proven solutions

Proven climate solutions: How do we decide what solutions to feature on this site?

To ensure you can rely on the information here when planning climate priorities for your family, organization or government, we have undertaken extensive research which includes scientific or high level journalism practices. This has taken the form of not only continuous review of available expert literature, but has been verified by two decades of primary, hands-on study. Our blog material may occasionally be lively and can be flippant, but it tends to be a reflection of previously published articles in credible publications, and subject to review by the experts who read them.

Bruce (BF) Nagy is the main writer of these blog posts and is also the author of numerous magazine features, columns, reports and one book, The Clean Energy Age (Rowman & Littlefield, Washington DC, 2018). In all of these cases Nagy gathers information by interviewing the the world’s top experts and supplementing this information with in-depth supporting information and research.

In order to be included without qualification in our collection of success stories, a climate solution generally meets two key criteria:

  1. Technical viability

2. Economic feasibility

Not all of our solutions are technologies. For example some are government program models, or clean energy financing instruments. In these cases they must still be technically or practicably workable and economically rational, with success stories to support their status as best practices or potential best practices.

In the case of technologies, we look for solutions that have a chance to make a material impact against global warming, water and land pollution, ozone depletion or biodiversity loss because they have been proven in practice, are supported by consensus among specialists in the field in question, can be widely adopted, and there is a reasonable likelihood that they will be adopted. Sometimes ‘wide’ adoption might apply within a niche application, which may sound like a contradiction, but it’s not.

Occasionally we talk about promising solutions that are still in the lab and have not yet reached proof of concept, or have done so but have not yet reached commercialization milestones. In these cases we ensure that these limitations are mentioned in our reporting.


Given the breadth of the climate solutions field we have been forced to limit ourselves to specialty areas within which we have confidence in our collected expertise, leaving other topic areas to others whose authority is likely to exceed our own.

We have a high level of confidence in these topical areas:

Climate solutions in the form of clean energy and clean water technologies, government, NGO and other programming.


• Clean energy and water systems for buildings

• Clean energy transportation

• Clean energy power generation, microgrids and electricity storage

• New, evolving & future technologies in these & other areas

• Economics relating to these areas

• Government/NGO/financial institution policy planning in these areas


In the age of disinformation we are not shy about being critical of unsubstantiated claims within our areas of expertise as described in the foregoing. You can expect candid remarks based on evidence. Examples of technologies we do not support are all forms of nuclear, coal and gas, so-called carbon capture & sequestration (as distinct from natural sequestration), most models related to biomass and ethanol. We have also learned to be highly skeptical of any kind of industry self-regulation. Success stories are few and far between.


It is standard protocol to fully disclose conflicts of interest that may exist alongside enthusiastic support for a technology or branded product. The information presented here is general in nature and for planning purposes, you should always seek professional assistance, second opinions and so forth.