Hey Stephen, in case you're interested, my team at Giving Green has done some work that overlaps with your proposal. We've done reports analyzing different sectors and figuring out what solutions are most important, tractable, and neglected within them. So far we've completed reports that have looked at solutions within cutting short-lived climate pollutants, restoring and conserving wetlands, and the food sector. I'm currently researching forestry-related interventions and hope to release that report in the coming months.
Note that these reports do not have cost-effectiveness analyses yet. We plan on looking at the most promising solutions in greater depth.
Thanks for your comment. We don’t currently recommend the Sunrise Movement (see prior post) but plan on evaluating them again this year.
The decentralized nature of Sunrise has led to a lot of misunderstandings about its position on certain issues. Sunrise’s local hubs can autonomously make policy statements, but these don’t reflect the position of the central movement. In most cases, publicized opposition to certain technologies or policies has come from specific local hubs and doesn’t reflect Sunrise’s official stance on the issues.
While the national organization has expressed opposition to carbon capture and carbon pricing in the past, their actions and other statements from staff reveal a more nuanced approach. We have not yet seen evidence that Sunrise meaningfully engages in opposition to the policies you name; e.g., it supported the passage of the bipartisan infrastructure bill, inclusive of nuclear and carbon capture investments. Members of Sunrise leadership have opposed the closing of existing nuclear power plants and have expressed a need for carbon capture under some circumstances, such as hard-to-decarbonize industries.