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 🔹
Karma: 89
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
UlfJohansson’s Quick takes
I have a table here showing the difference between a country with low taxes (United States) and a country with high taxes (Sweden). What I want to say with the table is that people who are unemployed have much more money in Sweden compared to the US. Also, in Sweden the taxes are making the costs lower for elderly care, child care, education, health care, medicine and so on. So even if the taxes are higher, you probably have better access to health care, medicine and financial aid in Sweden even if you are living on a minimum income. Because of the redistribution of money, taxes are giving money to people in poverty.
United States Sweden Income tax for people earning below 50 000 USD: 10-12 %.
Income tax for people earning over 50 000 USD: 22-37 %.
Income tax for people earning below 50 000 USD: 31 %.
Income tax for people earning over 50 000 USD: 51 %.
Value-added tax on goods and services: None.
Instead some states have sales tax on around 6 %.
Value-added tax on goods and services: 25 % and all purchasers pay value-added tax. It amounts for 47 % of the total budget for the Swedish state. Benefits in unemployment, share of previous income after five years: 9 %. Benefits in unemployment, share of previous income after five years: 60 %. Adequacy of minimum income benefits for a single person with no children: 6 % of median disposable income. Adequacy of minimum income benefits for a single person with no children: 42 % of median disposable income. Net childcare costs for a couple with average wage: 32 %.
Cost for one year in college: Over 9 000 USD / year.
Net childcare costs for a couple with average wage: 5 %.
Cost for one year in college: None, you get money for that.
Diabetes prevalence: 10.7 %.
Epipen cost: 600-700 USD.
Diabetes prevalence: 5.1 %.
Epipen cost: 40 USD (if your medical expenses exceeeds 300 dollars a year, you get your medicine for free).
The social security contribution paid by the employer (caculated on top of the employee’s salary): 7.65 %. The social security contribution paid by the employer (caculated on top of the employee’s salary): 31.4 %.
A special thanks to Niklas Holmgren and Joel McGuire for the support and comments on the first draft!
By the way… Here is the list of main references if it is easier to look here:Abbott, R., & Bogenschneider, B. (2018). Should robots pay taxes: Tax policy in the age of automation. Harv. L. & Pol’y Rev., 12, 145.
Afshin, A., Sur, P. J., Fay, K. A., Cornaby, L., Ferrara, G., Salama, J. S., … & Murray, C. J. (2019). Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. The Lancet, 393(10184), 1958-1972.
Ahmed, A., Aune, D., Vineis, P., Pescarini, J. M., Millett, C., & Hone, T. (2022). The effect of conditional cash transfers on the control of neglected tropical disease: a systematic review. The Lancet Global Health, 10(5), e640-e648.
Barbier, E. (2012). Tax ‘societal ills’ to save the planet. Nature, 483(7387), 30-30.
Black, M. S., Liu, A. A., Parry, I. W., & Vernon, N. (2023). IMF fossil fuel subsidies data: 2023 update. International Monetary Fund.
Bui, L. P., Pham, T. T., Wang, F., Chai, B., Sun, Q., Hu, F. B., … & Willett, W. C. (2024). Planetary Health Diet Index and risk of total and cause-specific mortality in three prospective cohorts. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
Cardone, P. E. (2021). Public opinion towards a universal basic income in Europe. Rivista Italiana di Economia Demografia e Statistica, 75(4).
Charity Entrepreneurship. (2020). Tobacco taxation.
Charity Entrepreneurship. (2022). Alcohol regulation.
Charity Entrepreneurship. (2024). Advocacy for salt intake reduction.
Collaborators, G. B. D., & Ärnlöv, J. (2020). Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. The Lancet, 396(10258), 1223-1249.
Das, A., & Sethi, N. (2023). Cash transfers and human capital outcomes of children in LMICs: A systematic review using PRISMA. Heliyon, 9(4).
European Commission. (2021). Ensuring that polluters pay—Taxes, charges and fees. https://environment.ec.europa.eu/document/download/dfff60be-3c31-4fcb-93a6-fa6e2ea5f219_en?filename=Taxes%2C%20charges%20and%20fees.pdf
Gabriel, I., & McElwee, B. (2019). Effective altruism, global poverty, and systemic change. Effective altruism: Philosophical issues, 99.
Ghebreyesus, T. A., & Clark, H. (2023). Health taxes for healthier lives: an opportunity for all governments. BMJ Global Health, 8(Suppl 8), e013761.
GiveDirectly. (2019). How do cash transfers impact neighbors? https://www.givedirectly.org/how-do-cash-transfers-impact-neighbors/
GiveDirectly. (2020). Research on cash transfers. https://www.givedirectly.org/research-on-cash-transfers/
GiveDirectly. (2022). Giving directly still means giving well. https://www.givedirectly.org/giving-directly-still-means-giving-well/
GiveDirectly. (2023). Cash evidence explorer. https://www.givedirectly.org/cash-evidence-explorer/
GiveDirectly. (2024). Research at GiveDirectly. https://www.givedirectly.org/research-at-give-directly/
Giving What We Can. (2024). GiveDirectly. https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/charities/givedirectly
GiveWell. (2024). GiveWell’s Cost-Effectiveness Analyses
Greenwood, E. E., Lauber, T., van den Hoogen, J., Donmez, A., Bain, R. E., Johnston, R., … & Julian, T. R. (2024). Mapping safe drinking water use in low-and middle-income countries. Science, 385(6710), 784-790.
