Skip navigation
29comments
Share conversation: Share via:

Michael Hayes

Jul 1, 2015
03:19

Member


1 |
Share via:
Hello, Can we get more room within the fields as it difficult to address even a fraction of the issues within such limited space. Best regards, Michael

Annalyn Bachmann

Jul 2, 2015
09:18

Staff


2 |
Share via:
Hello, Thank you for reaching out to us! Unfortunately, we are unable to grant more space at this time. Please do your best to summarize your points within the space provided. We apologize for the inconvenience! Thank you, Annalyn Bachmann Visiting Student with the Climate CoLab

Remineralize The Earth (...better Soil, Better Food, Better Planet)

Jul 9, 2015
09:47

Member


3 |
Share via:
Hello, We have recently found out about this contest and we are very excited about it! Thank you for organizing it! We would like to offer our ideas for action plans that can be adopted by the whole world and by each region as well (US, Europe, developing countries, etc). But we won't have time to submit the individual proposals for each region before the deadline. Can we submit them under the "2015 Proposal Workshop" and select them later for our "Global Climate Action Plan" proposal? Thank you! Kind regards

Annalyn Bachmann

Jul 20, 2015
09:56

Staff


4 |
Share via:
Hello, Thank you for reaching out to us! Unfortunately, the template for the regional contests will not be the same as the proposal template for the 2015 Proposal Workspace. However, you should still be able to select your proposals created in the workspace. I would suggest checking out the template for the Regional Climate Action plans so that you can include all the necessary information. Also, the deadline for regional climate action plans has been extended until August 31st, so you may still have the opportunity to submit your proposals. Thank you, Annalyn Bachmann Visiting Student with the Climate CoLab

Laur Hesse Fisher

Aug 25, 2015
01:07

Staff


5 |
Share via:
Dear Climate CoLab community, If you are considering submitting a proposal for the regional or global contests, or if you are curious how they work, please be sure to check out our guide: https://www.climatecolab.org/resources/-/wiki/Main/Integrated+proposals If you have any questions, please feel free send an email to admin@climatecolab.org. Best of luck! Laur & the Climate CoLab team

Annalyn Bachmann

Aug 25, 2015
09:45

Staff


6 |
Share via:
Dear Climate CoLab Community, We also wanted to let everyone know that we will be opening a regional climate action plan workspace after the deadline for the current round of regional contests. Here you will be able to work on your regional climate action plans outside of the contest period, and link to them in your global plan. We will be posting updates about this soon! Thank you, Annalyn

Will Rumph

Sep 17, 2015
04:37

Member


7 |
Share via:

How do you link your geoegeoengineering plan to global aaction plan?


Michael Hayes

Oct 13, 2015
04:02

Member


8 |
Share via:

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

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

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

The following text will be inserted into:  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 13, 2015
05:36

Member


9 |
Share via:

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. 

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 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:

  • 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 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


Laur Hesse Fisher

Oct 14, 2015
11:32

Staff


10 |
Share via:

Not sure where to start with integrating proposals for your global climate action plan?


Introducing seed proposals: proposals that are summaries of existing national or regional climate action plans, like the United States Climate Action plan, or the European Union's 2030 Climate and Energy Framework.


Seed proposals have been uploaded to the Climate CoLab by contest Fellows.  We invite you to link to these in your global proposal, or to use them as a starting point for creating proposals of your own.


View seed proposals on the regional contest workspace:  https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1302801

Or in the global contest: https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1302401


Feel free to contact us with questions!


Moses Seenarine

Oct 28, 2015
02:00

Member


11 |
Share via:

this link does not work:

View seed proposals on the regional contest workspace:  https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1302801


Laur Hesse Fisher

Nov 16, 2015
12:02

Staff


12 |
Share via:

Mosessite:

There seems to be an extra piece of code in the embedded link you have there.  Please try copying and pasting the code into your browser address bar: https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1302801


Laur Hesse Fisher

Nov 16, 2015
12:17

Staff


13 |
Share via:

VOTING NOW OPEN!

In July, we announced the Global Climate Action Plan contest, where we invited anyone from around the world to submit integrated plans for how countries and the world as a whole could take action on climate change.

Over the last month, the Judges reviewed all submitted proposals & have selected 5 of the most innovative and compelling as contest Finalists.  Vote now to select the Popular Choice Winner!

