Does anybody find the row on Anthropogenic climate change (other than geoengineering) puzzling in the sense that it seems to be not given sufficient priority?
“Not many suitable remaining funding opportunities” for “R&D on clean tech, adaptation preparations, and working toward carbon pricing are all possibilities but all generally highly funded already.”
The likelihood of highest-damage scenario over the next 100 years is categorized on the same level as AI risk (‘Highly uncertain, somewhat conjunctive, but plausible’).
Climate change is a very crowded space, and AFAIK geoengineering is the only cost-effective climate change intervention (I haven’t really researched this but that’s my impression). There’s already tons of research going into e.g. clean energy, so marginal research is not very valuable. Geoengineering by contrast is a lot less crowded and potentially much more cost-effective.
From the spreadsheet linked there ( https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1b7ohoyAi2MlyBOzgarvJ-bOE2v9mJ8a9YDfQYGNk9vk/edit#gid=1273928110 )
Does anybody find the row on Anthropogenic climate change (other than geoengineering) puzzling in the sense that it seems to be not given sufficient priority?
“Not many suitable remaining funding opportunities” for “R&D on clean tech, adaptation preparations, and working toward carbon pricing are all possibilities but all generally highly funded already.”
The likelihood of highest-damage scenario over the next 100 years is categorized on the same level as AI risk (‘Highly uncertain, somewhat conjunctive, but plausible’).
Climate change is a very crowded space, and AFAIK geoengineering is the only cost-effective climate change intervention (I haven’t really researched this but that’s my impression). There’s already tons of research going into e.g. clean energy, so marginal research is not very valuable. Geoengineering by contrast is a lot less crowded and potentially much more cost-effective.
I was puzzled!