One way to decide which problems deserve more effort is to ask how large a problem is, how much extra work could achieve, and how few people are already working on it. By that test, climate change has often looked important but well funded. In October, Rethink Priorities applied the same test to one part of the problem and reached a different answer. Alongside cutting emissions, the world needs to work out how to stop several of the Earth's major systems from destabilising. This emerging field is called climate stabilisation. Rethink Priorities set out the case for funding this work in a review commissioned by Outlier Projects, which is now launching a fund in the area.

Where things stand

The UN Environment Programme (UNEP)'s latest report says holding warming to 1.5°C, even with a limited overshoot, is no longer possible. 2024 was the first calendar year above 1.5°C. The best remaining pathway peaks at 1.7 to 1.8°C around mid-century. Above 1.5°C, several of the Earth's large systems start to behave differently.

The planet is getting darker as ice and low cloud cover shrink, so it absorbs more heat, which melts more ice. The Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets are losing mass at the top end of what models projected. In West Antarctica, warming ocean water is eating away at the floating ice shelves from below, and as they thin the glaciers behind them slide faster into the sea. The Atlantic ocean currents that carry warm water north may be slowing. Thawing permafrost and drying forests have started releasing carbon of their own, adding to the warming that released it. Each loop feeds the others, and the worry is that together they tip into runaway change that later emissions cuts can't pull back. Rethink Priorities found the evidence on all four pathways it examined points the same way. All four may be destabilising faster than mainstream models projected, and several show signs of self-reinforcing change that could continue even under deep emissions cuts.

UNEP also finds that even if every country delivered its current commitments in full, the world would warm by about 2.6°C this century. That's well inside the range where these systems can tip.

Harms that can't be undone deserve extra weight, because there's no chance to learn from them and try again. Rethink Priorities used deliberately conservative estimates, counting only direct deaths. Even so, it found each of the four risks on its own would justify funders in the effective altruism community committing US$263 to 445 million to research and governance. Rethink Priorities puts philanthropic spending on the regional approaches it examined, such as cloud brightening, at under US$10 million a year. That looks a lot like pandemic preparedness around 2017 or AI safety around 2015, when a few researchers were working on something most people assumed was being handled.

Should we cool the planet?

We've been changing the planet's energy balance and reflectivity for two centuries without meaning to, so climate change is already a kind of geoengineering. Sulphur pollution from shipping was hiding some of that warming by brightening clouds, and when rules cut it in 2020, part of the hidden warming came back. Scientists have long asked whether there are ways to push in the other direction while emissions come down. One option is to restore some of the reflectivity that's been lost.

The most studied idea is stratospheric aerosol injection, which copies what large volcanic eruptions do. Fine sulphate particles placed high in the atmosphere reflect a small fraction of sunlight back to space. Mount Pinatubo did this in 1991 and cooled the planet by about half a degree for more than a year. Modelling suggests a sustained program could offset one to two degrees of warming, and would act within years rather than decades. It's the subject of serious research, including a £57 million UK government program. The risks could be significant: changes to rainfall and monsoons, effects on the ozone layer, and a rapid rebound in temperature if a program ever stopped abruptly. Much of the work is about identifying what those risks are and whether they're small enough to be manageable, relative to the risks of inaction. None of the main sources here (Rethink Priorities, Centre for Future Generations and Giving Green) argues for deployment now. All three see cooling, if it's ever used, as something that would sit alongside cutting emissions rather than replace it.

Who decides

Dr Trish Lavery is Strategic Foresight Lead at the independent, Brussels-based Centre for Future Generations and an honorary Associate Professor at Macquarie University. Her report looks at how a decision to cool the planet would actually get made, which is a question the science can't answer. Funded by the UK's Advanced Research and Invention Agency, it draws on more than 250 policymakers, scientists and citizens, plus 22 experts. She finds that existing analysis has been "scientifically sophisticated but politically simplistic".

Her four scenarios for 2036 are driven far more by values, cost-of-living politics, self-defence and rivalry than by climate models. In one, countries with programs refuse to ratify a UN restraint agreement. In another, a company-led test backed by host governments is sold as cheaper than cutting emissions. In a third, disinformation costs a research alliance public trust, and in the fourth, great powers treat the atmosphere as a security contest. She uses them to test whether today's arrangements would hold up, and says they aren't forecasts.

One of the report's central findings is about who takes part. The climate researchers she interviewed worried about moral hazard, equity and future generations, but in defence, security and commercial circles those concerns rarely came up. As she puts it, "Declining to participate on principle does not stop the conversation. It leaves the conversation to others."

None of this means the answer is obvious. More than 600 academics have called for an international non-use agreement, African environment ministers have rejected the technology, and Vanuatu has called for a ban or non-use agreement. They worry that cooling could weaken the pressure to cut emissions, that its effects would fall unevenly, and that no one has the authority to decide for the whole world. These concerns are why the conversation matters, and why the people raising them need to be part of it.

Experience so far shows why communities need to be involved early. In 2021 a Harvard balloon test planned for northern Sweden was called off after the Saami Council objected that no one had asked the people who live there. In Australia, Southern Cross University scientists have trialled marine cloud brightening (spraying a fine seawater mist to make low clouds more reflective) over the Great Barrier Reef since 2020. They've worked closely with Traditional Owners and sought their free, prior and informed consent. Giving Green, which evaluates charities for our Environment Fund, makes the same point: research and governance have to go together, with local communities engaged early. Any serious research program will need First Nations communities, Traditional Owners and the countries most exposed to the effects to help set its terms from the start.

Effective altruism and EAGx

Effective altruism is about using evidence and careful reasoning to work out how to help others as much as possible, and revisiting those answers when the evidence changes. Giving What We Can's 2022 climate report argued that research on stratospheric aerosol injection could wait, because deployment looked many decades away. The new evidence suggests decisions about cooling may come sooner.

The risks climate stabilisation deals with are large, neglected and hard to undo. If the thinking on how to govern climate cooling is done now, it'll be ready before anyone has to decide in a hurry.

At EAGxAustralasia, on this and everything from global health to AI safety, you can hear the strongest version of an argument from the person who made it, push back, and meet the people doing the work.

Hear Dr Lavery at EAGxAustralasia in Melbourne, 27 to 29 November. Apply now

If you'd like to give to climate work now, the EAAE Environment Fund supports three climate charities working to cut emissions at scale, selected using Giving Green's research. Donations are tax deductible in Australia.

More to explore

• Rethink Priorities, Earth Systems Risks and the Case for Funding Stabilization Research
• Trish Lavery, Towards governance of climate cooling approaches
• Giving Green, Advancing Solar Radiation Modification Governance and Research
• Ben Margetts and Craig Segall (Climate Hub) on the EA Forum: Climate stabilization: a draft ITN update
• John Halstead and Johannes Ackva for Giving What We Can, the earlier case for waiting

We were joined by three guests bringing perspectives from law, medicine and effective giving:

• Noel Lim, Co-Founder and CEO of Anika Legal.
• Dr Henry Howard, medical practitioner and effective giving advocate.
• Grace Adams, CEO of Effective Altruism Australia.

The conversation moved from charitable donations and access to justice to medical decision-making, social media and the future of work. A central theme emerged: technology can expand our ability to help, but turning that capability into better outcomes also requires evidence, thoughtful institutions and a willingness to question our own assumptions.

Giving starts with recognising our good fortune

Before discussing AI, Henry explained why giving is such an important part of his life. Having grown up in Australia with supportive parents and access to education, he felt that his circumstances owed a great deal to luck. Donating was a way of sharing those advantages with people who had fewer opportunities.

In his first year as a doctor, he donated half of every pay cheque to charity. His aim was partly to show that even an early-career doctor could live comfortably while contributing a substantial amount to others. He later adopted a more moderate level of giving, balancing his desire to help with maintaining relationships and a sustainable life.

Henry’s broader ambition was to make giving feel normal. Rather than treating generosity as something exceptional, he wanted people to consider it a regular part of how they use their income.

Would you trust an algorithm more than your empathy?

Amy asked whether the guests would trust an algorithm over their own empathy when deciding where to donate.

Noel pointed out that the people he feels most strongly for are often his friends and family. That closeness does not necessarily mean they are the people who most need help. A tool that could identify needs more impartially might therefore improve his decisions.

Henry described asking several AI systems where to give if he wanted to do the most good. In his informal experiment, they directed him towards resources such as GiveWell and the Against Malaria Foundation, broadly aligning with his existing approach.

The discussion highlighted an important distinction: empathy can motivate us to give, while evidence helps us decide where that generosity is likely to achieve the most. An algorithm’s recommendation still needs scrutiny. What matters is whether it rests on reliable information and a sound understanding of impact.

Could AI become a better doctor or lawyer?

For Noel, the question depended on the lawyer, the task and the incentives surrounding the work. In private practice, improving efficiency can increase profits. In community legal services, it might allow more people to receive help, without changing the individual lawyer’s pay. Those different incentives can influence how readily organisations adopt new tools.

Henry was candid about how difficult it is for doctors to keep up with an expanding body of medical knowledge. He saw considerable promise in tools that can rapidly bring together relevant research and guidelines. But he also emphasised that answering a medical question is different from delivering care. A system can suggest a response to an emergency; someone still needs to perform the procedure.

When asked whom he would want treating him in an emergency, Henry said he would currently prefer an experienced emergency specialist or cardiologist. He also noted that evidence-based AI tools can still make mistakes.

The comparison changes where people have little or no access to professional care. Both Henry and Noel suggested that technology’s greatest contribution may be expanding access to services, rather than simply competing with the best professionals in well-resourced settings.

Technology can unlock resources that already exist

Noel described how Anika Legal uses technology and careful process design to connect law students with people who need free legal assistance. Qualified lawyers supervise and sign off on the work. He reported that this model enables lawyers to support around three times as many people.

That improvement was not attributed solely to AI. It came from combining relatively basic technology with a different way of organising the service. The model also allows corporate lawyers to contribute remotely and flexibly, bringing in support that might otherwise remain unused.

Yet sharing a useful service model does not guarantee that other organisations will adopt it. Noel described barriers involving funding arrangements, beliefs about specialised work and concerns about jobs. These are organisational and human challenges as much as technical ones.

His point was that more powerful technology will encounter many of the same obstacles. Improving outcomes requires attention to the structures and assumptions that determine how tools are used.

Is AI an accelerator of good or harm?

Grace described reasons for both optimism and concern. She highlighted GiveDirectly’s use of AI to help identify communities in need of cash transfers, alongside the potential for advances in medicine. She also raised risks involving government misuse, surveillance, warfare and the possibility of losing control of powerful systems.

Henry compared AI with earlier technologies that brought major benefits while also enabling new forms of harm. Noel offered a related perspective: technology can amplify the interests and resources already present in society. If organisations with substantial financial power are best placed to use it, existing inequalities could deepen.

But Noel also saw an opportunity to mobilise people whose willingness to help is currently difficult to turn into action. His experience with law students showed how better systems can make previously untapped contributions possible.

The guests’ optimism was conditional. The benefits will depend on who can access the technology, which incentives guide its use and how society responds to the people disrupted by change.

Something can be legal and still be wrong

The panel agreed that legality is not a sufficient guide to ethics. Noel described justice as both having rights upheld and maintaining dignity through the process. Written protections are of limited value if people cannot access the services needed to enforce them.

Henry pointed to historical practices such as slavery and the exclusion of women from voting as reminders that accepted laws can be profoundly unjust. He also questioned how future generations might judge contemporary treatment of animals.

Grace reflected on the possibility that we are making moral mistakes today that will become clearer with hindsight. Moral progress requires more than following existing rules: it also requires examining those rules and the social norms that support them.

Does social media show us where help is most needed?

Social media can inspire remarkable generosity and collective action. Grace discussed the reach of crowdfunding and movements such as school climate strikes. But a compelling campaign does not always make clear what donations will fund, or whether the proposed activity is likely to achieve its intended result.

Henry noted that the problems appearing in our feeds are selected partly for their ability to attract attention. Preventable illnesses and neglected diseases may receive far less visibility than their scale warrants. People experiencing severe poverty often lack the resources to fund publicity or create content that reaches donors.

Grace extended that concern to news coverage more broadly. Dramatic events attract attention, while continuing, preventable suffering can remain largely invisible.

The implication for giving was straightforward: visibility should prompt interest, but it should not replace investigation. We can ask what an organisation does, how it knows its work helps and what additional funding would make possible.

The work behind the impact needs funding too

The discussion also challenged the tendency to fund visible programs while overlooking the staff and organisational work that make them possible.

