In many Intro to EA talks or giving game workshops, the story of PlayPumps is often cited as an example of why people need to use evidence and data rather than their emotions when it comes to donating to charity. The story of PlayPumps is also the focus of the 1st chapter of Will MacAskill’s book Doing Good Better. PlayPumps is then often contrasted to GiveWell’s top charities, like the Against Malaria Foundation or GiveDirectly, which are very evidence-based and highly cost-effective. I and many others in EA Philippines have found the PlayPumps as a compelling example of why people need to be more rationale and evidence-based about their giving.
I would now like to know if there are climate change charities/non-profits who are similar to the story of PlayPumps in one or more ways, such as by being net-negative or harmful, or by gaining a lot of press and funding but then getting bad publicity about their inability to make a large impact. Interventions that are widely popular but also quite neutral or very small in positive impact can be highlighted too.
Learning about these could be useful for those who want to help advocate for why people should donate to one or more of Founders Pledge’s recommended charities, such as the Clean Air Task Force, rather than popular but not-so-impactful (or even harmful) climate change interventions/charities. For example, maybe climate change charities should be the default example rather than global health charities during intro to EA talks or giving game workshops, especially for longtermist community builders. You can read this post of mine for more thoughts on this (especially by reading the comment by Ben Todd).
Any thoughts or ideas would help—thanks!
I’d maybe give Solar Roadways as a possible example. I’m not sure, but I might have even donated to their crowdfunding campaign at the time.
Here are some edited quotes from the Wikipedia article, first about popularity:
And about results:
And criticism:
Also from other sources:
Reducing plastic bag/straw use in the west.
This does almost exactly 0 good for the environment, but harms people with some physical impairments who needs straws to eat/drink.
I had a feeling this would be an answer—is there an article that is objective/trustworthy about why this is not so impactful (or even harmful)? I didn’t know what to read or trust based on a quick Google search.
https://medium.com/@robertwiblin/what-you-think-about-landfill-and-recycling-is-probably-totally-wrong-3a6cf57049ce
https://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2018/02/978-87-93614-73-4.pdf
Thanks—I’ll try to read these soon!
Hi Guys, Dan from Giving Green here. Some good comments on our work and how it relates so far. We’re seen a lot of stuff in our research that may fall in the “Play Pumps” category. But if there was one that that really stands out, I think it’s carbon offsets for clean water. Check out our write-up here: https://www.givinggreen.earth/post/water-purification-technology
Hey Dan, I think this is a brilliant example. I think this and the Solar Roadways are the best examples listed here. I This article you cited is pretty good: https://ssir.org/articles/entry/thirty_million_dollars_a_little_bit_of_carbon_and_a_lot_of_hot_air
Maybe a few EAs should test out using this Carbon for Water example or Solar Roadways at a giving game (vs. other Giving Green or Founders Pledge charities) next time!
Hey Brian, Giving Green has done some research, including on offsets, and they found some interventions to be effective and others being not. You can read more here: https://www.givinggreen.earth/carbon-offsets
Thanks for linking this! I’ve read through this link: https://www.givinggreen.earth/post/overview-of-the-voluntary-offset-market
It’s quite helpful.
That link also links to this article: https://features.propublica.org/brazil-carbon-offsets/inconvenient-truth-carbon-credits-dont-work-deforestation-redd-acre-cambodia/
I’ve only skimmed through it, and I don’t know how objective it is, but I think this article and the Giving Green report could be good references for carbon offset projects/charities that are too boastful and/or are barely impactful or even net-negative.
On another note, I wonder why Giving Green recommends some carbon offset charities even though Founders Pledge has found Clean Air Task Force to be a lot more cost-effective (even on conservative estimates of their success in lobbying). Maybe you know why, but I’ll try to email Giving Green’s founders to ask about this!
They explain why they offer offset recommendations (even though, like Founders Pledge, they believe CATF is likely more cost-effective) at some length in their launch post: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/xfN7AwkjYBpEbbz6x/re-launching-giving-green-an-ea-run-organization-directing
Thanks for pointing this out—this makes sense! Copied the part here for anyone that wants to find out where that specific part is:
Some more examples I found in their concept note:
“to meet emission reduction targets under the Kyoto agreement, the Swiss government committed to purchasing 2 million tons of certified emissions credits between 2015 and 2020 (estimated at $24 million USD1 ) by financing an NGO distributing water-purifying chlorine dispensers in Africa. Did the $24 million reduce 2 million tons in carbon emissions? Almost certainly not, as the assumption households would boil water in absence of the filters was untrue.” (Footnote 1. Note that chlorine dispensers treat water and reduce child diarrhea incidences and hence save lives, but they may just not be good at reducing carbon emissions.)
an EU-commissioned assessment of the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which is used to certify offsets under the Kyoto protocol, concluded that “CDM still has fundamental flaws in terms of overall environmental integrity.” It noted that 85% of the projects analyzed have a “low likelihood that emission reductions are additional and are not over-estimated.” (p2)
At least Chlorine dispensers seem robustly good. Like, not for climate, but for human wellbeing generally. In fact, under not-completely-crazy assumptions, they outperform deworming.
This—especially the “offset you flight CO2 emissions” BS, where they “buy” non-counterfactual emissions reductions.
Replacing plastic containers with glass.
Specifically I will point out the use of cotton bags instead of regular plastic ones—it needs to be used at least 7100 times for conventional cotton or 20000 times for organic cotton, in order to provide the same environmental performance of the average LDPE carrier bag. As mentioned in a report made by the ministry of enviroment and food in Denmark (link—https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2018/02/978-87-93614-73-4.pdf)
Yeah this sounds like a good example too. When you say cotton bags, you mean like ecobags right?
This is actively harmful given that glass is heavier and more fragile.
Could you elaborate on this? This one’s new to me—a link to read would help!
https://www.southampton.ac.uk/engineering/news/2020/12/01-glass-bottles-worse-for-environment.page