Proposal to reduce greenhouse gases
$50,000 by itself will not go far to mitigating climate change or its impact. Instead, I propose to leverage the $50K by building purpose-specific not-for-profit Foundations to raise substantial funds from the corporate/business sectors and interested private persons, and eventually from governments, to fund rapid research and innovation initiatives so that there is
· greater certainty of the facts and risks of climate change (which will reduce resistance of business and governments who object that there is insufficient certainty to make long term decisions),
· quicker and more useful responses, and better anticipation of impacts and timing of impacts of climate change
· faster development, and more affordable implementation, of renewable energy sources (aim to be well entrenched by 2020, with very low reliance on fossil fuels by 2040)
· cost effective solutions (technology, housing designs etc) that can be utilized by developing and undeveloped nations, as well as the developed nations.
Two separate but coordinated and synergistic funds are proposed
· A research fund that will finance research into the mechanisms of global warming, including positive and negative feedback mechanisms that enhance or reduce warming, the rate of melt of ice, the ecological, economic, social, health, resources, food/water security and humanitarian impacts etc – additional to existing funding and aimed in particular at filling in the gaps in existing knowledge.
· A solutions/innovation fund that provides capital for R&D of new, or enhanced, solutions, adaptation strategies, mitigation strategies and technologies.
Yahoo’s funding of $50,000 will be applied to establishing the appropriate legal requirements for those Funds, establishing the Boards and panels, a preliminary web site, and obtaining the first round of sponsors/donors from the corporate ranks.
Freely available IP
Both the research data and the innovations’ intellectual property (patents etc) are to be made freely available (or where that is not possible, at low costs) globally – a type of ‘freeware’. That is because climate change is a global issue, with each part affecting the whole, and requires global solutions rather than historical commercial exploitation. Private investment funds are growing and will continue to pursue and develop various initiatives, but the potential of the proposed fund is to raise billions of dollars for what is effectively a substantial ‘common fund’ that will provide high leverage and enable collaboration between smaller innovators, benefit all people and give significant impetus to stalled and under-funded innovations, as well as to fund left-field and fringe ideas that have serious potential, such as growing biological forms (bacteria etc) for use in self-renewing fuel cells for vehicles. It could also be used to experiment with different designs for self-sufficient housing that will reduce the need for centralized energy generation.
Politically neutral
The idea is to provide politically neutral Funds that are also independent of various special business interests that have tended to resist change to our current energy paradigm. That will make it difficult for various governments or vested interests to pressure scientists to water down their views (such as was experienced by James E Hansen, head of NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Science) or threaten to de-fund them. With the proposed Fund, top climate scientists can be assured of ongoing funds for essential research.
NFP structure and approach
At present there is no not-for-profit entity available with the type of structure that would work best for this outcome. It is innovative and has not been done before, certainly not on this scale. But then climate change potential has not occurred on this scale either so it’s no surprise that existing structures are not entirely suited to this strategy. However, an existing NFP (The Global Fund) operates in the field of human health and provides an excellent, unique model (the only one of its type in the world) for how the proposed funds can work.
I propose that the Yahoo! funds be used to establish purpose-specific NFP Foundations that will be based broadly on the very successful Global Fund model, which now dispenses around $10 billion for home-grown initiatives in many countries to fight AIDS, Malaria and TB (it was set up by medicos and is not interested in extending its activities beyond those functions). The Global Fund’s income is sourced from governments and businesses, and from various foundations, and is well supported by those institutions because of the Global Fund’s results, integrity and neutrality.
The Global Fund allows a great deal of self-determination in developing solutions appropriate to the location, and does not dictate, design or implement projects, as do many government, UN and World Bank Aid programs (often to support political agendas), and most ‘charity’ NGOs (to support their philosophical basis). Instead, the Global Fund provides funding for initiatives that originate with, and are designed and implemented by, the people whom the initiative will impact, and provides funding dependent on the measured success of the initiative (which is one way that it discourages corruption in developing countries). The more successful the initiative, the more funding available. Monitoring standards are tough. The Global Fund will not engage with all countries – e.g. it does not deal with North Korea as the Fund’s directors have found it almost impossible to deal with the NK government (as have most people).
That model ensures maximum engagement, commitment, ownership, empowerment, flexibility and self-reliance. In terms of results it is considerably and measurably more successful than the government aid/handout and NGO-designed aid project model. It is fast-response, efficient, cost-effective and results-oriented. It can easily by-pass bureaucratic decision making that fetters institutions such as the UN, but it is also able to work in collaboration with the UN and NGOs where appropriate. It brings business effectiveness to the international Aid industry, which is why more businesses will contribute – their money is being applied well. Businesses that contribute, however, do not dictate what the Global Fund does. The Board is not intimidated.
Hybrid for the innovation fund
My proposal for the ‘scientific research fund’ can be accommodated within the general model of the Global Fund, but a modified/hybrid version of the Global Fund model will probably be required for the ‘innovation fund’, to one which will enable funding of altruists as well as those who want to retain a commercial stake in their technological innovations.
That is a realistic approach, which will enable the fast tracking of projects that are sitting idle. For instance, there has been quite a lot of work done on alternative fuel cars and on incorporating solar energy technology into roof panels, and it may be necessary to allow the developers to retain a reduced interest in their IP in return for further funding, if the project is a valuable way to mitigate climate change. It is expected that type of funding will accelerate other investment in similar technologies from those corporations that have, until now, been content to ride out the fossil fuel energy sources. It does not matter whether the innovation is first from the Foundations or from the corporate level (or a combination of both in collaboration) – if the Foundations trigger an acceleration of competitive forces that reduce GHGs sooner, it will have served a purpose. The Foundations will be focused on the global good, and can be flexible in how that is achieved.
