Seconding this: I think food at EAG is really high-impact:
That last one is particularly valuable if, like me, you find one-on-one meetings both valuable and draining, and end up with ~no energy by the end of the day.
In terms of tradeoffs, I'd much prefer (full catering + worse venue) over (reduced catering + nicer venue), and I think that applies even if the venue is like, a tent in a field 20 miles from Heathrow.
The problem is that spending is dominated by a narrow focus on technical solutions, including carbon capture, improving currently existing energy technologies and infrastructure, and the clean energy transition.
Just to clarify: As far as I can tell, the money is mostly not spent on developing technologies and e.g. carbon capture development is a tiny fraction of spend. Rather it's mostly going towards deploying technologies we already have (which is rather different). My guess is that climate change is more neglected than the $640 billion figure suggests if you focus on "what technologies would be most impactful to develop?".
the widely marketed message that we can ‘technology’ our way out of the climate crisis is misleading, and highly improbable.
It seems like the options are "develop and deplwoy the technology" or "convince everyone on Earth to take a massive lifestyle hit", and the latter just seems implausible to me (as well as undesirable)?
annual deaths related to fuel combustion alone (i.e., outside air pollution) are estimated to be 8.7 million
This is not the same thing as climate change, and would be happening even if e.g. we had perfect carbon capture. So seems wrong to lump these in together?
One approach I have not seen addressed in EA fund literature and offers the potential to be a game-changer, is degrowth. The principles of degrowth critique the global capitalist system which pursues growth at all costs, resulting in human exploitation and ecological destruction.
I can only speak for myself, but degrowth seems (1) politically untenable (as noted above), and (2) requires that people accept much lower living standards. That seems bad to me? I generally want people to have higher living standards, not lower.
Nice post! One question: what are some things that could happen that you would view as requiring a move to low-trust?
Just to mention that with sufficiently good simulation technology, experimental data may not be necessary, and if experimental data sets your timescale then things could happen a lot faster than you're estimating. We don't have that tech now, but in at least some domains it has the shape of something that could be solved with lots of cognitive resources thrown at the problem.
I'm thinking specifically about simulating systems of large (but still microscopic) numbers of atoms, where we know the relevant physical laws and mostly struggle to approximate them in realistic ways.
My intuition here is rough, but I think the core factors driving it are: