Comment author: weeatquince  (EA Profile) 26 August 2018 12:56:58PM *  3 points [-]

Hi Kerry, Some more thoughts prior to having a chat.

-

Is longtermism a cause?

Yes and no. The term is used in multiple ways.

A: Consideration of the long-term future.

It is a core part of cause prioritisation to avoid availability biases: to consider the plights of those we cannot so easily be aware of, such as animals, people in other countries and people in the future. As such, in my view, it is imperative that CEA and EA community leaders promote this.

B: The long-term cause area.

Some people will conclude that the optimal use of their limited resources should be putting them towards shaping the far future. But not everyone, even after full rational consideration, will reach this view. Nor should we expect such unanimity of conclusions. As such, in my view, CEA and EA community leaders can recommend people to consider this causes area, but should not tell people this is the answer.

-

Threading the needle

I agree with the 6 points you make here.

(Although interestingly I personally do not have evidence that “area allegiance is operating as a kind of tribal signal in the movement currently”)

-

CEA and cause-impartiality

I think CEA should be careful about how to express a view. Doing this in wrong way could make it look like CEA is not cause impartial or not representative.

My view is to give recommendations and tools but not answers. This is similar to how we would not expect 80K to have a view on what the best job is (as it depends on an individual and their skills and needs) but we would expect 80K to have recommendations and to have advice on how to choose.

I think this approach is also useful because:

  • People are more likely to trust decisions they reach through their own thinking rather than conclusions they are pushed towards.

  • It handles the fact that everyone is different. The advice or reasoning that works for one person may well not make sense for someone else.

I think (as Khorton says) it is perfectly reasonable for an organisation to not have a conclusion.

-

(One other thought I had was on examples of actions I would be concerned about CEA or another movement building organisations taking would be: Expressing certainty about a area (in internal policy or externally), basing impact measurement solely on a single cause area, hiring staff for cause-general roles based on their views of what causes is most important, attempting to push as many people as possible to a specific cause area, etc)

Comment author: weeatquince  (EA Profile) 22 September 2018 07:20:02AM *  1 point [-]

Hi Kerry, Thank you for the call. I wrote up a short summary of what we discussed. It is a while since we talked so not perfect. Please correct anything I have misremembered.

~

1.

~ ~ Setting the scene ~ ~

  • CEA should champion cause prioritisation. We want people who are willing to pick a new cause based on evidence and research and a community that continues to work out how to do the most good. (We both agreed this.)
  • There is a difference between “cause impartiality”, as defined above, and “actual impartiality”, not having a view on what causes are most important. (There was some confusion but we got through it)
  • There is a difference between long-termism as a methodology where one considers the long run future impacts which CEA should 100% promote and long-termism as a conclusion that the most important thing to focus on right now is shaping the long term future of humanity. (I asserted this, not sure you expressed a view.)
  • A rational EA decision maker could go through a process of cause prioritisation and very legitimately reach different conclusions as to what causes are most important. They may have different skills to apply or different ethics (and we are far away from solving ethics if such a thing is possible). (I asserted this, not sure you expressed a view.)

~

2.

~ ~ Create space, build trust, express a view, do not be perfect ~ ~

  • The EA community needs to create the right kind of space so that people can reach their own decision about what causes are most important. This can be a physical space (a local community) or an online space. People should feel empowered to make their own decisions about causes. This means that they will be more adept at cause prioritisation, more likely to believe the conclusions reached and more likely to come to the correct answer for themselves, and EA is more likely to come to a correct answers overall. To do this they need good tools and resources and to feel that the space they are in is neutral. This needs trust...

  • Creating that space requires trust. People need to trust the tools that are guiding and advising them. If people feel they being subtly pushed in a direction they will reject the resources and tools being offered. Any sign of a breakdown of trust between people reading CEA’s resources and CEA should be taken very seriously.

  • Creating that space does not mean you cannot also express a view. You just want to distinguish when you are doing this. You can create cause prioritisation resources and tools that are truly neutral but still have a separate section on what answers do CEA staff reach or what is CEA’s answer.

  • Perfection is not required as long as there is trust and the system is not breaking down.

