Overcome the Inertia of Denial by Fight

Thanks for submitting this before the deadline. I surmise that the basic idea is to use crowdfunding to pay a team of lawyers to bring a civil suit against fossil fuel companies. It might be helpful to state that right away, in the pitch and at the beginning of the executive summary. When you have time, it might be useful to expand in a few areas: - Which companies would be included in the action? - How much money would the lawsuit seek? - How would the money be used? Also, it seemed part of the idea was that a lawsuit would raise awareness about the issue among the general public. I'm not entirely sure that I believe it would on its own galvanize the public, but it seems you envision a big social media campaign, connected with the lawsuit, to raise awareness. There would be value in giving more details about how this would work. Also, do you envision that increased public awareness would lead to passage of U.S. legislation imposing a price on carbon? If so, it would be good to give details on how this part of the plan would work. Thanks, look forward to seeing additional details when you have the opportunity to add them. Best, Rob L

Rob Still haven't made updates but was planning on working on this, soon. Yesterday I noticed selections were made and votes were being taken. Does this mean I am too late or are those in a different time-line? I thought I had until August 31st. Best Bill

Thank you for submitting your proposal to this Climate CoLab contest. Because you had submitted it before July 18, the contest Judges were able to review your proposal and provide you with some feedback, which we have included below. Please note that these comments refer to the content of this proposal as it was provided on July 18. We hope that you will use it to further develop your work before the August 31 deadline. On August 31 at midnight Eastern Time, your proposal will be locked and considered in final form. The Judges will then select which proposals will continue to the Finalists round. Finalists are eligible for the contest’s Judges Choice award, as well as for public voting to select the contest’s Popular Choice award. The Winners will receive a special invitation to attend selected sessions at MIT’s SOLVE conference and showcase their work before key constituents in a workshop the next day. A few select Climate CoLab winners will join distinguished SOLVE attendees in a highly collaborative problem-solving session. In addition, if your plan is included in one or more winning global plans, you will receive Climate CoLab Points (see https://www.climatecolab.org/resources/-/wiki/Main/Climate+CoLab+Points), and the top point-earners will receive shares of a cash prize of $10,000. Thank you for your great work and good luck! - 2015 Climate CoLab Judges & Fellows *** Judges' Feedback (1) Kate Gordon: I appreciate the author’s passion for addressing climate change, and really liked the narrative style of the summary. However, I think the author needs to provide more detail on exactly how this campaign would be structured and carried out. Simply stating that we need a campaign against "moneyed interests" is not sufficient. Taking the tobacco campaign as an example (as does the author): that legal fight focused on very specific misinformation put forth by the tobacco companies and relied on CURRENT health risks and harm to smokers (as opposed to projected future risks that vary by region/sector, as in climate change). It also included a carefully thought-out use of damages from the suits to compensate tobacco farmers and other communities harmed by the decrease in tobacco sales, something that was very helpful in gaining political support. Finally, and importantly, the tobacco cases were US-based, and while they led to a huge decrease in smoking here, they also did not decrease overseas smoking. Climate change is a global and not national issue and there’s a real question how one can address it using a US-based legal approach. I like the general idea of a massive campaign using the legal system to force fossil fuel companies to internalize their costs and address the long-term risks of climate change. I’m not sure I understand how this proposal would achieve those goals. *** (2) Mindy Lubber: Overall, the premise is solid -- we have an existential threat that requires bold and immediate action -- and the progress we are making is not consistent with the level of action required to build a 2 degree world that scientists affirm is required. This assumption is not only correct, but essential and this kind of bold thinking is exactly what we need. Beyond agreeing with the concept, I did not find this presentation to provide the necessary background and or detail to make the case for moving forward. Please consider adding the following to the next draft: -- Context -- several decades of impressive work by advocates, government officials, academics, communications experts, etc. have tried to do much of this work and have made progress, but not nearly enough. How will this effort be different from the hundreds of other efforts? How do we learn from what has worked and what has not? How do we build a campaign that is unique but takes advantage of the hundreds of millions of dollars that have already been spent to change the debate, to develop new tactics and strategies and to inform the public? A limited landscape analysis would help inform the viability. -- And what about the viral campaign gives you reason to believe that one can raise the level of funds noted here? Viral campaigns have been attempted with far less results than noted. While I do not rule out the potential, what about this concept, messaging, etc. will change that? -- Finally, what are the legal arguments that we might make to assure results? If the concept is to explore all possible legal options, that could make sense. Again, please be sure to build on the impressive work of other organizations that have explored and brought legal action. Feasibility: Not enough information to judge. Novelty: Not enough information to judge. Impact: Could be significant if a winnable legal case can be brought. Presentation quality: Proposal needs more detail *** (Additional) Comments from Climate CoLab Fellow Catie Ferrara: In addition to the judges' feedback provided above, I'm wondering if the author could provide additional details to show how this idea serves as a comprehensive "regional plan" for the United States, as opposed to a single-sector proposal like Climate CoLab's "Shifting Attitudes & Behavior" (see: https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1301417). The author(s) would benefit from reaching out to Climate CoLab participants and other experts who may have expertise in marketing, crowdfunding, or the legal process.

Thank you to supporters.....Kelly, Bill, Rob, J, Louses, and David.

I'll be back...........