Please find below the
Finalist Evaluation
Judges'' ratings
| • | Novelty: | |
| • | Feasibility: | |
| • | Impact: | |
| • | Presentation: |
Judges'' comments
Congratulations! Your proposal, 2020 Cities By 2020: America's Mayors Taking Charge On Climate Change in the United States' Climate Action Plan contest, has been selected to advance to the Finalists round.
As a Finalist, your proposal is eligible for the contest’s Judges Choice award, as well as the contest’s Popular Choice award, which is determined by public voting.
All winners will be announced the week after the voting period ends.
All Finalists of the regional contests – including the Judges' Choice and Popular Choice winners -- 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.
If you haven’t already, you will soon receive an email from the Climate CoLab staff with details about the voting period and the conference. If you don’t receive that email within the next day, or have other questions, please contact the Climate CoLab staff at admin@climatecolab.org
In addition, if your plan is included in one or more winning global plans, you will receive Climate CoLab Points, and the top point-getters will receive shares of a cash prize of $10,000. (See more details: http://climatecolab.org/resources/-/wiki/Main/Climate+CoLab+Points)
Thank you for your work on this very important issue. We’re proud of your proposal, and we hope that you are too. Again, congratulations!
All the best,
2015 Climate CoLab Judges
Comments from the Judges:
Comment 1:
Well thought out and well written. One change: I would suggest that the target of action for this proposal be to get more cities to sign up for the Compact of Mayors not the Mayors Climate Protection Agreement.
Comment 2:
I really like the fact that this plan is so clear: a target of doubling signatories to the Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement is easy to understand, and ultimately quite feasible. I also like the emphasis put on the role of cities, and the clear explanation of why cities matter and what opportunities they present (especially in the area of carbon pricing and distributed generation).
However, I'm afraid a doubling of signatories to an existing agreement isn't all that novel unless there's also a strategy for changing that agreement to make it much more effective, and I'm not entirely sure what that strategy is after reading this proposal. Similarly, the impact isn't clear without a better sense of what exactly these cities would be signing on to.
As an organizing strategy, it's a good proposal -- we need cities to be more involved in solving the climate challenge. But we also need to organize toward something and I'm not sure what that is. The proposal would be stronger if the goal were to get signatories to take on 2-3 specific major challenges that are best addressed at the local level, with clear metrics and evaluation to ensure the greatest possible impact. Ideally, the proposal would include links to other Co-Lab proposals to serve as the challenges adopted by signatories.
Comment 3:
This proposal is very well written, and largely offers a compelling vision of what might be done -- along with a series of policy prescriptions on how to achieve its goals. It falls short, however, in articulating how to overcome real barriers: lack of capacity in cities (people and money), competition between climate and other city priorities; and a means to assure adequate stringency when up-front capital costs and stranded assets begins to bite.
The proposal does include mention of how key subsectors in cities could move toward emission reductions. While these too are insufficiently attentive to the politics of cities, collectively, they make for an interesting and potentially impactful concept. Furthermore, the concept of 2020 (cities) by (the year) 2020 is catchy and plausible.
This proposal could benefit from some linkage to other ideas on city-specific activities, including related to energy, buildings and transportation.
Additional Comments from Climate CoLab Fellows:
The proposal is particularly effective and convincing when it highlights specific challenges that coalition members can bring to light and solve, that might not be recognized from a federal vantage point (for example, the influence of apartment building tax codes on suburban sprawl).
The author is upfront about the valid concern that a city-based approach could lead to simply relocating emission sources outside of participating city boundaries. Unfortunately, the plan does not presently calculate or compare costs. It also leaves a reader wondering who should spark this movement and take the lead? who will convene and organize such a coalition? Still, it is a comprehensive and realistic concept and approach.
