Sorry, somehow missed this - thanks for the comment! Re: timelines, you're right that some projects like advanced nuclear might take a while to come to fruition. But much of CATF's work is making a difference right now - see the recent Inflation Reduction Act (which is a de facto climate bill), link on CATF's involvement here: https://ww…
Sorry, somehow missed this - thanks for the comment! Re: timelines, you're right that some projects like advanced nuclear might take a while to come to fruition. But much of CATF's work is making a difference right now - see the recent Inflation Reduction Act (which is a de facto climate bill), link on CATF's involvement here: https://www.catf.us/2022/08/inflation-reduction-act-what-it-is-what-it-means-how-it-came-to-pass/. Donations made today will go towards lobbying that will make an immediate difference as well as projects that will be phased in over years. Also, quick thought experiment - suppose that I donate a load of money now to offset my flights that I intend to take in the 2030s, would you now agree that it's fine, given that the flying would happen at the same time as some of the impact of the donations?
Re: the estimates, all that really needs to be true for what I'm saying to be right is that the most pessimistic estimates for CATF's cost-effectiveness are not off by an order of magnitude. If this is the case, a £15 donation will be much more than enough to cover the impact of one flight. We can quibble about the details of the estimates, but doing so seems unimportant unless you believe that FP's most pessimistic estimates are likely to overstate the cost effectiveness of donating to CATF by a factor of 10 or more. And if you *do* believe that, the argument becomes 'you should donate more for each flight' rather than 'you should not fly' IMO.
I still disagree with the final point, for reasons outlined in the post. Not sure it's worth repeating my point given I think that's just a disagreement we have about what one should be expected to do for charity - obviously nobody is going to give 100% of their income to charity so for any given journey they want to make they can either donate more than they otherwise would donate if they were not flying and fly, or they can not donate and not fly.
Sorry, somehow missed this - thanks for the comment! Re: timelines, you're right that some projects like advanced nuclear might take a while to come to fruition. But much of CATF's work is making a difference right now - see the recent Inflation Reduction Act (which is a de facto climate bill), link on CATF's involvement here: https://www.catf.us/2022/08/inflation-reduction-act-what-it-is-what-it-means-how-it-came-to-pass/. Donations made today will go towards lobbying that will make an immediate difference as well as projects that will be phased in over years. Also, quick thought experiment - suppose that I donate a load of money now to offset my flights that I intend to take in the 2030s, would you now agree that it's fine, given that the flying would happen at the same time as some of the impact of the donations?
Re: the estimates, all that really needs to be true for what I'm saying to be right is that the most pessimistic estimates for CATF's cost-effectiveness are not off by an order of magnitude. If this is the case, a £15 donation will be much more than enough to cover the impact of one flight. We can quibble about the details of the estimates, but doing so seems unimportant unless you believe that FP's most pessimistic estimates are likely to overstate the cost effectiveness of donating to CATF by a factor of 10 or more. And if you *do* believe that, the argument becomes 'you should donate more for each flight' rather than 'you should not fly' IMO.
I still disagree with the final point, for reasons outlined in the post. Not sure it's worth repeating my point given I think that's just a disagreement we have about what one should be expected to do for charity - obviously nobody is going to give 100% of their income to charity so for any given journey they want to make they can either donate more than they otherwise would donate if they were not flying and fly, or they can not donate and not fly.