Hide table of contents

As part of the Marginal Funding Week, we wanted to give a brief update on the situation of ALLFED (Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disasters), describing in which projects marginal funding is likely to be spent. There is a much more detailed, in-depth picture of the ALLFED 2023 year-in-review, as usual.

 

ALLFED update

In 2023, ALLFED’s research team has been working on modeling outdoor crop relocation and seaweed deployment in nuclear winter scenarios, two of the most promising food production interventions for this catastrophe. Our integrated assessment model of combined resilient food deployment is being revamped and will be updated soon; it has recently been applied to a new article looking at country-level nuclear winter response in Argentina. Further ongoing research this year has focused on infrastructure collapse scenarios, such as crop yield loss modeling, supply chain interventions (transportation of food and water) and system dynamics. Other recent outputs include work on leaf protein concentrateagricultural residue utilization in Africa, and the intersection of nuclear winter with planetary boundaries.

Over the last 12 months, there has been a general shift of ALLFED’s resources towards policy engagement and advocacy to increase humanity’s resilience against a potential global catastrophic food failure. Increasing geopolitical tensions have compelled us to expedite the translation of our scientific research into actionable policy. Examples include our reports outlining the content of national preparedness and response plans against abrupt sunlight reduction scenarios (e.g. nuclear winter) for various countries such as the United States, Australia, and Argentina.

We will continue to work on all three pillars of ALLFED’s work: research, policy, and technology development.

 

Projects: where is marginal funding likely to be spent?

Research: previous funding will enable ALLFED to continue work in a large project to create an integrated assessment model of food system responses to counter yield losses of full-scale nuclear winter-level (150 Tg soot, global average calorie production from crops would decrease by ~80-90%). We are in the process of publishing the first sets of results. Previous funding will also allow us to continue key priority research projects on the topic of resilient foods for nuclear winter-level shocks. In this funding appeal we would instead like to ask for support to:

  1. Overhaul our more neglected line of research. Specifically, research into interventions to increase resilience and response capabilities to scenarios involving extreme, abrupt collapse of critical infrastructure (e.g. loss of electricity/industry), which could be caused by an extreme pandemic resulting in employees in critical industries being too fearful to report to work. This would also involve designing a resilient backup communication system (such as a resilient satellite that could communicate directly with cell phones). Previously we proposed using draft animals for farming and transportation, but we are now investigating wood gasification that was used in WWII to substitute for petroleum products. This would also involve defining how an effective resilient food response to this scenario would look, and developing the required methods and tool designs to achieve it. We estimate the need as ~3 FTE with support ($300,000).
  2. Maintaining our researchers to carry out other priority projects. For example, research on combination scenarios is crucial to understand not only how to prevent humanity from surviving a most extreme scenario involving a global food production collapse combined with a loss of global industry and supply chains (e.g. via a full-scale nuclear war involving coordinated nuclear EMP attacks), but also how to best help regions likely to be a target of nuclear attacks in a war, such as the USA and the European Union (where nuclear EMP is very likely even if it does not take place globally). We’ve estimated a requirement of ~5 additional FTE including research, operations, etc. to kickstart this ($500,000). 
     

Translation of research into policy

Additional funding will be used to:

  • Support existing policy engagements in the USA, Australia and Argentina.
  • Kickstart a new regional preparedness planning project in a key region (e.g. Scandinavia, New Zealand, Persian Gulf). A basic plan can be done for $10,000 with limited engagement - more customization and greater engagement is more like $100,000.

 

Translation of research into resilient tech development: We are also looking for funding to perform a modest (~$200,000) technology demonstration of a key resilient food technology from our list of tech ideas that address current bottlenecks, e.g. an open source extruder for greenhouse cover production for fast scaling, or open source rope twister for seaweed.

PilotTotal cost (including overhead)BreakdownCompletion time
Simple greenhouse prototype for fast scaling (Open Source (OS))$160,000

2 FTE $75,000 each, $10,000 materials and supplies


 

12  months  
Rope twister for seaweed (OS)$170,000

1 FTE $75,000 each year

$20,000 materials and supplies

24 months
Plastic extruder for greenhouses (OS)$250,000

1 FTE $75,000 each year

$100,000 materials and supplies

24 months
Repurposing of a small scale university paper pilot plant for production of sugar~$2,200,000

3 FTE $100,000 each/year

$1,000,000 equipment

~48 months


 

Thank you

Thanks to all our donors and volunteers. Other than donating, you can also contribute your time through volunteering with ALLFED, including as a board member. Thank you for your interest and support in increasing the chances of humanity in the face of global catastrophic food failure. 


 

Comments2


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Executive summary: ALLFED provides an update on their research, policy, and technology development work related to increasing resilience against catastrophic global food system shocks like nuclear winter. They request funding for specific projects to expand their research and implementation efforts.

Key points:

  1. Research is focused on modeling responses to nuclear winter crop loss, infrastructure collapse scenarios, and combination catastrophes. Funding sought for infrastructure resilience and target region planning.
  2. Policy work involves translating research into national preparedness plans. Funding would expand engagements in the US, Australia, Argentina and other regions.
  3. Technology involves developing open source solutions to food production bottlenecks. Funding sought for extruders, rope twisters, small scale plants.
  4. Overall goal is to increase global resilience against catastrophic crop loss from nuclear war, pandemic infrastructure collapse, or other global shocks.
  5. Funding needs estimated at $300k-$500k for research, $10k-$100k for policy, and $160k-$250k for technology pilots.
  6. Volunteers also sought, including for ALLFED's board.

 

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.

Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
LewisBollard
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
> How the dismal science can help us end the dismal treatment of farm animals By Martin Gould ---------------------------------------- Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- This year we’ll be sharing a few notes from my colleagues on their areas of expertise. The first is from Martin. I’ll be back next month. - Lewis In 2024, Denmark announced plans to introduce the world’s first carbon tax on cow, sheep, and pig farming. Climate advocates celebrated, but animal advocates should be much more cautious. When Denmark’s Aarhus municipality tested a similar tax in 2022, beef purchases dropped by 40% while demand for chicken and pork increased. Beef is the most emissions-intensive meat, so carbon taxes hit it hardest — and Denmark’s policies don’t even cover chicken or fish. When the price of beef rises, consumers mostly shift to other meats like chicken. And replacing beef with chicken means more animals suffer in worse conditions — about 190 chickens are needed to match the meat from one cow, and chickens are raised in much worse conditions. It may be possible to design carbon taxes which avoid this outcome; a recent paper argues that a broad carbon tax would reduce all meat production (although it omits impacts on egg or dairy production). But with cows ten times more emissions-intensive than chicken per kilogram of meat, other governments may follow Denmark’s lead — focusing taxes on the highest emitters while ignoring the welfare implications. Beef is easily the most emissions-intensive meat, but also requires the fewest animals for a given amount. The graph shows climate emissions per tonne of meat on the right-hand side, and the number of animals needed to produce a kilogram of meat on the left. The fish “lives lost” number varies significantly by