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

Community Discussions

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

Share conversation: Share via:

Michael Hayes

Oct 13, 2015


1 |
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