To vote:  Visit the contest page and login or create an account. Review the Finalist proposals and click the "Vote" button on the proposal page to select your top choice.  Members receive one vote per contest.

Read more


Bruce Best

Nov 16, 2015
02:28

Member


14 |
Share via:

Sadly I think that this effort will be largely wasted. There are changes in both economic theory and engineering that will make all of the 5 posts at best redundant.  Critical questions concerning the economics and sources of carbon are not being asked and because of that answers that are neither effective or economic will be provided. Because they are largely ineffective and not economic they wil not be adopted on any scale.

What is epically sad is that the information and technology is already out there but nobody is looking. I am certain I will be easy to dismiss for I am just an architect and I do not have a PHD in any of the fields. What I do have is a Team of engineers, that have designed and built multi billion dollar power plant working with my ideas and the ability to look at ideas that have been dismissed for good reason but to see them applied differently in a manner that allows them to function in a manner that is both sound from an engineering standpoint but from an economic stand point. 

While I have looked at the proposals I have a problem seeing where any of them can reduce energy costs. Why not take on fossil fuels at their strength, low cost and beat them there. If that is done then market fouces will provide the changes faster than any government action. 

I do applaud the work of all the contestants teams and MIT for producing this contest. That is critical for change to ocure but do not be surprised if discoveries else where come and change the rules. 

Most Respectfully 


Gene Preston

Nov 16, 2015
02:35

Member


15 |
Share via:

I didn't see any proposal that I thought would make much difference in CO2 emissions.


Dave Finnigan

Dec 4, 2015
01:55

Member


16 |
Share via:

Bruce Best (1989esprit) and Gene Preston and others not finding what you are looking for among the five finalists in the Global Action Plan contest, please note that our proposal, Make Climate a Top Priority for Action by Every Global Citizen and Organization, by Mobilize Now is not perfect, but it does provide an umbrella under which all the other proposals in the finals of this contest, plus many other winners, and citizen initiatives, and many ideas that were too extensive to fit in the rubric could be sheltered.  It provides the "bubble up" complement to the "trickle down" mandates that we may see coming out of the Climate Negotiations going on now in Paris.  If implemented it will help provide the citizen pressure needed to implement household and village level, regional, national and international projects and programs that are "sound from an engineering standpoint and from an economic standpoint."

What we expect to do if we win is to mobilize our team to - in turn - mobilize their technical colleagues and their political allies and their educational peers in every country to take the initiative to mobilize everyone around themselves to solve the problem, not just to pay lip service to it.  

My own work was in Family Planning program in South Korea and Taiwan in the 1960s where we worked with our local counterparts to reduce average number of children per family from 6 to around 1.6 in a single generation.  We did this by following the culture change methodology spelled out in 1962 by Professor Everett Rogers, generally termed The Diffusion of Innovations.  This systematic approach to culture change moves people quickly past mere "Awareness" and helps them to climb a stairway from Awareness to Interest to Trial and Evaluation (which may need to be repeated over and over) to Adoption and through Confirmation from peers and reinforcement of the basic ideas on to Advocacy.  We now need to take the entire Planet through this cultural transformation and it is best done by working both with current political, scientific, educational, business and thought leaders, and with the people as a whole working in concert.  The image I use these days to demonstrate this transformation can be found in my dropbox.

We have assembled for the start of this project a team of 30 well-known international climate leaders who will be asked to apply their enormous energy, networking skills and fund-raising acumen to bring this umbrella project to fruition, not to simply work on one small facet of the issue.  We expect them to think broadly and "system-wide" to mesh what we propose with all of the other actions happening around the planet in order to effect a mobilization that will address and solve the problem both from the top down (where most of the energy has been expended) and from the bottom up.  Our core team is just the beginning and we see the need to expand this team by bringing in more experts in more areas, and by making certain we do what MIT has done through the CoLab, and remain open to ideas and individuals who can help.

I am old enough to remember Victory Gardens, Gasoline Rationing, Bond Drives, and Fireside Chats and the spirit of inclusion and purpose that pervaded society during World War II, and I know that spirit can be rekindled, but it will take efforts by every facet of society including schools, churches, civic organizations and all the other players listed in our proposal, plus many more, to arouse the populace to action.

