Please find below the
Semi-Finalist Evaluation
Judges'' comments
Proposal:Correct the whole market not just carbon
Contest: U.S. Carbon Price
Thank you for your contest entry. We appreciate your willingness to share your ideas and also the time and effort you put into developing a proposal and submitting it to the contest.
We, the Judges, have strongly considered your proposal and found that it contained intriguing elements; however, we have chosen to not advance it to the next round of competition.
We encourage you to keep developing your idea. Transfer your proposal 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 welcome you to stay involved in the Climate CoLab community: support and comment on proposals that have been named Semi-Finalists and finalists, and even volunteer to join one those teams if you have relevant expertise. During the voting period, you can help select the contest’s Popular Choice Winner. The Climate CoLab will be opening more contests in the coming months, and you are welcome to submit your proposals to those contests as well.
Keep up the great work. We hope that by working together, we all can create solutions that wouldn’t otherwise be possible.
2015 Climate CoLab Judges
Further comments:
This proposal suggests an insurance premium be paid by producers of products
in proportion to the risk that the products end up as "waste." To the extent that the waste is GHG emissions, then this makes some sense. To the extent that waste is something else, it is not clear what risks exactly the premium is meant to price. In principle, if there are environmental costs
associated with landfills, air pollution, etc., then those impacts could be priced.
The problem is that a producer had no information about or control over the range of ways in which consumers use or dispose of their products. It is difficult to see how you would avoid double counting. Should the glass manufacturer, the soda manufacturer, the distributor, or the retailer be responsible? And how does one set the fee? On a ton basis? It would also be good to see how insurers would fit into this system. Finally, it would be hard to see Congress passing such a policy.
This proposal is a great conceptual piece, but would benefit from more specificity.
0comments
Share conversation:
Share via:
No comments have been posted.
