First of all, I appreciate the effort you’ve put into this post. I suspect it is going to get less attention than you might have hoped, given that effort and the importance you put on the issue. Here’s what I’d suggest, either for a revamp of this post or for future posts:
Paragraphing needs to be improved, with full spaces between paragraphs.
Be more specific about what EA is getting wrong on climate change. You speak about “perceptions” and “assessments” of climate change within the EA movement, but don’t link, cite, or quote any such material. It would also help if you tried to research what (if anything) EA does about climate change right now, and showed how we ought to reprioritize it relative to other causes. For example, do you think climate change is more important than malaria bednets? If so, why? Although you’ve clearly spent a lot of time researching climate change, your post does not come across as engaging very deeply with EA arguments about climate change, despite that being ostensibly the key goal of your post.
Include a summary that hits not only your core claim (EA should put more resources into climate change), but the argumentative beats you use to defend that claim. I want to be able to read the first 1-2 paragraphs and decide if reading the rest is worth my time.
Overall, I’m just not clear on why Canadian climate policy has such central relevance to your core claim that EA should work harder on climate change.
If EA is getting this wrong, I’m sure everybody wants to know! Best of luck if you decide to continue researching and writing about this issue.
Hi Stephen,
First of all, I appreciate the effort you’ve put into this post. I suspect it is going to get less attention than you might have hoped, given that effort and the importance you put on the issue. Here’s what I’d suggest, either for a revamp of this post or for future posts:
Paragraphing needs to be improved, with full spaces between paragraphs.
Be more specific about what EA is getting wrong on climate change. You speak about “perceptions” and “assessments” of climate change within the EA movement, but don’t link, cite, or quote any such material. It would also help if you tried to research what (if anything) EA does about climate change right now, and showed how we ought to reprioritize it relative to other causes. For example, do you think climate change is more important than malaria bednets? If so, why? Although you’ve clearly spent a lot of time researching climate change, your post does not come across as engaging very deeply with EA arguments about climate change, despite that being ostensibly the key goal of your post.
Include a summary that hits not only your core claim (EA should put more resources into climate change), but the argumentative beats you use to defend that claim. I want to be able to read the first 1-2 paragraphs and decide if reading the rest is worth my time.
Overall, I’m just not clear on why Canadian climate policy has such central relevance to your core claim that EA should work harder on climate change.
If EA is getting this wrong, I’m sure everybody wants to know! Best of luck if you decide to continue researching and writing about this issue.