I am not sure that your assumption that “Longtermists don’t care much about climate change” is true. The main argument you give for this is that EA Funders don’t spend lots of money on climate change. However, this does not imply that they don’t care about it, it only implies that they think the marginal impact of an additional—say - $1mn spent in climate change is (significantly) lower than spending it on some other priority. The amount that is currently spent on climate change per year by non-longtermist/EA organisations is orders of magnitude higher than what is spent on any of their priorities. So even if the funder thinks that the average $1mn currently spent on climate change would be significantly more impactful than the same amount spent on another priority, since someone has already spent this $1mn, this isn’t available to them. They could only spend an additional marginal $1mn on it and they think this is significantly less impactful than spending a marginal $1mn in another area where the low(er) hanging fruits are not yet taken
Thanks! See my section “Strong vs. weak longtermist dismissal of climate change, and why either is wrong”. The “weak” position described in the second paragraph of that section seems to be the one you are alluding to. See also my answer to that position.
I am not sure that your assumption that “Longtermists don’t care much about climate change” is true. The main argument you give for this is that EA Funders don’t spend lots of money on climate change. However, this does not imply that they don’t care about it, it only implies that they think the marginal impact of an additional—say - $1mn spent in climate change is (significantly) lower than spending it on some other priority. The amount that is currently spent on climate change per year by non-longtermist/EA organisations is orders of magnitude higher than what is spent on any of their priorities. So even if the funder thinks that the average $1mn currently spent on climate change would be significantly more impactful than the same amount spent on another priority, since someone has already spent this $1mn, this isn’t available to them. They could only spend an additional marginal $1mn on it and they think this is significantly less impactful than spending a marginal $1mn in another area where the low(er) hanging fruits are not yet taken
Thanks! See my section “Strong vs. weak longtermist dismissal of climate change, and why either is wrong”. The “weak” position described in the second paragraph of that section seems to be the one you are alluding to. See also my answer to that position.