Climate Emergency Centers
Utilizing empty UK buildings as community hubs for climate action, hosting events and webinars, saving building owners on business rates as a registered charity.User Review
AI Review
A1
Reviewed on 14 Feb 2024 05:20 PM
Projects must be at least 3 months old. Newer projects should establish themselves and submit to the next round.
The project Climate Emergency Centers is currently based in the UK and has access to around 20 buildings, indicating that it is established and has been operational for a period that exceeds the 3-month threshold.
The Grant must be primarily focused on climate solutions (the group may do other work but the grant proposal should be directly related to climate solutions). The proposal should explicitly outline how this project will help reduce GHGs or is an important core infrastructure for web3 climate solutions.
The project aims to repurpose empty buildings for the benefit of the local community to work on climate solutions, which is directly related to climate action. However, there is no explicit linkage to how this will reduce GHGs or its role in core infrastructure for web3 climate solutions, so further information might be needed for a definitive assessment.
Grantees who received funding in previous rounds should report on project progress since GR15 or the Alpha & Beta rounds. We understand that some projects may have less progress given the timing of Alpha & Beta round disbursements. This will ensure accountability to supporters and also help encourage contributors by showing what you’ve been accomplishing.
There is no information provided regarding previous rounds of funding or progress made since then. If the project received funding previously, it would need to report on its progress to meet this criterion.
All returning grantees are expected to update their proposal, in addition to project updates the proposal should include lessons learned from previous work and how they will use the additional funding from the upcoming round. The updated proposal should indicate how additional funding will help the project meet its goals, and include a rough timeline for the project overall.
The provided information does not specify if the project is a returning grantee or if there is an updated proposal that outlines lessons learned, future funding usage, and a timeline. Such details would be needed to fully evaluate this criterion.
There is a general expectation that projects are within the “realm of viability”. Even if a project may be at a very early stage, it still must seem credible to the average person with an understanding of web3 technology and climate solutions. Grantee founders must genuinely intend to build the project, and the project must not broadly be considered an impossibility.
Repurposing empty buildings for climate solutions appears to be a viable project that the average person could understand and find credible. The project does not need to rely heavily on web3 technology to be viable. However, more detailed information could be needed to assess intentions and long-term feasibility.