I hope this is helpful to get readers to decide to vote in this category and not dismiss what we are doing as trivial or fatuous.  This is how big problems get solved, by people coming together with good intent, framing the problem and being open to the wisdom of crowds to get to a solution.

Dave Finnigan, Director, Climate Change is Elementary.

 


Gene Preston

Dec 4, 2015
04:06

Member


17 |
Share via:

Dave I'm waiting for a zero emissions plan I can rely on....Gene


Michael Hayes

Dec 4, 2015
06:03

Member


18 |
Share via:

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


Moses Seenarine

Dec 5, 2015
02:40

Member


19 |
Share via:

I would like to point out that there maybe massive voter fraud in the contest, committed by the Mobilize Now team in support of their proposal, “Make Climate a Top Priority for Action by Every Global Citizen and Organization” in MIT Climate CoLab's Global Climate Action Plan 2015 contest, on the last day of the voting period.

During the 3-week voting period, the Mobilize Now team followed a pattern of large periods of relative inactivity, lasting 1 or 2 days, interspersed with short periods of intense voting lasting around one hour. The Mobilize Now team's voting activity was related to the number of votes that our team gained, and their brief voting periods always brought them close to our lead in the contest during the 3-weeks. This pattern of voting suggests some form of pre-planning.

As of approximately 8:00am on Friday, 12/4/15, Meat Climate Change team had 159 votes for our proposal, “Reducing Footprints by Reducing Animal Consumption,” in the Global Climate Action Plan 2015 contest, while the Mobilize Now team had 139 votes.

At approximately 6:00pm on Friday, 12/4/15, Meat Climate Change proposal had around 173 votes, and Mobilize Now proposal had 143 votes in the contest.

Then remarkably, during the course of the next approximately 3 hours, the Mobilize Now team added 66 votes, at an average of one vote every 2.7 minutes. While not impossible, this large number of votes in such a short time suggests some form of pre-planning. Of the 66 votes, 36 were from new members who joined MIT Climate CoLab within this 3-hour period. The 66 voters have no description in their profile, and only a few have a stock photo as their profile picture.

Interestingly, during the 3-hour period, 30 of the Mobilize Now voters, were members with 3 or 4 Activity points. These 30 members had voted in the Mobilize Now team's previous proposal, “Unleash the energy of millions by making climate action simple, relevant and fun” by 9/12/15. The fact that these previous members were voting at the same time as the 36 new members that joined during the 3-hour period also suggests some form of pre-planning.

I did not check, but it is possible that many of the Mobilize Now team's 143 voters who voted earlier than 12/4/15 for their current proposal, were also accounts with 3 or 4 Activity points, suggesting they were used to vote in the Mobilize Now team's other proposals during the last few days of voting period.

As of 9:00pm on Friday, 12/4/15, the Mobilize Now team had amassed 216 votes, compared to Meat Climate Change team's 185 votes.


Dave Finnigan

Dec 5, 2015
03:45

Member


20 |
Share via:

Gene Preston - If you don't like the plan, ask to join our team and offer ways that we can strengthen the plan to make it work for you.  We are not exclusive, we are inclusive.  Please join us and make it better.  This plan is not a finished product, it is a work in process.  If you have the heart for the work, please join us.

Mosessite - With regard to our sudden spurt in last minute votes, in order to cool the "arms race" that was going on, we put off asking our colleagues for votes until the end and that is all you are seeing.  There is nothing untoward here, just a lot of hard work over the past 24 hours, corralling voters.  We do not have a natural constituency, like vegetarians, who can be easily found, so we have waited to ask our concerned friends to register and to vote.  It does take about 3 minutes to contact a colleague, explain CoLab and ask them to register and vote.  This is the natural process.  Wonder how Citizens Climate Lobby got 401 votes in 2015 and 1247 in 2014 for the same proposal?  They worked their lists and asked their concerned colleagues to vote.  That is the established and legitimate process. 

We would like to offer members of your team, and your voters, the same opportunity that we offered Gene Preston above.  One part of our existing proposal is that people should cut back on their meat consumption.  If we win, please join the team and help us to mobilize consumers to follow a pathway from skipping meat once a week to totally converting to a plant-based diet.  As we say over and over, our plan is an umbrella and we hope that all of the finalists will join us to work together with the dozens of other proposals we have identified, and that together we can find, or come up with, ideas not yet formalized into proposals.  This is not the time to start an argument, it is the time to unite for a common good.