Grace argued that designing effective programs, improving efficiency and running an organisation all require people and resources. Noel described similarly overlooked work involving relationships, trust and changes to underlying beliefs.

Some of this work is difficult to measure or explain in a short funding proposal. That does not make it unimportant. The panel encouraged a broader understanding of what it takes to achieve lasting results, including the capacity that supports direct services and the work needed to change systems.

Good intentions need to be tested against outcomes

Grace recalled doing pro bono consulting for a homelessness charity early in her career. Although she wanted to help, she later felt that the work had consumed the charity’s time without contributing enough value. Giving money to support its existing expertise might have been more useful.

Learning about effective altruism prompted her to reconsider how she could contribute. Henry drew a parallel with evidence-based medicine: we should test whether an intervention works, rather than rely only on what feels plausible or familiar.

Grace also stressed that not every important problem can be assessed through a randomised controlled trial. Systemic issues still deserve attention, using other forms of evidence and careful reasoning where experiments are impractical.

The shared principle was a willingness to keep asking whether there is a better way to help, even when that means revising our preferred approach.

So, can AI make us better humans?

The guests saw reasons for hope, without treating moral progress as inevitable. Grace suggested that better living standards could give people more time and capacity to consider how to help others. Henry reflected on how his own secure upbringing had created space to think about purpose and responsibility.

Noel hoped that greater abundance might change how people think about having enough, while remaining concerned about widening inequality.

The episode left us with a practical challenge. AI may help us find information, expand services and make more informed decisions. Whether those gains become a better world will depend on how we use them, how widely the benefits are shared and whether we remain willing to examine what our actions actually achieve.

Despite the best attempts of the companies designing them, ‘swarms’ of AI agents have recently broken out of the sandboxes designed to keep them off the internet and been involved in thousands of security incidents, including hacking the Australian Government and trying and failing the same with the US Department of Education. They have persisted at these hacks for weeks or even months, taking steps to avoid detection, and the companies aren’t even sure how widespread the problem is yet.

This has led some to call for slowing down AI development, improving regulatory oversight or even shutting it all down. The Trump administration has pushed back, criticising such actions as anti-competitive, anti-American, and based on the principles of a ‘dangerous ideology’. The ideology he refers to is the effective altruism (EA) movement, which advocates for using evidence and reasoning to determine how to benefit others as much as possible. As someone who has followed this issue closely for several years and is also part of the EA community, I’ll try to provide a crash course on the relationship between AI, EA and the Trump administration.

How we got here

The Trump administration has had a complicated relationship with AI and EA.

A good point to start is in February this year, amidst the outbreak of the Iran conflict. Anthropic had just refused to allow the US military unrestricted access to its Claude models, concerned that they might be used for mass surveillance or to power fully autonomous weapons. In response, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth accused Anthropic of hiding behind “the sanctimonious rhetoric of ‘effective altruism’” in an attempt to “strong-arm the United States military into submission.” Trump then ordered all federal agencies to stop using Claude, and Hegseth declared Anthropic a ‘supply chain risk’ (a designation recently upheld by federal judges). This in effect meant that the military couldn’t use Claude. This step was unusual, to say the least. It’s usually reserved for foreign adversaries, not American companies.

In June, things got worse for Anthropic, when the commerce department forced Anthropic to disable Mythos 5, their most powerful model to date. The official reason was that it could expose hidden vulnerabilities in secure government computer code. The ban lasted a bit over two weeks, after Anthropic had built in new guardrails and classifiers. Critics suggested that Anthropic may have been punished for its previous intransigence, pointing to the fact that OpenAI has been allowed to release models with the same capabilities without interference.

The public wants AI development to be restrained (and the leading AI companies agree!)

Things are still moving quickly!

In September Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei and other AI leaders called for a slowdown in AI development, in order to gain enough time to ensure their models are safely aligned. They are concerned that whilst AI capabilities are charging forward, safety measures have been left straggling behind. This follows similar action in July this year, when over 1,000 employees of frontier AI companies, along with the CEO of Anthropic Dario Amodei and the chief scientists of OpenAI, Anthropic and Meta, signed a letter asking the US government to work with AI companies, and other countries, to start taking steps towards improving the oversight and control of AI systems. That is, they have asked to be regulated. This seems counterintuitive – why wouldn’t the companies just regulate themselves if they thought it prudent, and cut out the middleman?

Requesting regulation isn’t as irrational as it might sound. AI companies (and the two countries with most of the leading labs, the US and China) are in a race with a huge prize at the end: artificial general intelligence (AGI). Many experts see this as a winner-takes-all contest, where there is no prize for second place. From the point of view of the companies, then, it makes sense to push ahead because if they slow down to work on safety one of their (less responsible) rivals will get there first. So they rush ahead, trying to build the plane whilst maintaining altitude.

Asking for regulation is a bit like kids playing a game of soccer at the park asking a parent to referee. Without the ref, they are tempted to cheat because the other side will cheat and no one wants to end up as the sucker who naively played it fair and lost to the team that had the fewest scruples. The game soon disintegrates into chaos. A fair game necessitates inviting a higher authority to impose the same rules on both teams.

Some people are cynical about the motivation of the labs, seeing their push for government oversight as a tilt at regulatory capture – stifling competition to preserve their lead.

This seems unlikely, for a few reasons. First, a letter asking for an international slowdown wouldn’t be necessary for leading labs trying to stifle American competition, but it does fit with a genuine concern about an AI arms race leading to loss of control.

Second, the leading labs don’t seem to need a pause. Their models have always been at the capability frontier and the gap to other labs does not seem to be shrinking. Business as usual would likely work just fine for maintaining market share.

The current AI leaderboard is dominated by the two leading American labs (Anthropic and OpenAI). Kimi K3 is the best Chinese model, in 13th place.

A third reason to doubt that there is a regulatory-capture conspiracy is Anthropic’s relationship with the US government, described earlier. Getting into a fight about the ethical use of your product and getting designated a supply-chain risk are not the actions of a company whose end game is to pursue capture.

The general public are worried too. Nearly half of all American voters want a slowdown or pause on AI development, and their concerns are shifting from more quotidian worries about job loss to loss of control of superintelligence.

Another poll found that a majority of Americans think there’s a genuine risk that AI will destroy humanity, including over 60% of Trump voters. One silver lining of the fact that people’s outlooks are increasingly apocalyptic is that perception of AI risk does at least seem strongly bipartisan at the moment.

But the US government does not want to regulate

Based on the actions of the US government described in the first section, you might expect that this regulatory push would be welcomed by Trump. Instead, he posted on Truth Social that fears about AI were a hoax on par with “Russiagate”, implicating Amodei directly. EA was called out by Under Secretary Emil Michael, who told Fox News that the push for AI safety “comes from a deep-rooted ideology that is pretty dystopian,” whilst former White House AI czar David Sacks branded EA-linked organisations as part of the “Doomer Industrial Complex”.

This is a weird situation. The US government is now pushing back against many of the very companies building the technology. This could be because Trump sees AI as crucial for the economy. This would be understandable: Goldman Sachs Research estimates global AI investment at $1 trillion in 2026, and ING estimates that one third of economic growth in the US can be attributed to AI. In Trump’s words AI will be “the Greatest Economic Development Engine in History — Bigger than Oil, Gold, Diamonds, or even the Internet.”

The race against China to reach AGI is also a motivator. Trump again, on Truth Social: “WHOEVER WINS AI, WINS! We are leading China, and all others, and will continue to do so. Conspiracy Theorists, Treasonists, Traitors, and Leakers, BEWARE!”

This is an area where Trump could be right. A just-published report from some of the leading figures in AI (including two Turing Award winners) suggests that superintelligence could turn “a modest lead in military R&D or operations into a decisive one, such as in cyberspace”. This leads to a dangerous race dynamic and is a good reason to push for international cooperation and coordination. But at the moment, motivated by these economic and political stakes, or by a genuine belief in the adequacy of existing AI safeguards (or both), Trump has vowed to push ahead with unregulated AI development.

Effective altruism and AI – an insider’s perspective

Caught up in this to and fro are the effective altruists. A representative tweet from the US Department of War proclaimed: “Americanism, not effective altruism. The United States will continue to be AI DOMINANT! 🇺🇸”

Who are Effective Altruists? Why do they care about AI? And why does the Trump administration see them as dangerous?

I first came across effective altruism as an idea in a 2013 TED Talk by Peter Singer called ‘The why and how of effective altruism’. Many years earlier, Singer had also been the catalyst for my interest in philosophy when I read his 1999 NYT article ‘The Singer Solution To World Poverty’. Singer’s argument that I was morally obligated to give away a substantial amount of my money to the poor first made me feel guilty, then angry, before I eventually settled on something like a sense of resignation to being morally flawed.

But I did make regular charitable donations part of my life from that point on.

Singer’s 2013 TED Talk emphasised the key message of effective altruism: using your head, not just your heart, when you give. The UK Government is willing to spend about $1 million to save a life, but the evaluator GiveWell’s best charities can save a life for roughly US$3,000–5,500. The best charities can be 100x more effective than the median. So I started to make informed decisions about how to improve the impact of my giving. Over the years, I’ve donated to the Fistula Foundation, Against Malaria and Animal Charity Evaluators, amongst others.

I guess at this stage I was already an effective altruist, but I didn’t think much about Effective Altruism as a movement. I didn’t meet anyone else who identified as an EA, I never attended an EA conference, and I don’t think I even used the term in conversations. I went about my life as a high school teacher and dad, indulging my interest in philosophy and rationality (amongst other things) in my spare time. After reading Nick Bostrom’s book Superintelligence in 2014 I also became interested in AI, and started to worry about its potential dangers.

In 2020, I heard Will MacAskill discuss longtermism – the idea that we should weigh the interests of future people in our moral decision-making – and I read Toby Ord’s longtermist-themed book ‘The Precipice’. The experience of going into Covid lockdown added an immediacy to the book’s discussion of existential risks, especially the chapter about the risk of pandemics, which was written before most of the world had even heard of Wuhan. This is, by the way, another reason I listen so closely to people in the EA ecosystem: they have seen the future better than most pundits.

Here’s an example. The 4th episode of the EA-aligned 80,000 Hours podcast from 2017 is titled Howie Lempel on why we aren’t worried enough about the next pandemic — and specifically what we can do to stop it.

The intro to the episode begins:

‘What natural disaster is most likely to kill more than 10 million human beings in the next 20 years?

Terrorism? Famine? An asteroid?

Actually it’s probably a pandemic: a deadly new disease that spreads out of control.’

It shouldn’t be a surprise that the EA community has also long been warning about the risks of AI. The very first episode of the 80,000 Hours podcast in 2017 included this from Miles Brundage:

“That’s a potentially big problem if there’s a competitive situation between companies or between countries or both and there’s an incentive to skimp on those safety measures… because you’re concerned about losing the lead in an AI race.”

This, I should point out, was about 3 years before GPT-3 was released. At this point, humanity had not yet created an AI that could hold a decent extended conversation. Anthropic didn’t even exist.

Speaking of Anthropic, CEO Dario Amodei was 80,000 Hours podcast guest number 3. At the time, he was working at OpenAI, and most of the conversation was about how to make AI systems safe as they headed towards AGI.

Which leads us back to the earlier question: why do EAs care about AI?

EA is about wanting to make the world better, both for people alive today and our descendants. There is a broad menu of issues that EAs have worked on in an effort to make people’s lives go better, like improving global health, pandemic preparedness, and reducing the risk of great power conflict. But EAs have also long seen that AI would be a transformative technology, and like most technologies, it could be used to do good or do harm. Nuclear technology has led to power plants and warheads; drones are patrolling Australian beaches looking for sharks whilst also hunting Ukrainian vegetable vendors.

And AI looks likely to be far more powerful than most other technologies. Its capabilities are progressing much faster than sceptics anticipated, but they are (especially worryingly) also exceeding the expectations of the very people that are building them. AI has the potential for doing enormous good, but its creators tell us that they don’t know how to guarantee that the machines they create will behave in the way they hope. Many EAs noticed the potentially enormous scale of the impact of AI on society, and the neglectedness of the field compared to other cause areas (like climate change) and decided to pursue a career in AI safety. This meant that for some time, a large proportion of all AI safety work was done by EAs, and EA provided funding for organisations like Redwood Research.

I think that those in the Trump administration have noticed that many of the loudest voices on AI safety are (unsurprisingly) connected to EA, which has put EA in the firing line. This might also explain the singling out of Anthropic, which has deep roots in the EA community. The company itself avoids the EA label, but that history is why critics see Anthropic as an EA project.

