Yes, thatās true, but youād need to count animal interests for (something like) less than 0.001 (which seems a pretty extreme discount of genuine suffering!) before they were in the ballpark of the climate costs.
You can get your factor-of-1,000 from a combination of:
Valuing instrumental effects more than short term suffering (perhaps because of taking a longtermist lens in which case this could get you more than a factor-of-1,000 by itself; but one doesnāt need to adopt longtermism to think some more moderate factor-of-adjustment is correct here);
Upweighting the climate costs to count economic impacts on the poorest more than economic impacts on richer people (probably correct and important, but Iām not sure if this is like a factor-of-2 adjustment or a factor-of-20 adjustment);
Upweighting climate costs to account for tail risks in addition to central projections of economic cost (if 90% of your worry about climate change is about tail risks this should be a factor-of-10 adjustment; different people will have different takes on that);
The direct moral importance of suffering of different beings (reasonable views vary a lot, but Jeffās linked post seems like a careful thinker trying to have a reasonable take and arriving at figures in the vicinity of factor-of-1,000 just from this factor)
I donāt think itās that hard for combinations of these factors to push you over to āclimate effects matter moreā.
Yes, thatās true, but youād need to count animal interests for (something like) less than 0.001 (which seems a pretty extreme discount of genuine suffering!) before they were in the ballpark of the climate costs.
You can get your factor-of-1,000 from a combination of:
Valuing instrumental effects more than short term suffering (perhaps because of taking a longtermist lens in which case this could get you more than a factor-of-1,000 by itself; but one doesnāt need to adopt longtermism to think some more moderate factor-of-adjustment is correct here);
Upweighting the climate costs to count economic impacts on the poorest more than economic impacts on richer people (probably correct and important, but Iām not sure if this is like a factor-of-2 adjustment or a factor-of-20 adjustment);
Upweighting climate costs to account for tail risks in addition to central projections of economic cost (if 90% of your worry about climate change is about tail risks this should be a factor-of-10 adjustment; different people will have different takes on that);
The direct moral importance of suffering of different beings (reasonable views vary a lot, but Jeffās linked post seems like a careful thinker trying to have a reasonable take and arriving at figures in the vicinity of factor-of-1,000 just from this factor)
I donāt think itās that hard for combinations of these factors to push you over to āclimate effects matter moreā.