ALLFED 2019 Annual Report and Fundraising Appeal

Sum­mary

It has been a big year for The Alli­ance To Feed The Earth In Disasters (ALLFED), with a sig­nifi­cant uptick in sup­port, es­pe­cially from the EA com­mu­nity, which has en­abled us to do more to in­crease global pre­pared­ness and readi­ness to feed the world in the event of a global catas­tro­phe.

In 2019, our work fo­cused pri­mar­ily on re­search, thanks in large part to fund­ing we re­ceived from the EA Lot­tery, the Berkeley Ex­is­ten­tial Risk Ini­ti­a­tive, and the sec­ond phase of an EA Grant.

We also at­tended a num­ber of events and con­fer­ences, pre­sent­ing ~20 talks, posters and work­shops. We pub­lished one pa­per, with five more un­der re­view, and two about to be sub­mit­ted. We col­lab­o­rated with more part­ners and or­ga­ni­za­tions, in­clud­ing sub­mit­ting two pa­pers co-au­thored with An­ders Sand­berg at the Fu­ture of Hu­man­ity In­sti­tute, and work­ing with the nu­clear win­ter team that was funded by the Open Philan­thropy Pro­ject. We ex­panded our table on the cur­rent price of al­ter­na­tive foods (see chap­ter 1.1), which fa­cil­i­tates a bet­ter un­der­stand­ing of how foods should be pri­ori­tized.

Mush­rooms may no longer be a pri­or­ity due to their high price, but we’re ex­cited that the team is mush­room­ing! Our core team grew this year, and we wel­comed new Board mem­bers, in­clud­ing Prof. Martin Hel­l­man (a re­cip­i­ent of the ACM Tur­ing Award) and Prof. Prosen­jit Ghosh (our first Board mem­ber from Asia). We’ve also had a sig­nifi­cant in­crease in vol­un­teers, many of whom came to us fol­low­ing the 80,000 Hours pod­cast on ALLFED.

ALLFED’s other key me­dia cov­er­age in 2019 in­cludes FLI’s ALLFED pod­cast, Kel­sey Piper‘s Vox ar­ti­cle, and a BBC Reel pop­u­lar sci­ence fea­ture.

But for all we’ve ac­com­plished, there are many more high im­pact pro­jects we could pur­sue with more fund­ing. Par­tic­u­larly promis­ing are in­ter­ven­tions for catas­tro­phes that could dis­rupt elec­tric­ity and there­fore in­dus­trial civ­i­liza­tion, such as an ex­treme so­lar storm, a high-al­ti­tude elec­tro­mag­netic pulse, a nar­row AI com­puter virus, and an ex­treme pan­demic. We sub­mit­ted a pa­per with An­ders Sand­berg build­ing on an ar­tifi­cial gen­eral in­tel­li­gence model that was posted on this fo­rum, which com­pares differ­ent prepa­ra­tions for los­ing in­dus­try. It in­di­cates ~99% con­fi­dence that marginal work on in­dus­trial loss in­ter­ven­tions now is more cost-effec­tive than marginal AGI safety work be­yond $3 billion. Another pa­per we’ve sub­mit­ted with him in­di­cates similar con­fi­dence that marginal fund­ing for al­ter­na­tive foods re­search and plan­ning for agri­cul­tural catas­tro­phes such as nu­clear win­ter is also jus­tified (see ab­stract be­low).

We have $300,000 pend­ing for the up­com­ing year, so our room for more fund­ing is $1.2-1.5 mil­lion to ad­dress the high pri­or­ity pro­jects de­tailed be­low. With the al­li­ances we have already built, we have the team and in­fras­truc­ture in place to be­gin work as soon as we have suffi­cient funds.

As a ges­ture of our grat­i­tude to the EA com­mu­nity, as well as to en­sure our own ac­countabil­ity and best prac­tices, we have taken it upon our­selves to pro­duce An­nual Re­ports on our work (you can read last year’s here). We are now pleased to pre­sent the 2019 ALLFED An­nual Re­port, which many of the ALLFED team con­tributed to, and which Aron Mill co­or­di­nated.

Mes­sage from David Denken­berger, Pres­i­dent and Co-Founder of ALLFED:

It’s been five years since the book I wrote with Joshua Pearce, “Feed­ing Every­one No Mat­ter What,” was pub­lished. In that time, it’s made its way into more than 500 libraries and into the hands of an in­creas­ing num­ber of de­ci­sion mak­ers. I’ve also writ­ten ex­ten­sively on is­sues within the ex­is­ten­tial and global catas­trophic risks field, and I’m hon­ored that I’ve be­come the third most pro­lific GCR/​X-risk re­searcher by one mea­sure* and my GCR work has been cited 237 times with 4500 down­loads from just one of the pa­pers.

I take this as a sign that peo­ple are in­creas­ingly wor­ried about the threat of global and ex­is­ten­tial catas­tro­phes, and they want to en­sure we have a back-up plan. Per­son­ally, I hope we never have to use any of the plans that ALLFED works on. As Joshua and I state in the ded­i­ca­tion of our book:

“This book is ded­i­cated to our chil­dren: Emily, Jerome, Vin­cent, Au­dri­anna, and Ju­lia—may they never need to use it.”

But as with any in­surance policy, we hope for the best and plan for the worst. At ALLFED, we want to en­sure that if the worst hap­pens, hu­man­ity will not only sur­vive, but that civ­i­liza­tion will have the chance to fully re­cover and thrive long into the fu­ture.

I con­tinue to be­lieve that this work is the high­est ex­pected value at the mar­gin for im­prov­ing the longterm fu­ture and sav­ing ex­pected lives in the pre­sent gen­er­a­tion. Con­se­quently, I have donated half my salary to this effort for the past 4 years and will again par­ti­ci­pate in the Face­book Giv­ing Tues­day coun­ter­fac­tual match, an im­por­tant el­e­ment of our an­nual fundrais­ing (and a good way to dou­ble the im­pact of one’s dona­tion).

Like last year, I in­vite you to join me in this fundrais­ing ap­peal. If you think our efforts are worth­while and would con­sider sup­port­ing our work in this way, please see be­low for the in­struc­tions on how to donate on Giv­ing Tues­day. We will also be send­ing a newslet­ter about this, and any fur­ther up­dates, please feel free to sign up here.

I thank the EA Com­mu­nity, and all our donors, part­ners and col­lab­o­ra­tors for their on­go­ing sup­port and wel­come ques­tions and com­ments.

Kind re­gards,

David Denkenberger

*We an­a­lyzed this database for fre­quency of X-risk au­thors.

