Executive summary: The author argues that Effective Altruism is largely absent from international biodiversity funding decisions despite $121 billion per year already being allocated, and that redirecting even a small fraction of this money toward cultivated meat R&D would likely be far more cost-effective for biodiversity than many current conservation interventions.
Key points:
The author claims that major international biodiversity frameworks allocate hundreds of billions of dollars without systematically asking EA-style questions about cost-effectiveness, neglectedness, or tractability.
They note that the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework commits to $200 billion annually by 2030 (and $700 billion by 2050), while current biodiversity spending is already about $121 billion per year.
The author argues that much of this funding goes to traditional conservation measures, such as protected areas and corporate disclosure, which they say often have limited empirical evidence of effectiveness.
They identify livestock—especially beef production—as a dominant driver of biodiversity loss, citing figures that livestock uses 77% of global agricultural land and drives most deforestation, including 65–70% of Amazon deforestation.
The post highlights that cultivated meat receives very little funding ($139 million globally in 2024, ~$3 billion total historically) and is entirely absent from the GBF, despite the author viewing it as one of the most impactful biodiversity interventions.
The author suggests that EA could have outsized impact by engaging in research, advocacy, coalition-building, and targeted funding to influence how large-scale biodiversity budgets and subsidy reforms are directed.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: The author argues that Effective Altruism is largely absent from international biodiversity funding decisions despite $121 billion per year already being allocated, and that redirecting even a small fraction of this money toward cultivated meat R&D would likely be far more cost-effective for biodiversity than many current conservation interventions.
Key points:
The author claims that major international biodiversity frameworks allocate hundreds of billions of dollars without systematically asking EA-style questions about cost-effectiveness, neglectedness, or tractability.
They note that the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework commits to $200 billion annually by 2030 (and $700 billion by 2050), while current biodiversity spending is already about $121 billion per year.
The author argues that much of this funding goes to traditional conservation measures, such as protected areas and corporate disclosure, which they say often have limited empirical evidence of effectiveness.
They identify livestock—especially beef production—as a dominant driver of biodiversity loss, citing figures that livestock uses 77% of global agricultural land and drives most deforestation, including 65–70% of Amazon deforestation.
The post highlights that cultivated meat receives very little funding ($139 million globally in 2024, ~$3 billion total historically) and is entirely absent from the GBF, despite the author viewing it as one of the most impactful biodiversity interventions.
The author suggests that EA could have outsized impact by engaging in research, advocacy, coalition-building, and targeted funding to influence how large-scale biodiversity budgets and subsidy reforms are directed.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.