Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Welcome to Yahoo Groups.

An extension to your real life group of friends, interests and communities.
What's new : see video
 

Environmental Concerns and International aid

Expand Messages
  • Jonah Sinick
    Hello, My name is Jonah Sinick and I m a new member of the GiveWell Mailing List. I m presently a math graduate student at University of Illinois at Urbana
    Message 1 of 7 , Dec 7, 2009
      Hello,

      My name is Jonah Sinick and I'm a new member of the GiveWell Mailing List. I'm presently a math graduate student at University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. I had been vaguely aware of GiveWell since 2007 but was reminded of GiveWell by a friend in September 2009 and decided to donate based on GiveWell's recommendations as well as make contact with Holden and Elie. Since then I've been following more closely. I would like to do something with my life that has a positive effect on society (construed in a broad sense). It will become evident in this message that I have yet to develop a clear sense of which causes and charities I find the most compelling, but this past year I directed 95% of my charitable contributions to VillageReach.

      To move onto the main subject of this message:

      I periodically hear claims of the type "The rate at which we're using Earth's resources is such that if it keeps up, we will have no resources left in 50 years." One such example is this UK Guardian article http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/jul/07/research.waste . My reaction to such claims has generally been to forget about them soon after hearing them because (a) they may be exaggerated or taken out of context for sensationalism and (b) I've found it unclear what there is that I can do personally to make a difference if such claims are in fact true. I suspect that many people have similar reactions.

      Just two weeks ago I came across another such claim, this time from the legendary mathematician named Mikhail Gromov on page 30 of the linked pdf http://www.ems-ph.org/journals/newsletter/pdf/2009-09-73.pdf. The relevant excerpt is

      ---------------------

      If you try to look into the future, 50 or 100 years from now...

      50 and 100 is very different. We know more or less about the next 50 years. We shall continue in the way we go. But 50 years from now, the Earth will run out of the basic resources and we cannot predict what will happen after that. We will run out of water, air, soil, rare metals, not to mention oil. Everything will essentially come to an end within 50 years. What will happen after that? I am scared. It may be okay if we find solutions but if we don't then everything may come to an end very quickly!

      Mathematics may help to solve the problem but if we are not successful, there will not be any mathematics left, I am afraid!

      Are you pessimistic?

      I don't know. It depends on what we do. if we continue to move blindly into the future, there will be a disaster within 100 years and it will start to be very critical in 50 years already. Well, 50 is just an estimate. It may be 40 or it may be 70 but the problem will definitely come. If we are ready for the problems and manage to solve them, it will be fantastic. I think there is potential to solve them but this potential should be used and this potential is education. It will not be solved by God. People must have ideas and they must prepare now. In two generations people must be educated. Teachers must be educated now, and then the teachers will educate a new generation. Then there will be sufficiently many people to face the difficulties. I am sure this will give a result. If not, it will be a disaster. It is an exponential process. If we run along an exponential process, it will explode. That is a very simple computation. For example, there will be no soil. Soil is being exhausted everywhere in the world. It is not being said often enough. Not to mention water. It is not an insurmountable problem but requires solutions on a scale we have never faced before, both socially and intellectually.

      ---------------------

      Gromov's suggestion is that there is an impending crisis situation which we will be able to work through if and only if we are prepared for it.

      To the extent that Gromov is right, I find sustainability a much more compelling cause than international health care. If we totally run out of resources in 50 years then we'll be forced to revert to a preagricultural state in which we will have no health care, no means of communication or travel over long distances, no clean water, no heating, no electricity, etc. Not only will quality of life in the developed world plunge (perhaps permanently), but there will no longer be any hope for chance in the developing world.

      So the question for me is the extent to which Gromov is right. I have no background in environmental science and so do not have the skills to make an independent judgment of the severity of the environmental situation, nor the timescale on which resource depletion will occur, nor how plausible it is that we can do something about the situation even if we try. I have tried looking around online for information and have been frustrated by the fact that many of the claims that people make seem to be in conflict, and I can't tell which sources are reliable.

      Note that there are many environmental issues (global warming, acid rain, increased presence of toxins in the environment, and depletion of soil, water, fish, rare metals, coal, and oil to name a few) - part of what I'm wondering is whether there's some consensus among the knowledgeable about which of these are of greatest concern and why.

      The question that I would really like an answer to is how much I should be focused on the environment and why. But I don't expect that any of you have immediate answers to this one. So I'll end this message with three more specific questions:

      (1) Does anyone know of good websites or books for learning about what is known about various environmental problems and what ideas there are for how we might cope? I'm aware that there are many websites and books that address such things, but what I'm looking for are sources that are reliable, analytical, and big picture in bent.