1. Re­search Output

The fol­low­ing chap­ter show­cases our re­search progress. Thanks to our in­creas­ing ca­pac­i­ties we were able to ad­vance our al­ter­na­tive food cat­a­logue, do in depth cost-effec­tive­ness anal­y­sis and in­ves­ti­gate new op­tions.

1.1 Cur­rent Alter­na­tive Food Re­tail Prices and In­come Re­quired to af­ford these Foods

We have up­dated a key figure from this pa­per we wrote, es­ti­mat­ing the cur­rent price of al­ter­na­tive foods. Though the prices could be very differ­ent in a catas­tro­phe, we have found this to be a use­ful screen­ing tool. Gen­er­ally we are fo­cus­ing on the low-cost foods (marked green), or tier 1 al­ter­na­tive foods, since these are more likely to be af­ford­able by ev­ery­one and there­fore would play a big­ger role in pre­vent­ing global famine. From the tier 2 al­ter­na­tive foods (marked yel­low) we want to high­light pota­toes be­cause they are the cheap­est cold tol­er­ant crop by calories.

1.2 Cost-Effec­tive­ness Anal­y­sis of ALLFED’s Work

To help pri­ori­tize, we have done two cost-effec­tive­ness analy­ses. The first one cov­ers in­ter­ven­tions for loss of in­dus­try sce­nar­ios and the sec­ond one looks at al­ter­na­tive foods for agri­cul­tural catas­tro­phes such as nu­clear win­ter.

1.2.1 Long Term Cost-Effec­tive­ness of In­ter­ven­tions for Loss of Elec­tric­ity/​In­dus­try Com­pared to Ar­tifi­cial Gen­eral In­tel­li­gence Safety

David Denken­berger 1,2, An­ders Sand­berg 3, Ross Tie­man *1, and Joshua M. Pearce 4,5

[Affili­a­tions are listed in the end]

Sta­tus: sub­mit­ted for peer-re­view [more de­tailed EA fo­rum post]

Ex­treme so­lar storms, high-al­ti­tude elec­tro­mag­netic pulses, and co­or­di­nated cy­ber at­tacks could dis­rupt re­gional/​global elec­tric­ity. Since elec­tric­ity ba­si­cally drives in­dus­try, in­dus­trial civ­i­liza­tion could col­lapse with­out it. This could cause an­thro­polog­i­cal civ­i­liza­tion (cities) to col­lapse, from which hu­man­ity might not re­cover, hav­ing long-term con­se­quences. Pre­vi­ous work an­a­lyzed tech­ni­cal solu­tions to save nearly ev­ery­one de­spite in­dus­trial loss globally, in­clud­ing tran­si­tion to an­i­mals pow­er­ing farm­ing and trans­porta­tion. The pre­sent work es­ti­mates cost-effec­tive­ness for the long-term fu­ture with a Monte Carlo (prob­a­bil­is­tic) model. Model 1, partly based on a poll of Effec­tive Altru­ism con­fer­ence par­ti­ci­pants, finds a con­fi­dence that in­dus­trial loss prepa­ra­tion is more cost effec­tive than ar­tifi­cial gen­eral in­tel­li­gence safety of ~88% and ~99+% for the 30 mil­lionth dol­lar spent on in­dus­trial loss in­ter­ven­tions and the mar­gin now, re­spec­tively. Model 2 pop­u­lated by one of the au­thors pro­duces ~50% and ~99% con­fi­dence, re­spec­tively. Th­ese con­fi­dences are likely to be re­duced by model and the­ory un­cer­tainty, but the con­clu­sion of in­dus­trial loss in­ter­ven­tions be­ing more cost effec­tive was ro­bust to chang­ing the most im­por­tant 4-7 vari­ables si­mul­ta­neously to their pes­simistic ends. Both cause ar­eas save ex­pected lives cheaply in the pre­sent gen­er­a­tion and fund­ing to prepa­ra­tion for in­dus­trial loss is par­tic­u­larly ur­gent.

1.2.2 Long Term Cost-Effec­tive­ness of Alter­na­tive Foods for Global Catas­tro­phes Com­pared to Ar­tifi­cial Gen­eral In­tel­li­gence Safety

David Denken­berger *1,2, An­ders Sand­berg 3, Ross Tie­man 1, and Joshua M. Pearce 4,5

Sta­tus: sub­mit­ted for peer-re­view (up­dated ver­sion of this EA Fo­rum post)

Global agri­cul­tural catas­tro­phes in­clude nu­clear win­ter and abrupt cli­mate change, which could have long-term con­se­quences, in­clud­ing the col­lapse and non­re­cov­ery of civ­i­liza­tion. We an­a­lyze cost-effec­tive­ness for the long-term fu­ture of pre­pared­ness for al­ter­na­tive foods (roughly those in­de­pen­dent of sun­light such as mush­rooms) with Monte Carlo (prob­a­bil­is­tic) mod­els.

One ver­sion of the model pop­u­lated partly by a sur­vey of global catas­trophic risk re­searchers finds the con­fi­dence that al­ter­na­tive foods re­search is more cost effec­tive than ar­tifi­cial gen­eral in­tel­li­gence safety is ~86% and ~99% for the 100 mil­lionth dol­lar spent on al­ter­na­tive foods and the mar­gin now, re­spec­tively. Another ver­sion of the model based on one of the au­thors pro­duced ~95% and ~99% con­fi­dence, re­spec­tively. Model and the­ory un­cer­tain­ties are likely to re­duce these con­fi­dences, but it re­quired chang­ing to the pes­simistic ends the 3-5 most im­por­tant vari­ables si­mul­ta­neously to re­verse the con­clu­sion of al­ter­nate foods be­ing more cost-effec­tive, thus demon­strat­ing ro­bust­ness. Be­cause the agri­cul­tural catas­tro­phes could hap­pen im­me­di­ately and be­cause ex­ist­ing ex­per­tise rele­vant to al­ter­na­tive foods could be co-opted by char­i­ta­ble giv­ing, it is likely op­ti­mal to spend most of this money in the next few years. Both cause ar­eas gen­er­ally save ex­pected cur­rent lives in­ex­pen­sively and should at­tract greater in­vest­ment.

1.3 Up­dates on Alter­na­tive Food Re­search for Loss of Sun Scenarios

Hu­man­ity is prone to var­i­ous ex­treme sce­nar­ios such as as­ter­oid im­pacts, su­per-vol­canic erup­tions, or full-scale nu­clear war. Even though the ini­tial death toll could to­tal hun­dreds of mil­lions, the ma­jor­ity of the dan­ger lies with in­di­rect con­se­quences. The re­sult­ing fires/​erup­tions would launch soot into the at­mo­sphere where it could block most of the sun’s ra­di­a­tion for up to a decade. Th­ese nu­clear or vol­canic win­ters would ren­der con­ven­tional agri­cul­ture in­effec­tive. The en­su­ing famine could cost billions of lives and cas­cad­ing effects could cause ir­reparable dam­age to the long-term fu­ture. Cur­rent food stor­age pro­vides only a few months’ lee­way to solve this prob­lem and would be ex­pen­sive to ex­pand.