AI safety has grown both inside and outside of EA. Diagram by Lizka Vaintrob via Will MacAskill

But as I explained above, real-world evidence is piling up that the EAs are right to be worried. And, to make matters infinitely worse, the AI labs have reported that AI is getting better at building the next generation of AI, a process called recursive self-improvement. This is a problem because an AI can work very quickly, and increasingly competent AIs can work even faster to build their successors. This might lead to an ‘intelligence explosion’ and a world where AI has superhuman abilities. Experts see this as a dangerous situation.

It’s not just the EA community and general public who worry about this. Nobel prize winners, the CEOs of major tech companies and the scientists and engineers that work for them have all expressed concern about AI-related harms, including the possibility of AI-caused human extinction. The graph below shows experts’ predictions of a global AI-related catastrophe – defined here as an AI-caused event resulting in the deaths of at least 10% of the global population. By 2050, if AI development moves fast, the experts think there’s a 1 in 20 chance of AI killing about a billion people. This increases to 1 in 10 by the end of the century.

Note that moving from the slow to the rapid progress scenario roughly quintuples experts’ estimated risk (median expert: 2% vs 10% by 2100).

The graph is from a mid-2026 poll from the Longitudinal Expert AI Panel (LEAP), “a three-year project tracking the views of leading computer scientists, industry professionals, policy researchers, and economists on the trajectory of artificial intelligence.”

Whilst keeping a foot pressed on the accelerator may have short-term economic benefits (especially for the US), EAs would urge President Trump to pursue a more considered, wiser approach that tries to mitigate the risks whilst preserving the potentially enormous benefits that AI could bring.

None of these catastrophes are inevitable, thankfully. But considering the convergence of views of many intelligent and well-informed people, including those who predicted the events we are now seeing a long time ago, as well as those actually building the technology, it seems prudent to take measures to proceed carefully. It’s good that the Overton window of publicly acceptable ideas has shifted sufficiently that speaking about AI existential risk will no longer get you branded a weirdo (mostly), and the companies are taking steps to improve regulation with or without the US government.

What might a careful international roadmap to AGI look like? The AI Futures Project have put together a detailed sketch (and a cool website).

If you’d like to support AI safety in Australia, the federal government is now seeking feedback on AI training and large data centres in Australia. Making a submission emphasising the importance of security, safety and transparency could be a worthwhile contribution. Submissions can be made via this online form Australia’s AI Consultation | PM&C. Be quick: submissions close at 5pm AEDT on Friday 9 October 2026.

If you’d like to help an organisation that advocates for Australian-specific policies on AI and could use donations, check out Good Ancestors.

And if you want to learn more about EA in general, not just the AI stuff, you can find information here.

• Compensation: A$120,000 – $135,000 @ 1.0 FTE + superannuation, salary packaging available
• Location: Remote within Australia. Melbourne or Sydney preferred.
• Reports to: Grace Adams, CEO
• Scope: Own fundraising at EAA and build relationships that grow what we raise
• Hours: Full-time, ongoing. Open to 0.8 FTE
• Applications reviewed on a rolling basis – please note: At this point we will only be progressing additional candidates with a very strong fit for this role.

About us

Effective Altruism Australia (EAA) exists to support Australians to tackle the world’s most pressing problems. We do this by facilitating tax-deductible donations to high-impact, rigorously vetted charities in poverty alleviation and climate action, while providing community events, support, and career opportunities.

We decide which charities to recommend based on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. For EAA, we rely on GiveWell, whose analysts spend thousands of hours a year working out which charities save or improve the most lives per dollar, and on Giving Green for the EAA Environment Fund. EAA donors have given over $40 million since 2015.

We also run programs and events for the effective altruism community in Australia, including people working on causes we don’t fundraise for, like AI safety, biosecurity and animal welfare. Our annual conference, EAGxAustralasia is 27-29 November in Melbourne.

We’re a small team, with most of our staff independently running programs or functions. Our team works flexibly and remotely, with high autonomy and desire to achieve big outcomes.

The role

We’re looking for someone to grow EAA’s fundraising. We don’t expect this to be a traditional fundraising role. Instead, you’ll be refining target segments to try and reach, designing strategies to get in front of them, and showing them the impact cost-effective giving can have. This could look like supporting workplace groups to fundraise internally, running events, working with financial advisors who talk to clients about giving, supporting businesses to give a portion of their profits, or finding the right people in their communities, conferences or events. You’ll double down on strategies that are working, and drop what’s not.

You’ll also be responsible for supporting our current donor base, and own relationships with donors and stakeholders. The CEO will only keep the most important relationships, while handing the majority off to you.

Fundraising here isn’t like most charity fundraising. Our donors give through us rather than to us, and people choose to give through us because our recommendations rely on research and cost-effectiveness. Donors will ask which charities we recommend and why, and they’ll expect you to know the evidence behind the answer.

One consequence of this is that our donors are generally less interested in a relationship with us than donors elsewhere. Many donors are content to give for years without contact, provided the reasoning holds up. Working out where personal contact actually adds value will be key.

What you will do

• New donor development: Build a pipeline of donors and partners, all the way from a first conversation to ongoing giving. Ask people directly for major donations.
• Fundraising strategy: Work with the CEO on the strategy, then decide how and when to adapt based on the results.
• Find what works: Test paths to increasing giving. It might be workplace giving, advisers, professional networks, communities, events, possibly corporate partnerships.
• Manage donor relationships: Figure out how to deliver value to our donor base, help them stay engaged over time, demonstrate the impact of their giving, while acknowledging many of them won’t want to get coffee.
• Contribute to fundraising campaigns: Work closely with our Communications and Fundraising Specialist on our EOFY and Christmas campaigns, owning the strategy, and how best to engage major donors.
• Represent EAA: Proudly represent EAA with donors, stakeholders and events around the country. Expect to travel domestically.

Role requirements

We’re more interested in aptitude than perfectly aligned experience.

Some of the people we’d be glad to hear from have spent their careers in fundraising. Others will come from consulting or professional services, partnerships or sales roles, or have a strong generalist background. What they have in common is that people trust them quickly and they’re comfortable working on projects end-to-end.

• You’ve built trusted relationships with senior people over long periods, and you can confidently ask directly for a significant commitment
• You’ve owned something from strategy through to execution
• You’re excited to try new things, look honestly at how they went, and drop what isn’t working
• You’re comfortable with data and research. You can read a cost-effectiveness analysis or a randomised control trial, see what it does and doesn’t show, and explain it in an accessible way to donors
• You have good judgement about the ethics of fundraising: donor privacy, honest claims, and what’s at stake if we get either wrong
• You can organise your own work and set your own priorities in a small remote team
• You are willing to learn about, and be an advocate for effective altruism, and the partner charities we direct funds to
• You take our values seriously

Bonus points

• Existing relationships with Australian trusts, foundations or high-net-worth donors
• A network in Australian tech or finance
• Experience with corporate partnerships or workplace giving
• Familiarity with effective altruism, global health and development, climate change or evidence-based philanthropy
• Familiarity with AI tools, and automating workflows

Your first six months

Month 1: Build context

• Understand our charity partners, funds and the research behind them
• Dive into our donor data and understand more about our donor base
• Figure out where EAA sits in the wider picture. Who are we reaching, who else is in the market, and what do we offer that no one else does?

Months 2-3: Start to design tests

• Work with the CEO on the fundraising side of our 2027 strategy: which growth paths are worth trying, what we’ll say no to, and how we’ll know if it’s working
• A few small tests designed and ready to run

Month 4-6: Run those tests

• Running the tests. For example: a workplace pilot, an approach to a handful of advisers, an event, whatever the strategy points to.
• Refining what we do to support our major donors, testing the value we can bring.

We don’t expect income to move much in this time. This kind of fundraising usually takes 12 to 18 months to show up in the numbers, and we’ve planned the role on that basis. Early on we’ll be paying more attention to what you’re learning and how well-designed your tests are than to what they’ve raised.

Compensation & benefits

Base Salary: A$120,000 – $135,000 at 1.0 FTE plus superannuation + Not-For-Profit Salary Packaging (up to $18,550 of your salary tax-free).

Flexibility: The role is available at 0.8 or 1.0 FTE.

Other benefits:

• Remote work within Australia, with a Melbourne space available if you’d like somewhere to work from. We prefer candidates in Melbourne or Sydney.
• Flexible hours, work when suits you, with reasonable overlap for donor and team meetings.
• Additional paid leave between Christmas and New Year’s
• The opportunity for your work to have large, measurable impact saving and improving lives, and mitigating climate change

Requirements:

• Applicants must be based in Australia, with the right to work.

Hiring process

1. Application
2. Screening call, 20 minutes, with the CEO
3. Take home task of 60 mins submitted in advance of an interview, answering questions on it, and diving deeper into your experience for 60 mins.
4. Culture fit interview, 30 minutes, with another staff member
5. Two reference calls, one of them a recent manager
6. Offer

We will aim to get back to candidates within 2 weeks at each step, so you know where you stand.

How to apply

Submit the application form, attaching:

1. Your CV
2. A 2-5 minute video on why you’re interested in this role, and why you’d be interested to represent EAA and our partner charities.You could use a service like Loom, or record a video and upload it.

We’ll be reviewing applications on a rolling basis from October 5th, so please apply when you can. We’re more focused on finding the right hire, than hiring fast, so we’ll keep applications open as long as we need to.

Effective Altruism Australia welcomes applications from people of all backgrounds. If you’re interested but not sure you meet every criterion, we’d still like to hear from you. Please let us know via info@eaa.org.au if you need any accommodations in the recruitment process.

I run Effective Altruism Australia, so let me say what this movement is actually about.

AI safety has been one of the prominent causes within the effective altruism movement for more than five years, alongside global health, animal welfare, and other causes focused on potential global catastrophic risks. This work long predates ChatGPT.

Effective altruism is a movement that is tied together by the aim to do as much good as possible with our limited resources. In practice, it’s usually working on pressing problems, and donating to support organisations helping to solve global challenges.

One of the core principles is impartiality: we aim to assist those who need it most without giving extra weight to people who are similar to us or geographically close. This approach often points us toward supporting people in developing countries, non-human animals, and future generations whose needs might otherwise be overlooked.

This leads people in the movement to carefully consider how to tackle extreme poverty, or reduce factory farming, and also how to prevent disasters that might affect both present and future generations on a global scale. It is the same principle in each case. If being far away is no reason to discount someone’s interests, neither is not having been born yet.

Prior to COVID-19, people within the effective altruism movement predicted that a global pandemic was a strong possibility, and have advocated for more funding for pandemic prevention both prior to COVID, and since. 1DaySooner and The Apollo Programme for Biodefense came out of members of the community.

Members of the effective altruism community also saw the risks of advanced AI early. Some decided to work on developing better governance proposals for AI, and to build a field of research to understand how these systems work. Some decided to work in frontier AI companies to try to better understand, evaluate the risks of, and try to safely develop this technology.

It’s been argued both in and outside of the effective altruism community that working in these companies may not slow dangerous capabilities down. Concerns about working in frontier companies are increasingly leading people like Jacob Coxon to resign. He left Anthropic this month after three years of research there and at OpenAI, saying neither company is acting responsibly. Anthropic’s CEO has released an essay, and public call to slow down the development of AI.

The increasing capabilities of AI models has been a concerning trend for many in the community. The risks that bad actors using this technology for terrorism, including bio-terrorism, are increasingly salient, as well as the risks that AI models may “go rogue” and pursue goals that are unintended by humans.

There is much debate about how likely the risks of loss of control of AI are, and prominent scientists and AI experts are on both sides of this debate. But the evidence has been mounting since the OpenAI-Hugging Face incident, in which a model being tested for cybersecurity capabilities escaped its containment and reached systems it was never meant to touch.

In my personal view, this is a frontier of technology, and ensuring that we are confident that this technology is not harmful, and slowing the pace of development so that we have a chance for regulation, and human understanding of the potential risks to catch up, is wise. We should not let the future be dictated by a small number of tech companies, and instead use this moment to coordinate and improve the chances of this technology being aligned with a future we have a say in.

Which brings me to Australia.

It would be easy to watch this fight play out on American terms and conclude it has nothing to do with us because these AI companies aren’t Australian.

We don’t have to sit back and watch other nations decide our fate. At the end of last year, Australia pushed forward world-leading legislation on banning under-16s from social media. You don’t need to believe that the ban was the right thing to do to know it influenced policy makers around the world. We have a similar opportunity now, as a middle power, to influence regulation, and help shape the future of technology.

Don’t let badly AI generated images denouncing effective altruism stop you from engaging in the future of AI. There has never been a better time for Australians to have their say.

