The Nonlinear Library EA - Founders Pledge's Climate Change Fund might be more cost-effective than GiveWell's top charities, but it is much less cost-effective than corporate campaigns for chicken welfare? by Vasco Grilo
May 5, 2024
24:44
Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Founders Pledge's Climate Change Fund might be more cost-effective than GiveWell's top charities, but it is much less cost-effective than corporate campaigns for chicken welfare?, published by Vasco Grilo on May 5, 2024 on The Effective Altruism Forum.
Summary
I think decreasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions has benefits to humans of 0.00957 DALY/tCO2eq, of which:
68.8 % are strictly linked to decreasing GHG emissions.
31.2 % are linked to decreasing air pollution from fossil fuels.
GiveWell's Top Charities Fund (TCF) is 0.00994 DALY/$.
Corporate campaigns for chicken welfare, such as the ones supported by The Humane League (THL), is 14.3 DALY/$.
I estimated the cost-effectiveness of CCF is:
3.28 times that of TCF, with a plausible range of 0.175 to 30.2 times. So it is unclear to me whether donors interested in improving nearterm human welfare had better donate to GiveWell's funds or CCF.
0.228 % that of corporate campaigns for chicken welfare, with a plausible range of 0.0122 % to 2.10 %. Consequently, I recommend donors who value 1 unit of nearterm welfare the same regardless of whether it is experienced by humans or animals to donate to the best animal welfare interventions, such as the ones supported by the Animal Welfare Fund (AWF).
I concluded the harm caused to humans by the annual GHG emissions of a random person is 0.0660 DALY, and that caused to farmed animals by their annual food consumption is 10.5 DALY, i.e. 159 times as much. In my mind, this implies one should overwhelmingly focus on minimising animal suffering in the context of food consumption.
I calculated the cost-effectiveness of:
Founders Pledge's Climate Change Fund (CCF) is 0.0326 DALY/$, with a plausible range of 0.00174 to 0.300 DALY/$.
Calculations
I describe my calculations below. You are welcome to make a copy of this Sheet to use your own numbers.
Benefits to humans of decreasing greenhouse gas emissions
I think decreasing GHG emissions has benefits to humans of 0.00957 DALY/tCO2eq (= 0.00658 + 0.00299), adding:
0.00658 DALY/tCO2eq strictly linked to decreasing GHG emissions, which comprises 68.8 % (= 0.00658/0.00957) of the total.
0.00299 DALY/tCO2eq linked to decreasing air pollution from fossil fuels, which comprises 31.2 % (= 0.00299/0.00957) of the total.
I calculated a component strictly linked to decreasing GHG emissions of 0.00658 DALY/tCO2eq (= 0.0394*10^-3*167), multiplying:
A value of increasing economic growth of 0.0394 DALY/k$ (= 0.5/(12.7*10^3)). I computed this from the ratio between:
Open Philanthropy's (OP's) valuation of health of 0.5 DALYs per multiple of income (= 1/2).
The global gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in 2022 of 12.7 k$.
A social cost of carbon (SSC) in 2020 of 167 $/tCO2eq (= 17.1*1.14*2.76*2.06*1.51). I determined this from the product between:
A partial SSC in 2020 representing just the effects on mortality of 17.1 2019-$/tCO2eq, as obtained in Carleton 2022 for the representative concentration pathway 4.5 (RCP 4.5), and their preferred discount rate of 2 %[1] (see Table III).
Carleton 2022 got 36.6 2019-$/tCO2eq for RCP 8.5. Nevertheless, I considered the value for RCP 4.5 because this results in a global warming in 2100 of 2.5 to 3 ºC relative to the pre-industrial baseline, which is in agreement with Metaculus' median community prediction on 11 March 2024 of 2.81 ºC relative to the 1951-1980 baseline. In contrast, RCP 8.5 leads to a global warming in 2100 of 5 ºC relative to the pre-industrial baseline.
