The Asilomar Conference: Organizing Committee Background And Bios

The Organizing Committee for the International Asilomar Conference on Climate Intervention Technologies has been assembled to emphasize 1) scientific excellence in fields related to climate intervention, 2) leadership expertise in developing consensus around difficult climate-related issues, and 3) diversity of scientific expertise and geographic background.

ORGANIZING COMMITTEE

Chair:   Dr. Michael MacCracken, Chief Scientist, Climate Institute. 

Dr. MacCracken is a climate modeler who spent much of his career at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories.  He spent 9 years as the Executive Director of the US Global Change Research Program, the federal interagency committee that coordinates global change research across the federal government.  He is the past President, International Association of Meteorology and Atmospheric Sciences.  Dr. MacCracken has substantial experience in getting consensus on difficult issues.  For example, was the lead author of the US agency response to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 4^th Assessment Report published in 2001.  That job required that he get consensus from scientists in federal agencies on specific wording in the three volume document.

Honorary Chair:  Dr. Paul Berg, Stanford University Emeritus Professor

Dr. Berg won the Nobel Prize in 1980 for his work on recombinant DNA techniques.  He was the chair of the organizing committee of the groundbreaking 1975 Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA Technologies.  This conference resulted in a scientific consensus on the guidelines to minimize risk associated with recombinant DNA research.  The Biosafety Levels identified by the conference are still used worldwide to determine the level of containment necessary for scientific research on hazardous biological materials.  The conference was the first instance in which members of the scientific community voluntarily identified and agreed on procedures to minimize risk associated with scientific research

Corresponding Committee Member:  Dr. Paul Crutzen,  Max Planck Institute, Germany and Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California

Dr. Crutzen won the first Nobel Prize ever given for environmental research in 1995 (together with Dr. Sherwood Rowland and Dr. Mario Molino) for his work in identifying the role of chlorofluorocarbons in stratospheric ozone chemistry and in generation of the ‘ozone hole’.  He also won the Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement.  Dr. Crutzen is a stratospheric chemist and initiated the public science discussion of geoengineering/climate intervention with his provocative 2006 essay in the journal Climatic Change on the potential to artificially reduce temperatures using stratospheric aerosols.

Members of the Committee:

Dr. Scott Barrett

Dr. Barrett has just been appointed the Lenfest-Earth Institute Professor of Natural Resource Economics at Columbia University. This is a joint appointment with the School of International and Public Affairs and the Earth Institute. He a social scientist and economist known for his research into game theoretical analysis of climate change treaties. His book on the subject Environment and Statecraft: The Strategy of Environmental Treaty Making was published in 2003. He has been involved in the discussions of the Kyoto Treaty and its comparison to the more successful Montreal Protocol. More recently, he has been publishing on the institutions set up to control the regional and global spread of infectious diseases.  Before moving to Columbia Dr. Barrett was a professor of political science at Johns Hopkins University where he served as Director of the International Policy Program and Professor of Environmental Economics & International Political Economy.  He previously taught at the London Business School and was also affiliated with the University College London.

Dr. Roger Barry

Dr. Barry is the Director of the World Data Center for Glaciology and Distinguished Professor of Geography at the University of Colorado.  His research focuses on Arctic climate, cryosphere-climate interactions, mountain climate and climate change impacts on Arctic sea ice and permafrost.  His distinguished career in this field has been recognized with the Goldthwait Polar Medal, the first Francois Emile Matthes Award, and the Founder’s Medal—one of two gold medals awarded annually— by the Royal Geographical Society, London, in recognition of his excellence in geographical research, fieldwork, teaching, and public engagement.  Dr. Barry has participated as both an author and a reviewer of UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) climate assessments and as an IPCC author.

Dr. Steven Hamburg

Dr. Hamburg is the Chief Scientist of the Environmental Defense Fund.  As Chief Scientist, Dr. Hamburg is responsible for the scientific integrity of EDF’s positions and programs. His training and research specialty is ecosystem ecology, with a focus on forests. Dr. Hamburg has served as an advisor to both corporations and non-governmental organizations and was awarded an Environmental Merit award by the US Environmental Protection Agency for his climate change-related activities.  Dr. Hamburg also serve as the Ittleson Associate Professor of Environmental Studies at Brown University and before going to the Environmental Defense Fund, Dr. Hamburg chaired the Center for Environmental Studies at Brown.

 Dr. Richard Lampitt

Dr. Lampitt is a Senior Scientist with the National Oceanography Center of the UK and an associated professor of the University of Southampton.  Dr. Lampitt is a biogeochemist who specializes in the role of the oceans in the global carbon cycle.  He is a leader in developing large international oceanographic campaigns for ocean observation and for carbon cycle studies and currently heads the European Commission-funded EuroSITES program of ocean observation networks around the world.  Dr. Lampitt is also a leading designer of oceanographic instrumentation.

