I agree that much more GCR mitigation could be funded through CBA.
There are suites of existential-risk-reducing interventions that governments could implement only at extreme cost to those alive today. … Governments could also build extensive, self-sustaining colonies (in remote locations or perhaps far underground) in which residents are permanently cut off from the rest of the world and trained to rebuild civilization in the event of a catastrophe....More generally, governments could heavily subsidise investment, research, and development in ways that incentivise the present generation to increase civilization’s resilience and decrease existential risk.
Though I agree that refuges would not pass a CBA, I don’t think they are an example of something that would be extreme cost to those alive today-I suspect significant value could be obtained with $1 billion. And while storing up food for the US population for a five year nuclear winter might cost around $1 trillion, preparing to scale resilient foods quickly in a catastrophe is more like hundreds of millions of dollars and passes a CBA.
kill at least 5 billion people and hence qualify as a global catastrophe
This is higher than other thresholds for GCR I’ve seen—can you explain why?
And the Biden administration already includes costs to non-U.S. citizens in its social cost of carbon (SCC): its estimate of the harm caused by carbon dioxide emissions (The White House 2022a). The SCC is a key input to the U.S. government’s climate policy, and counting costs to non-U.S. citizens in the SCC changes the cost-benefit balance of important decisions like regulating power plant emissions, setting standards for vehicle fuel efficiency, and signing on to international climate agreements.
I’m pretty sure this includes effects on future generations, which you appear to be against for GCR mitigation. Interestingly, energy efficiency rules calculate the benefits of saved SCC, but they are forbidden to actually take this information into account in deciding what efficiency level to choose at this point.
It’s probably too late, but I would mention the Global Catastrophic Risk Management Act that recently became law in the US. This provides hope that the US will do more on GCR.
Though I agree that refuges would not pass a CBA, I don’t think they are an example of something that would be extreme cost to those alive today-I suspect significant value could be obtained with $1 billion.
I think this is right. Our claim is that a strong longtermist policy as a whole would place extreme burdens on the present generation. We expect that a strong longtermist policy would call for particularly extensive refuges (and lots of them) as well as the other things that we mention in that paragraph.
We also focus on the risk of global catastrophes, which we define as events that kill at least 5 billion people.
This is higher than other thresholds for GCR I’ve seen—can you explain why?
We use that threshold because we think that focusing on that threshold by itself makes the benefit-cost ratio come out greater than 1. I’m not so sure that’s the case for the more common thresholds of killing at least 1 billion people or at least 10% of the population in order to qualify as a global catastrophe.
I’m pretty sure this includes effects on future generations, which you appear to be against for GCR mitigation.
We’re not opposed to including effects on future generations in cost-benefit calculations. We do the calculation that excludes benefits to future generations to show that, even if one totally ignores benefits to future generations, our suite of interventions still looks like it’s worth funding.
Interestingly, energy efficiency rules calculate the benefits of saved SCC, but they are forbidden to actually take this information into account in deciding what efficiency level to choose at this point.
Oh interesting! Thanks.
It’s probably too late, but I would mention the Global Catastrophic Risk Management Act that recently became law in the US. This provides hope that the US will do more on GCR.
And thanks very much for this! I think we will still be able to mention this in the published version.
I agree that much more GCR mitigation could be funded through CBA.
Though I agree that refuges would not pass a CBA, I don’t think they are an example of something that would be extreme cost to those alive today-I suspect significant value could be obtained with $1 billion. And while storing up food for the US population for a five year nuclear winter might cost around $1 trillion, preparing to scale resilient foods quickly in a catastrophe is more like hundreds of millions of dollars and passes a CBA.
This is higher than other thresholds for GCR I’ve seen—can you explain why?
I’m pretty sure this includes effects on future generations, which you appear to be against for GCR mitigation. Interestingly, energy efficiency rules calculate the benefits of saved SCC, but they are forbidden to actually take this information into account in deciding what efficiency level to choose at this point.
It’s probably too late, but I would mention the Global Catastrophic Risk Management Act that recently became law in the US. This provides hope that the US will do more on GCR.
I think this is right. Our claim is that a strong longtermist policy as a whole would place extreme burdens on the present generation. We expect that a strong longtermist policy would call for particularly extensive refuges (and lots of them) as well as the other things that we mention in that paragraph.
We use that threshold because we think that focusing on that threshold by itself makes the benefit-cost ratio come out greater than 1. I’m not so sure that’s the case for the more common thresholds of killing at least 1 billion people or at least 10% of the population in order to qualify as a global catastrophe.
We’re not opposed to including effects on future generations in cost-benefit calculations. We do the calculation that excludes benefits to future generations to show that, even if one totally ignores benefits to future generations, our suite of interventions still looks like it’s worth funding.
Oh interesting! Thanks.
And thanks very much for this! I think we will still be able to mention this in the published version.