 Kate O. Sep 21, 2015 12:04  | Proposal creator Thanks everyone for the feedback. As you know, by design this proposal is not a grand strategy blueprint, a detailed planning and execution matrix for the 2020 cities by 2020 concept, a glossy pitch to a foundation or philanthropist for a six-figures grant, a think tank white paper or a scholarly publication, or even a draft article for a longform publication. Given the unique constraints and advantages of this brainstorming & crowdsourcing platform, I appreciate the opportunity to further comment in a more flexible space. I would like to do so in separate parts. I want to first to highlight a few broader insights. As Jeffrey Sachs noted, "the future is in the cities." The plan of the city of Copenhagen to be carbon-neutral by 2025 is illustrative of the immense potential for action. As flawed as such ambitious pledges can be, they are plausible, substantive and substantiated. Copenhagen's plan is all the more impressive in light of its existing population of half-million that will expand by more than 100,000 people by 2025. So participants may have noticed with approval that MIT Climate CoLab cleared away all the regional contest proposals and left only the two United States city-focused proposals for final consideration by the community. Setting aside the exact motivations, which I do not know, the message highlighted by the move is bold and clear: cities offer tremendous leverage for climate change progress (as well as sabotage by opponents). With more than 1,000 mayors already onboard with the US Conference of Mayors agreement, the cities are where the hockey puck is going. Therefore, cities are where we should be going, too. Furthermore, this is important: Republican mayors and Democratic mayors in red states are already proven to be receptive to the US Conference of Mayors initiative. So what are the possible strategies that such city-level climate change activism may take? Three come to mind: 1) change existing cities, 2) change what's added to existing cities, and 3) change how we build and create new cities. All three are necessary, although #3 is probably more relevant for developed nations that are already very dense and rapidly-urbanizing developing nations rather than a country such as the United States — especially given the decentralized, organic manner in which cities generally tend to form in this country. (There are exceptions, of course, e.g., company towns and master-planned communities such as Summerlin, Nevada. But communities are more likely to incorporate into their own municipality as a result of offshoot growth from existing cities or due to legal/political/financial/tax disputes between residents within the community.) Climate CoLab has left two proposals, mine and NewCityFounders, which on first blush may seem to reflect different approaches: mine focusing on #1 (by doubling the number of cities officially committed to climate change mitigation & adaptation) and the other proposal focusing on #3 and possibly #2 (by building at least 50 new low-carbon cities by 2050). Here's why that framing is overly simplistic: focusing now on #1 (change existing cities — via political, policy, and private-sector changes) gets us #2 (change what's added to existing cities) and helps make #3 possible (change how we build and create new cities). How so? In order to successfully build and create new cities that advance our shared goals for climate change advocacy, one must resolve the political and policy issues, as well as the various movement and equity issues. Addressing these issues is at the heart of changing existing cities, #1, which lays the groundwork for #2 and #3. For example, who will choose the leaders to represent the residents of a city not yet built: the private investors, or the prospective voters who aren't there yet? From which bench of potential leaders should the new municipal policymakers and administrators come? Which engaged citizens will demand or seek out the new carbon-free places to live, work, shop, and go to school? Why should people move away from their current residence, especially if it's further away from their current employer, and who's going to run the school system and provide other public services in the new place? Will the new cities entrench or alleviate the widespread de facto segregation and warehousing of poor people and people of color — a problem that profoundly implicates our values, our understanding of effective mitigation and adaptation policies, and the necessary political alliances or non-interference of stakeholders? "Starting over" with a new city, I think, presents powerful possibilities. I strongly urge and cheer on the initiative. To the extent that current municipal and state policies, political environments, and public-private partnerships must be created and reformed anyway to enable changes in the creation of those new cities, changing the existing factors via existing leverage points (existing cities) will likely get us more mitigation and adaption victories in the end. And it will get us those wins sooner than by 2050 and on a much broader level. |
Kate O. Sep 24, 2015 07:05 | Proposal creator This post responds to some of the specific suggestions and concerns raised in the judges' evaluation. Per a realistic assessment of this proposal's chances of passing beyond the finalist stage, which are likely negligible for various reasons, I will try to be direct. Ultimately, the core issue is what the judges, along with the voting community to a lesser extent, consider to be the point of this crowdsourcing platform and the strategic value of deeming a particular proposal to be a "winner." Is it enough that the 2020 cities by 2020 idea was put on the table, forcing a few key leaders in climate change advocacy to consider it? Is it enough that the even broader "hey, cities are important for climate change" concept was elevated before a slightly larger climate activist community? If that's all, I'll take it. Could or should this crowdsourcing platform be used in the actual seeding or launching of the proposal? In using the accolade to push for major donors and institutional players' attention? In the elevation of the city-focused approach in the eyes of the national media and broader public? Not that I have a choice in the matter, but that's really up to the judges and CoLab administrators. (Perhaps this proposal will at least win the popularity contest; maybe it won't