Dr. Diana Liverman

Dr. Liverman is the Co-Director of Institute for Environment and Society and

Professor of Geography and Regional Development at the University of Arizona.  She also holds a position as Professor of Environmental Science at the University of Oxford and Senior Fellow in the Environmental Change Institute, Oxford University. Her main research interests include climate impacts, vulnerability and adaptation, and climate policy and mitigation especially in the developing world. She also works on the political economy and political ecology of environmental management in the Americas, especially in Mexico.  Dr. Liverman is a member of the US NAS Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change and the Inter American Institute (IAI) for Global Change Research. Currently she is a member of the new National Academy of Sciences Committee on America’s Climate Choices, which is advising the US government on responses to climate change.  She is also the chair of the scientific advisory committee international Global Environmental Change and Food Systems (GECAFS) program and sits on the parent committee for the international Earth Systems Science Partnership.   Like others on the organizing committee, Dr. Liverman has substantial experience in the IPCC process and has been a chapter lead author in the IPCC volume on adaptation.

 Dr. Thomas Lovejoy

Dr. Lovejoy is the Heinz Center Biodiversity Chair at the Heinz Center for Science and the Environment.  Dr. Lovejoy is an internationally known expert in biodiversity, having coined the term early in his career. Previously he served as President of the Heinz Center since May 2002. Before coming to The Heinz Center, he was the World Bank’s Chief Biodiversity Advisor and Lead Specialist for Environment for Latin America and the Caribbean and Senior Advisor to the President of the United Nations Foundation. Dr. Lovejoy has been Assistant Secretary and Counselor to the Secretary at the Smithsonian Institution, Science Advisor to the Secretary of the Interior, and Executive Vice President of the World Wildlife Fund–U.S. He originated the concept of debt-for-nature swaps, and is the founder of the public television series Nature. In 2001 he was awarded the prestigious Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement.

Dr. Gordon McBean

            Dr. McBean is a Professor at the University of Western Ontario, and Chair for Policy in the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction. His research specialties are boundary layer research, hydrometeorology and environmental impact research, and weather forecasting.  Previously Dr. McBean was the Assistant Deputy Minister, Meteorological Service of Canada (MSC); Professor and Head, Department of Oceanography, University of British Columbia; Professor and Chairman, Atmospheric Science Programme, University of British Columbia, and; Senior Scientist, Canadian Climate Centre, MSC, located at the Institute of Ocean Sciences.  Dr. McBean also chaired the Joint Scientific Committee of the World Climate Research Program, served on the International Group of Funding Agencies for Global Change Research.  He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society and the American Meteorological Society.

 Dr. John Shepherd

Dr. Shepherd is a Professorial Research Fellow in Earth System Science, School of Ocean and Earth Science, National Oceanography Centre, University of Southampton, UK.  Dr. Shepherd is also Deputy Director (External Science Coordination) of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, and a Fellow of the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1999.  His current research interests include the natural variability of the climate system on long time-scales, and the development and use of intermediate complexity models of the Earth climate system, for the interpretation of the palaeo-climate record, and for long-term projections of climate change.  Dr. Shepherd chairs the Royal Society study of Geoengineering and has had to lead that process to achieve consensus on the different points of view regarding geoengineering.

Mr. Stephen Siedel

Mr. Siedel is the Vice President for Policy Analysis and General Counsel at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.  Mr. Siedel is an economist and lawyer with extensive experience in environmental programs and regulations.  He directs the domestic analysis program for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change and oversees the Pew Center’s science and environmental impacts portfolio. Prior to joining Pew Center, Mr. Seidel managed EPA’s Stratospheric Protection program including the development and implementation of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and the regulatory and voluntary partnership programs developed under Title VI of the Clean Air Act.   Mr. Seidel also served as a Senior Analyst at Council on Environmental Quality and the White House Climate Change Task Force. Under the auspices of the International Civil Aviation Organization, he co-chaired a multinational working group on market-based measures to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

Dr. Richard Somerville

Dr. Somerville Richard is Distinguished Professor Emeritus and Research Professor at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego.  Dr. Somerville is a meteorologist who has studied cloud physics and the interactions between aerosols and clouds. He was a Coordinating Lead Author in Working Group I for the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  In recent years Dr. Somerville has also published on the interaction of scientists with policymakers in the field of global climate change and on ethics and global change. Dr. Richard was an organizer of the 2007 Bali Climate Declaration by Scientists. This effort by climate scientists focused on ensuring quantitative scientific substance into the UN climate negotiations.

