In terms of quick wins, I think it is notable that so far as I am aware the EA movement has not set up a single charity/cause that aims to be suitable for Givewell's evaluation process (or for that matter the ACE evaluation process) let alone one that has passed such a process. If something is a potential "quick win" it should be much more suitable for these things than most EA meta / GCR charities. Especially, because the progress on Givewell endorsed cause areas is large (for example, malaria deaths reduced by 60% since 2000). Having a few ideas that reach such levels (perhaps through an intermediate EA version of Ycombinator) would be a big deal for those of interested in short feedback loop EA charities.

However, I am interested in such causes just because I think there is tremendous potential to improve the world in the short term. I don't think the argument that I focus primarily on reducing poverty is that I believe a world without poverty is one that could work towards reducing catastrophic long term risks far more effectively than the world we have today. Is very convincing and I think that people who do focus on long term risks tend to agree with me!

I agree with the general gist of this piece, but I would strike a note of caution about the idea of "Improving civilisation now so it can achieve long term goals more effectively in the future." If our goal is to achieve long term goals and to change society in the way most likely to achieve them, then we can't simply improve society or reduce poverty - we need to ask ourselves exactly how we should improve society or reduce poverty to improve our long-term prospects. The mere existence of flow-through effects doesn't tell us which intervention has the best flow-through effects. For instance, I tend to favor education-focused poverty alleviation because there's a lot of documentation of positive flow-through effects from education on everything from violence to economic prosperity. But I think flow-through effects can often mask convenient thinking.

Not only quick wins important because they cause the good thing to happen earlier, but it can also be a step in the right direction for long-term systemic change like your example with the Australian government promoting meat reduction. I think meat reduction is a top priority but lately I've been thinking of putting my donations toward something that seems to have the biggest medium-term payoff: reducing pesticide-related suicides in the developing world. It causes hundreds of thousands of deaths and millions of acute illnesses a year, and it is very easy to make progress on (ie. by banning the most toxic pesticides, and having better controls for pesticides like centralized storage). Maybe in a few years, I'll go back to meat reduction once more progress is made on pesticide poisoning but right now, it's so neglected and easy to make progress on through lobbying governments that I feel I cannot justify funding anything else!

Edit: I want to address a few myths about suicide.

1. People who commit suicide want to die.

This is rarely the case. Most suicides in the world are done by impulsivity during a time of severe stress, not because the person has made a clear-headed decision to die. Or it is a call for attention. The attempter usually calls 911 after their attempt or cooperates with help sent for them. Studies of people who survive violent suicide attempts show that the first thought they have once they "jump" is that they want to live. Even if the person thinks he wants to die, he really wants to be out of his difficult life situation and needs help for that.

2) Reducing means of suicides won't reduce suicides because people made their choice to kill themselves and will find other means.

Suicide is very opportunistic, particularly when done out of impulsivity. It is actually rare for someone to "decide to die by any means necessary". People usually attempt suicide if there's a quick an easy means to do so: a handgun in the drawer, poison (pesticide) in the cabinet. Studies have shown that making it harder to kill yourself is very effective at reducing actual and attempted suicides. For instance, some bridges get reputations for being suicide magnets. If a fence is put up making it impossible to jump, you'd think that people would just jump off other bridges, but actually usually they don't. Sri Lanka used to have the world's highest suicide rate. They banned the most toxic pesticide(s) and overnight their suicide rate was cut in half, even factoring in that people would use other pesticides instead! Even Britain had a big fall in suicides after banning the most toxic pesticides.

3) Suicides "made their choice" so don't deserve funds that could go to helping people who are innocent.

By this reasoning, we shouldn't treat people who engage in risky activities, or knowingly unhealthy habits like smoking or overeating. Smokers and fat people "make their choice" a few times a day for decades whereas it could be a few seconds of weakness in the case of a suicide. Also, there are 3 million hospital admissions a year in developing nations for deliberate pesticide ingestion and that takes up a lot of resources that could be used for other sick people.

Treating deeper causes of suicides like depression and unemployment are also important, of course, but they are much, much harder and less cost effective than passing a few laws regulating pesticides and saving tens of thousands of people a year right away (not including non-fatal acute poisoning which is bad in itself). Also, a those bereaved by the death of a loved one through suicide are much more traumatized than if they died another way. They will be traumatized for life. I think it's important to first capture the low hanging fruit.

One win that might be quite quick because society is already aligned to it to a large extent - ban some forms of advertising for junk food. http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/economic_studies/how_the_world_could_better_fight_obesity

I like the idea of quick wins, and especially because it would be likely to get more media attention to the EA movement. I think we should approach quick wins specifically from the perspective of something that can gain media attention, and thus help awareness of the movement, which would attract more people and thus improve civilization in the long run.

"I don't think the argument that I focus primarily on reducing poverty is that I believe a world without poverty is one that could work towards reducing catastrophic long term risks far more effectively than the world we have today. Is very convincing and I think that people who do focus on long term risks tend to agree with me!"

The comments in this post address this issue in part: http://effective-altruism.com/ea/oh/what_is_the_expected_effect_of_poverty/