  • For example: providing policy advice I gave the example of writing advice to a Gov Minister on a controversial political issue, as a civil servant. The first ~85% of this imaginary advice has an impartial summary of the background and the problem and then a series of suggested actions with evaluations of their impact. The final ~15% has a recommended action based on the civil servant’s view of the matter. The important thing here is that there generally is trust between the Minister and the Department that advice will be neutral, and that in this case the Minister trusts that the section/space setting out the background and possible actions is neutral enough for them to make a good decision. It doesn’t need to be perfect, in fact the Minister will be aware that there is likely some amount of bias, but as long as there is sufficient trust that does not matter. And there is a recommendation which the Minister can choose to follow or not. In many cases the Minister will follow the recommendation.

~

3.

~ ~ How this goes wrong ~ ~

  • Imagine someone who has identified cause X which is super important comes across the EA community. You do not want the community to either be so focused on one cause that this person is either put off or is persuaded that the current EA cause is more important and forgets about cause X

  • I mentioned some of the things that damage trust (see the foot of my previous comment).

  • You mentioned you had seen signs of tribalism in the EA community.

~

4.

~ ~ Conclusion ~ ~

  • You said that you saw more value in CEA creating a space that was “actual impartial” as opposed to “cause impartial” than you had done previously.

~

5.

~ ~ Addendum: Some thoughts on evidence ~ ~

Not discussed but I have some extra thoughts on evidence.

There are two areas of my life where much of what I have learned points towards the views above being true.

  • Coaching. In coaching you need to make sure the coachee feels like you are there to help them not in any way with you own agenda (that is different from theirs).

  • Policy. In policy making you need trust and neutrality between Minister and civil servant.

There is value in following perceived wisdom on a topic. That said I have been looking out for any strong evidence that these things are true (eg. that coaching goes badly if they think you are subtly biased one way or another) and I have yet to find anything particularly persuasive. (Counterpoint: I know one friend who knows their therapist is overly-bias towards pushing them to have additional sessions but this does not put them off attending or mean they find it less useful). Perhaps this deserves further study.

Also worth bearing in mind there maybe dissimilarities between what CEA does and the fields of coaching and policy.

Also worth flagging that the example of policy advice given above is somewhat artificial, some policy advice (especially where controversial) is like that but much of it is just: “please approve action x”

In conclusion my views on this are based on very little evidence and a lot of gut feeling. My intuitions on this are strongly guided by my time doing coaching and doing policy advice.

Comment author: weeatquince  (EA Profile) 16 September 2018 01:08:48AM 13 points [-]

Feature idea: If you co-write an article with someone being able to post as co-authors.

Comment author: Kerry_Vaughan 18 August 2018 12:25:39AM *  11 points [-]

Thanks Sam! This is really helpful. I'd be interested in talking on Skype about this sometime soon (just emailed you about it). Some thoughts below:

Is longtermism a cause?

One idea I've been thinking about is whether it makes sense to treat longtermism/the long-term future as a cause.

Longtermism is the view that most of the value of our actions lies in what happens in the future. You can hold that view and also hold the view that we are so uncertain about what will happen in the future that doing things with clear positive short-term effects is the best thing to do. Peter Hurford explains this view nicely here.

I do think that longtermism as a philosophical point of view is emerging as an intellectual consensus in the movement. Yet, I also think there are substantial and reasonable disagreements about what that means practically speaking. I'd be in favor of us working to ensure that people entering the community understand the details of that disagreement.

My guess is that while CEA is very positive on longtermism, we aren't anywhere near as positive on the cause/intervention combinations that longtermism typically suggests. For example, personally speaking, if it turned out that recruiting ML PhDs to do technical AI-Safety didn't have a huge impact I would be surprised but not very surprised.

Threading the needle

My feeling as I've been thinking about representativeness is that getting this right requires threading a very difficult needle because we need to optimize against a large number of constraints and considerations. Some of the constraints include:

  • Cause areas shouldn't be tribes -- I think cause area allegiance is operating as a kind of tribal signal in the movement currently. You're either on the global poverty tribe or the X-risk tribe or the animal welfare tribe and then people tend to defend the views of the tribe they happen to be associated with. I think this needs to stop if we want to build a community that can actually figure out how to do the most good and then do it. Focusing on cause areas as the unit of analysis for representativeness entrenches the tribal concern, but it's hard to get away from because it's an easy-to-understand unit of analysis.
  • We shouldn't entrench existing cause areas -- we should be aiming for an EA that has the ability to shift its consensus on the most pressing problems as we learn more. Some methods of increasing representativeness have the effect of entrenching current cause areas and making intellectual shifts harder.
  • Cause-impartiality can include having a view -- cause impartiality means that you do an impartial calculation of impact to determine what to work on. Such a calculation should lead to developing views on what causes are most important. Intellectual progress probably includes decreasing our uncertainty and having stronger views.
  • The view of CEA staff should inform, but not determine our work -- I don't think it's realistic or plausible for CEA to take actions as if we have no view on the relative importance of different problems, but it's also the case that our views shouldn't substantially determine what happens.
  • CEA should sometimes exercise leadership in the community -- I don't think that social movements automatically become excellent. Excellence typically has to be achieved on purpose by dedicated, skilled actors. I think CEA will often do work that represents the community, but will sometimes want to lead the community on important issues. The allocation of resources across causes could be one such area for leadership although I'm not certain.

There are also some other considerations around methods of improving representativeness. For example, consulting established EA orgs on representativeness concerns has the effect of entrenching the current systems of power in a way that may be bad, but that gives you a sense of the consideration space.

CEA and cause-impartiality

Suggestion: CEA should actively champion cause impartiality

I just wanted to briefly clarify that I don't think CEA taking a view in favor of longtermism or even in favor of specific causes that are associated with longtermism is evidence against us being cause-impartial. Cause-impartiality means that you do an impartial calculation of the impact of the cause and act on the basis of that. This is certainly what we think we've done when coming to views on specific causes although there's obviously room for reasonable disagreement.

I would find it quite odd if major organizations in EA (even movement building organizations) had no view on what causes are most important. I think CEA should be aspiring to have detailed, nuanced views that take into account our wide uncertainty, not no views on the question.

Making people feel listened to

I broadly agree with your points here. Regularly talking to and listening to more people in the community is something that I'm personally committed to doing.

Your section on representatives feels like you are trying to pin down a way of finding an exact number so you can say we have this many articles on topic x and this many on topic y and so on. I am not sure this is quite the correct framing.

Just to clarify, I also don't think trying to find a number that defines representativeness is the right approach, but I also don't want this to be a purely philosophical conversation. I want it to drive action.

Comment author: weeatquince  (EA Profile) 26 August 2018 12:56:58PM *  3 points [-]

Hi Kerry, Some more thoughts prior to having a chat.

-

Is longtermism a cause?

Yes and no. The term is used in multiple ways.

A: Consideration of the long-term future.

It is a core part of cause prioritisation to avoid availability biases: to consider the plights of those we cannot so easily be aware of, such as animals, people in other countries and people in the future. As such, in my view, it is imperative that CEA and EA community leaders promote this.

B: The long-term cause area.

Some people will conclude that the optimal use of their limited resources should be putting them towards shaping the far future. But not everyone, even after full rational consideration, will reach this view. Nor should we expect such unanimity of conclusions. As such, in my view, CEA and EA community leaders can recommend people to consider this causes area, but should not tell people this is the answer.

-

Threading the needle

I agree with the 6 points you make here.

(Although interestingly I personally do not have evidence that “area allegiance is operating as a kind of tribal signal in the movement currently”)

-

CEA and cause-impartiality

I think CEA should be careful about how to express a view. Doing this in wrong way could make it look like CEA is not cause impartial or not representative.

My view is to give recommendations and tools but not answers. This is similar to how we would not expect 80K to have a view on what the best job is (as it depends on an individual and their skills and needs) but we would expect 80K to have recommendations and to have advice on how to choose.

I think this approach is also useful because:

  • People are more likely to trust decisions they reach through their own thinking rather than conclusions they are pushed towards.

  • It handles the fact that everyone is different. The advice or reasoning that works for one person may well not make sense for someone else.

I think (as Khorton says) it is perfectly reasonable for an organisation to not have a conclusion.

-

(One other thought I had was on examples of actions I would be concerned about CEA or another movement building organisations taking would be: Expressing certainty about a area (in internal policy or externally), basing impact measurement solely on a single cause area, hiring staff for cause-general roles based on their views of what causes is most important, attempting to push as many people as possible to a specific cause area, etc)

Comment author: RandomEA 16 August 2018 02:29:59AM 5 points [-]

If you do an action that does not look cause impartial (say EA Funds mostly grants money to far future causes) then just acknowledge this and say that you have noted it and explain why it happened.

Do you mean EA Grants? The allocation of EA Funds across cause areas is outside of CEA's control since there's a separate fund for each cause area.