Dr. Tom Wigley

Dr. Wigley joined the University of Adelaide in Australia this year as a Professor.  He is a specialist in large-scale climate and carbon-cycle modeling and climate data analysis.  Before returning to the University of Adelaide where he received his PhD, he was a Senior Scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in the US and he was director of the Climatic Research Unit in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, United Kingdom.  Dr. Wigley is one of the few scientists who have used large scale models to understand the potential impact of geoengineering/climate intervention techniques.  He is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

The Asilomar Conference: Conference Statement and Participant List

CONFERENCE STATEMENT

More than 175 experts from 15 countries with a wide diversity of backgrounds (natural science, engineering, social science, humanities, law) met for five days (March 22-26, 2010) at the Asilomar conference center in Pacific Grove, CA. The participants explored a range of issues that need to be addressed to ensure that research into the risks, impacts and efficacy of climate intervention methods is responsibly and transparently conducted and that potential consequences are thoroughly understood. The group recognized that given our limited understanding of these methods and the potential for significant impacts on people and ecosystems, further discussions must involve government and civil society. Such discussions should be undertaken with humility and recognition of the threats posed by the rapid increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.

Participants reaffirmed that the risks posed by climate change require a strong commitment to mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions, adaptation to unavoidable climate change, and development of low-carbon energy sources independent of whether climate intervention methods ultimately prove to be safe and feasible.

The fact that humanity’s efforts to reduce global emissions of greenhouse gases (mitigation) have been limited to date is a cause of deep concern. Additionally, uncertainties in the response of the climate system to increased greenhouse gases leave open the possibility of very large future changes. It is thus important to initiate further research in all relevant disciplines to better understand and communicate whether additional strategies to moderate future climate change are, or are not, viable, appropriate and ethical. Such strategies, which could be employed in addition to the primary strategy of mitigation, include climate intervention methods (solar radiation management) and climate remediation methods (carbon dioxide removal).

We do not yet have sufficient knowledge of the risks associated with using methods for climate intervention and remediation, their intended and unintended impacts, and their efficacy in reducing the rate of climatic change to assess whether they should or should not be implemented. Thus, further research is essential.

Recognizing that governments collectively have ultimate responsibility for decisions concerning climate intervention and remediation research and possible implementation, this conference represented a step in facilitating a process involving broader public participation. This process should ensure that research on this issue progresses in a timely, safe, ethical and transparent manner, addressing social, humanitarian and environmental issues.

Scientific Organizing Committee

Michael MacCracken, Chief Scientist, Climate Institute, Chair

Paul Berg, Professor Emeritus, Stanford University, Advisor and Honorary Chair

Paul Crutzen, Max Planck Institute, Germany, and Scripps Institution of Oceanography, US (corresponding member)

Scott Barrett, Lenfest Professor of Natural Resource Economics, Columbia University, US

Roger Barry, Director of the World Data Center for Glaciology and Distinguished Professor of Geography, University of Colorado, US

Steven Hamburg, Chief Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund, US

Richard Lampitt, Senior Scientist, National Oceanography Center and Professor, University of Southampton, UK

Diana Liverman, Co-Director of the Institute for Environment and Society and Professor of Geography and Regional Development, University of Arizona, US. Professor of Environmental Science at the University of Oxford and Senior Fellow in the Environmental Change Institute, Oxford University, UK

Thomas Lovejoy, Heinz Center Biodiversity Chair at the Heinz Center for Science and the Environment, US

Gordon McBean, Professor, Departments of Geography and Political Science and Director of Policy Studies at the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction, The University of Western Ontario, London, Canada.

John Shepherd, Professorial Research Fellow in Earth System Science, School of Ocean and Earth Science, National Oceanography Centre,

University of Southampton, and Deputy Director (External Science Coordination) of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, UK

Stephen Siedel, Vice President for Policy Analysis and General Counsel at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, US

Richard Somerville, Distinguished Professor Emeritus and Research Professor at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, US

Thomas Wigley, Professor, University of Adelaide, Australia

Individual Supporters of the Conference Statement

Thomas Ackerman, University of Washington

Roger Aines

Jim Amonette

G. Bala, Center for Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore

Richard Elliot Benedick., National Council for Science and the Environment

Robert J. Berg, World Federation of United Nations Associations; World Academy of Art and Science

Robert Bindschadler, NASA (emeritus) and University of Maryland, Baltimore Campus

