I think you’ve outlined a case for why you think progressive climate activism is good. I agree that it is good on-net. I think, from his comment, so does Johannes. But when we evaluate charities the typical approach is to look at the expected value of donations on the margin. This is a very different question to “does the thing seem positive overall”.
As one specific example:
Climate change is already a partisan issue. I’d argue that it’s partisan mostly not because of what progressive climate activists are doing, but rather because of right wing climate denialism.
TSM’s stated goal is to increase polarisation. Making climate change more of a partisan can be bad on the margin even if someone else is primarily “to blame”.
In general, your thinking currently seems to be framed as [minor/not really worth it objectives from CATF] versus [brilliant transformative objectives from progressive activists]. I don’t think this framing is accurate.
As Johannes discussed at length, CATF’s push for new technologies has the potential for global impact, not just national. Climate change is a global problem, not just an American one. This idea of looking at the global picture is not unique to CATF among EA recommendations, see also ITIF for example. Secondly, some of the work I’m most excited about from CATF is their thinking around zero-carbon fuels, which are going to be vital to decarbonising things like long-distance freight, international shipping etc, where battery-technology just won’t cut it. Again, I think this whole-system analysis is extremely far from just pushing for minor, incremental change.
Hi Sarah,
I think you’ve outlined a case for why you think progressive climate activism is good. I agree that it is good on-net. I think, from his comment, so does Johannes. But when we evaluate charities the typical approach is to look at the expected value of donations on the margin. This is a very different question to “does the thing seem positive overall”.
As one specific example:
TSM’s stated goal is to increase polarisation. Making climate change more of a partisan can be bad on the margin even if someone else is primarily “to blame”.
In general, your thinking currently seems to be framed as [minor/not really worth it objectives from CATF] versus [brilliant transformative objectives from progressive activists]. I don’t think this framing is accurate.
As Johannes discussed at length, CATF’s push for new technologies has the potential for global impact, not just national. Climate change is a global problem, not just an American one. This idea of looking at the global picture is not unique to CATF among EA recommendations, see also ITIF for example. Secondly, some of the work I’m most excited about from CATF is their thinking around zero-carbon fuels, which are going to be vital to decarbonising things like long-distance freight, international shipping etc, where battery-technology just won’t cut it. Again, I think this whole-system analysis is extremely far from just pushing for minor, incremental change.