game, it has become popular as a communication tool for global warming mitigation. It is used in a variety of arenas and by a variety of players including businessmen, politicians, teachers, and students. David Hawkins, climate director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, puts the ease of use of the Wedge Game this way: Education The Carbon Mitigation Initiative (CMI) permits anyone to use the game and make use of their materials, provided that they share the results with CMI. Because it is so widely accessible, it has become included in certain high school curricula. The Keystone Center has deemed the Stabilization Wedge Game to fulfill the following National Education Standards: S1, S6, LA4, LA5, C4, C5, E1, G1, G5, and WH9. The American Association for the Advancement of Science hosted a conference for educators at the Hilton in San Francisco 2007-02-18. Collaborating with AAAS were the National Science Teachers Association and the United Educators of San Francisco (representing the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers). Socolow and Hotinski personally presented the Stabilization Wedge concept at the event. Business The Stabilization Wedge Game is also used as a centerpiece for business seminars. Business executives played the game at as seminar held by the Sustainable Enterprise Academy at York University in Toronto. Criticism The primary critique of the Wedge Game is that it is too simple, especially regarding the economic aspect of global warming mitigation. The materials provided by CMI only attach one, two, or three dollar signs to each wedge as a broad estimate of the expense of each option. James L. Connaughton, former chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality in the Bush Administration, is a critic of the Wedge Game for its oversimplicity, and he has even said that some of the numbers used by Socolow and Pacala, such as 550 ppm as a maximum allowable target for , lack a scientific basis. Richard G. Richels, a senior engineer at the Electric Power Research Institute, says that the lack of economic precision in the game could create misconceptions: Another criticism of the game is that one of the premises, i.e. that humanity already has the tools and technologies to halt climate change, is misleading. Marty Hoffert of the New York University Physics Department claims that while the technologies are available in a technical sense, they are not available in an operational sense, and