I agree that policies can be combined but that doesn’t really change the fundamental problem that evaluating policies for their certain local short-term impact will move us away from more impactful policies.
Thank you Jackva, you have very wise input. I would also want the most impactful long-term policies as well. I think that the climate change already have gone so far that we need quite much focus on the short-term. For example, UNEP estimates that 25 to 50 % of all coral reefs are already destroyed, mostly because of global warming, and 70 to 90 % will be gone if we reach 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Many of your suggestions are good for both short-term and long-term impact so I agree that it could be better than the policies in the article. Policies like regulations and pricing may have long-term consequences as well since they have been reducing the amount of CO2 for many years, but policies like these may not be stable over time because of political decisions. But e.g. innovation-support, as you mentioned, probably have more stability.
I think if we optimize for short-term impact we would want a list that focuses on short-lived pollutants (e.g. methane) or short-term adaptation measures.
I think the weakness of the article for EA prioritization is that it optimizes for something—domestic certain reductions within countries—that is not related to any globally relevant target metric.
E.g. irrespective of whether one optimizes for the short-term or long-term in neither scenario will the focus on national target achievement be relevant directly (it might matter somewhat indirectly via signaling). Obviously, it is a good article for national policy makers that want to achieve national targets.
Thank you for your wise reply, again! Yes, that is true. Even if we stopped all CO2-emissions now, almost none of the existing would go away because it will be up there for such a long time. But methane vanishes more quickly.
Yes, you are correct here as well. Organizations like Future Matters, that is founded by EA people, are doing research and strategy consulting services in policy, politics, coalitions and movements. So they could use this kind of article, since they give advice to politicians and national policy makers. But I still think that taxes is an underestimated tool in the EA community, because even if e.g. innovation support probably is more effective when it comes to climate change, taxes can be used for reducing poverty, health problems and so on.
Thanks!
I agree that policies can be combined but that doesn’t really change the fundamental problem that evaluating policies for their certain local short-term impact will move us away from more impactful policies.
Thank you Jackva, you have very wise input. I would also want the most impactful long-term policies as well. I think that the climate change already have gone so far that we need quite much focus on the short-term. For example, UNEP estimates that 25 to 50 % of all coral reefs are already destroyed, mostly because of global warming, and 70 to 90 % will be gone if we reach 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Many of your suggestions are good for both short-term and long-term impact so I agree that it could be better than the policies in the article. Policies like regulations and pricing may have long-term consequences as well since they have been reducing the amount of CO2 for many years, but policies like these may not be stable over time because of political decisions. But e.g. innovation-support, as you mentioned, probably have more stability.
Thanks!
I think if we optimize for short-term impact we would want a list that focuses on short-lived pollutants (e.g. methane) or short-term adaptation measures.
I think the weakness of the article for EA prioritization is that it optimizes for something—domestic certain reductions within countries—that is not related to any globally relevant target metric.
E.g. irrespective of whether one optimizes for the short-term or long-term in neither scenario will the focus on national target achievement be relevant directly (it might matter somewhat indirectly via signaling). Obviously, it is a good article for national policy makers that want to achieve national targets.
Thank you for your wise reply, again! Yes, that is true. Even if we stopped all CO2-emissions now, almost none of the existing would go away because it will be up there for such a long time. But methane vanishes more quickly.
Yes, you are correct here as well. Organizations like Future Matters, that is founded by EA people, are doing research and strategy consulting services in policy, politics, coalitions and movements. So they could use this kind of article, since they give advice to politicians and national policy makers. But I still think that taxes is an underestimated tool in the EA community, because even if e.g. innovation support probably is more effective when it comes to climate change, taxes can be used for reducing poverty, health problems and so on.