Haarmann, C., Haarmann, D., Jauch, H., Shindondola-Mote, H., Nattrass, N., van Niekerk, I., & Samson, M. (2009). Making the difference! The BIG in Namibia. Assessment Report.
Guimarães, N. S., Magno, L., de Paula, A. A., Silliman, M., Anderle, R. V. R., Rasella, D., … & Dourado, I. (2023). The effects of cash transfer programmes on HIV/AIDS prevention and care outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of intervention studies. The Lancet HIV, 10(6), e394-403.
Innovations for Poverty Action. (2015). The Impact of Unconditional Cash Transfers in Kenya. https://poverty-action.org/study/impact-unconditional-cash-transfers-kenya
Kaiser, K., Bredenkamp, C., & Iglesias, R. (2016). Sin tax reform in the Philippines: transforming public finance, health, and governance for more inclusive development. World Bank Publications.
Kenter, J., Martino, S., Buckton, S., Waddock, S., Agarwal, B., Anger-Kraavi, A., … & Waddell, S. (2024). Ten principles for transforming economics in a time of global crises.
Laguinge, L. A., Gasparini, L. C., & Neidhöfer, G. (2024). The long-run effects of conditional cash transfers: the case of Bolsa Familia in Brazil. Documentos de Trabajo del CEDLAS.
Lee, H., Calvin, K., Dasgupta, D., Krinmer, G., Mukherji, A., Thorne, P., … & Zommers, Z. (2023). Synthesis report of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), Longer report. IPCC.
Machado, D. B., de Siqueira Filha, N. T., Cortes, F., Castro-de-Araujo, L. F., Alves, F. J. O., Ramos, D., … & Barreto, M. L. (2024). The relationship between cash-based interventions and violence: a systematic review and evidence map. Aggression and violent behavior, 101909.
McArthur, J. W., & Rasmussen, K. (2018). Change of pace: Accelerations and advances during the Millennium Development Goal era. World Development, 105, 132-143.
Murray, C. J. (2019). Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis forthe Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet, 393(10184), 1958-72.
Park, K. S., Cho, G. L., Kim, Y. M., & Hiilamo, H. (2024). Assessing the impact of a safety income model as an alternative approach to universal basic income: a case study in South Korea. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 44(13/14), 87-101.
Pega, F., Pabayo, R., Benny, C., Lee, E. Y., Lhachimi, S. K., & Liu, S. Y. (2022). Unconditional cash transfers for reducing poverty and vulnerabilities: effect on use of health services and health outcomes in low‐and middle‐income countries. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (3).
Perkiö, J. (2014). Universal basic income: A new tool for development policy. International Solidarity Work, 3.
Ritchie, H., & Roser, M. (2024). The world has lost one-third of its forest, but an end of deforestation is possible. Our World in Data.
Sachs, J. D., Schmidt-Traub, G., Mazzucato, M., Messner, D., Nakicenovic, N., & Rockström, J. (2019). Six transformations to achieve the sustainable development goals. Nature sustainability, 2(9), 805-814.
Sumaila, U. R., Wabnitz, C. C., Teh, L. S., Teh, L. C., Lam, V. W., Sumaila, H., … & Polasky, S. (2024). Utilizing basic income to create a sustainable, poverty-free tomorrow. Cell Reports Sustainability.
Taillie, L. S., Bercholz, M., Prestemon, C. E., Higgins, I. C., Grummon, A. H., Hall, M. G., & Jaacks, L. M. (2023). Impact of taxes and warning labels on red meat purchases among US consumers: A randomized controlled trial. PLoS Medicine, 20(9), e1004284.
Uribe J. P., Estevão, M., LLopez-Calva, L. F., Gutierrez, A. (2022). Health taxes for healthier populations: Cost-effective policy to save lives. https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/voices/health-taxes-healthier-populations-cost-effective-policy-save-lives
UNICEF. (2019). Universal Child Benefit Case Studies: The Experience of Iran.
https://www.unicef.org/media/70456/file/IRN-case-study-2020.pdf
United Nations. (2019). UN report: Nature’s dangerous decline ‘unprecedented’; species extinction rates ‘accelerating’. Sustainable Development Goals United Nations.
United Nations. (2024). Ending poverty. https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/ending-poverty
United Nations Climate Change. (2023). Payments for Environmental Services Program | Costa Rica. https://unfccc.int/climate-action/momentum-for-change/financing-for-climate-friendly-investment/payments-for-environmental-services-program
Wilkinson, R. G., & Pickett, K. E. (2024). Why the world cannot afford the rich. Nature, 627(8003), 268-270.
Wollburg, C., Steinert, J. I., Reeves, A., & Nye, E. (2023). Do cash transfers alleviate common mental disorders in low-and middle-income countries? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Plos one, 18(2), e0281283.
Wong, M., & Forget, E. (2024). Basic Income and Violence Against Women: A Review of Cash Transfer Experiments. Basic Income Studies, 19(1), 85-130.
World Bank Group. (2022). Costa Rica’s Forest Conservation Pays Off. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2022/11/16/costa-rica-s-forest-conservation-pays-off
World Bank Group. Bolsa Família: Changing the Lives of Millions. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2010/05/27/br-bolsa-familia
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!