I am a lecturer in public health at Halmstad University, Sweden. Since 2019, I have been helping Happier Lives Institute. My main interests are systemic change, tax policy, global health, climate change and public health. I made a forum post about green basic income, and it was the base for this input to the UN together with Cool Earth: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uAzSycfm190C1hnVDCnYTXK2d1tvw0WsbfE8RJYvw2U/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.4h2l20plkgwz
Ulf Graf 🔹
I think that it is a high risk that AI or something else will be a great threat for humanity within a short future. But I can’t say how high the risk is or when in the future. But no matter how long or short time I have left, I would carry on like I always do. I spend time with my family and I love my job as a teacher at an university. I couldn’t ask for more. I feel that there is nothing more I must do before I die. So I am grateful and happy every day. But… My parents have four houses in a forest in the middle of Sweden. So if the apocalypse comes, I have a place where it is a quite good chance for surviving.
I skimmed in your article and must say that I am impressed. I think it is important for the EA community to think about what planet and what society we want. I looked at the summary of the IPBES Nexus Assesment and it seems clear to me that our economic system doesn’t work in its current state. That 7 trillion in subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, and damages on nature for 10-25 trillion in unaccounted costs is problematic. Also, the fact that there is 35 times more resources going to causes that destroys our planet than supports our nature shows that we need to do something. I think a realistic way might be national income, by Thomas Piketty. It is a global measurement instead of GDP. For example: “If you take 100 billion euros of oil from oil reserves underground or you take 100 billion euros in fish from the ocean, you have 100 billion euros of GDP, but you have zero euros of national income. And if in addition when you burn oil or gas you create global warming and you reduce the durability of life on earth, then if you put a price on the negative impact of these emissions you should have negative national income instead of positive GDP.” Buckton et al. (2024) give examples of other economic systems that might work and that are more or less capitalistic.
Hi Alexis! I think it is a wonderful idea and I would like to help you! I am kind of time constrained (having a one year old at home and working) but I will be able to give you advise. I am teaching public health at a Swedish university and I hold lectures about these topics. So I have some knowledge in this topic and would love to share it with you!
Gapminder has a list of 100 positive news during 2023: https://www.gapminder.org/news/100-positive-news-from-2023/
Thank you for a wonderful initiative! I think that many people will be happy about this!
I think that we should aim for using evidence based on reality and not try to change our ways because we want to appeal to different political groups. That doesn’t mean that we can find cause areas that are more interesting for different political groups. I guess that many conservatives might be skeptical to some paths in the EA movement that involves areas like animal welfare, climate change and raising some types of taxes and health policies (e.g. the Swedish right actively work against climate change mitigation, animal welfare and health policies), which some EA organisations promote.
But as many people have pointed out already in the comments, there are many interesting areas for conservatives as well and I think we should welcome people on different parts of the political spectrum. Since the EA community is very left leaning, I think it might be easier to recruit people from the left. The problem there is that the left might be skeptical to EA because of the lack of focus on systemic change or welfare systems. But I think that the Effective Institutions Project and Effective Environmentalism might be able to reduce that kind of critique in the future.
Thank you, I am happy that it was helpful! I am just an ordinary university teacher without a PhD so it was the first time someone called me professor! :) I wish you luck with finding the right path for you! No matter what path you choose, I think you will do great things and have a large impact! :)
Thank you for your post! I will try to give you as good advice as I can. I teach public health at a university in Sweden so I am a little biased towards global health probably.
Depending on you think is interesting and meaningful, you should choose what you like. As you are good at math, maybe statistics or health economics is a good way for you? I think that no matter what cause area you choose, it is probably good to be able to make a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Do you want to start your own organisation or choose an already existing? Volunteering at an organisation or in the effective altruism community might be more important than what education you choose. Your skills and motivation is very important. One skill that might be good in the future is to apply for grants… If it is something you like, of course. I chose to become an university teacher, since I think that I will have many students who are more capable of making great things than I am, but I can give them the tools. I think it is the advice I would give a younger version of myself. But what you think makes you and your skills unique and what you think is fun and important is what matters most. You already have the EA mindset so whatever path you choose will probably be great! :)
Kind regards,
Ulf Graf
I am very happy to hear that! You’re welcome! :)
I gave input to the UN together with Cool Earth, Equal Right and Professor Robert Fletcher. During 2025 I will try to figure out what to do with that text (any suggestions are warmly welcome): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uAzSycfm190C1hnVDCnYTXK2d1tvw0WsbfE8RJYvw2U/edit?usp=drivesdk
I will also try to figure out how I can start a PhD in a meaningful research project. I am stuck in the southern Sweden because I have my family here, but at the university where I work as a lecturer in public health, there are not many research projects that feels right / impactful enough. The next best thing would be to collaborate more with EA people at other universities. I will also book meetings with some people from the EAG online conference, now that I have more time to spare.
