concepts'

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 20, 2015
08:55

Member


2 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor

Exchange with Impact Assessment Fellow Yi Huang

Received 10/20/15 The Climate CoLab user ecnmchedsgn has sent you the following message:

 

Subject: Impact Assessment of Your Proposal - Global Contest

 

Dear Michael,

 

As part of the judging process, impact fellows have conducted assessments of the impact of your proposal. Here are a few notes of the adjustments (based on the impact model of previous WENN model - US regional plan), and please let us know if any changes are made or if any assumptions need to be modified.

 

Based on previous WENN proposal (US regional plan), several changes are made to include effects on cost reduction for renewable technologies, and has excluded effects of current proposal on population growth rate. These changes are not suggested by the fellow, not by the author.

 

The parameters are changed because the proposal mentions use of biochar and other hydrocarbon replacements for oil as a source of energy, that can be produced from chemosynthesis projects. Replacement for oil from bio sources can be considered as renewable source of energy. Thus significant cost reduction is considered for renewable energy sources. Cost reduction for renewables is increased from 0 to 0.9 starting at year 2020.

 

Previously, the author considers acceleration of GDP growth due to construction of these energy islands (to a rate of 4%). However, we believe it’s an overestimate and have used default GDP per capita growth rate of 2.2% instead.

 

Looking forward to hearing from you!

 

Best,

Yi

 

Hello Yi, I’m glad to hear from you again.

 

1) The Upgrade to iWENN: The older WENN Protocol proposal was not advanced and so there was no opportunity to incorporate the changes we worked on for that proposal. The original WENN proposal has been upgraded to the Integrated Water, Energy, Nutrient Nexus (iWENN) Management Protocol.

 

In the iWENN upgrade, the technology suite is not limited to the three technologies of chemosynthesis, perpetual salt fountains and HDPE bioreactors (carbon negative marine and land biomass production infrastructure). In the newer iWENN concept, a compilation of all carbon negative technologies, used at the large scale infrastructure level, is being called for.

 

2) In working with the EnRoads model generator, my greatest concern is that it does not seem to be reflecting the results of an aggressive increase in the production and use bio-energy. The below model section (within the Green Funding[...] proposal) shows an almost null response to large scale biofuel production. When this result showed up, I basically gave up working with the model.

 

gVz3aGOCHgLWpCnYsAR8Dflly1oMtLNcPqHobqAFpFCHMMTiWQmDUEZoTCGmOfz_xqska2j9IvrNvl8nY3IWzgF0a-4bfqfl7rKUrCYZPDZEopd77JSdXe5DYBGEY9TCBPxYMfo8IqdJaL4Kb6PDrlGuBEEZYZU_-xrcijWwjqxWKpw9kczJ5qD3QHOJGeU5xnM6hTLq7_9OKUTNPg-DYrQtFLzkrZUmDDhGNwroxZkRzQ1vjQBmI5tINf6Bt-rlrN3pLkL0JSd6fKjIC3E-OdMCXUWYl9QONFmNzqGXn_wVjP6I_yhABqg4oMW0WOy0T1utUx6A3hM5Zt5i5XEzAqR3KxbETpjjYqWLuVdRTaaeGs55GT0xDKR98OMew3LntJyhJZcici6uJr5yDBY-zPfr1AdA3FkJfexy8zxtcHQObLGRY_W0JJ-1q0vQ9vz0VNY7cNF_RSE5iV1KcxbsmOo1YzUtbu9Zk17H6VPJWbNaT02HiAOIXOMHt6lsQ9IJtpfW5jmgb5E14Qz32UBN1DUHo07r0ZehMtXss1ohQk8=w743-h534-no

However, when I wrote up the ORCA Cities proposal, I spent more time working with the model and found better results. Please see the below comparison. I stand by the ORCA model far more than the ‘Green Funding’ model.