Over the last year, the ALLFED team ex­panded the work on al­ter­na­tive food solu­tions for these catas­tro­phes. Five ab­stracts cov­er­ing four al­ter­na­tive food sources are de­picted be­low, where the first pa­per cov­er­ing low-tech green­houses is un­der­go­ing minor re­vi­sions at the mo­ment. The next two solu­tions, scal­ing of aqua­cul­ture and retrofitting in­dus­tries for sugar pro­duc­tion were show­cased at this year’s EAG in Lon­don, with the lat­ter one already be­ing sub­mit­ted for peer-re­view. The last two re­search pro­jects ex­am­ine the po­ten­tial role of leaf con­cen­trate for tack­ling global malnu­tri­tion (cur­rent or catas­tro­phe).

1.3.1 Scal­ing of Green­house Crop Pro­duc­tion in Low Sun­light Environments

Kyle A. Al­varado *1,2, Aron Mill 1, Joshua M. Pearce 4,5, Alexan­der Vo­caet 6, David Denken­berger 1,2

Sta­tus: sub­mit­ted for peer-re­view and un­der­go­ing minor revisions

Dur­ing a global catas­tro­phe such as a nu­clear win­ter, in which sun­light and tem­per­a­tures are re­duced across ev­ery lat­i­tude, to main­tain global agri­cul­tural out­put it is nec­es­sary to grow some crops un­der struc­tures. Although the green­house in­dus­try has de­vel­oped many ap­pro­pri­ate struc­tures, they do not fabri­cate them on the scale nec­es­sary to provide a sig­nifi­cant frac­tion of hu­man food. This study de­signs a method for scal­ing up crop pro­duc­tion in low-tech green­houses to con­tribute to global food sus­tain­abil­ity dur­ing global catas­trophic con­di­tions. Con­struct­ing low-tech green­houses would ob­vi­ate grow­ing crops us­ing more ex­pen­sive and en­ergy in­ten­sive ar­tifi­cial light. The green­house struc­tures are de­signed to uti­lize global mar­kets of tim­ber, polymer film, con­struc­tion ag­gre­gates, and steel nails. The limit­ing mar­ket is found that de­ter­mines the growth rate of the green­houses as a whole. The limit­ing mar­ket that de­ter­mines the growth rate of the green­houses is the rate at which polymer film and sheet are cur­rently ex­truded. The anal­y­sis shows that the added cost of low-tech green­houses is al­most two or­ders of mag­ni­tude lower than the added cost of ar­tifi­cial light growth. The re­tail cost of food from these low-tech green­houses will be ~2.10 USD/​kg dry food higher than cur­rent prices. Ac­cord­ing to the pro­posed scal­ing method, the green­houses will provide 40% of food re­quire­ments for ev­ery­one by the end of the first year, and feed ev­ery­one af­ter 27 months.

1.3.2 Prevent­ing Global Famine in Case of sun-block­ing Sce­nar­ios: Seaweed as an Alter­na­tive Food Source

Aron Mill *,1, Kyle A. Al­varado 1,2, Ch­eryl S. Har­ri­son 7, Scott James 8, Tim Fist 1, James Throup 1, Sahil Shah 1, David Denken­berger 1,2

Sta­tus: to be submitted

Seaweed, which is a part of the daily diet in many Asian re­gions, can flour­ish in low light en­vi­ron­ments. This re­search ex­am­ines the challenges of scal­ing up sea­weed to feed the global pop­u­la­tion in a short time.

To ap­proach this prob­lem, daily growth rates of a ma­jor sea­weed species were es­ti­mated. Data were used from a global ocean model simu­lat­ing sea sur­face tem­per­a­tures, ir­ra­di­a­tion, nu­tri­ent lev­els, and sal­ini­ties in a nu­clear win­ter. A sec­ond model took these in­puts and calcu­lated the sea­weed pro­duc­tion rate while con­sid­er­ing self-shad­ing and fre­quency of har­vests. From pro­duc­tion rates, the re­quired area was calcu­lated. Through a ge­o­graphic in­for­ma­tion sys­tem anal­y­sis, it is shown that suffi­cient space near coasts and ports is available. Then the ma­te­rial re­quire­ments of hun­dreds of thou­sands of square kilo­me­ters of sea­weed farms were de­ter­mined and com­pared to to­day’s in­dus­trial pro­duc­tion. Th­ese farms pri­mar­ily re­quire rope, where the twist­ing of syn­thetic fibers would be the limit­ing fac­tor for ex­pan­sion.

Pre­limi­nary re­sults show that sea­weed can be scaled up to provide all of global food de­mands in just 3-6 months at less than 2 $/​dry kg re­tail, which could be an ex­tremely promis­ing and af­ford­able con­tri­bu­tion to global food se­cu­rity.

1.3.3 Nu­clear Win­ter’s Candy Cane: Scal­ing Su­gar with­out the Sun

James Throup *,1, Ja­cob Cates 1,2 , Bryan Bals 9 , Aron Mill 1 , Joshua M. Pearce 4,5 , David Denken­berger 1,2

Sta­tus: sub­mit­ted for peer-review

This study ex­am­ines how much sugar from fibre, an al­ter­na­tive food pro­duc­tion method that does not re­quire the sun, could be pro­duced and how quickly it could be scaled. Two routes to in­dus­trial pro­duc­tion are con­sid­ered: con­struc­tion of new fa­cil­ities or retrofitting of ex­ist­ing in­dus­trial plants. Con­struct­ing new is more cap­i­tal in­ten­sive per plant, mean­ing con­struc­tion time per plant is longer than retrofitting. New con­struc­tion has lo­ca­tion flex­i­bil­ity, while retrofitting has a cap of the num­ber of plants that there are to retrofit. As­sum­ing cur­rent pop­u­la­tion and in­fras­truc­ture and bud­get for con­struct­ing rele­vant fa­cil­ities, the re­sults show that globally retrofitting three in­dus­tries to pro­duce cel­lu­losic sugar could provide ap­prox­i­mately 20% of the global food re­quire­ment af­ter 1 year at a re­tail cost of <$2/​dry kg.

