Please find below the
We feel that this proposal does a great job of laying out the technical solution and that the idea could have a tremendous impact. However, given that this proposal, although interesting, has been proposed elsewhere, we felt that it would have to have addressed the political challenges more thoroughly in order to advance to the finalist round.
In particular, one of our judges mentioned:
There are a few major obstacles here. First, this ignores the context of the NEPA reevaluation battle at CEQ and the White House, which is unfortunate since that's been a lively debate that could inform the proposal. Second, such a hefty fee would make, as the authors point out, fossil energy pretty enormously expensive straight away. Their suggestion to use a portion if the fees to help lower income users is well and good, but impossible without congressional action.
We very much appreciate the hard work you put in to this proposal. It would have a very large impact, but in the current political climate, we do not think it would be able to pass.
This is a fantastic proposal for a fantastic idea (and an idea that one of the judges happens to have some background knowledge on, having contributed to multiple papers on the topic).This proposal deals with many of the regulatory challenges to making the change happen, which I like. It also does a good job of explaining the economics of the change.
The two we feel could be strengthened is to provide some additional quantitative analysis, as well as addressing whether this proposal has been previously suggested in the environmental community and what novel contributions this proposal adds.
Thanks for moving this effort forward; it would help get at actual impacts of combating climate change.
No comments have been posted.