 

kwDb-oPf7dOOZL2biuPzXIzNjp21IBZ270UjafnSpF7sCAQmqMbW98FILywVLkVpT0MaJaKKB0lmSi8gLH2c8GOTXkQzqj4bdgIqxdc0dVRobrz1Kk4Lv_EqkI1vYjJ2Gujt6rv-Rfgzegxm4nx8-KGoXXfubaidJ0dYulUjuD1Jb59OiUkzpRhbQKReYb03FIaxVTb1jPnggb3Xbeyb0DtWSZeJzeRPeo-3fO6dz6U1RQRUprSR9ZKBRTrFEnZ_aQwQd5gsg1SYjYSQMQ19YiBEexHStW7mPdIFpgX2_TeQ1yV7T-k8liqtkPgNwtWG-CovoJdTFbM4DQXER7DsorJCo69sWgLVxa_6dsf4qT-y1q0EobA59Sc_dRaNYcGeujPBsxiuzoCYdE5mquQ-lewJCgIistKySmchxKdyOCmjh_RqSUQ1d5TEcCacdjb6ppf09uiQ7f52fdULa_1BcgogSn-9lza1Gg1UqOuPSKJE03yrq0-AX9jKA_V8SRk5yrLuwN6M-z5YuQFP8zcCYCPOoTE16xyawsWqgsIJz18=w739-h529-no

 

As to the global GDP per capita weight of 4.0, this is based upon aggressive funding of the build-out and future carbon negative commodity production demands. Without aggressive funding, the GDP figure gain would be minimal to nonexistent.

 

Predicting GDP per capita rates, at a global scale, has a wide potential variability due to countless contingencies.  In one scenario, I could easily (and from a justifiable STEM view) call for a high level use of automation in both construction and production which minimizes job creation. Yet the reduction in the cost for biofuel (energy in general), food, feed, fertilizer, plastic etc. would provide a meaningful jump in the GDP factor.

 

Or, the proposal could just as easily call for the creation of a massive number of jobs through using non-automated construction and production practises.

 

I see both scenarios being useful with the latter scenario being used first (as there is currently a massive global need for jobs) with the prior being transitioned to in the mid to late century time frame.

The use of both the GDP 4.0 and a GDP 2.2 weights are included in the ‘Green Funding’ proposal and the ‘ORCA Cities’ proposal respectively. I do stand by the ORCA model and would happily through the ‘Green Funding’ model under the next bus that passes by.

 

Thank you again for your time Yi.

 

Michael


Michael Hayes

Oct 20, 2015
08:59

Member


3 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor

The link to the PDF copy of this proposal, which is mentioned in the first section of the proposal, has apparently been disabled. The link to the file has been tested repeatedly outside the CoLab platform.

The following address to the PDF copy of this proposal can be copied and pasted into your browser.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B4dTSYGhZ8XnRjBWMzFUc3RicG8

Also, you can follow the communications between the Impact Fellow Yi Huang and I using the below address.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UiisSwajmSxVXwyMMYMefDdFkNGlny_cJVzCQPf6-Kw/pub

Warmest regards,

Michael

 


Mark Capron

Nov 16, 2015
03:23

Member


4 |
Share via:

Michael,

Glad to see recognition of the ocean as solution.  The Ocean Foresters continue to see Ocean Forests as the only viable multi-solution at the scale needed to bring atmospheric CO2 concentrations back below 350 ppm before 2150.  We certainly could use floating mega-structures.  At the very least, we need to be installing invisible breakwaters and putting coastal facilities either on stilts or capable of floating during storm surge.  (An invisible breakwater calms waves so that the floating/stilt structures are not battered by waves.  They would be battered by wind.)

Eventually, all our coasts would become floating structures.  As long as we are installing invisible breakwaters, we can engineer multiple functions into those breakwaters: capturing floods from rivers by containing the fresh water over the salt water; anchors for kelp and other seaweed; built-in seaweed harvesting mechanisms; flexibility for optimizing the time and shape of surfing waves; optimizing conditions for coral reef ecosystems to grow faster than sea level rise in places where coral reef is the invisible breakwater; etc.


Michael Hayes

Dec 2, 2015
08:55

Member


5 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor

Hello Mark,

I do not support "all our coasts would become floating structures". The littoral regions should be kept free from such vast commercial interests for multiple biological, environmental and policy issues....which you have ignored for years now.

Mark, if you wish to honk your own horn, please write your own proposal. There are many significant differences between your designs and mine and I do wish to keep them separate.

Warmest regards,

Michael


Michael Hayes

Jan 12, 2016
08:01

Member


6 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor

Further,

The statement of "Ocean Forests as the only viable multi-solution at the scale needed to bring atmospheric CO2 concentrations back below 350 ppm before 2150." (my highlight) is simply not supportable at the STEM level.


Michael Hayes

Feb 2, 2016
05:43

Member


7 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor

Here is an interesting article (I just found) concerning the history of floating islands and a few current design efforts.

Orsos Island - the smallest personal floating island yet in a fast growing market

The ORCA City concept is not that far out of the box.

ADD YOUR COMMENT
You must be logged into your account to post a comment.