1.3.4 Pre­limi­nary Au­to­mated Deter­mi­na­tion of Edi­bil­ity of Alter­na­tive Foods: Non-Tar­geted Screen­ing for Tox­ins in Red Maple Leaf Concentrate

David Denken­berger 1,2 and Joshua M. Pearce 4,5

Sta­tus: pub­lished

Alter­na­tive food sup­plies could main­tain hu­man­ity de­spite sun-block­ing global catas­trophic risks (GCRs) that elimi­nate con­ven­tional agri­cul­ture. A promis­ing al­ter­na­tive food is mak­ing leaf con­cen­trate. How­ever, the ed­i­bil­ity of tree leaves is largely un­cer­tain. To over­come this challenge, this study pro­vides the meth­ods for ob­tain­ing rapid tox­ics screen­ing of com­mon leaf con­cen­trates. The in­ves­ti­ga­tion be­gins with a non-tar­geted ap­proach us­ing an ul­tra-high-re­s­olu­tion hy­brid ion trap or­bi­trap mass spec­trom­e­ter with elec­tro­spray ioniza­tion (ESI) cou­pled to an ul­tra-high pres­sure two-di­men­sional liquid chro­mato­graph sys­tem on the most com­mon North Amer­i­can leaf: the red maple. Iden­ti­fied chem­i­cals from this non-tar­geted ap­proach are then cross-refer­enced with the OpenFoodTox database to iden­tify toxic chem­i­cals. Iden­ti­fied tox­ins are then screened for for­mula val­i­da­tion and eval­u­ated for risk as a food. The re­sults af­ter screen­ing show that red maple leaf con­cen­trate con­tains at least eight toxic chem­i­cals, which upon anal­y­sis do not pre­sent sub­stan­tial risks un­less con­sumed in abun­dance. This in­di­cates that red maple leaf is still a po­ten­tial al­ter­na­tive food. The re­sults are dis­cussed in the con­text of ex­pand­ing the anal­y­sis with open sci­ence and us­ing leaf ex­tract from other plants that are not tra­di­tion­ally used as foods to offset cur­rent global hunger challenges, and move to a more sus­tain­able food sys­tem while also prepar­ing for GCRs.

1.3.5 Global Distri­bu­tion of For­est Classes and Leaf Bio­mass for Use as Alter­na­tive Foods to Min­i­mize Malnutrition

Tim Fist 1, Ade­wale A. Ade­sanya 10, David Denken­berger 1,2, Joshua M. Pearce *,4,5

Sta­tus: sub­mit­ted for peer-review

Nearly a billion peo­ple are un­der­nour­ished and face chronic food de­pri­va­tion. Due to the ready availa­bil­ity of tree leaves in many ge­ogra­phies, the al­ter­na­tive food of leaf con­cen­trate cur­rently has the po­ten­tial to alle­vi­ate hunger in over 800 mil­lion peo­ple. It is there­fore po­ten­tially highly im­pact­ful to de­ter­mine the ed­i­bil­ity of leaf con­cen­trates which are in the same re­gions as the world’s most un­der­nour­ished pop­u­la­tions. Un­for­tu­nately, the tox­i­c­ity of leaf con­cen­trate for most com­mon tree leaf types has not been screened and the cost of do­ing so de­mands a pri­ori­ti­za­tion. This pre­limi­nary study seeks to solve that prob­lem by find­ing the for­est classes most likely to offer prox­i­mate ac­cess to the world’s hun­gry, thus pro­vid­ing the ba­sis for a pri­ori­tized list of leaf types to screen for tox­i­c­ity. Speci­fi­cally, this study de­scribes a method­ol­ogy for map­ping available green leaf bio­mass and cor­re­spond­ing for­est classes (e.g. trop­i­cal moist de­ci­du­ous for­est), and their spa­tial re­la­tion­ship to the global dis­tri­bu­tion of peo­ple who are un­der­weight. The re­sults find that the for­est types that should be closely eval­u­ated to help end acute hunger with leaf con­cen­trate are moist de­ci­du­ous trop­i­cal forests, dry trop­i­cal forests and trop­i­cal rain­forests. Th­ese re­sults will be use­ful for de­vel­op­ing a tar­geted list of tree species to con­duct leaf tox­i­c­ity anal­y­sis on, in the in­ter­est of de­vel­op­ing leaves as an al­ter­na­tive food source for both cur­rent malnu­tri­tion prob­lems and global catas­trophic sce­nar­ios.

2. Pre­pared­ness & Alli­ance-Building

To help ad­vance pre­pared­ness in the event of a global catas­tro­phe, ALLFED is build­ing an in­ter­na­tional al­li­ance to fa­cil­i­tate a re­sponse to global dis­rup­tion of food sup­ply. We are happy to share our progress in form­ing key con­nec­tions to in­di­vi­d­u­als and in­sti­tu­tions.

2.1 In­dia /​ South Asia

In­dia is a re­gion of spe­cial in­ter­est for ALLFED due to both its challenges and its ad­van­tages. It is a na­tion of 1.3 billion peo­ple, span­ning sev­eral cli­matic zones—feed­ing ev­ery­one can be difficult even at the best of times. The coun­try also has a boom­ing uni­ver­sity sec­tor with high qual­ity re­search (see, for ex­am­ple, their space pro­grammes 1, 2), which has al­lowed us to pur­sue out­reach to In­dia, as well as to neigh­bor­ing South Asian coun­tries. As part of this work, we are hop­ing to help es­tab­lish a GCR in­sti­tute in Ahmed­abad, which will fo­cus on global shocks im­pact­ing In­dia. The foun­da­tion for this work was es­tab­lished at a work­shop at the In­dian In­sti­tute of Science (IISC) in Ban­ga­lore by ALLFED’s Co-Founder Ray Tay­lor, who will also pre­sent a lec­ture on GCR in the sec­ond week of De­cem­ber.

Ray heads ALLFED’s al­li­ance-build­ing work in South Asia, and he spent a sig­nifi­cant part of 2019 in In­dia and Sri Lanka. He held a num­ber of high-level meet­ings, and de­vel­oped a num­ber of key col­lab­o­ra­tions at In­dia’s Na­tional In­sti­tute of Disaster Man­age­ment and In­dian In­sti­tute of Science. He also pre­sented at the Cli­mate Change Im­pacts Man­age­ment /​ CCIM 2019 con­fer­ence (5-6 Au­gust 2019, Gu­jarat) where his ALLFED pre­sen­ta­tion on Cli­mate Change Adap­ta­tion and Disasters Risk Re­duc­tion was well-re­ceived.

To­gether with Aparna Narayanan, Ray is also look­ing into a po­ten­tial GCR di­rec­tory pro­ject (and we would wel­come thoughts and col­lab­o­ra­tions on this).