Carleton 2022 says "a "full" SCC would encompass effects across all affected outcomes (and changes in mortality due to other features of climate change, like storms)". However, I believe Carleton 2022's estimates could be interpreted as encompassing all the impacts on mortality, as I guess additional deaths caused by GHG emissions through natu...
Summary
I think decreasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions has benefits to humans of 0.00957 DALY/tCO2eq, of which:
68.8 % are strictly linked to decreasing GHG emissions.
31.2 % are linked to decreasing air pollution from fossil fuels.
GiveWell's Top Charities Fund (TCF) is 0.00994 DALY/$.
Corporate campaigns for chicken welfare, such as the ones supported by The Humane League (THL), is 14.3 DALY/$.
I estimated the cost-effectiveness of CCF is:
3.28 times that of TCF, with a plausible range of 0.175 to 30.2 times. So it is unclear to me whether donors interested in improving nearterm human welfare had better donate to GiveWell's funds or CCF.
0.228 % that of corporate campaigns for chicken welfare, with a plausible range of 0.0122 % to 2.10 %. Consequently, I recommend donors who value 1 unit of nearterm welfare the same regardless of whether it is experienced by humans or animals to donate to the best animal welfare interventions, such as the ones supported by the Animal Welfare Fund (AWF).
I concluded the harm caused to humans by the annual GHG emissions of a random person is 0.0660 DALY, and that caused to farmed animals by their annual food consumption is 10.5 DALY, i.e. 159 times as much. In my mind, this implies one should overwhelmingly focus on minimising animal suffering in the context of food consumption.
I calculated the cost-effectiveness of:
Founders Pledge's Climate Change Fund (CCF) is 0.0326 DALY/$, with a plausible range of 0.00174 to 0.300 DALY/$.
Calculations
I describe my calculations below. You are welcome to make a copy of this Sheet to use your own numbers.
Benefits to humans of decreasing greenhouse gas emissions
I think decreasing GHG emissions has benefits to humans of 0.00957 DALY/tCO2eq (= 0.00658 + 0.00299), adding:
0.00658 DALY/tCO2eq strictly linked to decreasing GHG emissions, which comprises 68.8 % (= 0.00658/0.00957) of the total.
0.00299 DALY/tCO2eq linked to decreasing air pollution from fossil fuels, which comprises 31.2 % (= 0.00299/0.00957) of the total.
I calculated a component strictly linked to decreasing GHG emissions of 0.00658 DALY/tCO2eq (= 0.0394*10^-3*167), multiplying:
A value of increasing economic growth of 0.0394 DALY/k$ (= 0.5/(12.7*10^3)). I computed this from the ratio between:
Open Philanthropy's (OP's) valuation of health of 0.5 DALYs per multiple of income (= 1/2).
The global gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in 2022 of 12.7 k$.
A social cost of carbon (SSC) in 2020 of 167 $/tCO2eq (= 17.1*1.14*2.76*2.06*1.51). I determined this from the product between:
A partial SSC in 2020 representing just the effects on mortality of 17.1 2019-$/tCO2eq, as obtained in Carleton 2022 for the representative concentration pathway 4.5 (RCP 4.5), and their preferred discount rate of 2 %[1] (see Table III).
Carleton 2022 got 36.6 2019-$/tCO2eq for RCP 8.5. Nevertheless, I considered the value for RCP 4.5 because this results in a global warming in 2100 of 2.5 to 3 ºC relative to the pre-industrial baseline, which is in agreement with Metaculus' median community prediction on 11 March 2024 of 2.81 ºC relative to the 1951-1980 baseline. In contrast, RCP 8.5 leads to a global warming in 2100 of 5 ºC relative to the pre-industrial baseline.
Carleton 2022 says "a "full" SCC would encompass effects across all affected outcomes (and changes in mortality due to other features of climate change, like storms)". However, I believe Carleton 2022's estimates could be interpreted as encompassing all the impacts on mortality, as I guess additional deaths caused by GHG emissions through natu...