Thank you again for this post. One thing that stuck out to me is that issue of focus on “sexy” risks, and not enough attention going to “unsexy” risks, which I see you noted includes climate change. My other post was questioning whether it’s right that EA has so little emphasis on the GCR of climate change. Do you have insights on that? Do you think that EA should be more focused on the “unsexy” risks of climate change? What could be done to address this?
I think the main reason that EA focuses relatively little effort on climate change is that so much money is going to it from outside of EA. So in order to be cost effective, you have to find very leveraged interventions, such as targeting policy, or addressing extreme versions of climate change, particularly resilience, e.g. ALLFED (disclosure, I’m a co-founder).
Thank you again for this post. One thing that stuck out to me is that issue of focus on “sexy” risks, and not enough attention going to “unsexy” risks, which I see you noted includes climate change. My other post was questioning whether it’s right that EA has so little emphasis on the GCR of climate change. Do you have insights on that? Do you think that EA should be more focused on the “unsexy” risks of climate change? What could be done to address this?
I think the main reason that EA focuses relatively little effort on climate change is that so much money is going to it from outside of EA. So in order to be cost effective, you have to find very leveraged interventions, such as targeting policy, or addressing extreme versions of climate change, particularly resilience, e.g. ALLFED (disclosure, I’m a co-founder).