It is now unclear to me whether donating to HIPF from CEARCH is beneficial or harmful. I estimated it increases cropland due to decreasing human mortality, but I think their grants aiming to decrease the consumption of salt and sugar can easily decrease cropland due decreasing the consumption of food. I think this would be the case for taxing beef. Eating 85 g of beef is associated with losing 1 microlife, 30 min. For a causal effect 1⁄3 as large, one would live 10 min (= 30⁄3) less, which means eating 13.9 kcal (= 10/60/24*2*10^3) less for 2 k kcal/person-day. For total calorie consumption to decrease, it would suffice for one to replace beef with something with less than 16.4 kcal (= 13.9*100/85) less per 100 g, which is not much. Beef is the food requiring the most agricultural land per kcal, so decreasing its consumption tends to decrease cropland. However, sugar is among the foods requiring the least agricultural land per kcal, so it could still be the case that taxing it increases cropland due to increasing the consumption of foods requiring more agricultural land per kcal, but I do not know.
I have now estimated funding HIPF increases agricultural land 78.5 % as cost-effectively as I had calculated due to increasing calorie consumption. This is a minor change, so I maintain my recommendation of funding HIPF. I also confirmed that taxing beef decreases agricultural land. I estimated that consuming unprocessed red meat in the US increases agricultural land 1.72 k times as much as it decreases it from reducing life expectancy.
It is now unclear to me whether donating to HIPF from CEARCH is beneficial or harmful. I estimated it increases cropland due to decreasing human mortality, but I think their grants aiming to decrease the consumption of salt and sugar can easily decrease cropland due decreasing the consumption of food. I think this would be the case for taxing beef. Eating 85 g of beef is associated with losing 1 microlife, 30 min. For a causal effect 1⁄3 as large, one would live 10 min (= 30⁄3) less, which means eating 13.9 kcal (= 10/60/24*2*10^3) less for 2 k kcal/person-day. For total calorie consumption to decrease, it would suffice for one to replace beef with something with less than 16.4 kcal (= 13.9*100/85) less per 100 g, which is not much. Beef is the food requiring the most agricultural land per kcal, so decreasing its consumption tends to decrease cropland. However, sugar is among the foods requiring the least agricultural land per kcal, so it could still be the case that taxing it increases cropland due to increasing the consumption of foods requiring more agricultural land per kcal, but I do not know.
I have now estimated funding HIPF increases agricultural land 78.5 % as cost-effectively as I had calculated due to increasing calorie consumption. This is a minor change, so I maintain my recommendation of funding HIPF. I also confirmed that taxing beef decreases agricultural land. I estimated that consuming unprocessed red meat in the US increases agricultural land 1.72 k times as much as it decreases it from reducing life expectancy.