If you’re concerned about the risks of misuse of AI, or loss of control of AI in Australia, check out the policy work of Good Ancestors, and write to your local MP: https://www.goodancestors.org.au/

If you’d like to learn more about effective altruism, including AI safety (but also beyond it), read the Introduction to Effective Altruism essay: https://www.effectivealtruism.org/articles/introduction-to-effective-altruism

If you’re interested in effective altruism and getting more involved in our Australasian community, apply to our conference, running Nov 27-29 in Melbourne: EAGxAustralasia 2026

We were joined by three guests who brought philosophy, practical experience and plenty of humour to the discussion:

The guests

• Ray O’Leary, writer, comedian and media personality.
• Bridget Loughhead, Head of Community Programs at Effective Altruism Australia.
• Grace Adams, CEO of Effective Altruism Australia

The conversation moved from global health and animal welfare to nuclear winter, the trolley problem and AI-run hospitals. Beneath the hypotheticals was a serious idea: good intentions matter, but when lives and limited resources are at stake, we also need evidence, careful reasoning and the humility to admit when the answer is not obvious.

If you could only fund one cause

The episode opened with an uncomfortable constraint: if you could fund only one cause for the next 20 years, what would it be?

Ray initially proposed research into which cause would be best to fund – a characteristically effective altruist answer – before suggesting public health interventions in lower-income countries. Bridget added that the starting point should be identifying problems that are highly neglected, likely to remain important and capable of producing meaningful benefits with additional funding.

This introduced one of the central principles of effective altruism: a cause is not necessarily a strong funding opportunity simply because it is visible or emotionally compelling. Its scale, neglectedness and tractability also matter. A problem affecting many people may receive very little attention, while a popular cause may already attract substantial resources.

Sometimes the greatest value comes not from directing enormous amounts of money towards one issue, but from ensuring that a neglected risk receives some serious attention at all.

Bridget used the example of the Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disasters (ALLFED), which develops plans for feeding the world following catastrophes such as a nuclear winter, supervolcanic eruption or other event that severely disrupts conventional agriculture. It may not be a cause most people encounter in daily life, but moving it from almost no preparation to credible planning could be enormously valuable.

Is pessimism stopping us from acting?

Ray observed that negativity is often easier to make funny- and easier to believe. News and social media can make the world appear to be deteriorating constantly, even though many measures of human wellbeing have improved dramatically over time.

Bridget noted that positive claims are often treated with suspicion, as though anyone saying the world is improving must have an agenda. Negative framing, by contrast, can feel more credible and attracts attention more readily.

But constant pessimism carries another risk: if the world feels irredeemably bad, inaction begins to look reasonable. Believing that nothing can be changed can absolve us of the responsibility to try.

Grace offered a radically different picture. If most people donated 10% of their income, she argued, the world could look profoundly different. There could be enough funding to make enormous progress on extreme poverty, expand valuable research and reduce major global risks. Giving might also make people happier and encourage a more cooperative culture.

The point was not that optimism requires ignoring suffering. It was that accurately understanding both the problems and our capacity to address them gives us a reason to act.

Humans, animals & the limits of intuition

Amy then posed a difficult trade-off: would you rather reduce extreme suffering for millions of animals, or moderately improve the lives of thousands of humans?

Ray chose the humans, while acknowledging the difficulty of the comparison and his own commitment to veganism. Bridget resisted answering without more information. How severe is the suffering? How substantial is the human benefit? How confident are we that either intervention will work?

Her desire for a spreadsheet became a running joke, but it reflected a serious principle. Our first emotional response is not always a reliable guide when comparing very different kinds of harm. Humans are naturally biased towards members of our own species, while uncertainty about animal consciousness and moral weight makes the calculation harder still.

Grace later identified animal welfare as an area that remains dramatically underfunded relative to the scale of suffering. She also highlighted childhood lead exposure and pandemic prevention. Around one in three children globally are estimated to have elevated levels of lead in their blood, with consequences that may continue throughout their lives. Meanwhile, much of the urgency around pandemic preparedness that followed COVID-19 has dissipated, despite the possibility of a future outbreak being far more destructive.

The episode did not reduce these issues to a single answer. Instead, it showed why comparisons matter. When resources are limited, refusing to compare does not eliminate a trade-off – it merely leaves the decision to habit, popularity or chance.

Do we prefer causes that make us heroic?

Bridget agreed that people often prefer forms of helping where the impact is personal and visible. Her years as a Scout leader gave her the immediate reward of seeing children enjoy the activities she helped provide. That experience was valuable, but she stressed that feeling close to an outcome is not the same as creating the greatest possible benefit.

Some of the most effective actions are distant, technical or unglamorous. A donor may never meet the child protected from malaria. A researcher working on pandemic prevention may never know which catastrophe their work helped avert. A person delivering vaccines may still wake up on Monday morning wishing they did not have to go to work.

Doing good does not always feel heroic. Sometimes it is repetitive, administrative or invisible.

That does not mean the positive emotions associated with giving are bad. Grace argued that helping others can – and should – feel good. The problem arises only when personal gratification becomes more important than the people or animals being helped.

Bridget added that waiting for an overwhelming feeling of compassion can become another excuse for inaction. People do not need a dramatic calling to make a meaningful contribution. They need a genuine willingness to consider what will help and to act consistently.

Are the most popular causes most important?

The panel’s answer was no.

Grace used cancer research as a difficult example. Cancer is devastating and continued research is important. But when the same resources could prevent children dying from well-understood and treatable diseases at a fraction of the cost, popularity alone cannot determine priority.

As she explained, everyone is someone’s child, and the tragedy of a death does not depend on whether it was caused by a disease that receives extensive attention in a wealthy country or a preventable illness elsewhere.

Bridget raised donations to already well-resourced schools and cultural institutions. Supporting a child’s school or improving one’s local community may be generous and worthwhile, but it can sit close to self-interest.

When weighed against interventions that could prevent severe suffering or save lives, it is reasonable to ask whether all activities described as philanthropy are achieving comparable benefits.

The discussion was not an argument for abandoning every local or personal cause. It was an invitation to distinguish between spending that benefits our own communities and giving intended to help those in greatest need – and to evaluate the latter by what it actually achieves.

Should an AI kill one person to save five?

Amy’s hypothetical imagined a perfectly human-aligned AI running a hospital. Five patients need organ transplants to survive. A healthy person arrives for a flu shot. Should the AI kill that person and use their organs to save the five?

The arithmetic suggests a net gain of four lives. Almost every other moral instinct says no.

Bridget explained that moral uncertainty gives us strong reasons to respect constraints such as the prohibition against killing an innocent person. Even if consequentialism offers useful guidance in many situations, violating a fundamental rule creates an enormous risk of moral error.

There are also practical consequences. A hospital that might harvest healthy patients’ organs would destroy public trust. People would avoid medical care and vaccination, potentially causing far more deaths. Rules against killing, lying, stealing and coercion often produce better outcomes precisely because cooperation depends on people being able to trust one another.

Ray connected this to rule utilitarianism: even where breaking a rule could appear beneficial in one isolated case, following the rule reliably may create far better consequences across society.

Grace offered a useful rule of thumb: move much of the way towards utilitarian reasoning, then stop before it overrides every other moral consideration. Effective altruism is not a demand to pursue numerical gains at any cost. It is an attempt to use evidence and reason to help others while remaining alert to uncertainty, rights and the systems that allow society to function.

Where the maths leads somewhere disturbing

The episode then moved into one of population ethics’ most famous problems. Imagine a small world in which ten million people live exceptionally rich and joyful lives. Now compare it with a world containing trillions of people whose lives are only barely worth living. If the second world contains more total wellbeing, should a purely mathematical approach prefer it?

The panel found the conclusion deeply uncomfortable. Grace felt the numbers mattered but struggled with the intuition that a vast population living mediocre lives should be preferable. Bridget noted that every moral framework produces strange answers in extreme edge cases. Rejecting a useful ethical approach solely because of one bizarre hypothetical may leave us with no practical guidance at all.

She drew on the idea of moral uncertainty: we may have strong reasons to value total wellbeing while remaining unsure whether happiness is the only thing that matters. Art, excellence, freedom, relationships and other values may also carry intrinsic importance. When we do not know which moral theory is correct, a mixed approach may be wiser than complete confidence in any single framework.

The biggest mistakes in giving

Ray suggested that much charitable giving is reflexive. Someone approaches us in the street, a story catches our attention, or a cause appears at the right emotional moment, and we donate without comparing what our money might accomplish elsewhere.

Effective altruism tries to preserve the generous impulse while asking a further question: how can that desire to help benefit as many people – or sentient beings – as possible?

Bridget proposed an even more basic mistake: not giving at all. Many people want to contribute to a better world but never incorporate giving into their plans. Establishing the habit can be the first step. Once someone has committed resources, they are often more motivated to investigate where those resources will do the most good.

The episode’s conclusion was not that every ethical dilemma can be solved by a spreadsheet. It was that careful comparison is better than leaving life-and-death decisions to familiarity, popularity or impulse. We may not be able to save everyone, but we can take seriously the responsibility to help as many as we reasonably can, and to keep improving the way we decide.

The child in the pond

Imagine you are on a walk when you come across a child drowning in a shallow pond. What should you do? Of course, you wade in and save the child. So far, so easy.

Even if you are wearing nice, expensive clothes that could be ruined by a muddy pond, that is no comparison to the life of a child. Indeed, it is fortunate for the well-dressed amongst us that Australia has relatively few ponds and strong swimming programs.

However, argues Singer, we live in a world where in effect, we are constantly walking past children drowning in ponds. Every year, hundreds of thousands of children, typically in places like sub-Saharan Africa, die from causes that we in Australia have the means to prevent.

Top charity evaluator GiveWell estimates that it currently costs about $6000 AUD to distribute enough medicine or health supplementation to save a life. Just because these children are further away and out of sight does not mean they are less morally relevant. Nor does it matter morally if they are saved through a donation or because someone wrecked their nice suit.

We are obliged, says Singer, to donate and save the child. This is a powerful argument and I found it compelling, but it is also extremely demanding. There are always more children to save and more obligation to give. At least until one has given away so much as to be as poor as those they are helping.

The opportunity to help

Some years out of high school I came across a more hopeful argument from the Scottish philosopher William MacAskill.

In MacAskill’s telling, imagine you are walking along when you hear the cries of a child trapped inside a burning building. Being a Good Samaritan, you burst into the house, scoop up the child and deliver her safely outside.

You would, MacAskill argues, feel like a hero. You would probably tell your friends and when you looked back on that day later in life it would stand out as one of the best things you’d done. This feeling, and more importantly this opportunity to be a moral hero is available to us all through our donations.

From belief to action

I’m not sure if I am obliged to give, or simply have the opportunity to. However, I was convinced intellectually that I should give. I was therefore a bit surprised when I didn’t.

The child in the pond or the burning building was still an abstraction. I believed in their value, but I couldn’t fully feel it. For me the emotion, and the impetus to actually give comes from elsewhere.

The stories that changed me

A few years ago a close friend of my brother’s died suddenly in his 20s. I barely knew him personally, but I was near enough to see the wreckage that it caused to his friends and family. A single accident cost a young man his life and devastated those around him. Not long after I found myself watching a local American news clip about a mother with two young children dealing with a terminal cancer diagnosis. Hearing her speak about her children and the lives she wouldn’t witness was similarly terrible. Like most people exposed to these stories, I wished desperately that I could help. I don’t know what I would have given to be able to save their lives, but it would have been a lot. Certainly more than $6000. This feeling wasn’t related to obligation or the desire to feel like a hero, I just want to live in a world that they live in too. I will never meet the children destined to die preventable deaths, nor will I see them on the news, but I don’t care about them any less than the young mother or my brother’s friend.

Since then I have seen more tragedy on the news and in the lives of those around me and have been similarly helpless to intervene. There is so much in the world that we can’t do. But it is also miraculous how much we can do. When I feel powerless to help those near me, I donate.

The guests

• Moral Philosopher Peter Singer.
• AI and Animal Ethics Researcher Yip Fai Tse.
• Executive Director – Policy & Sector Development, Philanthropy Australia Krystian Seibert.
• CEO of Effective Altruism Australia, Grace Adams.

The question was simple: what does it take to be a good human being? The discussion covered a lot of ground, from drowning children to factory farms to AI, and kept coming back to the idea that doing good is not all or nothing.

Start with the interests of others

Peter Singer began with a definition. A good human being considers the interests of others, and not only other humans. If a being can feel pain and suffer, that suffering deserves moral weight, and we should think about the consequences of our actions, including ones far into the future.

