A) “Climate change is a low priority issue within EA, with little focus or funding being directed towards this cause area.”
B) “EA assessments of climate change tend to be far too simplistic, failing to grasp how the interplay between felt temperature rises, soil fertility collapse, fresh water depletion and biodiversity loss are creating the perfect conditions for a major collapse in global food production.”
C) “In addition to this there seems to be a perception that climate change is not neglected, perhaps driven by the large amount of media coverage that it receives. However, media coverage is in no way translating into meaningful funding or the implementation of effective solutions, as my Canadian case study will highlight.”
You seek to support these claims by considering two things:
D) “I will first discuss some alarming trends at a global level, so as to show the true probable severity of climate change.”
E) “I will then present a summary of my assessment of Canadian climate policy, which will serve as a case study for showing the huge gap between official policy targets and realistic outcomes.”
The structure of your argument is to use D) and E) to show A), B), and C) are true, supporting your conclusion that “EA has gotten it very wrong on climate change”. The argument fails for two reasons. First, D) and E) seem unrelated to A), B), and C). Second even if A), B), and C) are supported, you need to explain how the conclusion follows. It could be the case the EAs are wrong on any or all of A), B), and C), but not by very much, so the relative ranking climate changes in terms of EA priorities doesn’t change. Some attempt at scope or size of the variance is necessary.
B) is the most important claim you make, and covers quite a few areas. It’s not clear how B is supported by D) and E). The IPCC reports give a lengthy treatment to the impacts on global food production from climate change, and the effects are modest when considered across all crops. The variance in expected meat consumption for instance is more significant than stressors from climate change. You don’t seem to be claiming that the studies comprising the IPCC report are wrong here, but it seems like you would need to do so to show there is a significant likelihood of “a major collapse in global food production”.
C) is a criticism of an accurate EA perception. The perception that climate change isn’t neglected comes from it being a top election issue, the UNFCCC existing, and ~$10 billion/yr in climate philanthropy (https://www.climateworks.org/report/funding-trends-2022/). The follow-up claim is media coverage isn’t effective, which may be true, but it would be wrong to say it is neglected. I also think it is incorrect to say that all $10 billion/yr of climate philanthropy is ineffective.
In the future, it may be worth having someone review a draft of your post to evaluate the logical structure and provide readability edits as others have suggested. You spent considerable time on this, but it seems unlikely to change minds given those issues.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the forum.
In the introduction, you make 3 claims:
A) “Climate change is a low priority issue within EA, with little focus or funding being directed towards this cause area.”
B) “EA assessments of climate change tend to be far too simplistic, failing to grasp how the interplay between felt temperature rises, soil fertility collapse, fresh water depletion and biodiversity loss are creating the perfect conditions for a major collapse in global food production.”
C) “In addition to this there seems to be a perception that climate change is not neglected, perhaps driven by the large amount of media coverage that it receives. However, media coverage is in no way translating into meaningful funding or the implementation of effective solutions, as my Canadian case study will highlight.”
You seek to support these claims by considering two things:
D) “I will first discuss some alarming trends at a global level, so as to show the true probable severity of climate change.”
E) “I will then present a summary of my assessment of Canadian climate policy, which will serve as a case study for showing the huge gap between official policy targets and realistic outcomes.”
The structure of your argument is to use D) and E) to show A), B), and C) are true, supporting your conclusion that “EA has gotten it very wrong on climate change”. The argument fails for two reasons. First, D) and E) seem unrelated to A), B), and C). Second even if A), B), and C) are supported, you need to explain how the conclusion follows. It could be the case the EAs are wrong on any or all of A), B), and C), but not by very much, so the relative ranking climate changes in terms of EA priorities doesn’t change. Some attempt at scope or size of the variance is necessary.
On the individual claims:
A) seems mostly correct, though it would be incorrect to say there is no interest in the cause area. Climate change has middling interest among EAs https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/83tEL2sHDTiWR6nwo/ea-survey-2020-cause-prioritization, though is weighted as less important the longer someone spends in the EA community. Including some citations here as evidence would help support A).
B) is the most important claim you make, and covers quite a few areas. It’s not clear how B is supported by D) and E). The IPCC reports give a lengthy treatment to the impacts on global food production from climate change, and the effects are modest when considered across all crops. The variance in expected meat consumption for instance is more significant than stressors from climate change. You don’t seem to be claiming that the studies comprising the IPCC report are wrong here, but it seems like you would need to do so to show there is a significant likelihood of “a major collapse in global food production”.
C) is a criticism of an accurate EA perception. The perception that climate change isn’t neglected comes from it being a top election issue, the UNFCCC existing, and ~$10 billion/yr in climate philanthropy (https://www.climateworks.org/report/funding-trends-2022/). The follow-up claim is media coverage isn’t effective, which may be true, but it would be wrong to say it is neglected. I also think it is incorrect to say that all $10 billion/yr of climate philanthropy is ineffective.
In the future, it may be worth having someone review a draft of your post to evaluate the logical structure and provide readability edits as others have suggested. You spent considerable time on this, but it seems unlikely to change minds given those issues.