Then we can go to the funding agencies as a broadly based consortium of MIT sanctioned proposal authors and supporters and get the money necessary to carry out all of our proposals.  In our opinion, this contest is not only about a single noble idea, like becoming vegetarians, but is about a huge range of ideas that have in common the fact that they are all about "bubble up" rather than "trickle down."

We look forward to working with your team.  Let us not wrangle, but let's create a "super team."

 

Dave Finnigan


Moses Seenarine

Dec 5, 2015
10:59

Member


21 |
Share via:

We are not imbeciles, so please don't treat us as such. You are ruining this excellent program and important initiative by fraudulent voting. We regret linking to your proposal and will never join any team committing blatant voter fraud.

Your claim of working hard during 24 hours to get older members to vote within a 3-hour period on the last day lacks credibility. The 30 older members who voted in the 3-hour period have no description on their profiles besides an occasional stock photo. They had three months to add something to their profiles, yet these remain completely blank. Group members typically identify their affiliation and interests, but not in your case. The 30 older members did not say anything about your proposal or why they are voting for it. They only voted, and none became supporters of your proposal. These 30 members apparently have no other interest in climate change besides voting twice at the last minute in two contests, and they took an average of 2.7 minutes to communicate with you, log in and vote. Highly dubious.

And if your strategy is to have members only vote at the last minute, then how do you explain your 136 votes prior to 12/4/15? These members should have also waited until the last day to vote, but they did not. And during the 3-week voting period, your 136 votes also came in spurts, with just enough votes to keep up with our lead in the contest. So were you also preparing them to vote in spurts like you did on the last day with the 66 votes in 3 hours?

And there is no explanation of how 36 new members joined in the 3-hour period, also taking an average of 2.7 minutes to join and vote as older members. This is not enough time to explain your program to 36 new members, and for them to find a computer, search for the Climate CoLab website, register and then vote. And, you got 36 new members at the same time that you were contacting 30 older members to log on and vote. The 36 new members also have blank profiles, and do not say anything about why they are supporting your proposal, or why they became members. How unusal.

We have a large and committed constituency, and worked tirelessly during the 3-week voting period to get 180 people to join and vote. Most of our voters created a profile and expressed their interests in our proposal on their profiles. We have legitimately won this contest, but we were cheated out of this win. As a result, we will no longer participate in Climate CoLab activities, due to voter fraud.


Moses Seenarine

Dec 5, 2015
11:39

Member


22 |
Share via:

You are starting to make obvious fraudulent mistakes in creating fake accounts. For example, today you are creating multiple profiles with similar names and screen names with only slight variations.

The following 6 accounts  were all created minutes apart on 12/5/15 around 6:00am
- Nouhaila Bezoui (nouhailabezoui)
- nouhaila bezoui (bezouinouhaila1998)
- Hamid Bezoui (hamid.bezoui)
- Lamyaa Bezoui (lamyaab)
- lamyaa bouzi (lamyaaaaa), and
- lamyaa baroud (lamichaa)

Also, the following 2 accounts  were all created minutes apart on 12/5/15 around 5:00am 
- imad iraki (imadoo)  and
- imad iraqi (imadhgdjugcb)

You are using obviously fake names, like "imad iraki" - seriously? There is no such name as imad. There is "Amad" but no "imad,"

Please stop this fraudulent behavior!


Michael Hayes

Dec 5, 2015
02:10

Member


23 |
Share via:

Dear Mosessite,

I've closely observed the CoLab operation for some time now and I am also the most active contributor. In the time I've spent doing such, I've seen this type of voting surge happen on a number of occasions. Also, I have good reason to believe (which I can not go into details here) that the CoLab team adheres to an extremely high ethical standard and should be trusted to do the right thing.

Please keep in mind, moreover, such accusations of misconduct should be directed, through private email, to the CoLab team before openly accusing others of serious misconduct. If fraud has happened, 1) there is no ruling out that a supporter of another proposal did the dirty deed simply to discredit the innocent team or 2) a supporter of the innocent team took it upon themselves to try to game the votes and please keep in mind that 3) a number of participants actually prefer to remain anonymous, through using a pseudonym, for various reasons.