get anything at all.) This submission was not a detailed grant application for six figures from a foundation or philanthropist, nor a PR tool for an organization that's planning to launch it anyway, and it was not meant to be. It could be the start of something, however. That's why the above questions are relevant to addressing the pessimism evident in the feedback, along with the helpful constructive suggestions. They are excerpted below, followed by responses. Issue: "...get more cities to sign up for the Compact of Mayors not the Mayors Climate Protection Agreement" First, I think what the feedback's focus on "2020 cities by 2020" signifies is both good and bad. It's great that it's so catchy, but that wasn't not the entirety of the proposal. For instance, the extended proposal description goes into several new ideas which currently does not exist, particularly creating new benefits for participating cities -- such as pooling the cities' negotiating power for capital/energy/upgrade purchases and creating a more user-friendly legislative resources for local policymakers that outside stakeholders can simultaneously organize around. With respect to the Compact of Mayors vs. US Conference of Mayors agreement issue, President Obama has already called for 100 mayors to join the Compact of Mayors before the Paris meeting, up from 34 cities onboard now. It's a fantastic call to action, albeit one which appears not to have gotten serious attention, and I hope our country meets that goal. Not only is the Compact of Mayors' public-facing effort more rigorous and focused specifically on climate change, its operation on the international plane is clearer and stronger. That's exactly why (the non-mutually exclusive) organizing around the US Conference of Mayors' climate protection initiative offers advantages that the Compact of Mayors (or ICLEI, or COP 21, or cCR, or C40 etc.) does not: the former operates through a domestic multi-issue mechanism focused on organizing, supporting, and advancing the constituency of mayors, rather than a mechanism existing solely to advance the singular priority of climate change on the international plane. Thus, depending on the locale, a mayor may find it more politically feasible (and potentially less legally complicated) to join a voluntary, exhortatory climate protection pledge through a uniquely-American association of American mayors operating only in America — instead of heeding the Democratic President's call to promise to stick to climate change mitigation via an internationally-recognized "compact" founded in part by the former NYC mayor (who is also famously behind the gun violence prevention initiative, among other things). More relevant to this proposal is that 2020 cities joining the Conference of Mayors pledge by 2020 is a more long-term vision that's actually plausible. 1060 cities are already onboard, including cities with Republican mayors and Democratic mayors in red states. Doubling it is a rallying cry for accelerating a movement. Upping the number of Compact cities in the US to 100 is less exciting. Issue: "...a doubling of signatories to an existing agreement isn't all that novel unless there's also a strategy for changing that agreement to make it much more effective, and I'm not entirely sure what that strategy is after reading this proposal." Does the 2020 cities by 2020 initiative that seeks to mobilize the broader progressive movement, not just environmental and climate change groups, already exist? Efforts to get more cities onboard with the various city-based climate change movements is certainly not new. (Nor is the idea of carbon neutrality for new cities or new city additions.) Obviously so, since 1060 cities have already joined the US Conference of Mayors' climate protection agreement. The premise behind the excerpted criticism is unclear, since the proposal explicitly stated that the desired goal is for enlisted cities to be pushed into doing more than the mitigation options on the table now. Some specific examples were outlined for illustrative purposes, but the process in practice is the familiar one: from a menu of possibilities, develop and fight around the solutions that best fit the policy, political, and strategic needs of the situation, the city, and the interests of stakeholders. The flexibility also helps makes it easier to sequence victories so that one leads to another, building constituencies along the way. Issue: "Similarly, the impact isn't clear without a better sense of what exactly these cities would be signing on to." & "The proposal would be stronger if the goal were to get signatories to take on 2-3 specific major challenges that are best addressed at the local level, with clear metrics and evaluation to ensure the greatest possible impact." The contest platform demanded that every submission comprehensively address every single sector. That said, I agree that it would be helpful to focus on a few crisp core goals for each city — and that could be an operating principle. But the proposal originally did not estimate the overall emissions impact because it's a political brainstorming exercise, not a technical one, premised on the idea that the operating principle in practice would unavoidably be a city-by-city effort. Issue: "Ideally, the proposal would include links to other Co-Lab proposals to serve as the challenges adopted by signatories." Again, this comment really depends on what one considers to be the point of this crowdsourcing platform: advancing the crowdsourcing platform, or advancing the cause of climate change mitigation? I have a different view whether linking to other CoLab proposals, by virtue of their presence in the CoLab system, would be ideal in strengthening the proposal. Issue: "The author is upfront about the valid concern that a city-based approach could lead to simply relocating emission sources outside of participating city boundaries." Issue: "It falls short, however, in articulating how to overcome real barriers: lack of capacity in cities (people and money), competition between climate and other city priorities; and a means to assure adequate stringency when up-front capital costs and stranded assets begins to bite." and "It also leaves a reader wondering who should spark this movement and take the lead? who will convene and organize such a coalition?" This is actually a criticism and question for the institutional donors and players in the climate change advocacy space.
|