2.2 Outreach to Aca­demics, Mul­tilat­er­als and Global Players

ALLFED also con­tinued to build al­li­ances with Euro­pean aca­demics and other stake­hold­ers. For ex­am­ple, we par­ti­ci­pated in a multi-dis­ci­pline work­shop at UCL (Univer­sity Col­lege Lon­don) in 2018, where we met amongst oth­ers a vol­ca­nol­o­gist and through that con­tact ALLFED par­ti­ci­pated at the Northum­bria Com­bined Deal­ing with Disasters con­fer­ence. Here we hosted a ses­sion on global risks where we con­nected with UNDRR’s Ri­cardo Mena, Chief of Sup­port and Mon­i­tor­ing Sendai Frame­work (UN Office for Disaster Risk Re­duc­tion).

Ray was also in­vited to be an as­so­ci­ate of Northum­bria’s Disaster In­sti­tute and to be part of the GCRF plan­ning day (Global Challenges Re­search Fund). Here we sug­gested and ad­vo­cated for a spe­cial cat­e­gory for fund­ing of GCR re­lated re­search. This cat­e­gory would al­low ur­gent long-term re­search to be con­sid­ered with­out the need to com­pete with the prob­lems of to­day.

With Brexit on top of the UK’s agenda, food se­cu­rity has been a hot topic. Our UK team have been busy net­work­ing at all lev­els, from Chatham House (The Fu­ture of Food Post-Brexit) to key policy mak­ers.

This year we also ini­ti­ated dis­cus­sions with KEW gar­dens, a botan­i­cal in­sti­tute in Lon­don, on whether they could iden­tify ed­ible feed and foods that could sur­vive nu­clear win­ter (es­pe­cially in the trop­ics).

At the World Food Se­cu­rity Week (14-18 Oct 2019, Rome), we con­nected with Food and Agri­cul­ture Or­ga­ni­za­tion (FAO) of the UN stat­i­ci­ans, who were in­ter­ested to hear about the role of retrofitting in­dus­tries to pro­duce food in catas­trophic sce­nar­ios.

2.3 ALLFED’s Global Presence

2019 has been a busy year for us with con­fer­ences and pre­sen­ta­tions in North Amer­ica, Europe, Asia and Ocea­nia. Key ones are listed be­low:

  1. Cli­mate Change Im­pacts Man­age­ment (18-19 Fe­bru­ary 2019, Gu­jarat In­dia);

  2. Global Plat­form for Disaster Risk Re­duc­tion (13-17 May 2019, Geneva Switzer­land);

  3. EAG San Fran­cisco (21-23 June 2019, SF, USA);

  4. Northum­bria Com­bined Deal­ing with Disasters (17-19 July 2019, New­cas­tle, UK);

  5. In­ter­na­tional Strat­egy Sym­po­sium, Na­tional In­sti­tute of Disaster Man­age­ment, (26-27 Septem­ber, New Delhi, In­dia);

  6. EA Global X Syd­ney (27-29 Septem­ber 2019, Syd­ney, Aus­tralia);

  7. Do­ing Good Bet­ter (5 Oc­to­ber 2019, Sin­ga­pore);

  8. Build­ing Bridges (7-11 Oc­to­ber 2019, Geneva, Switzer­land);

  9. World Food Se­cu­rity Week (14-18 Oc­to­ber 2019, Rome, Italy);

  10. EAG Lon­don (18-20 Oc­to­ber 2019, Lon­don, UK).

David Denken­berger’s pre­sen­ta­tions in­cluded:

  1. “Feed­ing the Earth in Global Catas­tro­phes,” Penn­syl­va­nia State Univer­sity, Au­gust 20, 2019, Univer­sity Park, PA, USA;

  2. “Feed­ing Every­one After Agri­cul­tural Col­lapse,” Mas­sachusetts In­sti­tute of Tech­nol­ogy, Au­gust 12, 2019, Cam­bridge, MA, USA;

  3. “Loss of Civ­i­liza­tion: Sce­nar­ios and In­ter­ven­tions,” Har­vard Univer­sity, Au­gust 12, 2019, Cam­bridge, MA, USA;

  4. “Civ­i­liza­tional Col­lapse In­ter­ven­tions,” Fore­sight In­sti­tute, June 24, 2019, San Fran­cisco, CA;

  5. “Feed­ing Every­one Even if the Sun is Blocked?” B. John Gar­rick In­sti­tute for the Risk Sciences, Univer­sity of Cal­ifor­nia Los An­ge­les, Fe­bru­ary 4, 2019, Los An­ge­les, CA;

  6. “Global Agri­cul­tural Catas­tro­phes,” on­line pre­sen­ta­tion to the In­dian In­sti­tute of Science, Fe­bru­ary 1, 2019, Ban­ga­lore, In­dia.

There are more con­fer­ences still up­com­ing this year, in just a cou­ple of weeks we are head­ing to The In­suRe­silience Global Part­ner­ship Fo­rum 2019 (9 De­cem­ber, Madrid).

Wher­ever we go, we are happy to meet our col­lab­o­ra­tors, donors, prospec­tive part­ners and vol­un­teers, so please do feel free to reach out.

3. ALLFED Team

The ALLFED team grew sig­nifi­cantly in 2019, with more core staff, vol­un­teers and board mem­bers al­ike.

We are pleased to wel­come Stan­ford Emer­i­tus pro­fes­sor of Elec­tri­cal Eng­ineer­ing, Martin Hel­l­man, to the Board. Martin is a re­cip­i­ent of the ACM Tur­ing Award (widely con­sid­ered com­puter sci­ence’s equiv­a­lent to the No­bel Prize) for his con­tri­bu­tion to the field of cryp­tog­ra­phy. Public key en­cryp­tion, de­vel­oped by Hel­l­man, Diffie and Merkle, en­ables se­cure trans­ac­tions over the in­ter­net, which pro­tect the trillions of dol­lars of trans­ac­tions ev­ery day. Hel­l­man is also the ad­junct se­nior fel­low for nu­clear risk anal­y­sis at the Fed­er­a­tion of Amer­cian Scien­tists.

We are also happy to wel­come our first board mem­ber from Asia (given the re­gion’s im­por­tance for food se­cu­rity), Prosen­jit Ghosh, an As­so­ci­ate Pro­fes­sor at In­dian In­sti­tute of Science, Ban­ga­lore. His re­search is reg­u­larly pub­lished in In­ter­na­tional jour­nals (52 pub­li­ca­tions) and cov­ered by the na­tional press and news chan­nel; he is also an ed­i­to­rial board mem­ber of Qu­a­ter­nary Science Re­views (QSR) (a jour­nal ded­i­cated to Qu­a­ter­nary cli­mate re­search).