Comment author: weeatquince  (EA Profile) 16 August 2018 07:27:48AM 1 point [-]

Yes thanks. Edited.

Comment author: weeatquince  (EA Profile) 15 August 2018 11:50:28PM *  27 points [-]

We would like to hear suggestions from forum users about what else they might like to see from CEA in this area.

Here is my two cents. I hope it is constructive:


1.

The policy is excellent but the challenge lies in implementation.

Firstly I want to say that this post is fantastic. I think you have got the policy correct: that CEA should be cause-impartial, but not cause-agnostic and CEA’s work should be cause-general.

However I do not think it looks, from the outside, like CEA is following this policy. Some examples:

  • EA London staff had concerns that they would need to be more focused on the far future in order to receive funding from CEA.

  • You explicitly say on your website: "We put most of our credence in a worldview that says what happens in the long-term future is most of what matters. We are therefore more optimistic about others who roughly share this worldview."[1]

  • The example you give of the new EA handbook

  • There is a close association with 80000 Hours who are explicitly focusing much of their effort on the far future.

These are all quite subtle things, but collectively they give an impression that CEA is not cause impartial (that it is x-risk focused). Of course this is a difficult thing to get correct. It is difficult to draw the line between saying: 'our staff members believe cause_ is important' (a useful factoid that should definitely be said), whilst also putting across a strong front of cause impartiality.


2.

Suggestion: CEA should actively champion cause impartiality

If you genuinely want to be cause impartial I think most of the solutions to this are around being super vigilant about how CEA comes across. Eg:

  • Have a clear internal style guide that sets out to staff good and bad ways to talk about causes

  • Have 'cause impartiality' as a staff value

  • If you do an action that does not look cause impartial (say EA Grants mostly grants money to far future causes) then just acknowledge this and say that you have noted it and explain why it happened.

  • Public posts like this one setting out what CEA believes

  • If you want to do lots of "prescriptive" actions split them off into a sub project or a separate institution.

  • Apply the above retroactively (remove lines from your website that make it look like you are only future focused)

Beyond that, if you really want to champion cause impartiality you may also consider extra things like:

  • More focus on cause prioritisation research.

  • Hiring people who value cause impartiality / cause prioritisation research / community building, above people who have strong views on what causes are important.


3.

Being representative is about making people feel listened too.

Your section on representatives feels like you are trying to pin down a way of finding an exact number so you can say we have this many articles on topic x and this many on topic y and so on. I am not sure this is quite the correct framing.

Things like the EA handbook should (as a lower bound) have enough of a diversity of causes mentioned that the broader EA community does not feel misrepresented but (as an upper bound) not so much that CEA staff [2] feel like it is misrepresenting them. Anything within this range seems fine to me. (Eg. with the EA handbook both groups should feel comfortable handing this book to a friend.) Although I do feel a bit like I have just typed 'just do the thing that makes everyone happy' which is easier said than done.

I also think that "representativeness" is not quite the right issue any way. The important thing is that people in the EA community feel listened too and feel like what CEA is doing represents them. The % of content on different topics is only part of that. The other parts of the solution are:

  • Coming across like you listen: see the aforementioned points on championing cause impartiality. Also expressing uncertainty, mentioning that there are opposing views, giving two sides to a debate, etc.

  • Listening -- ie. consulting publicly (or with trusted parties) wherever possible.

If anything getting these two things correct is more important than getting the exact percentage of your work to be representative.


Sam :-)


[1] https://www.centreforeffectivealtruism.org/a-three-factor-model-of-community-building

[2] Unless you have reason to think that there is a systematic bias in staff, eg if you actively hired people because of the cause they cared about.

Comment author: MarekDuda 08 August 2018 02:34:55PM 3 points [-]

Thanks Sam!

Yes, it is. We are currently focussing on operational robustness, but after that we see no reason not to expand the offering to cover most of the organisations EAs give to.

Comment author: weeatquince  (EA Profile) 08 August 2018 11:04:27PM *  0 points [-]

YAY <3

Comment author: weeatquince  (EA Profile) 08 August 2018 11:17:18AM 5 points [-]

Marek, well done on all of your hard work on this.