      (2) Does anyone have an understanding of whether or not saving the lives of people in the developing world causes indirect environmental damage? What I have in mind in writing this is that on the face of it, I would guess that saving lives in the developing world would increase the rate at which the planet's natural resources are being depleted. At the same time I'm aware that this is a complicated issue - that improving health in the developing world may actually reduce population growth, that maybe people in the developing world are using only a negligible fraction of natural resources anyway, etc.

      (3) Is GiveWell considering systematically researching charities that are working toward halting environmental problems? Presumably it would be harder for such charities to demonstrate effectiveness than it is for charities that work to improve health in the developing world, but (depending on the severity of environmental concerns!) the cause may be sufficiently important to warrant investigation even so.

      Jonah
    • Phil Steinmeyer
      Some thoughts: 1) I agree with Gromov in that predicting, roughly, the state of the world in 50 years is far easier than predicting it in 100 years. 2) I
      Message 2 of 7 , Dec 8, 2009
        Some thoughts:
         
        1) I agree with Gromov in that predicting, roughly, the state of the world in 50 years is far easier than predicting it in 100 years.
         
        2) I disagree with the notion (I'm not sure if Gromov specifically said this or if it's your inference or maybe even my bad read of your message) that it is highly likely that there will come a point in time roughly 50 years from now where we will simultaneously run out of most major resources and experience rapid societal collapse.  That's not to say that we won't experience resource shortages in the future or that such shortages won't have serious negative impacts.
         
        3) More broadly, there are a variety of really pessimistic scenarios you can come up with for the world over the next century or so - resource depletion, environmental havoc, nuclear or biological warfare, and so on.  Because uncertainty rises as we move our prediction horizon further out, there is more room for extremely negative (as well as extremely positive) predictions. 
         
        It's hard to strike a balance between being concerned about the very long term and yet still being grounded enough to not be flailing about randomly in the present based on very uncertain predictions of the long term future.
         
        4) I would suggest that you do some reading on economics.  At least part of the issues of your immediate concern (resource usage and depletion) revolve around economic issues.
         
        5) I would also suggest that in this, as in similar issues, you read a variety of opinions on the subject, ranging from alarmist to the opposite side ("all is well") along with more middle-of-the road positions.  It may be, after reading these things, that you remain very concerned, but at least you will be familiar with the arguments and counter-arguments, as expressed by their respective adherents (instead of straw-man type arguments put in the mouths of side A by those who actually support side B).
         
        6) To the best of my knowledge, GiveWell has not been focused on environmental issues to date.  There has been some discussion of looking at these issues, but it is problematic, because the issues don't (IMO) readily lend themselves to the kind of analysis that GiveWell has done so far. 
      • psteinx
        (Disclosure - I m not a GiveWell employee, but have been an advisor/mentor to them for a while.)
        Message 3 of 7 , Dec 8, 2009
          (Disclosure - I'm not a GiveWell employee, but have been an advisor/mentor to them for a while.)
        • uriweg
          My name is Uri Weg and I used to do some work for Give Well. My background is in Chemical Engineering, with a focus on Environmental Technologies. While at
          Message 4 of 7 , Dec 8, 2009
            My name is Uri Weg and I used to do some work for Give Well.

            My background is in Chemical Engineering, with a focus on Environmental Technologies. While at school, I had the privilege of taking a class on Atmospheric Chemistry at the NASA Goddard Institute. We studied the chemical reactions that contribute to climate modeling.

            Climate modeling is incredibly complex and predicting anything is really tough. One variable can change by a seeming inconsequential degree, but due to the complexity of the system, it can change outcomes drastically. What is clear is that comparing while comparing historical ppm (part per million) of CO2 in the atmosphere, things are at a new peak. The CO2 level data is incredibly accurate due to ice cores. Generally speaking, temperature data is too limited a data set to be conclusive.

            In terms of a doomsday scenario, it is entirely possible we are already there. It is also possible that it is a 100+ years away. Simply too hard to say with certainty.

            My personal point of view is that environmental challenges will be conquered by business. Once we internalize the externality of carbon (hopefully by setting a global price), the market will solve the issue. Water will also become more market-ized.

            At least that's my wish.

            If you have any more questions on environmental issues, please free to contact me.

            Uri
            uri.weg@...




            --- In givewell@yahoogroups.com, "psteinx" <psteinmeyer@...> wrote:
            >
            > (Disclosure - I'm not a GiveWell employee, but have been an advisor/mentor to them for a while.)
            >
          • Jonah Sinick
            Phil - More than anything else, I m bemoaning the difficulty that I ve had finding (*) an unbiased and systematic summary and analysis of what is known about
            Message 5 of 7 , Dec 8, 2009
              Phil - More than anything else, I'm bemoaning the difficulty that I've had finding (*) an unbiased and systematic summary and analysis of what is known about various environmental problems and the relative strengths and weaknesses of potential solutions(*).