So­nia Cas­sidy, ALLFED’s Direc­tor of Oper­a­tions, has been in­stru­men­tal in man­ag­ing our or­ga­ni­za­tional growth and in­volved in al­most all as­pects of it. Thanks to her, de­spite be­ing a largely re­mote team, we do feel like a team, which in turn en­ables us to not only at­tract but also keep tal­ented and pas­sion­ate peo­ple from all around the world. We were pleased to see her recog­nised by the Fu­ture of Life In­sti­tute in their “Women For The Fu­ture” fea­ture.

Sahil Shah, who pre­vi­ously vol­un­teered for ALLFED, has now be­come a core part of the team as Spe­cial­ist Ad­vi­sor. He re­ceived his MA in Eco­nomics with Man­age­ment from the Univer­sity of Cam­bridge in 2015. Sahil cur­rently works on fi­nan­cial in­stru­ments that in­volve cap­i­tal/​rein­surance, gov­ern­ment and in­dus­try sec­tors to pre­pare for global food shocks. In ad­di­tion he runs an Agritech com­pany, look­ing at aqua­cul­ture to miti­gate cli­mate change and con­tribute to food sus­tain­abil­ity.

We were also pleased to ex­tend a warm wel­come to both Aron Mill and James Throup who joined the core team part-time as Re­search As­so­ci­ates (both also started with ALLFED as vol­un­teers).

Aron finished his B.Sc in Me­chan­i­cal Eng­ineer­ing ear­lier this year and is ea­ger to sus­tain civ­i­liza­tion. He is writ­ing up the sea­weed pa­per (see chap­ter 1.3.2) and is co­or­di­nat­ing our Geo­graph­i­cal In­for­ma­tion Sys­tems (GIS) team, which is en­abling ALLFED to map re­source lo­ca­tions.

James re­ceived his Master’s in Me­chan­i­cal Eng­ineer­ing from the Univer­sity of Bris­tol, where he won the RAE’s Agri­cul­tural Eng­ineer­ing Dou­glas Bom­ford Award. James co­or­di­nates the ALLFED in­dus­try re­search group which fo­cuses on tech­nolo­gies such as cel­lu­losic bio­mass (sugar from trees/​agri­cul­tural resi­dues) or sin­gle-cel­led pro­tein (pro­tein from methane or hy­dro­gen). His re­search show­cases the promis­ing as­pect of retrofitting Pulp & Paper fa­cil­ities to pro­duce food, where pre­vi­ously only food ad­ja­cent in­dus­tries (e.g. brew­eries) were con­sid­ered. James’ con­tri­bu­tions to the ALLFED reper­toire were im­me­di­ately use­ful this year in meet­ings with the FAO.

Joseph Eg­be­jimba, a third-year stu­dent in me­chan­i­cal en­g­ineer­ing be­ing ad­vised by David Denken­berger, was re­cently awarded a $5,000 Alaska Space Grant, funded by NASA. The pro­ject will in­ves­ti­gate us­ing hy­dro­gen-eat­ing sin­gle-cell pro­tein as a food source in catas­tro­phes. The hy­dro­gen would be ob­tained by elec­tric­ity split­ting wa­ter into oxy­gen and hy­dro­gen, or by gasify­ing (heat­ing with­out oxy­gen) solid fuels such as wood, coal, or peat.

(left: Joseph Eg­be­jimba, right: David Denken­berger)

Dr. Denken­berger’s other Alaska stu­dents have con­tributed to ALLFED-re­lated pro­jects, no­tably Kyle Al­varado, Ja­cob Cates, Con­all Birkholz and Travis Oen.

In 2019 we de­vel­oped a ro­bust vol­un­teer man­age­ment pro­gramme and are pleased to be an EA or­gani­sa­tion that is ac­cessible to po­ten­tial vol­un­teers from many paths of life and with differ­ent lev­els of ex­per­tise. Often, our vol­un­teers end up join­ing our team in paid po­si­tions, and for some we turn out to be a step­ping stone into ca­reers in GCR or/​and EA or­gani­sa­tions. Fi­nan Adam­son, for ex­am­ple, was a vol­un­teer to start with and then a core team mem­ber back in 2018, and he’s now at MIRI, though still keep­ing in touch.

A num­ber of ca­pa­ble and pas­sion­ate peo­ple have vol­un­teered their tal­ents and time to all ar­eas of ALLFED’s work, most no­tably to re­search and op­er­a­tions, through­out the year. We would like to, in par­tic­u­lar, ac­knowl­edge sig­nifi­cant con­tri­bu­tions by Ade­wale Ade­sanya, Emma Abele, Jeremy Nagel, Niall O’Leary, Ratheka Storm­borne, Ross Tie­man, Sean Kucer, Tim Fist and Will O’Leary and promis­ing re­cent in­puts from Aaron Stup­ple, Flo­rian Jehn and Tom Voltz. We are ex­cited to have Juan Gar­cía Martínez, a much-needed chem­i­cal en­g­ineer, re­cently join our vol­un­teer team.

We would also like to thank John Willi­ams and team at Latham & Watk­ins (who have vol­un­teered their le­gal ser­vices to as­sist with our 501(c)3 reg­is­tra­tion) and also Chris­tine Troy at Troy Law for her pro-bono le­gal ad­vice.

The ALLFED Team sec­tion would not be com­plete with­out ex­press­ing our grat­i­tude to other long-term ALLFED team mem­bers whose con­tri­bu­tions we con­tinued to en­joy in 2019: Ariel Conn, Allen Hundley, and Gareth Jones. We would also like to thank other Board Mem­bers who con­tributed through­out last year: An­ders Sand­berg, Robin D. Han­son, Karin Kuh­le­mann and Gorm Shack­elford.

ALLFED team at­tend­ing Northum­bria’s Disaster con­fer­ence (left to right, James, Aron, So­nia (front), Ray (back) and Amanda)

4. Cur­rent Projects

ALLFED is cur­rently en­gag­ing in a wide va­ri­ety of pro­jects that will fur­ther ex­am­ine al­ter­na­tive foods, po­ten­tially adding new foods. We also con­tinu­ally seek to in­crease our un­der­stand­ing of global re­sources and in­dus­try losses caused by catas­tro­phes. We do not ex­pect all of these pro­jects to be fi­nal­ized into pub­li­ca­tions, given that new in­for­ma­tion could ren­der some pro­jects to be less promis­ing or not our com­par­a­tive ad­van­tage. We fre­quently re­view and repri­ori­tize re­search ques­tions to max­i­mize im­pact.

Nutri­tion of al­ter­na­tive foods—ex­am­ine how al­ter­na­tive foods need to be com­bined for a healthy diet. Po­ten­tial out­come: find a micronu­tri­ent (e.g. vi­tamin) that is not cov­ered by low cost al­ter­na­tive foods and de­vise workarounds such as grow­ing bac­te­ria rich in that vi­tamin (our col­lab­o­ra­tor at NASA has an ex­per­i­ment on the In­ter­na­tional Space Sta­tion do­ing just that now).