He added a counterweight. We are animals too. We evolved to care for our offspring and our kin, and trying to suppress that would be neither realistic nor desirable. The aim is to hold both: to stay close to family and the people near us, while also thinking beyond them to the wider world of sentient beings.

Obligation, or opportunity?

Should giving away part of your income be a personal choice or a moral duty? Yip Fai Tse noted that strict utilitarianism might say it is wrong not to give.

But he made a further point. Even from a utilitarian view, guilt can be a poor strategy. If telling people, or yourself, that not giving makes you a bad person actually discourages giving, then the framing is self-defeating. Often the more effective thing, and so the better thing, is to frame giving positively.

Grace Adams put it in the language she prefers: a moral opportunity rather than an obligation. People have a real opportunity to do good through their giving, and taking it can add meaning to a life. Krystian Seibert added a third frame. Giving can be a form of democratic participation, a way of collectively deciding what we want to fund and change in society. Born in Poland in 1982, in a country without a free civil society, he said the value of people participating and supporting one another is something he feels personally.

The drowning child, and the maths of distance

Grace set out the arithmetic behind EAA’s focus on global health. In Australia, governments use a “value of a statistical life” of around five million dollars, roughly what we will spend to prevent one death. Overseas, preventing a death from a disease like malaria can cost around five thousand dollars. The same dollar can do much more good in a low-income country than at home, perhaps up to a hundred times more, because of how unequal the world is.

Singer linked this to his 1972 essay, Famine, Affluence and Morality, and its thought experiment of the shallow pond. If you walked past a child drowning in a pond, you would wade in to save them, even at the cost of ruining your most expensive shoes. Almost everyone agrees they would. The harder question is why a child far away, who you cannot see, should be any different. Emotionally the distance matters a great deal. Ethically, Singer argued, it does not. The point is to let a visible child move us, and then extend the same concern to children we will never meet.

The panel did not pretend this was simple. Asked whether he would save one person he knew or reduce the suffering of a hundred strangers, Singer said he ought to choose the hundred, then admitted that in practice it would depend on who the one person was.

The others landed in much the same place: proximity and relationships are real, even when the impartial maths points the other way.

Doing good is a scale, not a switch

A key idea in the episode is that you do not have to choose between caring for your family and caring for the world. Grace pushed back on the all-or-nothing instinct, the feeling that if you are not doing everything, it is not worth doing anything. That is not right. Better to do what you can and grow your ambition over time, because doing good tends to be self-reinforcing: the first steps make the next ones easier.

Singer framed it as moving away from a strict right-or-wrong split toward a scale, where the aim is to keep moving up. Krystian noted that this is usually how people and societies change anyway, not in one big shift but through small changes at the edges that add up. It is the idea behind Giving What We Can: give a little more, join a board, contribute where you can.

Can you be good and have nice things?

So is there room for luxury? The panel’s answer was a qualified yes. Grace thought it unrealistic to expect anyone to spend down to poverty. Holidays, dinners with friends, and ordinary pleasures are fine. The question worth asking is whether a purchase genuinely adds meaning, weighed against what the money could otherwise do.

Singer drew the line at excess, citing acquaintances in New York who would think nothing of flying business class to Thailand for a single warm weekend, when the same money could save a life or two.

He also named a familiar pattern: you get the thing you wanted, feel briefly happier, and then the feeling fades and you want the next thing. Knowing the next purchase will not actually satisfy you is itself a reason to think harder about where your money goes.

Speciesism and the chickens we never picture?

Why do animal causes consistently rank below human and child causes when people give, even as billions of animals suffer in factory farms? Singer used the term speciesism deliberately, to draw a parallel with racism and sexism: a bias in favour of the interests of one’s own species against those of others. We would not run painful, lethal experiments on humans, or confine them as we confine farmed animals, yet we accept it for animals routinely.

Part of the problem is relatability. We grow up with dogs and cats and know them as individuals, so even within animal charities the shelters for stray pets attract most of the money, while helping a far larger number of farmed animals attracts much less.

We do not picture the hen or the pig as an individual, even though pigs rival or exceed dogs in intelligence. There is also a self-serving effect that research in Melbourne has captured: tell people they will be eating beef for lunch and they rate a cow’s intelligence lower than if you tell them they will be having a vegetable dish. Knowing we will eat an animal lowers our estimate of its mind.

The moral blind spots we will regret

The panel turned to moral blind spots, practices we tolerate now that we will later struggle to explain. Yip Fai shared a personal one. Until around forty years ago, many Western doctors performed surgery on infants without anaesthesia, reasoning that babies would not remember the pain. The pain still happened. The practice was overturned after a mother whose baby had heart surgery led an outcry that changed things within a couple of years. Yip Fai believes he was one of those infants. His hernia surgery took place in 1986, just as the practice was ending, and his mother’s account of him taped to the table and bruised from struggling suggests he was operated on without anaesthesia. As he noted, the same thing still happens in poorer countries where a handful of anaesthesiologists serve an entire population, and where pain relief is often unavailable.

The panel then looked forward. What are we doing now that future generations will condemn? Singer named climate change, the continued use of fossil fuels and consumption of high-emissions meat despite knowing the damage being done to future generations. Several guests raised the possible sentience of digital minds: as AI advances, we may face the prospect that some of what we build can suffer.

Singer noted that we are at least asking the question early this time, before the worst is locked in. Anthropic, for instance, has appointed someone to look into AI welfare. We had no such foresight with factory farming.

When AI starts running the farm

Yip Fai’s research looks at how AI affects animals. He gave two examples. Self-driving cars already try to avoid hitting cats, dogs and large animals, partly for the bad press and partly to protect passengers and avoid damage. But there is no sign they account for the many smaller animals struck on roads, often left injured rather than killed. There is at least scope for AI-driven cars to do better than human drivers at protecting wildlife over time.

The larger concern is AI running factory farms, which is already happening. This is not science fiction or even advanced technology, just fairly simple machine learning that can identify individual animals from video, estimate their weight without a scale, detect illness early, and optimise feeding.

It cuts costs, improves efficiency, and lets producers pack more animals into sheds while maintaining profitability. Governments in several countries, including recently the United Kingdom, are subsidising these systems. The effect is to entrench factory farming economically, at the point when many would hope to see it give way to plant-based and cellular alternatives.

This connected to a broader theme: industries that do not pay for the costs they impose on other sentient beings. Singer pointed to a “true cost” supermarket in Amsterdam, where the price at the register includes the external cost of a product, typically fifteen to twenty per cent more, with the surplus going to offset the harm. It is a viable business, which says something about the customers willing to pay it.

Getting companies to give

On corporate giving, Krystian was measured about mandates like India’s requirement that companies spend two per cent of profits on social responsibility. In Australia, he suspected, many would argue companies should simply pay more tax and let a democratically accountable government decide.

His own preference, drawn from his work on the Productivity Commission’s inquiry into philanthropy, is to start with transparency: require listed companies to report what they give and to whom. Companies follow other companies, and no large firm wants to sit at the bottom of a public table.

Singer offered a complementary approach through Profit for Good, a project inviting companies to pledge at least ten per cent of profits to effective charities and to build a community that encourages one another to give more.

The Australian ticketing company Humanitix, founded by two Sydney entrepreneurs whose charity owns the business, already directs all its net profits this way. With global corporate profits in the order of ten trillion dollars and current giving around one per cent, the potential is large, especially as government aid budgets are being cut.

So how much should you give?

The episode closed on the obvious question: what is the right amount? Singer’s reply was practical. The figure he would recommend is whatever leads to the greatest total amount being given. Ten per cent has worked well as a Giving What We Can pledge, with members having donated well over four hundred million dollars, which suggests it balances being meaningful with being achievable. If a higher figure raised more in total, he would recommend that; if a lower one drew far more people in, he would recommend that instead.

For himself, the calculation is different, because the giving is in his own hands. Singer gives well above ten per cent, in the range of twenty-five to fifty, and finds he can do so without real sacrifice. His advice was the plainest version of the episode’s argument: give what you can, and feel good about giving it.

Our goal is simple: make it easier for people to discover, understand, and act on the most effective ways to do good. From deep-dives into global priorities to donor stories and educational resources, thoughtful writing can dramatically increase engagement and make high-impact giving more accessible. This role is ideal for someone who wants to use their writing skills for meaningful impact, contributing to a mission-driven ecosystem focused on solving the world’s most pressing problems.

What you might work on

Depending on your interests and availability, projects could include:

• Translating complex research and effective altruism concepts into clear, accessible blog posts.
• Writing engaging articles about our recommended high-impact charities and global cause areas.
• Drafting impact stories, donor spotlights, or community features.
• Updating and refining existing educational guides, resources, and FAQ content.
• Pitching creative content ideas that align with our mission and resonate with a broad audience.

Who this role is for

You may be a great fit if you:

• Have a passion for writing, blogging, communications, or content creation.
• Possess strong written communication skills and the ability to make nuanced ideas easy to understand.
• Care about evidence-based giving and effective philanthropy.
• Enjoy storytelling and exploring big ideas that matter.
• Can contribute casually and remotely.

What you’ll gain

• The opportunity to contribute your writing skills to a high-impact nonprofit ecosystem.
• A platform to publish pieces that may meaningfully increase global good.
• Collaboration with a thoughtful, mission-driven team.
• Experience working with organisations focused on evidence-based impact.

Application Process

To apply, please complete the Expression of Interest form.

If you have any questions, please contact us at info@eaa.org.au.

We encourage you to apply even if you don’t meet every specific criteria listed above. EAA is committed to building a diverse and capable team to support our next stage of growth and impact.

I think this is a great way to introduce the ideas of effective altruism and effective giving to your colleagues, and networks without having to be the person who is pitching it directly.

The presentation will cover the differences between charity effectiveness, how much more good we can do by donating overseas, and how to choose where to donate with impact in mind.

May and June is a great time to host a talk with end of financial year (EOFY) coming up, as well as EAA running a matching campaign for new donors across June.

Express your interest in a talk

Dates and locations:

Sydney: May Thu 14th / Fri 15th / Mon 18th

Melbourne: June Thu 11th / Fri 12th / Mon 15th / Tues 16th

Brisbane: Across May and June

Online: Across May and June (Ideally only if you’re not Melbourne, Sydney, or Brisbane based)

About Dom and Maggie:

Dom has recently retired from his career as a GP. On Australia Day 2011 Dom was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia (AM).

Maggie has been working as a teacher for over 35 years across primary, secondary and tertiary education.

Their fourth child, Malachy inspired Maggie and Dom to become part of HeartKids, the peak charity for children with heart disease. Their involvement led Maggie into the role of State Manager for HeartKids NSW, then Dom to become the inaugural Chair of HeartKids Australia.

Dom and Maggie have become passionate about effective altruism, and are keen to share their passion with others.

About Michael:

Michael Noetel is a Director and the Chairperson of Effective Altruism Australia. He’s an associate professor in the School of Psychology at the University of Queensland and an affiliate researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Michael holds a PhD (ACU), a Masters in Applied Psychology (UQ), and a Science degree (Hons, Advanced; USyd).

In order to fulfil our purpose of providing Australians with the highest-impact options to relieve poverty and illness, based on evidence and reason, we recently conducted a review of our charity partnership model, alongside our internal resourcing.

As an outcome of that review, we have made the decision to refine our charity partnership model, to more closely align with specific external charity evaluators who are conducting high-quality research on the most impactful donation opportunities.

Here is why we are making this change, and what it means for our donors and partners.

The challenge of evaluation

Determining the true impact of a charity is incredibly complex. It requires dedicated teams of researchers and analysts to deeply scrutinise data and determine how much “good” a specific program achieves per dollar spent.

Our review concluded that EAA does not possess the specialist in-house research capacity required to evaluate diverse programs with the same rigour as organisations dedicated entirely to that task.

We believe that attempting to maintain our own standalone list of partners, without that deep internal evaluation capacity, risks falling short of our promise to direct donors only to the highest-impact opportunities.

Our new strategic focus

To ensure we are truly directing Australians to the best available evidence, EAA and EAAE will be shifting away from maintaining our own curated partner list.

Moving forward, our platform will focus exclusively on three pillars of high-impact giving:

1. The global health specialists: GiveWell We will align our global health and poverty recommendations with GiveWell. Their world-leading research identifies charities that save or improve lives the most per dollar.
2. The climate change specialists: Giving Green We will align our climate recommendations with Giving Green, aligning with their rigorous assessment of high-impact climate initiatives. This applies to our sister charity: Effective Altruism Australia Environment.
3. The global cash benchmark: GiveDirectly In the field of evidence-based development, unconditional cash transfers serve as the foundational “benchmark” against which other interventions are measured. While we rely on evaluators to identify programs that are more cost-effective than cash, we believe retaining the “gold standard” of cash transfers provides a vital baseline option for Australian donors. Therefore, we will retain GiveDirectly as a foundational partner.

