Since there are no currently active contests, we have switched Climate CoLab to read-only mode.
Learn more at
Skip navigation
Share via:


L oan guarantees provide an enormous opportunity to finance most of the climate conversion privately, while increasing federal revenue.



This plan is essentially one to bring people to the table for changes which have to be made, and be able to cover costs within the current paradigm of printed money has to come from somewhere. It puts larger specifications, provides funding, jobs, and minimal disruption, and minimal overall regulation.  Most of the money in this plan comes from private funds, which the government can offer loan guarantees of a 100 billion the first year, and probably 500-700 billion over a 5 year period and allow a 10 to 1 leveraging (for a first year budget of 1 trillion), which should minimize fraud, along with the promise of long jail sentences. The government collects 15% of the money spent, meaning it ends up with 150 billion extra revenue in year 2, after spending 50 billion in year one to ramp up the program, on training, stipends, and increased research.


Which proposals are included in your plan and how do they fit together?

This proposal provides a mechanism for flexible wide spread financing, for buildings and energy supply with a single set of simple but widespread regulatory changes- a national building code. R-20 for buildings and R-8 for windows, and a minimum of 50% locally generated power (10-20 miles), and energy management systems to be phased, with work to be completed by 2025


Each building can, finance up to approximately 45% of building value for upgrades to cosmetic, deep retrofit savings, and local including on-site energy generation sources(but often in larger set ups at probably a county level), and energy saving upgrades to anything that takes electricity.


The Great White Sheet- (artificial albedo generation)

Creating super strong highly reflective material for covering dark spots in permafrost initially, then testing in and around the Artic waters, at first in sheets of 2-3 miles, testing effect on local life, as they may have to become, real, floating land substitutes for certain forms of life to not be overly disturbed; however, these should 


Explanation of the emissions scenario calculated in the Impact tab

Heating and Cooling buildings is 12% of Carbon emissions- this plan should cut that in half; by deep retrofitting buildings, and putting in energy efficiency .  -6%

Energy management systems with auto shutoffs and efficiency requirements on devices. Between the 

Energy generation is handled by offering per building shares in energy generation, based upon payments (rentees are also offered shares in local cogeneration plants) capacity is built either on building or within 10-20 mile radius.

100 million buildings in America 

3.9 billion megawatt hours retail sold

39,000 kwh per building, per year- though we will only aim for half of that with this program

-50% of electricity emissions (31% of total)

19,500 Kwh, per building, though practically many of these decisions will be made on county levels. THis will also be less practical for metropoli than for smaller cities and townships.

Phase in of Thorium generation over 5 years


-22% total emissions cut from generation shift

-3% for reduction in transmission  volume

-5% residential and commercial reductions 

-6% thermal reductions housing and commercial

36% total reduction 5 years, and we havent done transportation yet

What are the plan’s key benefits?

4 million + new jobs

12% GDP growth

5-10 year 50% reduction in CO2 equivalent emissions

If successful, would surely be modeled in other countries, in the first 2-3 years.

What are the plan’s costs?

25 billion for training the ramp up in the first year

25 billion for extra regulatory bodies in the states to manage audits, etc, years 3-5

25 billion for energy storage and thorium research

+150 billion from tax revenues going into year 2

over 5-7 years, +700 billion in tax revenues

Potentially 400 billion or so in Federal Reserve adjustments, to bring overall program costs in line with 12 year pay offs and  energy prices post carbon tax. If they can spend 2.5 trillion on QE programs, they can spend on real stimulus to uh, save humanity.



What are the key challenges to enacting this plan?

Current inertia in Congress and the oil lobby (which may technically include some Congress people) to do anything about climate change. Overcoming opposition to climate plans, and to business regulation. However, by using existing loan guarantees and seeking generous but reasonable leveraging, we can concentrate funds in places with a recognized need, we can measure significant economic impact in a short time space, and use that to project success for a much larger, national program.

In some places lots of energy storage would have to be built, not too difficult if you have hills (push water up a hill) but, in other, flatter places the technology will simply have to advance, and that is still probably 3 years away.


Immediate steps are looking for a prototype area in the West to launch this program, wide scale, using existing loan guarantees, and leveraging them, measuring and then preparing for the congressional fight, to get the full program on the national agenda.

Related plans