Please find below the
Overall, very novel and intriguing, but still needs more to development on mechanisms through which public perception would influence commercial performance. Will this proposal have an effect or will it simply create a social phenomenon that doesn't shift carbon pollution levels? Workability could also be thought through more. Can you practically implement a proposal of this sort? However, its outside-the-box thinking that deserves to be explored and developed much more thoroughly.
The judges have decided to advance this proposal because of its careful technical discussion of public ledgers. However, the judges strongly felt that the carbon price aspect of this proposal needed considerable elaboration. Its not clear the mechanism through which the proposed public ledger will drive meaningful emissions reductions. Further, the proposal will need a much more detailed discussion about the politics of addressing climate change in this way, particularly in the United States. How can this policy response be made politically feasible? The judges recommend you reach out to a few of the other crypto-currency proposals - including the authors of the 4C proposal - to consider how the relative strengths of each could be merged into a more complete package, possibly partnering with these other teams.
1. This is a creative proposal with an outside the box idea. Its feasibility is difficult to judge, though the authors do make an argument for the technological viability of their plan. They pay less attention to the political viability of the plan, and the social access of the world's poor to the carbon rights proposed. Still, the largest issue is that the authors don't elaborate how the cap will be reduced over time to create a carbon price, or other incentives geared towards decarbonization. Individuals are given a lifetime lease on a tonne of carbon at birth. Presumably as global population increases, so too would the cap? What if any mechanisms would drive climate mitigation?
2. My only concern with a software/mathematical approach to the problem is that generally speaking the "masses" won't have the background to truly understand how the system works. The (growing?) "digital divide" between people who know and don't know how to manipulate things with computers could make this solution even more problematic. What assurance is there that the system won't be gamed by savvy users? Can we trust that regulators in the government will possess the highest level of software/mathematical proficiency to prevent gaming/abuse from the outside?
3. Anything times 7 billion is impractical; what global governance structure/treaty/organization will realistically ensure that this system works correctly?
No comments have been posted.