Hello EA forum-goers! I've just finished putting together a new report on climate change for Giving What We Can, and it'd be great to get your thoughts on it.
Introduction: http://preview.givingwhatwecan.org/cause/3Hxr8Hb8IMoEaOYAKkuG6c (this will appear on the same page as Part 1)
Part 1: http://preview.givingwhatwecan.org/report/1WWlWmFxscuGsIiQIKKeyk
Part 2: http://preview.givingwhatwecan.org/report/1VSgt5YVhK0o6wCk2ggcCe
Evaluation of Cool Earth: http://preview.givingwhatwecan.org/report/2CFCCfUSi4icqeS6emE046
(other evaluations and new modelling are also on their way - I'll put the links here once they're available for viewing)
Suggestions, thoughts, criticisms are all welcome!
edit: Please don't share these links widely, they're not yet the final versions and don't actually link to the main GWWC site.
Hi Sam,
Thanks! Glad you liked it. It's currently just a preview and not actually published yet, so that's why some links and functionality may not work (and the post on the model I used is still yet to go up).
In regards to Q1 - I would like to, yeah. When it comes to the probabilities of different levels of warming though, it's super uncertain. The ~1% chance of 10 degrees of warming is only under one of several possible probability distributions and we really just don't have any clue which of those distributions is accurate. And in addition to the uncertainty there, we know very little about just how bad those high levels of warming would be for us as there's minimal research on it, so giving expected values would be a major challenge - one which I'm not sure I'm up to, but which definitely warrants some more research in future. There's also the values and risk profiles of different donors to think of too - many want direct measurable benefits rather than minor reductions in existential risk somewhere in the future - so even if we got a decent estimate of the expected impact of emission reduction including tail risks, it'd have to be given separately.
Q2 - Largely the same issue as above - seriously difficult to estimate. But as far as mentioning them, that's certainly something that can be added in before we publish. Cheers for that!
Q3 - Yeah, so reducing present emissions just temporarily won't really help much (unless it gives us longer to adapt). But when I'm talking about emissions reduction, I mean permanently preventing that quantity of emissions from ever being emitted (e.g. through deforestation). Reducing (or preventing) emissions in this way should not only delay the point at which we reach a given temperature but also reduce the eventual peak temperature. And Michael's spot on with his reply too (we haven't looked at methane emissions specifically here but it does seem like it might be possible to reduce methane emissions at roughly $5/tCO2eq through ACE's recommended animal charities - highly uncertain though).
Q4 - I've also just finished an evaluation of the most promising lobbying organisation we've found. It should be up sometime soon. We think it might be a slightly better option for donors with a greater appetite for risk, but for others it still seems like Cool Earth is the better option.
Q5 - The US. That seems pretty certain, as they're not only a massive emitter (2nd worldwide) but it's pretty widely accepted that a lot of action elsewhere won't happen if the US doesn't get the ball rolling. This'll get mentioned in that other evaluation though.
Q6 - I'm not sure. It probably wouldn't be a bad use of most people's time, and the advocacy charity we've been looking at does use a lot of volunteers. Then again, they're currently getting hundreds of thousands of volunteer-hours each year already so it might be more effective to volunteer elsewhere or in a different cause area. I really don't know though.