Daniel Bodansky

Peter Boyd

Max Boykoff, University of Colorado-Boulder

Stewart Brand, Global Business Network

Mark B. Brown, Department of Government, California State University, Sacramento

Wil Burns

Fei Chai, University of Maine

Elizabeth Chalecki, Boston College

Paul Craig

Jim Fournier

Bill Fulkerson

Alan Gadian

Alfonso M. Gañán-Calvo, Universidad de Sevilla

Joseph H. Golden

David G. Hawkins

Rob Jackson, Center on Global Change, Duke University

David Keith

Ben Kravitz

Tim Kruger, Oxford Geoengineering

Margaret Leinen, Climate Response Fund

Chris Lennard

Andrew Lockley

Jane C. S. Long

Douglas MacMynowski, California Institute of Technology

Andrew S. Mathews

Bryan Martel, Environmental Capital Group

Janot Mendler de Suarez, Working Group on Climate, Oceans and Security; Global Forum on Oceans, Coasts and Islands

Ashley Mercer, UC Berkeley

Juan B. Moreno-Cruz, ISEEE-Energy and Environmental Systems Group and Department of Economics, University of Calgary

David Morrow

Armand Neukermans, Silver Lining

John A. Orcutt, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego

Andreas Oschlies, IFM-GEOMAR, Kiel, Germany

Edward A. Parson, University of Michigan

Graeme Pearman, Graeme Pearman Consulting Pty Ltd, Melbourne

Arthur Petersen

Phil Rasch

Steve Rayner, James Martin Professor of Science & Civilization, University of Oxford

Jennie Rice

Alan Robock, Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University

Daniel Rosenfeld

Lewis M Rothstein, Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode island

Stephen H. Schneider

Sybil P. Seitzinger, International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP)

Steven Smith, University of Maryland

J. Srinivasan, Divecha Centre for Climate Change, Indian Institute of Science, Banaglore

Stuart Strand, University of Washington

Pablo Suarez , Boston University, Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future

Masahiro Sugiyama

Judith Swift, Coastal Institute, University of Rhode Island

Samuel Thernstrom, American Enterprise Institute

Bob Thronson

Simone Tilmes, National Center for Atmospheric Research

Dennis Tirpak

William R. Travis, Center for Science and Technology Policy Research; Department of Geography, University of Colorado at Boulder

David Victor

Chris Vivian, Cefas (Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science), Lowestoft Laboratory

Gernot Wagner

James S. Wang, Climate and Air Program, Environmental Defense Fund

Andrew Watson, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia

Dan Whaley

Kevin Whilden

Oliver Wingenter, Geophysical Research Center, New Mexico Tech

David Winickoff

Oran R. Young, Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA

Charlie Zender

Affiliations listed in this section are provided for identification purposes only and do not indicate the organization’s stance on this statement.

International Campaign for Use of the Asilomar Principles

THE “ASILOMAR PRINCIPLES”  

The “Asilomar Principles” are proposed norms and guidelines for climate intervention and remediation research.  They were developed to reduce the risks and set the safety standards associated with conducting such research.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE “ASILOMAR PRINCIPLES”

In March of 2010 the Climate Response Fund facilitated more than 175 geoengineering researchers, environmentalists, economists, historians, journalists, and policy experts gathering from 15 countries to deliberate and develop these principles. An open conference on Climate Intervention Technologies bringing the researchers together with experts in the non-science issues associated with the research, had never happened before.  Invitations to participate in the conference were extended by the conference Scientific Organizing Committee, comprised of 12 preeminent international experts on climate and led by Dr. Michael MacCracken of the Climate Institute.

The breadth of expertise brought to bear in developing the Asilomar Principles was extraordinary. The collaboration resulted in both a philosophical statement about climate intervention and remediation as well as the principles themselves. 

THE INTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN TO REDUCE THE RISK FOR CLIMATE INTERVENTION RESEARCH                              

The development of the “Asilomar Principles” was a first step towards establishing global safety standards for this research derived from interdisciplinary review of climate intervention and remediation research. The development of these principles must now be accompanied by an aggressive campaign to ensure that the “Asilomar Principles” are embraced internationally by non-profit entities and governmental institutions who plan, fund, oversee and evaluate climate intervention research.

The Climate Response Fund (CRF) will continue to work in collaboration with the outstanding conference leaders and participants, as well as invite new leadership to participate in an International Campaign to ensure the use of the “Asilomar Principles”.

THREE STEPS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR USE OF THE ASILOMAR PRINCIPLES

CRF will work to continue and expand consideration of the ways to reduce risk and set safety standards, associated with climate intervention and remediation research, in the following ways:

1)     Presentation of “Asilomar Principles”:  Press Announcements with our partners for the conference at the release of the Principles, and presentation of the Principles in international meetings.

