Please find below the
Finalist Evaluation
Judges'' comments
Thank you for participating in the 2015 Climate CoLab Buildings contest, and for the time you spent in creating and revising your entry.
The Judges have strongly considered your proposal in this second round of evaluation, and have chosen to not advance it as a Finalist for this contest.
We, the Judges and contest Fellows, are truly grateful for your contribution to the Climate CoLab and for your commitment to address climate change.
We encourage you to keep developing your work. Transfer it to the Proposal Workspace to re-open it, make edits, add collaborators, and even submit it into a future contest. You can do so by logging into your account, opening your proposal, selecting the Admin tab, and clicking “Move proposal”.
We hope you will stay involved in the Climate CoLab community. Please support and comment on proposals that have been named Finalists and vote for which proposal you would like to be nominated as the contest’s Popular Choice Winner.
If you have questions, please contact the Climate CoLab staff at admin@climatecolab.org
Keep up the great work. And thank you again for being a part of this mission to harness the world’s collective efforts to develop and share innovative climate change solutions.
2015 Climate CoLab Judges
Additional comments from the Judges:
Comment 1:
It is a creative proposal yet is not supported by a solid implementation plan. It resemble more realistic financing schemes available in Europe where debt is extinguished using savings on energy bills (due to building higher efficiency). Without a well-articulated program (including training), the employment of unskilled labor for the construction of high performance buildings could negatively affect the overall initiative. similar Criticisms raised by the judges have not been addressed.
Comment 2:
Unfortunately, the author has not developed this proposal to address some of the questions and concerns provided at the previous stage-- the same problems remain with the lack of data to back up some of the stated claims.
Comment 3:
I agree with the previous comments, it does not appear that the issues raised in the previous evaluation have been fully resolved in this submission. While a very interesting concept this proposal requires more detail particularly around the financial models.
Comment 4:
I think it is a very interesting idea looking at the financial / investment side of retrofit as all necessary technology to make a chance is available and on the market. Economics and especially the investment is very often a barrier to retrofit and to employ such technologies. This proposal seeks to combine a range of social aspects from supporting the local community, work for the unemployed and sustainable retrofit. I am not familiar enough with the mortgage / financial situation in the US therefore it is hard for me to judge the feasibility of the concept. The abbreviations used and not explained such as REIT and LNC make it hard to understand. I like the idea of a partnership for fighting climate change with multiple side-benefits. Not clear to me is what the benefit for the investors is, besides all philanthropic engagement there needs to be someone that invests money with an economic incentive, otherwise this will remain a very limited niche product. I am wondering how you would realistically start this up, you would need to have a strong support by the local community and would probably need to start rather large scale to be effective and to create a local market.
Comment 5:
The idea as I understand it is to ask communities to finance new homes in return for equity ownership of the home. Sort of public housing, but the occupant can sell the home and pay the community back with a profit from the equity growth, and to require the homes to be sustainable.
Semi-Finalist Evaluation
Judges'' ratings
| • | Novelty: | |
| • | Feasibility: | |
| • | Impact: | |
| • | Presentation: |
Judges'' comments
Dear author,
We are please to inform you that your proposal is advancing to the next stage.
2015 Climate CoLab Judges.
The concept itself is intriguing at it's core, and there is definitely a critical need to tackle the finance issues associated with investment in energy efficiency measures-- but ultimately the proposal just contains a lot of claims without any data to back it up.
Creating a new crowd financing option based on trading labor for mortgage alternatives is a very thoughtful and potentially powerful framework. I see the connections between value creation and efficiency as well as carbon mitigation, but the connections are not yet fully clear. Without prior knowledge, its not fully comprehensible yet - please clarify.
0comments
Share conversation:
Share via:
No comments have been posted.
