Climate destabilization demands action, but urgency cannot outpace scientific rigor or ethical responsibility. ASI is built on a foundation of rigorous due diligence and principled action.
Our principles are informed by and aligned with Renaissance Philanthropy’s Advanced Research for Climate Emergencies (ARC) Initiative.
We draw on leading governance and ethical frameworks, including the American Geophysical Union’s ethical framework and the Oxford Principles, while tailoring oversight to the risk, scope, and context of each of our initiatives.
Our principles are six commitments that govern how we do research and make decisions.
Research as a responsibility
The Arctic is nearing tipping points that could trigger cascading risks worldwide. Emissions reduction and decarbonization remain essential, but they are insufficient on their own to address risks of Arctic destabilization due to processes already underway, such as sea ice loss and permafrost thaw. In this context, it is imperative to research the safety, efficacy, and feasibility of climate interventions while the world continues the race to decarbonize.
Indigenous Partnership
Arctic science has too often proceeded without the consent of, or benefit to, Indigenous Peoples. ASI works to redefine that relationship, engaging Indigenous Peoples early, substantively, and as rights-holders in their ancestral lands. We treat free, prior, and informed consent as a precondition for field research and dedicate significant resources to Indigenous-defined priorities through our Indigenous Resilience and Rights fund, which operates independent of ASI's research operations.
Evidence before advancement
We begin with what existing data and models can tell us about the physical processes involved, advancing predictive understanding where possible. Where decision-critical uncertainties remain, we ask what new observations or modeling efforts could resolve them. We iteratively revisit the remaining uncertainties before asking whether a small-scale experiment is warranted. Any such experiment requires Independent Oversight Committee approval.
Portfolio approach
The complexity of Earth's climate and governance systems requires a portfolio approach to climate stabilization. We evaluate a portfolio of Arctic-targeted climate interventions against consistent criteria, study how they might complement or counteract one another, and advance each only as far as the evidence supports.
Advocacy for research, not deployment
We advocate for research of climate interventions, not their deployment. We produce the evidence, benchmarks, and modeling tools that governments, multilateral institutions, and Indigenous rights-holders need to assess their safety, efficacy, and feasibility.
Commitment to governance & consensus
We conduct our research in compliance with established laws, regulations, and international governance frameworks while convening governments, scientists, and partners to strengthen the standards, oversight, and decision frameworks the field requires.
How we decide what initiatives advance
Our research advances through stage gates. At the end of each phase, we ask whether decision-critical uncertainties remain that the next phase is needed to resolve. We proceed to more demanding approaches if the evidence warrants, advancing MCT while it remains plausible and deprioritizing when it does not.
Two possible outcomes at every gate
Advance
Decision-critical uncertainties remain, and MCT looks plausible enough to justify the next phase of research to resolve them.
Deprioritize
The evidence indicates MCT is not worth advancing. We reallocate resources to other candidates that are underresourced relative to their potential.
Independent Governance
Two independent bodies anchor our research: one guides the science, the other sets guardrails for any outdoor experiment and determines whether it can proceed.
Scientific Advisory Board (SAB)
Leading experts in Arctic clouds, aerosol–cloud interactions, modeling and observations guide ASI's research execution and support scientific rigor across our technical areas.
Independent Oversight Committee (IOC)
Structurally separate from ASI leadership, the IOC must approve any outdoor experiment against transparent criteria including scientific justification, risk minimization, and Indigenous partnership.
