Those who focus on the climate SDG may enjoy interviews with renewable investors Jane Mendillo of Harvard's endowment and Reuben Munger as much as I did.
Pairing the two illustrates how rigorous investment firms like Munger's bring deal-structuring expertise that can fashion profitable investments in renewables that otherwise wouldn't attract profit-seeking capital like that of Harvard, Anthony Sabia's CDPQ, or Bernard Looney's BP (fourth link). The first link includes an interview with Mendillo and Sabia, which covers Harvard's investments in replanting trees - a result of a labor supply of motivated financiers whose expertise enables them to structure complex but socially valuable deals, so natural resources capital can flow toward reforestation instead of (say) oil projects in Alberta.
All to say that, 80K team's capacity allowing, it might be worth expanding the front-office finance career profile in link 3 to describe how finance careers could allow EAs to help fund climate or pandemic preparedness solutions at places like CDPQ, Harvard or In-Q-Tel, or to open their own shops like Munger did. Munger opened his $1B Vision Ridge fund (which he did at a concessionary salary versus his prior job as a value investor, but still at a healthy salary) in order to finance climate infrastructure that otherwise might not have come online absent his involvement.
1) Relevant Mendillo points (begins at 24:20): https://youtu.be/9XXJ-u-mFBs?t=1460
2) Fantastic Munger interview: https://capitalallocatorspodcast.com/2020/07/05/si9munger/
3) 80K profile on finance careers: https://80000hours.org/career-reviews/front-office-finance/
4) BP's announcement: https://nyti.ms/311p7cw
*Note: both Mendillo and Sabia left their roles in recent years. I expect their endowments' portfolios have not become less sustainable since they set high watermarks for sustainability
The SDGs seem to me to be antithetical to effective altruism. The SDGs :
EAs should be focused on the question of how governments can most cost-effectively increase social welfare (broadly conceived) in their own countries. If we do this, we will meet all of the arbitrary "low bar" goals anyway. For discussion of national development vs kinky development, see some of Lant Pritchett's blogs.
This criticism of the SDGs makes sense to me on its face. However, I noticed that Lant Pritchett writes the following on the website you link to, which seems in tension to that criticism:
This is true, but they do contain low bar elements, such as $1.90 per day poverty. He also clearly thinks they are a bad way to think about development. I think it would be better if economists and EAs focused on an expanded GDP metric that includes income growth as well as other important contributors to wellbeing