Further, many proposal authors/supporters pay close attention to the timing of many aspects of the contest. Such as, not just last minute voting surges but also it is not unusual for an author to wait until the last few minutes before the submission deadline to post or edit their proposal simply so that their proposal gets posted at the top of the list. I've seen this type of maneuver happen many many times!

In brief, trust the CoLab team to walk the high road on these issues and give them time before openly and publicly insulting (and royally pissing off) many innocent fellow participants. Do you realize that the way you phrased your concern that you actually accused....ME....of wrong doing??? That does not make me a Happy Camper;))

To conclude, I ask that the CoLab team simply remove the comments associated with this public accusation of wrong doing as there is, at this time, no benefit to anyone by having such unsubstantiated and embarrassing comments as part of the permanent record. Mosessite's concerns are noted and will be properly reviewed and he should be allowed the benefit of rethinking what he actually wishes to be apart of....his....CoLab permanent history. 

One truly great service that the CoLab team offers is that they can and will 'Let You Take Your Comments Off The Record' and they have been kind enough to me to do such on multiple occasions when I, myself, very publicly insert both feet into my rather ignorant mouth.  

Warmest regards (from a profoundly honest man),

Michael


Moses Seenarine

Dec 5, 2015
06:49

Member


24 |
Share via:

Instead of trying to mobilize more votes during the last two days for my proposal, I had to spend all my energies and effort documenting fraud. And, instead of gratitude, you want all the my investigation and analysis to be deleted?

I understand that vote surges occur at the end. But there are specifics to the intensity of this Moblize Now surge that still raises concerns. Given limited data, resources and time, I was only partially able to document some aspects of their fraudulent voting.

1) 66 votes in a 3-hour period at 2.7 minutes for vote, including 36 new members, is highly dubious

2) members with similar names and screen names, joining at the same time, is also improbable

That fact that these two issues may be part of sabotage makes them even more serious. They should be public, if only as a deterrent. Voting fraud need to be seriously addressed since they place the credibility of the program at stake. Moreover, it serves as a huge disincentive to others who play by the rules. 


James Lau

Dec 8, 2015
12:23

Member


25 |
Share via:

There is a lot of hot air in this comment section. The global climate problem cannot be solved with hot air. The total amount of air on earth is not enough. However, the global ocean with average depth of 4 kilo-meter can be the solution. With the ocean covering 71 % of the global surface, there is enough water to cover the whole earth to a depth of 2.8 km. The ocean already store more than 2 whole years of solar radiation intercepted by earth. With solar radiation power at about 5000 time global (human involved) energy demand, the stored ocean thermal energy with 100 % conversion efficiency can last for 10,000 years. Of course, solar energy in ocean thermal form cannot have 100 % conversion efficiency, but the energy supply is continuing, more than making up for the low conversion efficiency of 4 to 5 %. The global climate problem solution is hot water. More specifically, the solution is OTEC (ocean thermal energy conversion). My entry in the MIT alumni contest Cost effective OTEC electrical power plant have more information. Read the information there and contact me with more questions. I am not MIT alumni but my entry has been successfully posted.


Delton Chen

Dec 16, 2015
07:46

Member


26 |
Share via:

Dear Fellows 

some unusual comments have appeared on the MIT CoLab from mohammad115. Google Translate gives a translation that does not seem to make sense. Can you please suggest a resolution?

Thank you in advance.

Faithfully, Delton


Boris Newt

Dec 16, 2015
09:11

Member


27 |
Share via:

I voted for it, but agree that many of the votes look odd.  Many joined and voted quickly.  The joys of internet voting.  Don't feed the trolls.  Maybe we need more emphasis on quality instead of quantity? Community building instead of counting how many people sign up.


Laur Hesse Fisher

Dec 17, 2015
12:20

Staff


28 |
Share via:

Chris Nothanks

Dec 21, 2015
05:52

Member


29 |
Share via:

I'm not interested in the competition but I can't find anywhere else to voice my simple idea to help our planet. I think the world could organise a global day off, I think the planet needs a day (more if we can) to breathe. Keep the emergency services & essential services running, certain pre applied companies running. Make it a bank holiday, no cars on the roads, a little more than volentary.....the powers that be can make the rules but it's easy & it's possible, Christmas Day we stay at home or with loved ones, we can make this a summers day, anything but we all need to do it, someone listen, please

ADD YOUR COMMENT
You must be logged into your account to post a comment.
Click on the box