Miguel Lima Medín

123 karmaJoined Working (15+ years)Vigo, Pontevedra, España



I took Giving What We Can pledge in May 2022.


It would be good to have a proposal for responses to 49 and 50, from the charities who studied Animal Welfare metrics. I recognize my ignorance on this topic.

In the second half of 2022, we worked with a group from the Animal Welfare Committee to identify priority metrics for each sector and develop a set of standards that could underpin the proposed label. We have limited the number of metrics to those that are evidence-based and practical to deliver. We will also work with industry to consider how the standards should interact with existing derogations for disease outbreaks if proposals are taken forward.

On your comment about Part A: “it’s not the most relevant to animal welfare”, I think there are some questions which are relevant, such as:

18. If we did not use a list approach, please describe any alternative approaches you would propose to define which minimally processed meat products are included?

All products derived from animals should be included, irrespective of the extent of processing after slaughter. The criteria for labeling should be based on how the animals are treated during their lives, rather than on how much the industry transforms the meat after slaughter.

I don’t see how processing more or less the meat has any influence to the wellbeing of the animals used.

Many thanks Ben Stevenson and jojo_lee for sharing your responses! It was useful for inspiration and to save time.

I add a couple of answers which I think were missing in your lists. Please note my English will probably contain errors as I’m not a native speaker.

23. Should the written origin of food be accompanied by a national flag or other symbol?

There should be a symbol for countries with animal wellfare standards similar or higher than those of the UK, and a symbol for countries with lower standards or no standard at all.

73 Please share any further comments on the monitoring and enforcement proposals.:

Cameras with public streaming should be mandatory on animal factories and slaughterhouses. This would make the conditions more transparent for the consumer, and would reduce the costs of auditing and monitoring by the government as the public can also participate and report non-compliance.

The mandatory requirement for Spanish slaughterhouses to install video surveillance systems can be used as a starting point for legislation in UK.

I tried your recommendation with the jar and I was surprised about the sound. It was interesting.

Have you considered setting up a French foundation that would receive the funds from the donors and then allocate to several programs? There are several experiences in different countries: https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/get-involved/tax-deductibility

I personally donate through Ayuda Efectiva in Spain.

I find this format very useful. The Challenges and Co-founder fit sections help us to understand our personal fit for each one of the charity ideas. The three level summaries let the reader decide how much time she/he wants to spend.

A heads-up: in your Sign up: Charity Entrepreneurship Online Talk (Top ideas 2023) form you list the salt fluoridation program but it is not described in this post. I wonder if this is an error on the form or whether you missed to copy its details into this post.

Other explanation of the investors’ expectations for 2033 is that they have seen the words “peak oil demand” written more and more frequently in the latest reports by IEA and other energy forecasters.

Oil demand can decrease by a combination of economic slowdown and oil intensity improvement. Oil intensity defined as the volume of oil needed to produce a fixed economic output. If we replace oil by other energy sources or increase the efficiency of our energy use we will improve the oil intensity. If we improve the oil intensity fast enough then we won’t see a significant economic impact. I guess the main point of Corentin’s argumet is about the speed of this transition.

Years ago, I read a paper explaining why oil price can’t go above a certain threshold. Oversimplifying it, the economic system can’t work above a certain cost of energy, so when this level is surpassed, some business will stop being profitable, the demand for oil will decrease and prices will go down. I might be missing some nuances and probably I’m not explaining it completely accurate, but this is how I understood it.

I would love to find the paper again to go through it, but unfortunately, I can’t recall the title nor the authors. I wonder if someone here have some references about the topic of how expensive an oil barrel can become before demand starts to shrink.

For point 1, if future human beings are better off (they live longer and happier lives), then (all else being equal) we should value more one of these better future lives than one life from today's world. Therefore we shouldn't discount its value for this reason.

When we believe that policy advocacy interventions are highly cost-effective, are we considering the end-to-end costs or only the first link in the chain?

As an example, for road-safety, are we counting A or B?:

  1. Salary costs of a group of people spending their time to convince the authorities to pass a law limiting speed
  2. Costs in “A” + costs of writing and publishing the law + costs of communicating about the new law in the media + costs of changing the speed limit signals, etc.

If this is the case, then advocacy will allways be the most cost-effective option. As long as you have a small probability to convince the government, it will allways be cheaper to convince someone else to fix an issue with their money than spending your money to fix the issue.

Load more