Separate from the managed funds. I really like the work that CEA is doing to help money be moved around the world to other EA charities. I would love to see more organisations on the list of places that donations can be made through the EA Funds platform. Eg, REG or Animal Charity Evaluators or Rethink Charity. Is this in the works?

https://app.effectivealtruism.org/donations/new/organizations

Comment author: Geoff_Anders 03 August 2018 04:15:03PM *  25 points [-]

Hi everyone,

I'd like to start off by apologizing. I realize that it has been hard to understand what Leverage has been doing, and I think that that's my fault. Last month Kerry Vaughan convinced me that I needed a new approach to PR and public engagement, and so I've been thinking about what to write and say about this. My plan, apart from the post here, was to post something over the next month. So I'll give a brief response to the points here and then make a longer main post early next week.

(1) I'm sorry for the lack of transparency and public engagement. We did a lot more of this in 2011-2012, but did not really succeed in getting people to understand us. After that, I decided we should just focus on our research. I think people expect more public engagement, even very early in the research process, and that I did not understand this.

(2) We do not consider ourselves an EA organization. We do not solicit funds from individual EAs. Instead, we are EA-friendly, in that (a) we employ many EAs, (b) we let people run EA projects, and (c) we contribute to EA causes, especially EA movement building. As noted in the post, we ran the EA Summit 2013 and EA Summit 2014. These were the precursors to the EA Global conferences. For a sense of what these were like, see the EA Summit 2013 video. We also ran the EA Retreat 2014 and helped out operationally with EA Global 2015. We also founded THINK, the first EA movement group network.

(3) We are probably not the correct donation choice for most EAs. We care about reason, evidence, and impact, but we are much higher variance than most EAs would like. We believe there is evidence that we are more effective than regular charities due to our contributions to movement building. These can be thought of as "impact offsets". (See (6) for more on the EV calculation.)

(4) We are also probably not the correct employment choice for most EAs. We are looking for people with particular skills and characteristics (e.g., ambition, dedication to reason and evidence, self-improvement). These make CFAR our largest EA competitor for talent, though in actual fact we have not ended up competing substantially with them. In general if people are excited about CEA or 80k or Charity Science or GiveWell or OPP, then we typically also expect that they are better served by working there.

(5) Despite (3) and (4), we are of course very interested in meeting EAs who would be good potential donors or recruits. We definitely recruit at EA events, though again we think that most EAs would be better served by working elsewhere.

(6) To do a full EV calculation on Leverage, it is important to take into account the counterfactual cost of employees who would work on other EA projects. We think that taking this into account, counting our research as 0 value, and using the movement building impact estimates from LEAN, we come out well on EV compared to an average charity. This is because of our contribution to EA movement building and because EA movement building is so valuable. (Rather than give a specific Fermi estimate, I will let readers make their own calculations.) Of course, under these assumptions donating to movement building alone is higher EV than donating to Leverage. Donors should only consider us if they assign greater than 0 value to our research.

I hope that that clarifies to some degree Leverage's relation to the EA movement. I'll respond to the specific points above later today.

As for the EA Summit 2018, we agree that everyone should talk with people they know before attending. This is true of any multi-day event. Time is valuable, and it's a good idea to get evidence of the value prior to attending.

(Leverage will not be officially presenting any content at the EA Summit 2018, so people who would like to learn more should contact us here. My own talk will be about how to plan ambitious projects.)

EDIT: I said in my earlier comment that I would write again this evening. I’ll just add a few things to my original post.

— Many of the things listed in the original post are simply good practice. Workshops should track participants to ensure the quality of their experience and that they are receiving value. CFAR also does this. Organizations engaged in recruitment should seek to proactively identify qualified candidates. I’ve spoken to the leaders of multiple organizations who do this.

— Part of what we do is help people to understand themselves better via introspection and psychological frameworks. Many people find this both interesting and useful. All of the mind mapping we did was with the full knowledge and consent of the person, at their request, typically with them watching and error-checking as we went. (I say “did” because we stopped making full mind maps in 2015.) This is just a normal part of showing people what we do. It makes sense for prospective recruits and donors to seek an in-depth look at our tools prior to becoming more involved. We also have strict privacy rules and do not share personal information from charting sessions without explicit permission from the person. This is true for everyone we work with, including prospective recruits and donors.

Comment author: weeatquince  (EA Profile) 05 August 2018 09:57:53PM *  25 points [-]

counting our research as 0 value, and using the movement building impact estimates from LEAN, we come out well on EV compared to an average charity ... I will let readers make their own calculations

Hi Geoff. I gave this a little thought and I am not sure it works. In fact it looks quite plausible that someone's EV (expected value) calculation on Leverage might actually come out as negative (ie. Leverage would be causing harm to the world).

