Skip navigation

Please find below the judging results for your proposal.

Finalist Evaluation

Judges'' comments

Thank you for participating in the 2015 Climate CoLab China's Climate Action Plan contest, and for the time you spent in creating your entry.

The Judges have strongly considered your proposal, 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 and to submit it into future contests, which will open in the fall and winter of 2016. In the meantime, you can keep developing your work by transferring it to the Regional Climate Action Plan Workspace (; here you can re-open it, make edits, and add collaborators. You can do so by logging into your account, opening your proposal, selecting the Admin tab, and clicking “Copy proposal”. Once the 2016 contests open, you can use this same feature to move your proposal to an open contest.

We very much hope you will stay involved in the Climate CoLab community. Please support and comment on other proposals on the platform and continue to submit your ideas into our contests.

If you have questions, please contact the Climate CoLab staff at

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.

All the best,
2015 Climate CoLab Judges

Additional comments from the Judges:

The vision described seems disruptive and impactful. I don't see a logical reasoning as to the feasibility / viability of the proposed technologies when placed in China's particular circumstances, what is the competing options and how this suit of technology will grow into materiality either offshore or onshore.

I also don't see how this is specially suited to China, other than the top-down approach the Chinese government could take as the authors indicated.

The presentation is not very clear and logic - seem to be a lot of cut and paste and quotes.

Share conversation: Share via:

Michael Hayes

Aug 14, 2015


1 |
Share via:
Your name: CJ Guo Your feedback: The proposal does present a grant idea but there is a lack of evidence as to its viability with a reasonable time frame. It is also not clear how this idea would be best applied to / deployed in China – I am not sure if the table showing the proportion of China’s biomass production in the context of the rest of the world is correct. It would be better is the authors can present a clear, at least semi-quantitative, analysis as to how this grant option would compete with existing energy/water supply options, and if not competitive short term, what technology improvement / breakthrough and policy support from the government would be needed to enable a material deployment of the technology suite over time, and again, how / why would they be better suited to China. Again, grant idea is great but any idea to be materially deployed have to be economically more competitive over incumbent solutions. Policy support does help in the initial stage, but how much support is needed is associated with interplay between the new options and existing ones, which should be addressed in a proposal like this. Fellows’ name: Angela Yeh, Liang Yang Fellows’ feedback: - Comment to title: The proposal shows an interesting idea, but it is generally adoptable. The author may specify it for China in this contest. - Comment to pitch: the pitch could be a more direct proposal - starting with a more active, straightforward explanation. For example: chemosynthesis has great potential to mitigate emissions through a, b, and c. also - the pitch should be china relevant. why is chemosynthesis a particularly attractive solution for China, and no other regions. - Comment to summary: 1. this whole section needs to be restructured for better ease of understanding; I would also selected only a few graphs/figures to support your statement (the sources and purpose of the figures can be more focused and refined). 2. structure of WENN: start with definition, then the different elements of WENN, then implementation stages (where economies of scale, deployment, inter-government efforts etc come in) - it should follow a more logical flow. the summary is too long at this moment. I would suggest to move some contents to later sessions, for instance, details of the mentioned projects/technologies could be put at the following session. - Comment to pictures: Some of the figures may not be necessarily included in this proposal. And the remain ones would need to be introduced and explained with texts. - Comment to ‘Be universally applicable…’: sure - but it is recommended that you add how it can be tailored to China - Comment to ‘be fundable…’: specifically, how to tap into those multi-development fund? - Comment to ‘Green bond/grant programs list’: the list includes grant programs mostly in the US or other world regions. How could them be available for China? - Comment to ‘The list of proposals are early, less refined, versions of the WENN Protocol...’: Supper idea to have one proposal that fits to all regions and sectors. But I guess the author would have to specify them for each of the sectors/regions.

Michael Hayes

Sep 12, 2015


2 |
Share via:


There have been further refinement of the Water, Energy, Nutrient Nexus (WENN) Protocol in the area of authorship and organization.

The link to that work is:Greetings,There have been further refinement of the Water, Energy, Nutrient Nexus (WENN) Protocol in the area of authorship and organization.The link to that work is:

However, there still is the need to address each nation's/region's ability to use the WENN Protocol per the competition(s) mandate.I'm working my way through the information found in the World Resource Institute database: and hope to be able to make clear linkage between the national pledges and the WENN Protocol within the revision time frame allowed within the Finals stage of the competition.

Your continued patients with the development of the WENN Protocol proposal and further support would be greatly appreciated.

Best regards,