2)     Engagement with Strategic Partners/Organizational Partners to adopt the Principles in decision-making.

3)     Outreach to governments and organizations responsible for planning, funding, overseeing, and evaluating the results of climate intervention and remediation research.

1) Presentation of Asilomar Principles:    

The International Campaign for Use of the Asilomar Principles will kick off with a press announcement and briefing to celebrate the release of the “Asilomar Principles.” In addition to press activities here in the United States, the Climate Response Fund will hold press activities in the State of Victoria, Australia, the United Kingdom, and in Canada.

2) Meetings with Strategic Partners/Organizational Partners, Governments and other Organizations

CRF will begin the international work with our strategic partners, organizational partners, and governments that have already expressed interest in the outcomes of the conference. The 2010 International Campaign will include working with the following:

US Organizations and Agencies:

National Academy of Sciences

National Science Foundation

Environmental Defense Fund

Pew Center for Global Climate Change

Department of Energy

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NASA

US Global Change Research Program

National Council for Energy Policy

American Geophysical Union

American Meteorological Society

International Organizations and Agencies:

European Science Foundation

International Geosphere Biosphere Programme

World Climate Research Program

World Academy of Arts and Sciences

London Convention/London Protocol

Governments:

State of Victoria, Australia

Canada

UK

Germany

Spain

Italy

Greece

Sweden

Norway

Brazil

Israel

India

Japan

China

Mexico

South Africa

3)  Outreach to New Partners

As a result of discussions at the Asilomar conference with participants, there are several other governments and organizations that we want to engage in discussion.  Many of these represent developing or transitional economies, and organizations emerging from the climate change community in those communities.  While researchers in these countries have not yet started climate intervention research, they are important experts on climate change and on the potential impacts of climate intervention and remediation.  They must be brought into the discussion of this research early in order to ensure that it is conducted responsibly and with appropriate concern for the impacts in the developing world.

South America

Africa

Asia

Third World Academy of Arts and Sciences

Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research

Asia Pacific Network for Global Change Research

START (International Global Change Research capacity-building program)

AOSIS (The Alliance of Small Island States)

The Asilomar International Conference on Climate Intervention Technologies

BACKGROUND

The Asilomar International Conference on Climate Intervention Technologies was structured to focus explicitly on facilitating international standards to reduce risk associated with research. The Climate Response Fund worked to produce this conference under advice of Dr. Paul Berg  (Nobel Prize Winner), who successfully implemented the historic Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA Technologies.  That conference proposed the rules and guidelines in place for RDNA science.  The 2010 Asilomar Conference was patterned specifically after the successful 1974 conference, only adding new additional elements to address the changing times and dramatically different forms of public communications.

PRECEDING THE CONFERENCE

Dr. Paul Berg had helped anticipate the growing friction that would predictably take place leading up to the conference.  And, it did! The conference was not advocating any one technique, and certainly not advocating the deployment of the technologies.  It was clearly and specifically looking to building consensus guidelines to keep the studies of this science safe. Yet select activist groups and a few scientists who were already vested in intellectual property in geoengineering, protested against collaborative deliberations for guidelines and principles for safety that this field of science might be required to meet.

THE CONFERENCE

The first evening of the conference was magical. The tone had changed. The Scientific Organizing Committee had done an absolutely tremendous job in setting the expectations and character for the conference. (Please see list of scientific organizing committee and their short bios) The speakers pointed to historical parallels in which global collaborative considerations were successful. When participants approached the microphone to speak, each acknowledged their commitment to the goal of setting guidelines and their willingness to work together. There was professional respect and… a willingness to learn.

The next days were long, intense and at points, grueling. There were real, and sometimes heated debates. Different perspectives were clear, but the collaborative and respectful tone rose above the differences.

Through the conference, the various fields of climate intervention science were reviewed. During these discussions, the scientists heard different perspectives from economists, environmentalists, social scientists and others. There was great sensitivity to our shared future in the evolution of these discussions.

Ultimately, there was one word that resonated from these leaders in their field, environmentalists, economists, historians, policy makers and more:  The word was  Humility … and that perspective changed the path of the conference. The summary statement of the conference also captured this sentiment.

We continue to believe the most important element that came from the conference was the collaboration of the different disciplines. The groups had historically been very confrontational – and had demonstrated this leading up to the conference.  During the conference, there was a transformation. Collectively the group demonstrated a willingness to “hear the other side” and more importantly, really listen.  We are confident that this conference was an awakening for everyone.

