Thanks for putting this together. I haven’t had a chance to go through your cost-effectiveness estimate in detail, but I do plan to. However:
I would attribute XR 10-50% of the credit for shifting the previously agreed net-zero date from 2050 to 2030, due to their Overton Window-shifting demand of net-zero by 2025 and huge popularity in the UK
(As an aside, I think there could have been reputational risks to EA if we had publicly endorsed XR at the height of their power. Partly this is down to XR’s unpopularity and the divisiveness of their protest tactics, but also because their poor epistemic practices could have reasonably led others to question our own.)
Good catch Henry—I totally agree that XR’s tactics and themselves as an organisation are massively unpopular. However, I think that is distinct from a) the amount of support they would have built for action on climate change and b) the amount of activists/people engaging with their work. I also take the point that I should have used the term “fame” or “salience of XR” rather than popularity because I really meant how well known they are, not how much people like them.
In terms of a), even though XR is unpopular, the goal is always to build support for climate action overall, rather than any specific organisation. Whilst correlational, I think there is some evidence (graph below and in the paper) to suggest that XR has done this, even though it has been quite unpopular. Internally, we often say that it’s totally irrelevant whether people like XR or not. What we really care about is people supporting government action on climate/ being concerned about climate change / getting on the streets for climate issues generally. A bit more discussion on this can be seen in this opinion piece in the Independent (not by XR).
In terms of b) , this refers to the number of XR local groups and people that were campaigning for the local campaign net-zero demand. I think this is substantial, with probably 200-300+ groups at the peak of XR between April-October 2019. I think this is the main factor I meant when I said popularity, so apologies for the confusion. I think the sheer number of groups and people campaigning for the council net-zero demand would have played a significant role in influencing councils, hence the high value.
Overall: I would say most of my 10-50% estimate came from the original 2025 net-zero demand and the number of local groups that were campaigning for 2030 net-zero targets, rather than how much people liked them. I believe I discuss this in some more detail in my attribution section as well if you’ve read that.
In response to your aside—I totally agree with the reputational risks , which are very significant. I didn’t specify but I always assumed the support would be behind-the-scenes, rather than public.
In response to your aside—I totally agree with the reputational risks , which are very significant. I didn’t specify but I always assumed the support would be behind-the-scenes, rather than public.
Secretly funding organisations of this type could also have reputational risks—if it was revealed, then it might backfire and fuel conspiracy theories.
In general, I think transparency is a good heuristic in this context.
More generally I think effective altruism should be cooperative and I think that secretly funding organisations that are perceived as using dubious, uncooperative tactics pushes against that.
Thanks for putting this together. I haven’t had a chance to go through your cost-effectiveness estimate in detail, but I do plan to. However:
YouGov compiles a list of famous UK charities and their popularity; XR is the second-most disliked charity on the list (38% of people surveyed saying they dislike). The only more-disliked charity is the far-right English Defence League. The majority of Britons are against XR’s protests. If your estimate of 10–50% is based partly on them being popular, I would view that as suspect.
(As an aside, I think there could have been reputational risks to EA if we had publicly endorsed XR at the height of their power. Partly this is down to XR’s unpopularity and the divisiveness of their protest tactics, but also because their poor epistemic practices could have reasonably led others to question our own.)
Good catch Henry—I totally agree that XR’s tactics and themselves as an organisation are massively unpopular. However, I think that is distinct from a) the amount of support they would have built for action on climate change and b) the amount of activists/people engaging with their work. I also take the point that I should have used the term “fame” or “salience of XR” rather than popularity because I really meant how well known they are, not how much people like them.
In terms of a), even though XR is unpopular, the goal is always to build support for climate action overall, rather than any specific organisation. Whilst correlational, I think there is some evidence (graph below and in the paper) to suggest that XR has done this, even though it has been quite unpopular. Internally, we often say that it’s totally irrelevant whether people like XR or not. What we really care about is people supporting government action on climate/ being concerned about climate change / getting on the streets for climate issues generally. A bit more discussion on this can be seen in this opinion piece in the Independent (not by XR).
In terms of b) , this refers to the number of XR local groups and people that were campaigning for the local campaign net-zero demand. I think this is substantial, with probably 200-300+ groups at the peak of XR between April-October 2019. I think this is the main factor I meant when I said popularity, so apologies for the confusion. I think the sheer number of groups and people campaigning for the council net-zero demand would have played a significant role in influencing councils, hence the high value.
Overall: I would say most of my 10-50% estimate came from the original 2025 net-zero demand and the number of local groups that were campaigning for 2030 net-zero targets, rather than how much people liked them. I believe I discuss this in some more detail in my attribution section as well if you’ve read that.
In response to your aside—I totally agree with the reputational risks , which are very significant. I didn’t specify but I always assumed the support would be behind-the-scenes, rather than public.
Secretly funding organisations of this type could also have reputational risks—if it was revealed, then it might backfire and fuel conspiracy theories.
In general, I think transparency is a good heuristic in this context.
More generally I think effective altruism should be cooperative and I think that secretly funding organisations that are perceived as using dubious, uncooperative tactics pushes against that.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
(I spotted that YouGov graph yesterday; agree that it’s pretty compelling evidence for XR increasing concern about the environment.)