Founders Pledge Climate & Lifestyle Report

post by jackva · 2020-02-11T09:57:30.289Z · score: 66 (27 votes) · EA · GW · 3 comments

This is a link post for https://founderspledge.com/stories/climate-and-lifestyle-report

Contents

  Main conclusions:
None
3 comments

[Updated, replaced prior description with newly added section of key points from the main report]

John Halstead and I have published a new report (and attendant blog posts, here and here) on the impact of different lifestyle choices on climate, how those are affected by policy, and how they compare to donations.

Main conclusions:

What we are saying:

What we are not saying:

3 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by Aaron Gertler (aarongertler) · 2020-02-15T00:03:34.728Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

Thank you for sharing this to the Forum! I especially appreciate the "what we are not saying" section, which covers all the most common concerns I've seen around discussion of the topic. The frame of "expanding actions, rather than negating responsibility" is one I can imagine using when people ask about (EA + climate change) in the future.

comment by Aaron Gertler (aarongertler) · 2020-03-10T09:59:48.116Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

The second blog post you linked requires a code word for site access -- I think you meant to link here?

comment by alexrjl · 2020-02-17T13:31:21.099Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

Thanks for posting. I think it's really valuable to have high quality cause area specific analysis to point interested non-EAs towards and that founder's pledge has consistently been a great source of exactly this.

I'm a little skeptical about the strength of the claims around the waterbed effect. It seems like governments historically have been much better at setting targets than meeting them, and that individual emissions make targets marginally less likely to be hit. It seems likely that e.g. if in 2040 it becomes clear that there's no way the UK will meet its 2050 target without huge and extremely costly changes, the government will move the target target than implement them, which would make anything that makes the target harder to hit potentially very harmful.