This conference was a historic event.  The validation of this effort is demonstrated by the incredible list of leaders among the conference participants. (Link to conference participants)  The world’s leaders in this field voted with their time, traveling from across the nation and around the world to this historic site. This was the first such global conference to set the safety standards and risk management protocols for climate intervention technologies.  This conference launched an international scientific movement for reasoned scientific controls, enabling the world to carefully explore the science that may be needed to sustain a climate conducive to human civilization.

The Inception and Purpose of the Climate Response Fund

“Not too many years from now, a new generation will look back at us in this hour of choosing and ask one of two questions.  Either they will ask, “What were you thinking?  Didn’t you see the entire North Polar ice cap melting before your eyes? Did you not care?” Or they will ask instead, “How did you find the moral courage to rise up and solve a crisis so many said was impossible to solve?” We must choose which of these questions we want to answer and we must give our answer now- not in words but in action.”           – Al Gore 

THE CLIMATE RESPONSE FUND

BACKGROUND

The Climate Response Fund (CRF), ( Launched January 2009), was a reaction to the global call for climate intervention research. The call to action came from the scientific community who warned that we must study climate intervention in order to understand the “in case of emergency” options might be relied upon if we hit a “climate emergency.”

What is a climate emergency? One such possibility could be a dramatic release of methane from the permafrost into our atmosphere. The result would be dramatic, effectively changing weather patterns, food growth patterns and even homeland options.

Climate intervention is not a desired option. Many impacts of climate intervention may be unsettling.  The unintended consequences are, of course, not foreseeable. The scientific community absolutely acknowledges these dangers; however, the scientific community also argues that we must be prepared for potential tipping points and that the only way to know whether any of these techniques could offset such tipping points is to study them.

Climate intervention was likened by one participant in the Asilomar Conference to chemotherapy: it is not desirable, but it may save the patient from a worse situation. The research will shine light on the field and help us to understand the issues.

The Climate Response Fund was created to ensure that, if and when this climate intervention research is done, it is done safely and responsibly.

THE EVOLUTION

Within the first months of CRF being founded, it became absolutely clear that world governments, research, funding organizations and significant individual donors were largely immobilized (not funding climate intervention research) because of concerns over risks associated with this research. It is clear that until these public and private organizations can point to an international scientific consensus on guiding principles for risk management, it is unlikely that funding will materialize, leaving a dangerous vacuum in knowledge of climate intervention and remediation tools.

Even more frightening was the fact that such guidelines do not currently exist for those around the world who are proceeding to study of these techniques.  This leaves us open to potential unintended consequences of the experiments without appropriate global consideration of safety standards. 

CONTINUED CALLS FOR GEOENGINEERING

In March 2009, Foreign Affairs published an article, “The Geoengineering Option” A Last Resort Against Global Warming? by David G. Victor, M. Granger Morgan, Jay Apt, John Steinbruner, and Katharine Ricke. The article highlighted several major points including:

1) The odds of reaching a real climate tipping point are increasing, 2) Serious research on climate intervention (or geoengineering) is still in its infancy, and it has not received the attention it deserves from politicians, and 3) The time has come to take it (climate intervention) seriously.

Furthermore, the article reflected precisely the philosophy and intent for the Asilomar International Conference On Climate Intervention Technologies:

“Although the international scientific community should take the lead in

developing a research agenda, social scientists, international lawyers,

and foreign policy experts will also have to play a role.

 Eventually, there will have to be international laws to ensure that

 globally credible and legitimate rules govern the deployment of

geoengineering systems. But effective legal norms cannot be imperiously

declared. They must be carefully developed by informed consensus

in order to avoid encouraging the rogue forms of geoengineering

they are intended to prevent.”

The call for this conference came from other sources as well. In April 2009, President Obama’s Science Advisor, Dr. John Holdren, remarked to The Associated Press about climate intervention, “It’s got to be looked at. We don’t have the luxury of taking any approach off the table.” A Geoengineering Workshop at the US National Academy of Sciences took place in June of 2009.  This was a part of the Academy’s two-year study of ‘America’s Climate Choices’ for response to climate change. The workshop was tremendously successful and resulted in a clear consensus in support of climate intervention technology (geoengineering) research.

With these very compelling calls to action, CRF committed to take the leadership to implement the first global, collaborative, and fully integrated conference in the field of Climate Intervention Technologies (Geoengineering). This conference was the “Asilomar International Conference On Climate Intervention Technologies”.

Climate Change

Though the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC) has cautioned that we should work diligently to avoid reaching 450 Parts Per Million of CO2 (PPM’s), scientists now predict that CO2 levels may reach 650 to 700 PPM’s in the next century. Additionally it is now known that CO2 remains in our atmosphere for approximately 1000 years. Scientists around the world are becoming alarmed by these statistics and recent observed environmental impacts. In fact, Scientists now warn about the potential for abrupt climate change or tipping points that would pose a profound threat to our sustainability.