By narrowing our focus to these three pillars, we are playing to our strengths. EAA can focus on what we do best—advocating for effective giving and enabling tax-deductible donations for Australians—while relying on some of the world’s best external evidence bases to support us in determining where those funds should go.

What this means for our partner charities

As a result of this strategic shift, we will be transitioning several valued partners off the EAA platform over a 10-month period, concluding on December 31st, 2026.

This is a principled decision about EAA’s strategy, not a negative judgement on the quality or impact of the charities leaving our platform.

We have worked with these organisations because they do vital work. However, as they do not fall into the specific evaluation pillars outlined above, we can no longer host them on our platform while adhering to the updated partnership strategy.

The partners we will be offboarding are:

• Unlimit Health
• Evidence Action’s Deworm the World
• One Acre Fund
• StrongMinds
• Giving What We Can

What this means for donors

We are committed to a responsible transition for the charities we are offboarding, and for the donors who support them.

If you currently support one of the affected charities, there is no immediate change. You can continue to donate to them via EAA until the end of 2026.

Looking ahead, we are coordinating closely with The Life You Can Save Australia, another impact and evidence-focused evaluator that continues to recommend some of the charities we will be offboarding. Our shared goal is to ensure that, where possible, a clear pathway remains for Australian donors to continue supporting these transitioning charities tax-deductibly through their platform after 2026, with the exception of StrongMinds.

You can view their charity pages on The Life You Can Save’s website:

• Unlimit Health
• Evidence Action
• One Acre Fund

From 2027, Donors who wish to continue supporting StrongMinds, can donate without a tax-deduction via their US website. Donors who wish to continue supporting Giving What We Can, can donate without a tax-deduction via their website.

We believe this refined focus will ultimately lead to more lives saved and improved. By deferring to single evaluators of the highest quality, we can offer Australian donors even greater confidence that their generosity is achieving the greatest possible good.

Please feel reach to contact us to talk about this change. We appreciate our community’s ongoing support for high-impact, and cost-effective charities.

Caption for featured photo: Naja’atu Yakub, with her child Umar Yakub, being served by immunisation provider Najib Musa Gogel. Courtesy of New Incentives.

Our goal is simple: make it easier for people to discover, understand, and act on the most effective ways to do good. From donation journeys to impact tools and educational resources, thoughtful design can dramatically increase engagement and make high-impact giving more accessible. This role is ideal for someone who wants to use their design skills for meaningful impact, contributing to a mission-driven ecosystem focused on solving the world’s most pressing problems.

What you might work on:

Depending on your interests and availability, projects could include:

• Improving the donation user journey
• Designing or refining impact calculators
• Improving UX across resources, guides, and tools
• Reviewing and suggesting improvements to site structure and navigation
• Creating wireframes or prototypes for new features
• Providing UX feedback on new campaigns or digital initiatives

Who this role is for:

You may be a great fit if you:

• Have experience in UI/UX design, product design, or digital experience design
• Are comfortable working with wireframing tools such as Figma, Sketch, or similar
• Care about evidence-based giving and effective philanthropy
• Enjoy solving real-world user experience problems
• Can contribute casually and remotely

What you’ll gain:

• The opportunity to contribute your skills to a high-impact nonprofit ecosystem
• Work on projects that may meaningfully increase global good
• Collaborate with a thoughtful, mission-driven team
• Experience working with organisations focused on evidence-based impact

Application Process

To apply, please complete the Expression of Interest form

If you have any questions, please contact us at info@eaa.org.au.

We encourage you to apply even if you don’t meet every specific skill listed above. EAA is committed to building a diverse and capable team to support our next stage of growth and impact.

Our guiding motto for 2026 is “Strengthen the Soil, Test What Grows”. This reflects our aim to consolidate best practices and build a strong foundation for future growth. Our focus is on strengthening core programs, improving consistency and quality of fundraising and communications practices, and ensuring EAA is well-positioned to scale sustainably over time.

We’re sharing this summary of our 2026 strategy, to keep our community and donors in the loop. If you have any questions, please reach out to us at info@eaa.org.au.

What we learnt in 2024/2025

On the fundraising side, we learned that our donor base responds strongly to evidence-driven messaging and transparent impact updates, as evidenced by our EOFY and Christmas campaigns consistently outperforming their targets.

Within community building, EAGxAustralasia has proved to be a highly effective centrepiece, showing improvements in quality and participant experience over the last two years.

Conversely, we discovered that certain outreach efforts – specifically PR-agency-led media strategies, pitching to conferences, and Christmas card-based campaigns – did not convert effectively into meaningful results. This doesn’t mean that we won’t revisit these tactics, but they are not on our priority list.

Our Strategic Focus

Our 2026 approach is shaped by clear learnings from the past two years. We are categorising our work into two streams:

1. “Strengthening the Soil”

We are doubling down on what we know works. This means:

• Fundraising Fundamentals: Prioritising donor retention, consistent stewardship, and clear, evidence-driven messaging.
• Proven Programs: Concentrating on the high-quality delivery of our fellowships and the EAGxAustralasia conference.
• Operational Reliability: Investing in the systems and measurement loops that allow us to scale with integrity.

2. “Testing What Grows”

We are testing new outreach methods to reach high-potential, analytically minded professionals – particularly in the tech, finance, and consulting sectors.

• Long-form Content: We will prioritise depth over breadth, engaging with audiences through podcasts and in-depth articles that explain effective altruism clearly.
• Targeted Outreach: We are planning to test outreach with a targeted audience, focused on those who will be more likely to resonate with the rational, quantitative direction of effective altruism.

What Success Looks Like in 2026

We have set ambitious but realistic targets for this year, which reflect our targeted efforts:

• Community Growth: Tripling the number of fellowship completions and hosting at least 280 attendees at the EAGxAustralasia conference.
• Increasing Total Giving: Moving $8.5 million to highly effective charities, representing approximately 15% year-on-year growth.
• Donor Retention: Ensuring at least 75% of our repeat donors continue their support in 2026.

Disciplined Prioritisation

To maintain this focus, we are being explicit about what we will not do this year. We are avoiding broad advertising, complex new fundraising mechanisms, and opportunistic events that sit outside our core plan. This ensures our team’s capacity is directed where it can achieve the highest leverage for our donors and the causes we support.

By strengthening our foundations today, we are ensuring EAA remains a resilient, transparent, and high-impact gateway for Australian generosity for years to come.

Supporting our work

We recently published our impact evaluation for 2025, which found that for each $1 we spent on operations, we counterfactually generated $9 for effective charities.

We are currently constrained by our operational funding, and have clear items we would spend more funds on, growing our impact.

If you are interested in supporting the growth of effective giving, and effective altruism in Australia through our operations, please email Grace at grace.adams@eaa.org.au.

A key question for donors is: for every dollar spent on EAA’s operations, how much additional funding reaches high-impact charities? Our giving multiplier provides a clear estimate.

A milestone year: growth and efficiency

In 2024 and 2025, we intentionally pivoted from a historically very low-cost approach to investing more in growth. While this increased our operational spending, it allowed us to reach more Australians, support more high-impact donations, and build stronger infrastructure for future scaling (you can read more about our investment in growth here).

Our previous giving multiplier covered a three-year period from 2022 to 2024 — what we consider our transition years. For 2025, we treat the year as a standalone snapshot. We’re proud to report that even with increased investment, we maintained our giving multiplier, showing that scaling our operations has not come at the expense of efficiency or impact.

What our multiplier measures

Our 2025 giving multiplier estimates the additional funding for high-impact charities that exists because of EAA’s work. It is not simply a count of every dollar we helped move, but a counterfactual-adjusted estimate of the donations that would not have occurred — or would not have gone to similarly effective charities — if EAA didn’t exist.

After reviewing our 2025 data, we estimate that for every $1 spent on fundraising, donation processing, and outreach, approximately $9 reaches highly effective charities, with $5 being a conservative estimate.

This estimate incorporates:

🏦 Total funds moved to partner charities

🔄 Adjustments for donations incrementally caused by EAA

📊 The effectiveness of the recipient programs

🏗️ Operational costs directly linked to fundraising and donation infrastructure

As with any estimate of additional impact, this involves uncertainty, and we deliberately include a very conservative estimate alongside our best estimate. You can view the details of the calculation here.

How our approach frames impact

Giving multipliers can be calculated in different ways. A commonly used approach is to divide total donations moved by operational costs. This can be a useful measure of scale, but it does not distinguish between donations that would have happened anyway and those that exist because of an organisation’s work.

For context, if we applied this simpler “gross leverage” calculation to EAA in 2025 — without adjusting for counterfactuality — our leverage ratio would be approximately 17.7 to 1.

We don’t use this figure as our primary measure of impact. Instead, our giving multiplier focuses on incremental impact: the additional funding enabled by EAA’s presence. This provides a clearer picture of the real difference donor support makes.

Why this matters for donors

Incremental impact is what ultimately counts. While total dollars moved are important, the true value of supporting EAA lies in the additional funding directed to high-impact programs that would not otherwise exist.

Our 2025 giving multiplier shows that even as we invest more in growth, EAA continues to deliver strong impact for every dollar spent.

Looking ahead

With continued support, we can keep expanding high-impact giving in Australia — reaching more donors, strengthening our infrastructure, and directing more funding to charities proven to make a meaningful difference.

Supporting EAA is a way to not just give to a cause, but to multiply the impact of your generosity. If you’d like to help, you can donate directly to our operations via the “Support our work” option on our donation page.

If you’d like to have a deeper discussion on what supporting our work can enable, please email grace.adams@eaa.org.au.

Effective Altruism Australia (EAA) exists to maximise the good that Australians can do through evidence-based giving. To achieve this, we are investing in growth – both in the donations we move to high-impact charities and in expanding the size and strength of the effective altruism community in Australia.

Going forward, our operations and growth efforts – including staff, communications, marketing, and fundraising – will be funded entirely through donations and grants that have been directed specifically to our operations, not from the money given to our partner charities. For every dollar spent on EAA’s operations, we typically raise an additional $5–$8 for our partner charities – a strong multiplier that demonstrates the effectiveness of investing in our capacity.

You can expect to see more communications, events, and engagement initiatives as we test strategies to reach new donors, while maintaining transparency and respect for donor preferences. Your feedback and support in introducing our work to your community will help us continue to grow our impact responsibly.

From Lean Beginnings to Growing Impact

EAA has always existed to do as much good as possible.

Back in 2015, a group of volunteers established a charity to help Australians make tax-deductible donations to highly effective, evidence-based global poverty-alleviation programs recommended by GiveWell. The organisation was kept as lean as possible – relying primarily on volunteers to build our website, donation systems, and get the word out.

Over time, EAA grew steadily through word of mouth and the broader rise of the effective altruism movement.

At the end of 2022, we received a grant from Founders Pledge, recognising EAA’s role as a “giving multiplier” – meaning that each dollar spent on our operations has enabled us to raise many additional dollars for effective charities. The grant supported us to explore how marketing and fundraising could help us raise even more for our partner charities.

Led by Thomas King, we launched initiatives such as end-of-financial-year campaigns, re-engaging lapsed donors, and hosting events with our partner charities.

These efforts paid off. During the 2024-25 financial year, our EOFY campaign raised over $2.87 million – a 29% increase from the previous year. Crucially, this additional funding would not have been possible without investing in our own capacity.

In early 2025, we conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of our operations to measure our giving multiplier. Between 2022 and 2024, we found that for every $1 we spent on operations, we raised an additional $8 for our partner charities (with $5 as a more conservative estimate). You can read more about this analysis in our blog post.

This evidence shows there is still significant room to grow and refine our communications and fundraising strategy – helping us introduce more people to effective giving and expand the impact we can achieve together as a donor community.

Continuing to grow, while maintaining a strong giving multiplier, is the best way for EAA to fulfil its mission: raising funds for cost-effective programs that improve global health and wellbeing.

How We’re Funding Growth

To achieve this, we’re increasing our efforts in communications and marketing – areas that are essential to reaching new donors and building awareness of effective giving.

Importantly, these efforts – along with our staff salaries and core operations – will be funded through direct donations and grants, not from the money given to our partner charities. This means that when you give to a cause through EAA, your donation will be granted to the partner charity.

In the past, we used to take roughly 2% from undirected donations to cover essential costs like accounting and basic operations. We’ve now transitioned away from that model to give donors confidence that their contributions are used exactly as intended.