              Your suggestion of reading a variety of opinions on the subject is fine in the abstract, but there's a serious issue of the opinions that I've encountered having little contact with one another. It seems like to figure out what's actually going on, one has to spend a lot of time digging into referenced sources, possibly making personal contact with the authors of articles, etc. This is time that most people don't have. I'm reminded of a quote from Barack Obama's "The Audacity of Hope":

              "A typical story might begin: “The White House today reported that despite the latest round of tax cuts, the deficit is projected to be cut in half by the year 2010.” This lead will then be followed by a quote from a liberal analyst attacking the White House numbers and a conservative analyst defending the White House numbers. Is one analyst more credible than the other? Is there an independent analyst somewhere who might walk us through the numbers? Who knows?"

              In my preceding message I had asked whether GiveWell is considering investigating environmental charities. This question is perhaps premature. For the moment, what I would really like to see is an organization comparable to GiveWell in integrity and analytical power devoted to producing (*) above. Perhaps such an organization already exists - please let me know if you have recommendations. I presume that it would be to much to hope for GiveWell itself to tackle this project.

              Uri - Thanks for your post. I will be in touch.
            • Phil Steinmeyer
              Jonah, I understand and sympathize with your concern. On complex issues (including future environmental scenarios and, I would imagine, resource-scarcity), it
              Message 6 of 7 , Dec 8, 2009
                Jonah, I understand and sympathize with your concern.  On complex issues (including future environmental scenarios and, I would imagine, resource-scarcity), it is difficult for an interested but not deeply involved reader to form a reliable opinion.  So much of what you read has already been filtered by the author.  i.e. An author might quote 3 experts all in agreement on an issue, but in fact, those 3 experts may be outliers and consensus expert opinion may lie in a different direction. 
                 
                When a topic is politically charged, as many environmental issues are, things become trickier.
                 
                The problem is, even if there is say, 1 really good and neutral website out there amidst, say, 49 other websites that are slanted or otherwise not very trustworthy, it is not necessarily easy to find that 1 website or determine that it is trustworthy.
                 
                Finding a good information source amidst many noisy and low quality sources may be helpful, but it is not an easy task in and of itself.
                 
                Sorry I can't be more specifically helpful.  I guess I'm just sort of warning you that your task may be more difficult than you think.
              • Holden Karnofsky
                Hello all, As noted, we haven t yet done any work in this area. Here are some preliminary thoughts: 1. We do hope to research these causes. The approach
                Message 7 of 7 , Dec 10, 2009

                  Hello all,

                  As noted, we haven't yet done any work in this area.  Here are some preliminary thoughts:

                  1.      We do hope to research these causes.  The approach we take will have to be different in many ways from the kind of work we've done so far, but we think we can add a lot of value by (a) getting a basic picture of the range of scholarly opinion and the major points of consensus and disagreement; (b) examining charities' activities in light of this picture. 

                  2.      I don't have much to say at this point about how promising environmental causes are.  My gut instinct, considering everything I've heard and seen, is that international aid is a more promising area for an individual donor (which is different from saying that it's a more important area).  But I expect to learn a lot and possibly change my mind as we look into the issues more.

                  3.      I think it's important not to put too much trust in any single person's view based simply on credentials.  That includes both Mikhail Gromov and Uri, among others. 

                  4.      I agree with Jonah and Phil re: what kind of resource would be helpful (a systematic summary and analysis of what is known and what the range of opinion), but I don't as of now have such a resource that I have investigated enough to really stand behind.  The resource that I most commonly see pointed to as a large-scale attempt to summarize the state of knowledge is http://www.ipcc.ch/ .

                  5.      My impression (though we have yet to vet the research itself) is that there is a fairly strong consensus in the development economics community that reducing infant mortality can be expected to slow, not accelerate, population growth.  More broadly, in my limited experience with the arguments on environmental issues, I don't recall anyone bringing up the idea of deliberately keeping the developing world sick/poor as a high-priority way to avert environmental disaster.


                  On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Phil Steinmeyer <psteinmeyer@...> wrote:
                   

                  Jonah, I understand and sympathize with your concern.  On complex issues (including future environmental scenarios and, I would imagine, resource-scarcity), it is difficult for an interested but not deeply involved reader to form a reliable opinion.  So much of what you read has already been filtered by the author.  i.e. An author might quote 3 experts all in agreement on an issue, but in fact, those 3 experts may be outliers and consensus expert opinion may lie in a different direction. 
                   
                  When a topic is politically charged, as many environmental issues are, things become trickier.
                   
                  The problem is, even if there is say, 1 really good and neutral website out there amidst, say, 49 other websites that are slanted or otherwise not very trustworthy, it is not necessarily easy to find that 1 website or determine that it is trustworthy.
                   
                  Finding a good information source amidst many noisy and low quality sources may be helpful, but it is not an easy task in and of itself.
                   
                  Sorry I can't be more specifically helpful.  I guess I'm just sort of warning you that your task may be more difficult than you think.


                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.