FYI, some prior work (which partially agrees with you):

https://founderspledge.com/research/fp-climate-change

https://lets-fund.org/

Also, a bit of press (and research) on trees: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/04/planting-billions-trees-best-tackle-climate-crisis-scientists-canopy-emissions

It's encouraging to see agreements from multiple estimates on the effectiveness of forestry. On clean energy, note that spending a few dollars to lobby the government to in turn spend a lot of money might be a lot more effective (2nd link), perhaps that explains the disparity.

I think your calculation for the cost of promoting plant diets is conceptually mistaken. The amount of lost meat industry revenue is irrelevant. We want to know how much of our money will have to be spent. For that, it's relatively straightforward to look up the amount of advertising expenses required to reduce meat consumption (Animal Charity Evaluators has done this research).

This in turn makes me suspect that some of your cost estimates for other technologies might have a similar problem, measuring 'cost' in some other economic or business sense besides what we really care about. So these calculations are important things to include in the analysis.

Also, the 1800x spread between silvopasture and roofs should considered a significant overestimate due to the optimizer's curse.

That looks like an interesting attempt to answer a question many others have tried to answer . (These are also being discussed in an AAAS forum where people try to figure out what, can, and should be done---i have seen quite a few analyses and reccomendations of varying technical sophistication, and while they overlap, its overwhelming and beyond my competency to do more than just see which looks best.

Your top 5 causes all look good to me, as well as your larger list in the 'green box' in your diagram.

I would probably have 10-15 causes all ranked about same level. Also, I might have causes 'geographically' clustered, ie people should work on ones nearby, however defined.

I tend to thijnk transportation may be underranked, as well as clean energy, though I may be wrong. I wonder if transportation includes all the road building, airports, and energy used to make cars, planes,ships, shipping containers etc. --'life cycle analyses. Aslo , transportation has indirect effects--sprawl, lifestyles, etc. Resorts, casinos, convention centers are buldings, but exist partly due to transportation. Alot more could be said.

if you google 'food loss and waste USFDA ' they have some numbers and reports that appear to go through the details---they say there is loss every step of the way. I remember my own stores used to throw away what seemed to be immense amount of fruit and vegetables, and things like yogurt and cheese, and bread and pastry. Now i can't tell because they have locked the dumpsters to keep people from getting free food, there is some organized collection of unused food, and also they do the trash now at times I am not around.

I tend to think alot small things like diet, food loss, and transportation actually could add up and also be 'easily implemented' in the short term, while the more difficult ones requiring engineering/technolopgy would be done as they became feasible.

But as anyone familiar with things like addiction , cigaerette use, obesity, diet change to even a low meat diet (i forget the term), views on issues like religion, evolution, sex, politics, economics , etc even 'easy things to change' (behavior, or ideas) sometimes is no faster than making technological advances.