If we’re no longer able to cover our costs with grants and direct donations to our operations, we may change our model again, but our goal is to keep our operations self-sustaining.

Many of our donors have chosen to give directly to EAA’s operations because we’ve shown that every dollar we spend on our operations, we typically raise an additional (counterfactual) $5–$8 for our partner charities – a strong multiplier that allows us to grow the overall pie of effective giving in Australia.

This approach allows us to invest in our own growth – without diverting funds away from high-impact charities.

What You Can Expect

As we expand our efforts, you might notice more from us: more emails, more social media activity, more events.

We’ll be experimenting with a range of strategies to help us reach new audiences and deepen engagement with existing supporters. Throughout, we’ll continue to uphold the effective altruist values of transparency, evidence, and learning – testing what works, measuring impact, and iterating as we go.

We also know that different people have different preferences when it comes to how often they hear from us and what kinds of updates they find valuable. We’ll do our best to strike the right balance – and we’re always open to feedback on how we can improve the way we communicate.

Balancing Efficiency and Growth

We’ve always prided ourselves on efficiency – keeping our operations lean so that as much funding as possible reaches highly effective charities. It’s a value many of our donors care deeply about, and we still hear from people who say they give to EAA precisely because we keep our costs low.

At the same time, in our 2024 donor survey, the majority of respondents told us they support EAA increasing operational spending if it helps us raise more money overall for effective charities. This confirmed what we were already seeing in practice – that investing in our operations and communications allows us to multiply our impact many times over.

We believe the right balance is to continue growing our outreach and fundraising capacity, while keeping EAA’s operations optional to support. This means donors can choose whether to give directly to EAA’s operations, knowing that each dollar helps us raise many more for our partner charities – or give directly to those charities themselves.

By doing both – respecting donor preferences and strategically investing in growth – we can maximise the total impact of Australia’s effective giving community.

How You Can Help

We’d love your feedback as we test new initiatives and explore what works best. And if you believe in EAA’s mission, one of the most valuable ways you can support us is by introducing our work to your community – whether that’s by sharing our posts, bringing a friend to an event, or simply starting a conversation about effective giving.

You can also directly support our operations and growth by donating to EAA itself – helping us raise even more funds for high-impact charities around the world.

Together, we can help more Australians give more effectively, and make a greater difference for the world’s most pressing problems.

Last updated: October 2025

Here are a selection of our favourite blogs and stories from our recommended charity partners, that demonstrate the fantastic work that they are doing on the ground.

Helen Keller Intl vitamin A supplementation program

From Helen Keller Intl: One of Aisha Abdullahi’s children receives vitamin A.

Reaching Children in Madagascar with Vitamin A

In Madagascar, children like little Tiana receive life-saving vitamin A supplements that protect them from blindness and serious illness, helping them grow strong, play, and attend school — giving them a chance for a healthier future.

Helping Children Grow Up Healthier with Vitamin A

Across 14 African countries, Helen Keller International reaches millions of children under five with vitamin A, helping them build strong immune systems so they can fight off illness, enjoy daily life, and thrive in their communities.

Saving Sight and Lives with Micro but Mighty Vitamin A

Small doses of vitamin A are transforming the lives of countless children, preventing blindness and life-threatening infections, and allowing families to watch their children grow, learn, and participate fully in everyday life.

Malaria Consortium’s Seasonal Malaria Chemoprevention (SMC) program

Reaching the hardest to reach: Maintaining seasonal malaria chemoprevention in flood-affected areas

Even in flood-hit villages, children continue to receive vital malaria prevention, giving families peace of mind and the ability to focus on daily life rather than fearing that illness could strike at any moment.

Delivering malaria prevention to displaced people in South Sudan protection to their children, offering not only physical safety but also hope and a sense of stability amid the disruption of displacement.

New Incentives

From New Incentives: Tsaibatu hands Uzairu’s immunization card to Mustapha. At 15 months old, he is due for his second measles shot.

An Immunization Day at a Clinic in Kebbi, Nigeria

Parents bring their children to clinics in Kebbi for vaccines, knowing that each shot could save a life and protect their little ones from diseases that can steal childhood, helping them grow up healthy and strong.

Tracking and Reaching Zero-Dose Children in Nigeria

New Incentives tracks children who have never received vaccinations, reaching families in remote communities and giving children their first chance at protection, health, and a brighter start in life.

Against Malaria Foundation

Against Malaria Foundation’s news page

Families across malaria-prone regions sleep under nets provided by the foundation, protecting children from deadly infections and giving them the chance to grow, play, and go to school safely.

Effective Altruism Australia (EAA) is seeking Expressions of Interest from suitably qualified applicants to join the Board of Directors.

EAA partners with highly effective charities that deliver some of the most transparent, cost-effective, and evidence-based programs for saving and improving lives. Our current partners are active in countries across Africa and Asia, addressing issues such as malaria, intestinal worms, and extreme poverty. We also collaborate with the broader effective altruism community in Australia and international organisations, and organise events such as the EAGxAustralasia conference.

EAA is currently reinvigorating its organisational strategy, including recently recruiting a CEO, and looking to broaden its community-building and fundraising efforts. New board members will support the professionalisation of the organisation and the move away from a “management board” approach. More information about our work is available on our website and our strategic plan for 2025-2027 is available here.

Skills and Experience

We welcome applications from people of all backgrounds and encourage anyone interested to apply. Applicants should be familiar with the principles of effective altruism or evidence-based policy and evaluation. The Board is particularly looking for people with skills in:

• Marketing and Public Relations
• Fundraising
• Cyber Security
• Effective Altruism community experience
• Legal expertise
• International development

We are also interested in applicants who are leaders or public figures in their fields, or who can bring strong connections to the Australian or international EA community. Applicants who would enhance the Board’s diversity are strongly encouraged to apply.

Role and Commitment

• Director positions are unpaid.
• New candidates will usually join meetings as observers for a probationary period, before being formally appointed as Directors.
• Directors are expected to attend regular Board meetings (8-12 per year, usually online) and allow time to review and prepare meeting papers in advance. This typically equates to around 5–8 hours per month. Additional opportunities exist for those who wish to contribute through subcommittees, project work, or representing EAA at events.
• Directors will be expected to occasionally contribute their skills to the organisation such as advising on areas of expertise and occasionally contributing to fundraising efforts.

Application Process

To apply, please complete the Expression of Interest form by November 14th 2025.

Please note: as the Board is entirely volunteer-based, the review and shortlisting process may take some time. We appreciate your patience and understanding.

If you have any questions, please contact us at info@eaa.org.au.

We encourage you to apply even if you don’t meet any specific skill listed above. EAA is committed to building a diverse and capable Board to guide our next stage of growth and impact.

We’re pleased to share this update from our partner, GiveWell, highlighting recent grants and research supported through the All Grants Fund. The content below was written by the GiveWell team and is shared here with minor edits for clarity and attribution.

GiveWell All Grants Fund Updates

Global Health Data at Risk

GiveWell’s ability to find and fund highly cost-effective health programs, including those supported by the All Grants Fund, relies on a foundation of credible data. A key source of that data, the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) Program, recently had its primary funding from USAID discontinued.

Learn more: Listen as GiveWell CEO and co-founder Elie Hassenfeld and Senior Researcher Adam Salisbury discuss the impact this funding gap could have on evidence-based grantmaking across the global health sector—and how GiveWell are responding.

Expanding GiveWell’s Livelihoods Research

GiveWell have researched and funded livelihoods programs for years—through grants supported in part by donations to the All Grants Fund—but they’re now taking a significant step forward by hiring a dedicated program officer to build on their existing work and lead the search for new cost-effective opportunities.

Learn more: GiveWell dive deeper into the livelihoods interventions that help people in poverty earn more and improve their daily lives in their recent podcast episode with Elie and Senior Program Officer Julie Faller.

Grant Updates

The recent grants below represent just a slice of the All Grants Fund portfolio. Your donation supports a wide range of grants, including direct delivery programs, research, technical assistance to governments, incubation pilots, and more, depending on where GiveWell see the greatest potential for impact.

Featured Grant: Primary Healthcare and Malnutrition Treatment

How it helps: This grant will sustain vital healthcare and malnutrition treatment for a high-mortality population (pregnant women and children under five) across 16 facilities in a conflict-affected region of Far North Cameroon after USAID funding was abruptly cut.

How it works: ALIMA supports government health facilities by providing essential medical supplies and equipment, paying salaries for doctors and nurses, and operating specialized treatment programs. The program delivers a range of proven interventions, from antimalarials to acute malnutrition treatment, and trains local staff in evidence-based protocols for improving health outcomes.

Why this grant: This is a time-sensitive grant after USAID funding was suddenly cancelled this year, putting some of ALIMA’s critical services at risk of shutting down by December 2025. The grant prevents that imminent collapse, ensuring care continues for a high-mortality population where ALIMA provides about two-thirds of the trained medical staff and runs essential services, like the region’s only neonatal unit.

The bottom line: By conducting a rapid investigation, GiveWell was able to respond to this urgent funding need. They estimate these services will reach approximately 45,500 people who would not receive treatment otherwise and avert over 400 deaths.

Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) of GiveDirectly

Where: Rural Malawi

What: Data collection for a large-scale RCT of GiveDirectly’s unconditional cash transfer program

Who: University of Oxford

Total: $491,700

How it works: This research will measure the effects of providing unconditional cash transfers of $550—representing 125% of the area’s average annual household income—to 110,000 adults, providing valuable evidence on this approach in lower-income, rural areas.

Why this grant: This research addresses key uncertainties in GiveWell’s analysis of GiveDirectly—primarily whether the spillover benefits of cash transfers found in a prior RCT can be replicated in other contexts—and allows GiveWell to act as an engaged partner, influencing research design and accessing findings early to inform their future grantmaking.

Assessment of Impacts to Vaccine Delivery from US Government Funding Cuts

Where: Democratic Republic of the Congo, Madagascar, Nigeria

What: A three-month qualitative assessment of how US government funding cuts are impacting key parts of the vaccine delivery system

Who: Results for Development (R4D)

Total: $271,445

How it works: This research addresses a critical lack of on-the-ground information about the real-world consequences of recent US government funding cuts on vaccine delivery, including the effects on vaccinators, fixed-site and outreach sessions, supply chains, and data systems.

Why this grant: The findings will directly influence GiveWell’s vaccines strategy by providing qualitative updates to help us manage existing grants and prioritize future funding.

How GiveWell Use Donations to the All Grants Fund

Donations to the All Grants Fund are allocated on a rolling basis and may go toward any grant that meets their cost-effectiveness threshold. This could include grants to GiveWell Top Charities as well as grants to incubate newer programs, promote policy change, fund relevant scoping and research, or support other initiatives. This includes some that are substantially more uncertain, experimental, or riskier than their Top Charities. While GiveWell are often less certain about the individual grants they make via this fund, they believe that—in aggregate—these grants represent the highest-impact use of marginal funding.

You can learn more about how the fund works and all that your donations make possible on GiveWell’s All Grants Fund page. For more on the full scope of GiveWell’s grantmaking, see this blog post.

Thank you again for your continued support!

That’s a 29.5% increase compared to 2024, and an incredible 73% increase compared to 2022. These funds will now go to some of the world’s most cost-effective charities, tackling global health and poverty where every dollar can have the greatest impact.

The Impact: 280,000 Lives Improved

This record-breaking generosity is estimated to improve 280,000 lives* through highly cost-effective programs like delivering malaria prevention, vitamin A supplementation, deworming, cash transfers, and climate interventions that will remove 10,434 tonnes of CO₂ from the atmosphere.

By directing support to rigorously evaluated, evidence-based charities, our community ensures each contribution goes further.

What Made This Possible?

This record-breaking outcome was powered by generosity across the community:

🌟 224 new donors joined the EAA community, a 36.6% increase from last year.

🔄 121 donors reactivated their support, reconnecting with our mission.

💖 1,205 active donors continued their giving, helping to build steady momentum throughout the campaign.

Together, more than 1,500 people chose to give where it makes the greatest difference. Whether it was a first gift, a returning donation, or an ongoing commitment, every donor played a part in making this our strongest EOFY yet.

Looking Ahead

Thanks to your generosity, we’ve strengthened EAA’s role as a giving multiplier, connecting Australians with the highest-impact ways to help others.

The record-breaking success of EOFY 2025 gives us both confidence and responsibility: to sustain this momentum, to diversify and deepen our donor base, and to keep refining how we inspire Australians to give most effectively.

Together, we’ve shown that smart giving can achieve extraordinary results. Let’s see how much further we can go in 2026.