This is because:

  • Most EA orgs calculate their counterfactual expected value by taking into account what the people in that organisation would be doing otherwise if they were not in that organisation and then deduct this from their impact. (I believe at least 80K, Charity Science and EA London do this)

  • Given Leverage's tendency to hire ambitious altruistic people and to look for people at EA events it is plausible that a significant proportion of Leverage staff might well have ended up at other EA organisations.

  • There is a talent gap at other EA organisations (see 80K on this)

  • Leverage does spend some time on movement building but I estimate that this is a tiny proportion of the time, >5%, best guess 3%, (based on having talked to people at leverage and also based on looking at your achievements to date compared it to the apparent 100 person-years figure)

  • Therefore if the amount of staff who could be expected to have found jobs in other EA organisations is thought to be above 3% (which seems reasonable) then Leverage is actually displacing EAs from productive action so the total EV of Leverage is negative

Of course this is all assuming the value of your research is 0. This is the assumption you set out in your post. Obviously in practice I don’t think the value of your research is 0 and as such I think it is possible that the total EV of Leverage is positive*. I think more transparency would help here. Given that almost no research is available I do think it would be reasonable for someone who is not at Leverage to give your research an EV of close to 0 and therefore conclude that Leverage is causing harm.

I hope this helps and maybe explains why Leverage gets a bad rep. I am excited to see a more transparency and a new approach to public engagement. Keep on fighting for a better world!

*sentence edited to better match views

Comment author: weeatquince  (EA Profile) 04 August 2018 07:34:22AM 14 points [-]

Hi Joey, thank you for writing this.

I think calling this a problem of representation is actually understating the problem here.

EA has (at least to me) always been a community that inspires encourages and supports people to use all the information and tools available to them (including their individual priors intuitions and sense of morality) to reach a conclusion about what causes and actions are most important for them to take to make a better world (and of course to then take those actions).

Even if 90% of experienced EAs / EA community leaders currently converge on the same conclusion as to where value lies, I would worry that a strong focus on that issue would be detrimental. We'd be at risk of losing the emphasis on cause prioritisation - arguably most useful insight that EA has provided to the world.

  • We'd risk losing an ability to support people though cause prioritisation (coaching, EA or otherwise, should not pre-empt the answers or have ulterior motives)
  • we risk creating a community that is less able to switch to focus on the most important thing
  • we risk stifling useful debate
  • we risk creating a community that does not benefits from collaboration by people working in different areas
  • etc

(Note: Probably worth adding that if 90% of experienced EAs / EA community leaders converged on the same conclusion on causes my intuitions would suggest that this is likley to be evidence of founder effects / group-think as much as it is evidence for that cause. I expect this is because I see a huge diversity in people's values and thinking and a difficulty in reaching strong conclusions in ethics and cause prioritisation)

In response to Open Thread #39
Comment author: LivBoeree 23 April 2018 12:41:10PM 6 points [-]

Hi all, Liv here (REG co-founder). I've just joined the forum for the first time and don't have enough karma to post in the main thread yet, but hopefully someone very well-versed in climate change intervention rankings will see this:

I'm looking for feedback on the following prioritisation list http://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank

This list is being referenced by a potentially very high impact and well-intentioned individual I'm in conversation with, but it IMO it contains a number of surprises and omissions. Does anyone have a more EA-vetted ranking of interventions they could direct me to? Feel free to PM me, thanks.

In response to comment by LivBoeree on Open Thread #39
Comment author: weeatquince  (EA Profile) 08 July 2018 10:18:18PM 0 points [-]

Hi, a little late, but did you get an answer to this? I am not an expert but can direct this to people in EA London who can maybe help.

My very initial (non-expert) thinking was:

  • this looks like a very useful list of how to mitigate climate consequences through further investment in existing technologies.

  • this looks like a list written by a scientist not a policy maker. Where do diplomatic interventions such as "subsidise China to encourage them not to mine as much coal" etc fall on this list. I would expect subsidies to prevent coal mining are likely to be effective.

  • "atmospheric carbon capture" is not on the list. My understanding is that "atmospheric carbon capture" may be a necessity for allowing us to mitigate climate change in the long run (by controlling CO2 levels) whereas everything else on this list is useful in the medium-short run none of these technologies are necessary.

View more: Next