This is a great post!

I wish there was more discussion like this and more appreciation for how challenging the current moment is, I think this would bring EA closer -- in a good way -- to where a lot of people concerned about the world are.

Yeah, I broadly agree with that.

I am worried that the public at large, not you, does massively under appreciate nuclear risk in the short term, this at least seems to be true in philanthropy (climate 100x larger than nuclear risk reduction).

Climate action is the most important thing, because it allows us to avoid the others.

(Working on climate)

Nuclear war seems by far the most consequential threat of those you mention here and the contribution of climate to nuclear war risk would need to be quite high to prioritize this over nuclear risk reduction (or climate and SAI together would need to be similarly important as nuclear war).

Do you think that climate change contributes more than, say, 10-20% to nuclear risk?

This aspect of EA is massively alienating to me in this moment and I would be curious how common this experience is.

Really great resource!

Lewis's vivid descriptions of how neglected this space is and how that led to a lot of picking of low-hanging fruit of really high impact things to do seemed like a super useful general EA messaging resource to me.

Thanks for writing this! Have you considered sharing this with non-EA audiences?

Thanks for this, would be happy to have a call about it!

One question: how did you source materials for this? E.g. I notice that this does not include probably the most prominent paper skeptical of tipping point risks, so I am a bit worried that this is selecting on the studies that show most concern, rather than a balanced assessment of risk.

In that sense, the tipping point literature to me appears like the nuclear winter literature -- huge uncertainties, huge disagreements, and a big resultant risk from over- or understating the risk when wanting to make a case for either high or low risk.

There's obvious blaming to be done for some Democrats exaggerating the science of climate change rhetorically, but the intro here still strikes me as quite uncharitable.

In common discourse "existential" is often used in a very loose fashion and hyperbole is par for the course in political rhetoric.

I don't think you are discounting here for the cap not being effectively binding (in the RGGI example) and also, last time I looked into this in depth (I used to work on RGGI at ICAP, which you cite), it was not true that additionality would always be 1.

It could easily happen that based on this video several millions are raised, just based on increasing salience and the framing being largely positive and this resonating with a couple of donors with significant capital.