Sin­gle Cell Protein from methane—with the help of sin­gle cell or­ganisms, nat­u­ral gas can be turned into pro­tein. This pro­ject maps re­sources and in­dus­tries to see how quickly and how in­ex­pen­sively food could be pro­duced this way.

Sin­gle Cell Protein from hy­dro­gen—some bac­te­ria can pro­duce pro­tein from hy­dro­gen. This NASA-funded re­search ex­am­ines the costs and scal­a­bil­ity of this al­ter­na­tive food.

Agri­cul­tural resi­dues to ru­mi­nants—this re­search ex­am­ines how many peo­ple could be fed in a catas­tro­phe through feed­ing the leaves and stalks to ru­mi­nants.

Seaweed pa­per #2 - With sea­weed look­ing very promis­ing at the mo­ment, this pro­ject is tak­ing the next step af­ter the holis­tic ap­proach of the first pa­per (see chap­ter 1.3.2). This re­search will take re­sults from the Open Philan­thropy funded global earth model simu­la­tions of a nu­clear win­ter to perform GIS map­ping and trans­porta­tion anal­y­sis to op­ti­mize where aqua­cul­ture farms should be placed.

Ground freez­ing in nu­clear win­ter—The Open Philan­thropy funded nu­clear win­ter pro­ject, as a part of the cli­mate model, has calcu­lated ground freez­ing be­fore and af­ter nu­clear war. This pro­ject seeks to lev­er­age these data to scope out whether nu­clear win­ter caus­ing dam­age to in­fras­truc­ture (freez­ing wa­ter pipes, heav­ing build­ings, etc) is a sig­nifi­cant prob­lem. It also seeks to es­ti­mate the cost of pre­vent­ing the dam­age, e.g. through piling soil over pipes and next to build­ings (to keep them from freez­ing).

5. Pro­jects in Need of Funding

With the al­li­ances we have been build­ing, we are in a po­si­tion to use $1.5 mil­lion effec­tively in the next 12 months. $300,000 is pend­ing, giv­ing room for more fund­ing of $1.2 to $1.5 mil­lion. Below are spe­cific pro­jects in need of fund­ing.

Pre­vi­ously we thought that ex­per­i­ments on pro­duc­ing sugar from leaves were high pri­or­ity, but now we have dis­cov­ered that two com­pa­nies, Comet Bio and Ren­matix, have com­mer­cial­ized this tech­nol­ogy. We are work­ing with them to en­able rapid scale up of this food source in a catas­tro­phe.

5.1 Nu­clear Win­ter Projects

Model­ling crop re­lo­ca­tion in nu­clear win­ter & Gen­eral Equil­ibrium Model of al­ter­na­tive foods—The Open Philan­thropy Pro­ject funded nu­clear win­ter pro­ject is mod­el­ing the cli­mate, crop, and eco­nomic im­pacts of nu­clear win­ter as­sum­ing the crops are not re­lo­cated and no al­ter­na­tive foods. The Aleu­tian Is­lands in Alaska have low pre­cip­i­ta­tion, are very cloudy, and are so cool in the sum­mer that trees can­not grow there—similar con­di­tions to nu­clear win­ter in the trop­ics. And yet pota­toes can grow in the Aleu­ti­ans. Fund­ing would al­low the mod­ifi­ca­tion of a global crop model to in­clude pota­toes and al­low re­lo­ca­tion of crops to es­ti­mate how many peo­ple this could feed. Ad­di­tional fund­ing would en­able the run­ning of a gen­eral equil­ibrium model (GEM) to es­ti­mate in­ter­ac­tions be­tween re­lo­cated crops and al­ter­na­tive foods and the cor­re­spond­ing lower im­pact on so­ciety than with­out these in­ter­ven­tions.

Ad­di­tional leaf tox­i­c­ity screen­ing—Leaf con­cen­trate has the po­ten­tial to tackle global malnu­tri­tion (see chap­ter 1.3.5). We have done pre­limi­nary tox­i­c­ity screen­ing for red maple leaf con­cen­trate (chap­ter 1.3.4) and want to ex­pand to other leaf types, par­tic­u­larly agri­cul­tural resi­dues.

5.2 Fi­nan­cial In­stru­ments with Govern­ments

The aims of the fi­nan­cial mechanisms work are:

1. Prompt gov­ern­ments to bet­ter fund plan­ning/​pre­pared­ness for en­sur­ing food se­cu­rity in global crop shocks through in­creas­ing aware­ness of the like­li­hood and sever­ity of im­pact of such sce­nar­ios. This in­volves holis­tic risk as­sess­ments, in­clud­ing the fol­low­ing:

Assess­ing Hazards: What level of ex­po­sure is there to differ­ent haz­ards, what is the like­li­hood of these haz­ards and what is the ini­tial im­pact (vuln­er­a­bil­ity) of the haz­ard?

In­ter­link­ages: How does the ini­tial im­pact of the haz­ard im­pact food sys­tems, food prices, dis­tri­bu­tion, pro­duc­tion, sub­sidies and nu­tri­tional out­comes?

Ex­pected Cost: Based on ex­po­sure, like­li­hood and pro­tracted im­pact, what is the an­nual/​longer term hu­man, eco­nomic & en­vi­ron­men­tal costs of the haz­ard and food sys­tem shock?

2. Scope/​cre­ate fi­nan­cial product (e.g. type of catas­tro­phe bond/​para­met­ric in­surance policy/​ex­otic op­tion) that funds the plan­ning/​pre­pared­ness to re­cover food sup­ply in a GCR. This in­volves the fol­low­ing:

Product Selec­tion—Based on the size of haz­ard, what will it cost to in­sure the event or what size bond needs to be is­sued? What types of bonds/​in­surance are best value to trans­fer the risk?

Route to mar­ket—The in­sti­tu­tion finds the right buy­ers of po­ten­tial bonds and re-in­sur­ers for in­surance prod­ucts.

A holis­tic solu­tion—The in­sti­tu­tion work with agro com­pa­nies to en­sure food pay­outs in tail-end sce­nar­ios when price/​cur­ren­cies un­pre­dictable to en­sure product fits sovereign’s needs.

3. Work with fi­nance in­dus­try ei­ther to cre­ate a new en­tity who will be able to sell the fi­nan­cial product or find an in­sti­tu­tion who can.

Over­all, this would in­volve con­tract­ing with ex­perts. The goal is to spend a rel­a­tively mod­est amount of money now that would mo­ti­vate large main­stream fund­ing of re­search, de­vel­op­ment, and plan­ning.

