Thanks Trym. I just added an application link.

Couldn't have summarized it better myself. Thanks, Mo!

Have you considered incorporating some considerations related to increasing welfare in your research on reducing biodiversity loss?

I'm sympathetic to the idea that the welfare of wild animals matters for biodiversity work. In the end, we decided to base or prioritization on David's scores based on multiple biodiversity indicators rather than wild animal welfare, because the latter lens comes with empirical and moral uncertainty. (Such as the population effects that Mo mentioned and which you frequently write about.)

Nonetheless, I think some interventions we consider, such as alternative proteins, bycatch mitigation, and fish meal reliance can also benefit (wild or farmed) animals, albeit not per se in the most cost-effective way.

Which interesting EA-related bluesky accounts do you know of?

I'm not using Twitter anymore since it's being used to promote hateful views, but Bluesky is quite a cool online space in my opinion.

I'm making a list of Bluesky accounts of EA-related organisations and key people. If you're active on Bluesky or some of your favourite EA orgs or key people are, please leave a comment with a link to their profile!

I've also made an EA (GHD+AW+CC) Starter Pack in case you're interested. Let me know who I should add! Effective Environmentalism also has a pack with effectiveness-oriented climate change accounts.

Some accounts in no particular order:

Are you based in Costa Rica? You should totally suggest giving a talk about this at the University for Peace (UPAZ) of the UN in Ciudad Colón! Let me know if you'd like an introduction.

Feel free to send me a direct message on the forum with some questions.

Even though the Trump presidency denies the consensus on and importance of climate change, there could still be ways to make progress: https://effectiveenvironmentalism.substack.com/p/can-we-make-climate-progress-under 

2024 might have been a global breakout year for geothermal energy. Next generation technologies make it possible to drill for heat in places where this was previously impossible.

Thank you Karthik, this looks really interesting!

Hi, I did this program last year and I really enjoyed it. If anyone is considering applying but wants to ask some questions to a former participant to check whether it's the right fit for them, feel free to send me an email or a forum message!

You're right to point out the trade-off between low-carbon production and high welfare standards! Theoretically, it should be possible to adapt the model to weigh the animal welfare impacts on the extensive margin (=number of animals) by the intensity of the suffering of different animals, and to make intensity of suffering in turn a function of the carbon tax. That makes the whole model a bit more wonky but I think it's important work that needs to be done.

I would say taxing the negative effects on farmed animals based on the time they spend in pain, as assessed by the Welfare Footprint Project (WFP), is robustly beneficial.

I agree! I think it will be quite difficult to implement this, though. Will policymakers like to implement a tax based on 'suffering units' with quite some uncertainty? I wonder if we can find a decent proxy that is easier for taxation.