CLIMATE INTERVENTION TECHNOLOGIES

Many in the scientific community are calling for an emergency preparedness plan or a “Plan B” — an exploration of ways that humans might intervene directly with our climate to reduce the threat to our sustainability. These techniques are commonly called Climate Intervention Technologies or Geoengineering. Even if scientific studies prove these technologies to be successful, they are not a replacement for our most necessary commitment to green house gas reduction.

There is a broad portfolio of Climate Intervention Technologies. Some of these technologies are Albedo Technologies which help to reflect the sun from the planet in order to keep the planet cooler and other technologies focus on pulling CO2 from our atmosphere.

THE CLIMATE RESPONSE FUND

The Climate Response Fund is a nonprofit fund focused on supporting an international effort to understand the potential of climate intervention techniques, the ability of these techniques to play an integrated role in our response to climate change and how to reduce the risk of deploying these strategies.

GUTTMAN INITIATIVES ROLE

Guttman Initiatives is proud to take an active role in developing the Climate Response Fund and helping to structure the initial efforts of the foundation. This foundation is the first of its kind to focus exclusively on the field of Climate Intervention Technologies or Geoengineering. Guttman Initiatives is proudly working to build International Strategic Partnerships to focus on reducing the risk of Climate Intervention Technologies studies and working to understand the promises and risks associated with the portfolio of options this science has to offer.

OUR PHILOSOPHY

• It is not wise to wait until we are in a planetary emergency to identify the merit of potential climate intervention, also known as ‘geoengineering’, responses to climate change.
• If we study potential responses now, we can greatly reduce the risk of their use – if and when these solutions are necessary.
• It makes sense to study a portfolio of intervention responses in order to understand the best alternatives.
• The most thoughtful rules and guidelines must be adopted to guide scientific inquiry as well as any potential deployment.
• Studying these intervention techniques in no way reduces or alleviates the need to reduce emissions or to create clean technology and conserve resources. In fact it is essential that we invest in emissions reduction and clean technologies to avoid the need for indefinite use of climate intervention technologies.

THE CONFERENCE

The International Conference on Climate Intervention Technologies will take place at the Asilomar Conference Center, Monterey California, from the 22nd-26th of March 2010. This conference will outline the initial global rules and guidelines for the geoengineering studies on climate intervention. The rules set at this conference will then be assessed with international participation on a regular basis to incorporate the learning’s which the science unveils.

This is not an ethical conference. It is explicitly focused on facilitating international safety standards to reduce risk. The Climate Response Fund is working under the advice of Dr. Paul Berg (Nobel Prize Winner) who successfully implemented the historic Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA and set the rules and guidelines in place for that science.

The AmberWatch Mobile Initiative

Guttman Initiatives worked to bring together the leaders of the Mobile Industry to embrace the first ever “Industry Integrated Charitable Initiative”™ called AmberWatch Mobile. In support of this initiative, new industry products were created. Products were conceived to generate revenue for the wireless industry and generate funds for the charitable cause. As the initiative rolls out, it will highlight the good will and good intention of the wireless industry and will emphasize the benefits of wireless technology and GPS applications. The campaign will also forge new and positive interaction for the wireless industry with government relations. Through this initiative, we found that carriers appreciate the opportunity to join together in an industry wide effort. The collaboration offers an unprecedented public awareness opportunity and an exceptional tie to a charitable cause. This is a fantastic way to help bridge public acceptance of new technology.

Initiative Marketing

The initiative will have its own comprehensive and exceptional marketing and pr campaign, which will attract the attention of worldwide press. The initiative will raise awareness, maximize reach and maintain constant visibility. The initiatives marketing campaign reflects the unprecedented convergence of industries and entertainment industry leadership in support of this effort and charitable cause.

Qualcomm Announces The First Ever “Industry Integrated Charitable Initiative”™

A CONCEPT DESIGNED, DEVELOPED AND IMPLEMENTED BY GUTTMAN INITIATIVES

Seven leading companies within the wireless industry support the common mission to keep children safe and healthy and lead the way for other industries to embrace mutual charitable causes and make a dramatic impact in our community, our nation and around the world.

San Diego, California (May 29, 2008) Today at Qualcomm International’s annual BREW conference, Dr. Paul Jacobs, CEO of Qualcomm. Inc, announced that the leading companies in the wireless industry have committed to participate in the AmberWatch Mobile Initiative, a charitable effort which is designed, developed and is being implemented by Guttman Initiatives. The program generates funds for the AmberWatch Foundation and its non-profit partners. Wireless industry companies involved in the groundbreaking initiative are Alltel, at&t, Sprint, T-Mobile USA, Verizon Wireless, Qualcomm and WaveMarket. This is the first of it’s kind Industry Integrated Charitable Initiative.