5.3 Loss of In­dus­try Re­search & Interventions

We have sketched out the ba­sic in­ter­ven­tions to save most lives and pre­serve civ­i­liza­tion given a loss of elec­tric­ity/​in­dus­try here, here, and here. We have also es­ti­mated that in­ter­ven­tions for loss of in­dus­try sce­nar­ios could be very cost-effec­tive.

Com­mu­ni­ca­tions backup net­work pro­ject—With ad­di­tional fund­ing we could map out ex­ist­ing ra­dio trans­mit­ter and re­ceiver re­sources and start a demon­stra­tion pro­ject.

Re­lo­ca­tion of peo­ple for loss of in­dus­try—Peo­ple would likely choose highly sub­op­ti­mal evac­u­a­tion des­ti­na­tions from ar­eas that have in­suffi­cient shelter, wa­ter, and/​or food. This work would use GIS to map out where pop­u­la­tions should op­ti­mally be re­lo­cated.

Agri­cul­tural pro­duc­tivity with­out in­dus­try—In our ini­tial as­sess­ment of agri­cul­tural pro­duc­tivity, we con­ser­va­tively as­sumed pre in­dus­trial lev­els. There are a num­ber of rea­sons why there may be higher agri­cul­tural pro­duc­tivity with­out in­dus­try, us­ing knowl­edge ac­quired in the last two cen­turies. There­fore, we would in­ves­ti­gate the con­tinued use of im­proved crop va­ri­eties and the effi­cacy of pest con­trol de­spite loss of in­dus­try.

Hand farm­ing tools—work with Open Source Ecol­ogy to test out cre­at­ing tools quickly with­out elec­tric­ity.

6. Les­sons Learned

Although we are rea­son­ably pleased with the progress and de­vel­op­ments of 2019, there have nat­u­rally been things that we could have done bet­ter, and things that did not quite work out. Key among those have been:

  • A de­lay with our own 501(c)3 reg­is­tra­tion. We are at a point where we are ready to grow be­yond the um­brella of our fis­cal spon­sor (So­cial and En­vi­ron­men­tal En­trepreneurs, or SEE). How­ever, the prepa­ra­tion for this and our in­de­pen­dence has taken longer than we en­visaged and we are still work­ing on this.

  • Like­wise, we are now at a stage when we need to be look­ing at cre­at­ing other ALLFED en­tities out­side the USA. There is a par­tic­u­lar need for a UK/​EU branch of ALLFED, which we should have started on already (though UK donors are able to donate in a tax-effi­cient way, and we are able to benefit from Gift Aid, via the Cen­tre for Effec­tive Altru­ism).

  • We re­al­ized this year that we were get­ting caught up in the ex­cite­ment of re­search pro­jects, con­fer­ences, op­er­a­tions etc. and were not do­ing enough strate­gic plan­ning (i.e. once a year is not enough!). We now set aside time ev­ery month to do some “Big Pic­ture” think­ing and plan­ning, and ringfence it to make sure it hap­pens.

  • Half way through the year, our team out­grew ex­ist­ing ALLFED sys­tems. There was a pe­riod of tran­si­tion that could have been man­aged in a smoother, bet­ter co­or­di­nated man­ner (apolo­gies for any de­lays in com­mu­ni­ca­tions/​re­spond­ing to prospec­tive vol­un­teers etc. that oc­curred then). Gaps in this have in­formed new sys­tems that have since been put in place or are in the pro­cess of be­ing im­ple­mented.

  • While work­ing on the above, and re­view­ing and strength­en­ing ALLFED’s in­ter­nal sys­tems, our ex­ter­nal com­mu­ni­ca­tions got de­pri­ori­tized. We are very aware that our web­site ALLFED.info, our so­cial me­dia, mar­ket­ing etc. need at­ten­tion, and sched­uled for up­dates and a re­vamp early next year (please bear with us in the mean­time).

  • There are still skill gaps in ALLFED that need filling. We have re­cently had a chem­i­cal-en­g­ineer join our team; how­ever, would wel­come more. We like­wise need more agri­cul­tural spe­cial­ists and more board mem­bers. At­tract­ing the right peo­ple and tal­ent is some­thing that we need to con­tinue to work on, and we would very much like more di­ver­sity within our team.

7. Giv­ing Tues­day Instructions

Thanks to EA Giv­ing Tues­day , we now have in­struc­tions on how to most effec­tively get your dona­tions matched. If this An­nual Re­port was of value to you, and you would like to sup­port our work, then please read these in­struc­tions and go through the prepa­ra­tion steps as soon as pos­si­ble—by De­cem­ber 2nd at the lat­est. Match fund­ing runs out in sec­onds so donat­ing fast is nec­es­sary, on De­cem­ber 3rd at 08:00:00am EST (05:00:00am PST).

We will be up­dat­ing this sec­tion as needed next week, if more in­for­ma­tion be­comes available.

8. Affiliations

1. Alli­ance to Feed the Earth in Disasters (ALLFED), Fair­banks, AK 99775, USA;

2. Univer­sity of Alaska Fair­banks, Fair­banks, AK 99775, USA;

3. Fu­ture of Hu­man­ity In­sti­tute, Univer­sity of Oxford, Oxford, UK;

4. Depart­ment of Ma­te­rial Science and Eng­ineer­ing and Depart­ment of Elec­tri­cal and Com­puter Eng­ineer­ing, Michi­gan Tech­nolog­i­cal Univer­sity, Houghton, MI 49931, USA;

5. Depart­ment of Elec­tron­ics and Na­no­eng­ineer­ing, School of Elec­tri­cal Eng­ineer­ing, Aalto Univer­sity, FI-00076 Espoo, Fin­land,

6. Depart­ment of Geog­ra­phy, Re­search Group Cli­ma­tol­ogy and Land­scape Ecol­ogy, Univer­sity of Bonn, Ger­many,

7. Univer­sity of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Port Is­abel Lab;

8. Bay­lor Univer­sity, Depart­ments of Geo­sciences and Me­chan­i­cal Eng­ineer­ing, Cen­ter for Reser­voir & Aquatic Sys­tems Re­search, The In­sti­tute of Ecolog­i­cal, Earth & En­vi­ron­men­tal Sciences, Geo­phys­i­cal Fluid Dy­nam­ics Group, One Bear Place #97354, Waco, TX 76798-7354,

9. Michi­gan Biotech­nol­ogy In­sti­tute,

10. En­vi­ron­men­tal and En­ergy Pro­gram, So­cial Science Depart­ment, Michi­gan Tech­nolog­i­cal Univer­sity, Houghton, MI 49931, USA;

* cor­re­spond­ing author