Ramiro

Civil service @ BCB
Working (6-15 years of experience)

Bio

Brazilian legal philosopher, financial supervisor, GWWC Pledger Bachelor of Laws, Master and Doctor of Philosophy from the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), having published articles and translations in the areas of Political Philosophy, Applied Ethics and Philosophy of Economics – with a recent focus on climate risks, Environmental and Social Responsibility, and intergenerational justice. Post-Doctoral Researcher at the Institute of Philosophy, Faculty of Social and Human Sciences, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, integrating the Ethics and Political Philosophy Laboratory (EPLAB) and the project Present Democracy for Future Generations. Also a member of the Graduate Committee and Special Studies Analyst in the area of supervision of non-banking institutions at the Central Bank of Brazil (BCB). Member of the Inclusive and Sustainable Solutions association (SIS) and of the Effective Altruism community in Brazil (AE Brasil). https://philpeople.org/profiles/ramiro-avila-peres

Comments
404

Well, I certainly don't know any analyst claiming to consider GCRs when evaluating an asset, but maybe I should have searched better. I'd like to be proved wrong.
But it's actually hard to price worst-case scenarios: On Modeling and Interpreting the Economics of Catastrophic Climate Change | Martin Weitzman (harvard.edu)
I think "Weitzman's dismal theorem" is the climate economics version of "fanaticism" debates in EA. And this is one of the core objections of Stern against IAMs.

So I think it's fair to have a high credence that GCRs are not usually internalized into asset prices.

I love this idea. Maybe one could give it a cool name like "Effective ESG".
Only one thing makes me a bit skeptic: I remember that in 2006 people started talking about how the dispersion of equity through many investment and pension funds would give rise to a "civil economy" where shareholder interests would tend to converge with public interest. But, except for Covid macro issues and climate change (where major risks for each investor are recongized as positively correlated), I don't see this happening - but, tbh, they were not EAs.

I'd add: lobby financial regulators

Congrats. This is great.
I just found out that LMICs (at least Brazil) import pesticides from countries where such products are banned. Thus advocacy in HIC could target exports, too, since it is often more effective than advocacy in LMICs - e.g., Germany is currently pushing for a ban of such exports in EEUU, while in my home state, norms that forbade importing a pesticide from countries where it is banned have been repealed.

CONSTITUTIONALIZING THE LONG-TERM FUTURE - ESTABLISHING INTERGENERATIONAL JUSTICE IN NATIONAL CONSTITUTIONS

On Sep 19 and Sep 20

This conference might interest longtermists in general (and people in Legal Priorities especifically)

 

https://ifilnova.pt/en/events/constitutionalizing-the-long-term-future/

What's the deadline for applications?

Maybe I didn't quite understande the point, but:

  1. if anonymity is permissible - or, even stronger, desirable - then it seems to me that bans can be easily evaded. One can say "they shouldn't be evaded!", but for me it sounds self-defeating to support a norm and at the same time encourage an easy way to evade it. But yeah, legal systems are full of instances of that - but they are often recognized as "bugs".
  2. I do not think the issue here is that Kemp & Cremer intended to actually evade a ban imposed on Torres, but that their accusation might have been unfair - because it'd be proper to criticize their post given its origins.

First, thank you for bringing this to ur knowledge and raising the issue. On the other hand, I wouldn't use such strong words here:

It was extremely deceptive of Cremer and Kemp not to disclose this information, because this, rather than the content of what they wrote, may have contributed to the (alleged) reception to their article.

And I can't help but notice that I totally ignore your identity, too.

I don't mean this as an accusation. But either the identity of the author of a post is important, and we should all disclose it properly, or it's totally secondary to the content, and it's acceptable to hide it, if this is a hinderance.

(maybe Kemp and Cremer would have been more honest if they had credited Torres with a pseudonym... but I suspect we'd still have this discussion anyway)

I wonder if posts under pseudonyms are getting more frequent.

Are we in an Original Position regarding the interests of our descendants?

If you:

  1. Had to make a decision about the basic structure of a society where your distant descendants will live (in 200 or 2000 years), and
  2. only care about their welfare, and
  3. don’t know (almost) anything about who they will be, how many, how their society will be structured, etc.,

Then you are under some sort of veil of ignorance, in a situation quite similar to Rawls’s Original Position… with one major difference: it’s not an abstract thought experiment for ideal political theory.

What led me to this is that I suspect that the welfare of my descendants will likely depend more on the basic structure of their society than on any amount of resources I try to transfer to them – but I’m not sure about that: there are some examples of successful transfers of great wealth through many generations.

I’m not sure Rawls’s theory of justice would follow from this, but it’s quite possible: when I have the welfare of a subset of unidentified individuals in the future in mind, I feel tempted to prefer that their society will abide by something like his two principles of justice. According to Harsanyi, it’s also tempting to prefer something like Average utilitarianism (which, in this context, converges to sum-utilitarianism, because we are abstracting away populational variations).

After thinking this, I didn’t see any major philosophical opinions changing in myself, but I was surprised that I never found any argument over this in the literature.

Maybe because it’s not such a good way of reasoning about future generations: there are more effective ways of improving future welfare than fostering political liberalism. But I guess this is the sort of reasoning we'd expect from something like a reciprocity-based theory of longtermism.

For anyone trying to get updated on the debate over SEC Climate-related disclosures proposal, this is a good summary: https://sites.duke.edu/thefinregblog/2021/07/09/summary-of-comment-letters-for-the-secs-climate-risk-disclosure-rfi/

A very good question, and a nice and thoughtful answer.

I think this has been an ongoing debate on donation matching and giving multipliers
I'd just add that this is one of the reasons why neglectedness is my favorite (and neglected) ITN metric - it's hard to crowd-out resources for neglected causes.

Load More