Thank you for this post! I think it might be beneficial in some ways for the EA movement but a barrier in other ways. It is quite hard to find good evidence for cost-effectiveness of systemic changes, which makes it hard to look closer into. It is also hard to separate systemic change from politics, which can create tensions in a community.
Well… I am involved. I made some input to the UN together with Cool Earth, Equal Right and Robert Fletcher: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uAzSycfm190C1hnVDCnYTXK2d1tvw0WsbfE8RJYvw2U/edit?usp=drivesdk
I also made a forum post about a way forward that I think might work when it comes to systemic change and the EA community: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/tAF4zQSfDGpABLCaH/green-basic-income-and-health-taxes-as-a-way-for-systemic
Cool Earth is an organisation that was very popular in the EA movement for a while and I think they work with the topics you are looking for. I think GiveDirectly also is doing it. There are also some people doing it loosely. EA Germany has a Slack channel for systemic change.
I hope this helps! You are welcome to contact me if you want to discuss this further!
Kind regards, Ulf Graf
I just want to thank you for such an impressive forum post! I think Shrimp Welfare is very interesting and it has been an eye-opener for me when it comes to animal welfare. My own area is global / public health in different forms, but I will use some of the examples mentioned here in my lectures about global health and economic evaluations for my students if it is okay for you? I think it might be an eye-opener for some of them as well.
Thank you for an interesting forum post! In my forum post I present some examples of how to decrease inequality by using taxes and basic income. The best examples there are safety income and basic income that is funded with environmental taxes.
All the best,
Ulf Graf
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.
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.
Thank you all for your comments! I agree that these policies may not have a massive global impact in the same way as clean energy policies, but 26 to 41 % in reductions is still a lot. I believe that additional effort and innovation-support is important as well. But carbon pricing and things like innovation-support can be combined. The Swiss CO2 Levy uses carbon pricing to give money to innovation, for example (see text below). As you see in the text below and in this graph by OECD, the cost for raising prices for carbon emissions can increase revenues as well. But I agree that it would be more interesting with an article with pure focus on cost-effectiveness.
I have addressed some of these issues in a previous forum post. I copy and paste a part from it here:
”In Canada, they have a fuel charge of 80 $ per tonne of gasoline and an output-based pricing system for emissions from industries. The Canada Carbon Rebate gives 90 % of this money back to individuals while the rest goes to small- and medium-enterprises, farmers and Indigenous governments. A family of four can get $ 1 800 annually through the carbon rebate, a single adult could get 900 $ (more if the person lives in a rural area). Without their carbon pricing systems, Canada would have approximately 19 million tonnes of more emissions. The Swiss CO2 Levy is imposed on all thermal fossil fuels (142 USD per tonne) and then the 1.42 billion USD it generates is redistributed to the population and it is also going to innovation, renewable heating energy and energy efficient renovations of buildings.”
I hope that I have answered to everything, otherwise I am happy to discuss this further!
Thank you very much! I am happy that you liked it! I hope that Effective Environmentalism will have use for it! :)
Of 1500 climate policies that have been implemented over the past 25 years, the 63 most successful ones are in this article (that I don’t have access to, but a good summary is here). The 63 policies reduced between 0.6 billion and 1.8 billion metric tonnes CO2 emissions. The typical effects that the 63 most effective policies had, could close the emissions gap by 26%-41%. Pricing is most effective in developed countries, while regulations are the most effective policies in developing countries. The climate policy explorer shows the best policies for different countries and sectors. I just wanted to write this if EA:s who are interested in climate change and policy have missed this.
Kind regards,
Ulf Graf
I would say that we need to address the root causes in areas that are too complex to solve with simple solutions, e.g. biodiversity loss, since it is interconnected with many other systemic challenges. According to the assessment report about Nexus, which is the interconnections between the following crises: Climate change, biodiversity, water, food and health. According to the report, there are 7 trillion USD in subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, and damages to nature for 10-25 trillion USD in unaccounted costs. Also, there are 35 times more resources going to causes that destroy our planet than supports our nature. In this case it is hard to find a solution that doesn’t address the root causes. But for individual diseases or more simple challenges, there may not be any need to address the root causes.