Since there are no currently active contests, we have switched Climate CoLab to read-only mode.

Learn more at https://climatecolab.org/page/readonly.

Proposal image

A UN Climate Action Program - all measures necessary to rebalancing the climate. by rosjones

4comments

Share conversation:

Daniel Rossetto Jul 4, 2014 09:03 Fellow 1 \| Share via:	Dear rosjones, Thank you for your entry in the global plan contest! Please note that — unlike other Climate CoLab contests -- two central elements of this global contest is for authors to (1) link together proposals from other contests into an integrated plan for the world as a whole, and (2) complete the climate model for their proposal’s impact on climate change and our economic systems. Please revise your proposal to incorporate these two elements, or else your proposal is not likely to be rated highly in this contest. If you wish to submit an idea to the Climate CoLab without including other proposals and how they fit together into a larger vision, we recommend moving your proposal to another contest. Kind regards, Daniel
Rosemary Jones Jul 16, 2014 10:05 Member 2 \| Share via:	Proposal contributor Dear Daniel. Thank you for that reminder. Hopefully there is enough space to put my proposal with other peoples, but please explain what you mean by a climate model for their proposal's impact on climate change and our economic systems. Also, please explain why that is in anyway an answer to the contest's question. Please also advise when the contest for solving the totality of the climate problem by any one single person will be available. Thank you. Rosemary Jones.
Rosemary Jones Jul 18, 2014 10:25 Member 3 \| Share via:	Dear Daniel. I am getting no response from the Model interactive. What to do. Is it essential, and if so, why ? Thank you. Rosemary Jones.
Climate Colab Aug 20, 2014 08:52 Member 4 \| Share via:	Mentions link to Green Climate Fund but does not explain how proposed program will interact with GCF and its program, objectives and governance. The proposal is a mix of what, why and how. Somewhat difficult to understand and follow, more advocacy than a proposals for concrete actions. Benefits are subjective and not clearly enough specified. Choice of subproposals appeared somewhat arbitrary and not adequately justified in the explanation (also the sub-proposals were not hyperlinked so a reader could not click through to read them).