Oct 13, 2015
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.
As an author who anticipated the needs of the global plan within national/regional plan, 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:
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 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!
Oct 13, 2015
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[...]".
Oct 20, 2015
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
Oct 20, 2015
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.
Also, you can follow the communications between the Impact Fellow Yi Huang and I using the below address.
Laur Hesse Fisher
Nov 3, 2015
Having trouble finding regional plans to integrate into your Global Climate Action Plan?
Nov 10, 2015
A companion proposal, which outlines an "Alumni/SDM/VMS/CoLab Hybrid Initiative", may offer a more detailed look at how the iWENN Protocol may be mentor supported at the initial developement stage.
Dec 2, 2015
Response to Judge’s Remarks
(Judges Comments 1) “iWENN Management Protocol has several commendable features -– especially its scale of vision. However, we have hesitations about this proposal. The Protocol as outlined here is not realistic under current socio political conditions. Neither public nor private sector actors are ready to pursue this model. Green minded fund managers (almost an oxymoron) are extremely unlikely to invest in the high cost, high-risk ventures described in the sub-proposal.”
(Response 1) As the Pope succinctly noted in a recent statement seen here in Rueters:
"I am not sure, but I can say to you 'now or never.' Every year the problems are getting worse. We are at the limits. If I may use a strong word I would say that we are at the limits of suicide.".
The Pope is not the only leader to realize the urgency which we now face and there is a growing number of leaders in the financial community which have also awaken to the need for strong new measures which inherently will be somewhat risky during initial development.
Business as usual is simply suicidal and going beyond business as usual will require some degree of risk.
One excellent example of financial leaders realizing this existential need for moving beyond business as usual is found within CERES’s Clean Trillion Initiative.
(Response 2) As to the comment concerning “high cost, high-risk ventures described in the sub-proposal” and or the previous comment of "BECCS is not proven at large scales”:
It is well understood at the IPCC (WG3) level that the only limiting factor in establishing vast scale BECCS operations is the availability of sustainable low cost upstream biomass. The technical aspects of marine biomass production are also well understood and the use of the Oxyhydrogen Reaction in Algae is well understood as well and is, in fact, currently used at the industrial level.
Please read this relevant patent:
In brief, the judges who discredited the use of the above biotechnology, used in the previous national/regional proposals, simply did not understand the science!!!!
I ask this panel of judges to not make that same mistake. Stating confidently that the Oxyhydrogen Reaction in Algae is not 'feasible' is much like that professor who 'proved beyond all reasonable doubt' that heaver than air flight is impossible...3 months after the first flight at Kitty Hawk!!!!
Finally, the position that high level investors are not inclined to aggressively fund new technology is problematic as current developments seem to show the opposite view.
Please see: Breakthrough Energy Coalition
“The existing system of basic research, clean energy investment, regulatory frameworks, and subsidies fails to sufficiently mobilize investment in truly transformative energy solutions for the future. We can’t wait for the system to change through normal cycles.”
As such, the Global Plan, A Carbon Negative Infrastructure and Economy: A Systems Design/Mngmt Approach should be viewed as being within a reasonable, although advanced, spectrum of near term options as the science is well understood (by those that bother to read the science) and the technology is fundable as the science is currently...in use at the industrial level.
To conclude, this proposal attempts to stretch the envelope as far as STEM and socially responsible global scale business development using components which are, in fact, in use today and can be rapidly scaled up to global significance. This proposal, however, is also a volunteer effort which is not meant to be a fully developed business plan and should be judged in that regards.
With proper resources, a fully detailed business plan/proposal can be developed for those executives who actually understand the need for large scale and globally coordinated advanced mitigation/adaptation near term actions using state-of-the-art STEM and a socially responsible business model (as this proposal offers).
Dec 2, 2015
Dec 2, 2015
This Global Plan is closely related to two other current Colab proposal both of which offers further details and insights as to the full potential of this Global Plan.
ADD YOUR COMMENT
You must be logged into your account to post a comment.