Governance and Panels
The Foundations do not need a large staff. The major part of the outcomes from the Foundations’ activities is the result of research and development by third parties whom the Foundations have funded, and the Foundations themselves can be run fairly lean. They will be totally transparent with accounts and projects published publicly on web sites (some details may be subject to publication after patents are secured).
Apart from a well-connected, very experienced Board and small Executive team for each Foundation (plus small staff), each Foundation will have interdisciplinary expert panels related to the Foundation’s purpose, e.g. scientific research, selected from the best in their fields in the world, people who are highly effective operators, and representative of various regions and fields of expertise. They will be able to report on the science of climate change faster than the 5 year review period of the IPCC, and will provide the Foundation’s research data to the IPCC, perhaps even for research projects commissioned by the IPCC and neglected by other government funding.
Contributions
Contributions will come from three sources- business, individuals and government.
Business is now more amenable to supporting important causes than ever before. The Asian Tsunami was a watershed for corporate contributions to natural disasters. In Australia the corporate contribution was around $50 million, well up on previous corporate disaster relief efforts. Internationally, the corporate figure was around $700 million. The important fact is that, prior to the tsunami, many Australian companies were reluctant to contribute to such causes because they viewed philanthropy as contrary to their shareholders’ interests. That has now changed, with very high profile businesses contributing to the Tsunami relief effort with the support of their management, staff and shareholders, and a recent government report lending support to that approach.
I convened the Tsunami Challenge just after the tsunami struck, with the goal of encouraging business globally to contribute $2 billion in cash and kind via established NGOs such as the Red Cross, World Vision and UN agencies to the tsunami relief and reconstruction effort. That was a real stretch for business, and I can’t say that we reached that figure, but the initiative certainly added significant dollars to the relief effort and received support from the UN, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) in Geneva which represents many multinational companies, the Business Council of Australia, The Ethical Corporation group in London and the Australian Shareholder’s Association who changed their original ‘no donation’ stance to one of full support for the Tsunami Challenge (an achievement that few people thought was possible in view of then ASA’s previous history). I also had extensive support from various journalists around the world who fed me data of donations before press releases.
The Tsunami Challenge was based on a simple donation formula that was easy for companies to meet, and eliminated the public ‘one-upmanship’ that caused hesitation among some companies. I also gave them positive exposure on a web site.
I funded the entire exercise. I did not need to set up a foundation, as the quickest and most effective way to get resources and money to the tsunami region was via direct donations to established NGOs who were familiar with the territory and the aid was needed urgently.
What it did demonstrate, however, was that with the right cause, there are plenty of companies and individuals who are prepared to take action to assist in tangible ways.
The target market
The target market for the present proposal is companies and people in Australia, North America, UK/Europe and Japan. Those regions comprise over 1 billion people (roughly 20% of world’s population), 80% of 60 trillion $ global GDP, 80% of global wealth, and 80% of industry, plus the majority (historically and present) of GHG emissions. They have the greatest capacity (and many would say the moral obligation as the main GHG emitters) to meet the cost of the research and innovations, and large sections of their respective populations who are concerned about climate change and the future for their children, as well as the ability to make many individual decisions at a personal and business level to engage business and the community in adaptive and mitigative behaviour and choices.
Around 10% of large companies in those regions gave to the tsunami effort. A much higher proportion of individuals gave. If we can repeat that for climate change, it will be enough to instigate significant change.
The first step is to ensure we have the best data so that the most effective strategies and solutions can be developed. The second step is to engage extensive networks of people and small, medium and large businesses to take the initiative irrespective of how long governments take to reach international agreement.
The latter will involve utilizing the internet and resources of businesses such as Yahoo!, who can access many millions of people in a short period of time, and using the internet astutely to inspire, inform, educate and galvanise action as a planet.
Over the next 5 years to 2012 (second stage of Kyoto Protocol or other carbon trading scheme) once the initial Foundations are bedded down and working effectively, another, third, Foundation/Fund will be created, tapping into the same market/database, for funding of the UN’s Millennium Development Goals – poverty, hunger, water, education, health. That will be a very substantial global initiative, and will be essential because climate change will first, and most heavily, impact the undeveloped countries that have the least resources to adapt – Bangladesh and areas of Africa for example.
Linked to that will be a simpler project – a database of companies that are willing to budget for cash and kind resources and services that can be used by the UN and NGOs to deliver rapid relief to regions devastated by natural disasters, including as a result of climate change. That is a ‘spin off’ of the Tsunami Challenge concept. I also have excellent contacts with some of the best complex project managers in the world, whom I intend to draft into service on catastrophic relief projects, to assist the coordination and streamlining of NGOs and other relief efforts. That will take some negotiation, but can be done.
Those latter two elements (Millennium Development Goals and Rapid Response database) are identified here to provide the full picture of what can be achieved in an integrated strategy.
Summary:
Yahoo’s $50K would be applied to establishing the first two Foundations, after which further funding to develop those Foundations and engage other businesses will be obtained from several corporates who are open to this type of community involvement. After that, the development of the remaining elements of the strategy will be self-funding. The support of Yahoo! would be very, very useful in rolling the initiative out globally. I propose to start the first two Foundations in Australia, testing and adjusting as required before rolling out in UK/Europe and North America
I believe we could quite comfortably raise $1 billion a year (globally) for each of these funds, given the current interest in climate change and the impact it will have on business, and then benefits the Foundations would deliver. Those sums will go a long way to supporting critical research and innovation.
Any person or company interested in assisting this initiative is welcome to contact me.