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

Tomas Brage

Jul 8, 2014


1 |
Share via:
Thank you very much for your proposal! Enhancing urban relience to the adverse effects of climate change through limiting energy dependency is an important subject. Your proposal is very interesting. It is comprehensive and it adresses most of the questions. Here are some comments that I hope may help you round it up: Overall, I would invite you to use a more factual description of your proposal, and minimize the commercial, marketing jargon. That would be more appropriate for our knowledge-based forum. There are also some acronyms, brands and concepts that lack description, making the story line difficult to follow at some points -concire, DRIFT, SMART, SME-. In the same way the Path to Zero is first introduced, and only later explained. About the structure: the fully description of the Path to Zero proposal should be included, if briefly, in the Summary chapter, in the first paragraph if possible: Who are the proponents, what kind of enterprise, what is the product, how does it work, and why it is relevant to enhancing urban relience to climate change. My impression is that all that crucial information is scattered throughout the proposal. Under the Category of the action heading you have the chance to place your project on the field of energy neutrality, renewables etc. Under actions proposed I would separate your strategic steps, from the products, and then group up the products more neatly. The products and strategies should be clearly explained, or otherwise not be mentioned. Under the where chapter you could mention that your initiative is meant for existing neighbourhoods. Here my appreciations of the content: I am not clear about the cost of the bill, the potential savings for the user etc. Do the energy saving strategies include retrofitting of buildings, implying construction work? About the estimates included in the other key benefits section, I would suggest you take some moderate percentage, and definitely less than all -100%- buildings. Maybe 50%? About the costs of the project: is it realistic to assume that it would be self funded, even in the first stages of development? What about the aquisition of expertise, product development and IT resources, testing and piloting you mention in the time line? It is exciting to think of the possibilities opened by your project. I am really looking forward to seeing you elaborate further your proposal. Good luck!

Climate Colab

Aug 6, 2014


2 |
Share via:
Specific revisions requested: 1) Clearly and explicitly identify how this proposal relates to urban resilience. This contest is about adapting to a changing climate, not mitigating the causes of it. 2) Need to draw a specific link between energy independence and risks for specific cities - how will this help them be more resilient? Judges comments: "The proposal is well-written and compelling, but I'm not sure it meets the spirit of this particular competition."

Vahid Koree

Aug 11, 2014


3 |
Share via:
Thank you very much for your comments! We will review the proposal and take into account the feedback that you have given us.

Climate Colab

Sep 3, 2014


4 |
Share via:
Your proposal is a huge project. How would this small grant move the work forward? Besides it, your proposal does not quite address climate resilience effectively, as separate from climate change mitigation. A driving principle in this proposal is that competitiveness increases resilience. In the judges opinion this is not a meaningful definition of resilience.