Evaluate climate initiatives

I need to send this climate-initiative evaluation to Marta in sustainability and to Omar in strategy for their approval, signers in that order, with a Wednesday deadline. Check the cost-benefit table for missing assumptions, ensure the emissions baselines recalculate from the 2020 sheet, and confirm the sensitivity scenarios include low, medium and high uptake before routing for e-signature.

Before I send this to the city review team, make the evaluation easy to accept: surface net present value and avoided CO2t on the first sheet, flag any projects that push payback past seven years, and make the funding rows and required permits jump out so a reviewer can say yes or ask one focused question.

The climate team told me to include adaptation benefits; procurement expects hard cost numbers. I produced a blended NPV and now two projects show negative NPV, but I do not know whether to drop adaptation benefits, extend the horizon, or ask for additional funding. Which is the likely diagnosis and the best next move to present to Marta and Omar this Wednesday?

Over the last three rounds of initiative reviews we spend most time reconciling baseline emissions and discount rates, then scramble to update every scenario sheet. Where am I consistently losing time and stakeholder trust, and what one habit should I change so future evaluations require one fewer full recalculation cycle?