In December a post on here by @Ben Anderson encouraged submissions to the Consultation by the UK Parliament's International Development Committee. Ben suggested proposing lead exposure as a focus for the committee.

The committee's response to the consultation is now out. The report makes no mention of lead, and worse "Given the volume of repeat entries - over a dozen - on lead poisoning, it decided to publish only the first submission received to ensure a fair and representative presentation of proposals."

Despite the disappointing outcome in this case, and what seems a problematic process for publishing submissions, submitting to these consultations is probably still worthwhile in ex ante expected value terms. Tactically it might be worth diversifying EA-flavoured topic submissions in future.

26

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments4


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Thanks for sharing!

I couldn't find the quote in the linked PDF. It's maybe at another link (?) 

Yep I couldn't either

Thank you for this post Lee, I really do appreciate it.

This is definitely a disappointing result and not what I wanted out of this consultation. However for me this does not reduce the potential of this path to impact; of influencing policy outcomes by coordinating submissions to consultations. 

The first reason for this belief is the successes in Australia. The second reason is the ICAI consultation I worked on last October, where I coordinated around ~60 submissions, and successfully influenced the consultation’s results. For each of the four questions ICAI asked, they listed the top recommendations given. The top answer that they list for each question directly corresponds to our top recommendation that we gave to attendees to push forward (e.g. use of best buys, cash-benchmarking). A number of our secondary arguments are also prominently included. 

However, even with this success they state that ‘we estimate that around 40 responses showed a degree of coordination, but we are confident that this has not changed the substance of the results.’ Meaning either they noticed our coordination but it didn’t affect our influence, or our coordination wasn’t noticed. 

I think that this IDC consultation was also different in that we only pushed forward a single argument and provided a single version of that argument. Whereas the usual method is providing multiple arguments to push forward and different variations of them. The benefit of a single argument is the significantly less work required, however as one likely could have guessed, it also results in significantly less success. 

For me this only enhances the need to have someone working on this full-time, which we are actually hiring for at the Global Policy Research Group. The contractor position will involve coordinating submissions from the UK/European effective altruism and adjacent communities to significant governmental consultations (on the core EA cause areas) to create policy change. 

If you or someone you know would be interested, here is the Application Form

If anyone has any positive or critical thoughts on this work or this role I am very open to hearing them!

Thanks for the efforts Lee and that is sad yes! It would be good to have at least one EA aligned person on that committee.

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
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
Recent opportunities in Global health & development
20
Eva
· · 1m read