Dedicated to philanthropy, Guttman Initiatives leadership has actively participated in developing and evolving the business model of Cause Marketing over the last 20 years. The recent environment of our economy and the increasing charitable needs in our community have highlighted the continued need to generate substantially greater dependable funding to address critical issues. “Industry Integrated Charitable Initiatives”™ can deliver that. The power of Industry Integrated Cause marketing is based on the Pareto Optimal theory where the whole is grater then the sum of its parts. Individually a company can generate income and support, together an industry can change an issue. An industry embraced program delivers the substantial, dependable, long term funding allowing a charitable strategic plan that reaches an end goal.

Guttman Initiatives leadership believes that a industry integrated business enterprise with a dedicated charitable revenue is a win win. Such a program, when appropriately developed, generates new revenue for an industry, delivers positive proactive public relations and builds a business model of support for a charitable effort so that the leaders in that area of philanthropy can focus their energies on delivering quantifiable results for the issue rather than focusing primary efforts on fundraising. Guttman quotes Sir Winston Churchill – We make a living by what we get. We make a life by what we give” “Industry Integrated Charitable Initiatives”™ allows industry and community to do both is a powerful way.

About Guttman Initiatives

Headquartered in Silicon Valley California, Guttman Initiatives mission is to design,develop and implement “Industry Integrated Venture Philanthropy”™ Initiatives which bring the charitable world together with Global Industries in an enterprise that generates extensive, long term commitment to a “Cause Goal”™, benefits the corporate world and invites public participation in new and innovative ways.

Cambridge Who’s Who Recognizes Guttman Initiatives For Its Innovative Revenue Generating Philanthropic Model, Inducting Danielle Guttman Into The Cambridge Who’s Who Executive, Professional And Entrepreneurial Registry

The honor salutes the creation of “Industry Integrated Charitable Initiatives”™ by the company’s President Danielle Guttman

Silicon Valley, CA, June 29, 2008, Cambridge Who’s Who (today) announced its recognition of Danielle Guttman, President of Guttman Initiatives, for her innovation of new protocols to develop significant funds to address charitable causes. Ms.Guttman created the new fundraising model of “Industry Integrated Charitable Initiatives”™, which can generate one hundred times more funds to be distributed for the specific charity or cause designated than the current practice of “cause marketing.”

Danielle Guttman has dedicated her career to public service, having given leadership to the Entertainment Industry Foundation and guiding its fiscal growth from a 1.5 million dollar annual budget to a 30-40 million dollar annual budget. Guttman’s signature has been the creative identification of new pathways to advance charitable fundraising, to structure innovative programs which engage public private partnerships in philanthropy and to drive charitable campaigns which dramatically impact critical issues of concern. Throughout her career, Ms. Guttman has created a legacy of developing and evolving new charitable business models and making a quantifiable impact on charitable causes.

In 2006, Guttman launched a new company called Guttman Initiatives. The firm’s mission statement is “to design, develop and implement “Industry Integrated Charitable Initiatives”™ to bring the charitable world together with global industries in enterprise which generates extensive, long term commitment and funding to a charitable cause goal, to generate new corporate business, and to invite public participation in new and innovative ways.

As the first application of the concept, Guttman chose to integrate an industry which has been famously diverse and competitive with virtually no prior undertaking of mutual cause…the wireless phone industry. Guttman has taken the lead in the creation of an industry business model for that industry, conjoining its vast capabilities in wireless phone technology for the purpose of keeping children safe and healthy. In May of this year, it was announced that companies participating in this effort called AmberWatch Mobile Initiative include Qualcomm, Alltel, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile USA, Verizon Wireless and WaveMarket.

“This powerful collaboration behind the AmberWatch Mobile Initiative proves that industries can join together to support missions,” said AmberWatch Foundation President Joe Zerucha. “The entire industry is astounded that she unified the industry through the effort. It is something that has never been done before and it will be a giant step in protecting children from predators of our society.”

Guttman observes that, “even in the most competitive circumstance, a compelling charitable cause can bring about a compassionate alliance. The leadership of the wireless industry is setting an important example for other areas of commerce where resources can be joined to address critical urgencies. We plan to evidence the success of “Industry Integrated Charitable Initiatives”™ through the wireless community’s AmberWatch Mobile Initiative. I applaud the leaders of the wireless industry for their courage, commitment and caring and l look forward to seeing the incredibly positive impact we will have on children’s lives through the AmberWatch Foundation’s work.”