*Note on impact estimates: Our 280,000 lives improved figure is lower than a previous estimate of 480,000. Initially, we projected 50% of Top Charity Fund donations would support Malaria Consortium’s SMC program, and 50% would support Helen Keller International’s Vitamin A Supplementation. After GiveWell recommended directing 100% of funds to Malaria Consortium, we adjusted the estimate. We recognise this may feel confusing and will aim to provide lower-bound estimates in future to make reporting clearer.

*Note on average donation size: The average donation size has been updated from $896 to $1,246. The original calculation counted multiple designations from a single donation as separate donations. The revised calculation treats each donation as a single contribution, regardless of the number of designations, providing a more accurate average donation size.

We’re pleased to share this update from our partner, GiveWell, highlighting recent grants and research supported through the All Grants Fund. The content below was written by the GiveWell team and is shared here with minor edits for clarity and attribution.

GiveWell All Grants Fund Updates

Continued USAID Response

GiveWell are continuing to monitor both the short- and long-term impacts of USAID funding cuts. The All Grants Fund has enabled them to respond flexibly to emerging needs—so far, GiveWell have approved around $28 million in grants directly responding to the 2025 US foreign aid cuts.

These cuts have created unprecedented challenges for global health programs, and countries that have relied on this funding must now navigate substantial gaps and make difficult decisions about program priorities. In the fourth episode of GiveWell’s podcast series, GiveWell CEO and co-founder Elie Hassenfeld spoke with Program Officer Dan Brown about GiveWell’s grants to create technical support units in six African countries. These units will provide support to the ministries of health in Burkina Faso, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Malawi, Nigeria, Uganda, and Zambia as they navigate funding transitions to maintain essential health services.

Thanks to generous support from donors like you, these grants were funded in part by donations to the All Grants Fund.

Exploring HIV/AIDS

HIV/AIDS has not historically been a focus for GiveWell due to substantial US government support through PEPFAR and other initiatives. But with potential HIV/AIDS funding cuts of 20% to 50% in the near future, GiveWell are assessing where significant cost-effective opportunities might emerge.

Listen as Elie and GiveWell Program Officer Alice Redfern discuss GiveWell’s initial exploration into HIV/AIDS programming, including why they’re focusing on prevention programs for high-risk groups, the unique “search problem” in finding cost-effective HIV/AIDS programs, and new innovations like long-acting injectables that could be game-changing.

GiveWell are working quickly to respond to emerging needs, leaning on partners and existing research to help them navigate the complexities and uncertainties of the HIV/AIDS funding landscape. This work is a core example of their ongoing efforts to identify where donor funding can have the most impact.

Valuing Contraception

GiveWell are considering funding programs that increase access to modern contraception in low- and middle-income countries. Over the past year, GiveWell’s cross-cutting research team has been developing a framework to understand and quantify the benefits of contraception, enabling them to compare these programs to others they might support. While this exploratory work is funded by donations to the Unrestricted Fund, GiveWell expect future grants for family planning programs could be supported by All Grants Fund donations.

GiveWell recently published a page outlining their current approach to valuing contraception. It details the outcomes they consider, how they estimate them, and the judgment calls involved. While this work is still evolving, the research positions them to respond quickly as funding opportunities emerge in family planning—an area that has been especially hard-hit by USAID funding cuts.

Grant Updates

The recent grants below represent just a slice of the All Grants Fund portfolio. Your donation supports a wide range of grants, including direct delivery programs, research, technical assistance to governments, incubation pilots, and more, depending on where GiveWell see the greatest potential for impact.

Johns Hopkins University—Cholera Hospital-Based Intervention for 7 Days (CHoBI7) RCT in Bangladesh

Purpose: To complete a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of an intervention (known as CHoBI7) designed to reduce diarrheal disease by promoting handwashing and water treatment for the household members of diarrheal patients admitted to health facilities. This trial will assess whether a less resource-intensive model of CHoBI7 effectively improves hygiene behaviors and water quality.

Summary: This grant of up to approximately $843,500¹ is one of the first grants GiveWell made in direct response to USAID funding cuts. The trial had previously received USAID funding, but this was abruptly withdrawn six months into the trial—GiveWell’s grant will enable the trial to be completed, ensuring that ongoing data collection does not go to waste.

CHoBI7 targets a critical window for preventing diarrhea transmission in vulnerable households using proven methods like chlorination, and this trial tests a more scalable, lower-cost version of the program. GiveWell think the learning value of this RCT is highly cost-effective given its potential to inform program scale-up in Bangladesh and potentially in other high-burden areas. GiveWell believe CHoBI7 is one of the most promising interventions for potentially diversifying GiveWell’s water grantmaking portfolio beyond the two programs they have already funded at scale (chlorine dispensers and in-line chlorination). This diversification is a core goal for their water grantmaking team, as they think it could lead to significant additional, highly cost-effective grantmaking opportunities in the future.

Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research—Iron Repletion RCT in Bangladesh

Purpose: To establish a more accurate understanding of anemia’s health burden by measuring how different anemia levels actually affect women’s daily functioning and well-being. This RCT will use iron repletion to test whether current global anemia definitions accurately reflect real health impairments.

Summary: This $3.8 million² grant to the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research will fund a randomized trial in Bangladesh that directly measures how anemia actually affects women’s daily lives, providing crucial data to improve global anemia interventions.

Current anemia burden estimates, which are based on statistical thresholds rather than real symptoms, create uncertainty in our cost-effectiveness analyses of iron programs. The trial will administer intravenous iron to over 1,500 women with varying iron deficiency levels, while tracking changes in fatigue, cognitive performance, and productivity to establish clear links between iron status and health outcomes. GiveWell think this research, with results expected in about four years, is a highly cost-effective investment that will critically improve their grantmaking accuracy for iron programs and potentially enhance global anemia guidelines and treatment strategies.

WHO Malaria Guidelines Development Group—Guidelines Review and Update

Purpose: To update key World Health Organization (WHO) malaria guidelines to reflect the latest scientific evidence on malaria prevention and treatment. These updates focus on two interventions: single low-dose primaquine for reducing malaria transmission and preventive treatment options for HIV-positive pregnant women who cannot use standard malaria prevention drugs.

Summary: This $416,292 grant will support the WHO Global Malaria Programme in completing these evidence reviews and publishing updated malaria guidelines by early 2026—approximately three years sooner than would otherwise be possible due to WHO’s funding constraints. Without this support, these reviews would likely not happen until 2028-2030, delaying potentially life-saving improvements to treatments.

GiveWell think the updated guidelines will influence national malaria policies worldwide, as they’ve heard from experts that most countries wait for WHO recommendations before implementing new treatment and prevention policies. This accelerated timeline allows the latest scientific evidence to help shape global malaria policy and practice years earlier, potentially improving treatment outcomes across numerous countries.

How GiveWell Use Donations to the All Grants Fund

Donations to the All Grants Fund are allocated on a rolling basis and may go toward any grant that meets their cost-effectiveness threshold. This could include grants to GiveWell Top Charities as well as grants to incubate newer programs, promote policy change, fund relevant scoping and research, or support other initiatives. This includes some that are substantially more uncertain, experimental, or riskier than their Top Charities. While GiveWell are often less certain about the individual grants they make via this fund, they believe that—in aggregate—these grants represent the highest-impact use of marginal funding.

You can learn more about how the fund works and all that your donations make possible on GiveWell’s All Grants Fund page. For more on the full scope of GiveWell’s grantmaking, see this blog post.

Thank you again for your continued support!

¹ The grant total is conditional on need. Fundraising is ongoing for this grant, and the total amount funded by donations to the All Grants Fund could change. Currently, the grant is expected to be funded by approximately $668,800 from donations to the All Grants Fund and approximately $174,700 from donations to the Unrestricted Fund that were redesignated by the GiveWell board for granting. Figures may not sum to exactly $843,500.

² Fundraising is ongoing for this grant, and the total amount funded by donations to the All Grants Fund could change.

³ The map shown was created using MapChart.

PLEASE NOTE: Applications have closed as of 10:00AM AEST Tuesday 19th August.

• Location: Remote within Australia (Melbourne slightly preferred)
• Salary: $90,000-$100,000 including super (pro rata 0.6–0.8 FTE), with access to NFP salary packaging
• Reporting to: CEO

Make a real-world difference through powerful storytelling

If your dream job is to craft compelling campaigns, drive real-world impact, and help direct millions of dollars to the world’s most effective charities—this role could be for you.

Effective Altruism Australia is looking for a smart, proactive communicator to lead our fundraising and engagement work. You’ll be responsible for planning and delivering two major campaigns per year (EOFY and holiday season), with support from the CEO. In between campaigns, you’ll manage our core communications infrastructure, including emails, CRM, website updates, and occasional social media posts.

This is a hands-on role for someone who enjoys seeing a project through from start to finish. You’ll write persuasive content, manage donor journeys, coordinate digital communications, and report on results. You’ll also be the main driver of communications logistics across platforms like Mailchimp, our CRM, and our website CMS.

We’re a small team, so you’ll need to be comfortable owning your projects—but you’ll be supported by a former Head of Marketing (our CEO), and you’ll collaborate with a values-aligned, impact-focused team who care deeply about the work.

Why join Effective Altruism Australia?

• Direct impact – Your work will directly increase funding to some of the world’s most effective charities.
• Evidence-based approach – We use data, reasoning, and rigorous evaluation to guide decisions.
• Supportive community – Be part of a mission-driven team and a global network of impact-focused professionals.
• Meaningful results – See tangible evidence of how your communications are helping people and the planet.
• Flexible work – We’re a remote organisation, and support people to work flexibly in ways that suit them. The majority of the team is Melbourne based, so there’s the option to occasionally co-work in person if based in Melbourne.
• Growth and mentorship – You’ll work directly with our CEO, who led marketing at Giving What We Can for 3.5 years. Drive your projects, develop new skills and pitch new ideas to help EAA grow.

Effective Altruism Australia exists to support Australians to tackle the world’s most pressing problems. We do this by facilitating tax-deductible donations to high-impact, rigorously vetted charities in global poverty alleviation and climate action, while providing community events, support, and career opportunities.

Key responsibilities

1. Lead our key fundraising and engagement campaigns

• Plan and deliver two major campaigns per year in collaboration with the CEO
• Write and coordinate emails, web content, and social media posts
• Organise webinars or in-person donor events where relevant
• Set up donation flows and ensure a smooth supporter experience
• Run smaller or tactical campaigns as needed
• Manage timelines and logistics to keep campaigns on track

2. Manage email communications and CRM setup

• Use Mailchimp (or similar) to build, test, segment, and send campaigns
• Maintain structured donor journeys to support engagement and retention
• Keep CRM records accurate and up to date
• Ensure all systems are working as intended before campaign launch

3. Keep our website and content up to date

• Maintain key pages on our website related to campaigns and general updates
• Write and publish occasional blog posts or supporter communications
• Coordinate with any web developers if technical updates are needed

4. Track performance and share insights

• Monitor email and donation metrics, and summarise campaign performance
• Use data to suggest improvements and support future planning

5. Support our public presence

• Monitor social media channels and post occasional updates
• Assist with media tasks such as maintaining media lists or distributing press releases
• Ensure messaging is consistent and values-aligned across platforms

What success looks like

Success in this role means increasing donor engagement, delivering effective campaigns on time, and helping drive significant donation revenue to our partner charities.

What we’re looking For

Essential

• 3+ years experience in digital communications and/or marketing
• Strong writing skills with a clear, concise style
• Confident using tools like Mailchimp and CRMs
• Comfortable working independently and managing your own projects
• A deep commitment to making a positive difference
• Openness to using LLMs and AI tools as part of work

Strongly favoured

• Experience with donor communications or fundraising campaigns
• Familiarity with basic design tools (e.g. Canva) and web editing (e.g. WordPress)
• Understanding of segmentation, donor journeys, and email performance metrics
• Project management experience in a lean, fast-moving environment
• Adaptable and pragmatic approach to challenges

Bonus Skills (great, but not required)

• Knowledge of effective altruism, global health, or development
• SEO, impact measurement, or data visualisation experience
• Events, media, or PR experience
• Basic HTML or light web design familiarity

How to apply

PLEASE NOTE: Applications have closed as of 10:00AM AEST Tuesday 19th August.

Applications will be reviewed on a rolling basis, so we encourage you to apply early.

We’re looking for someone to start soon, but we’re happy to wait for the right candidate.

Hiring process

The hiring process for this role includes four stages:

1. Initial application Submit your CV and respond to a few short-answer questions (approx. 20–30 minutes).
2. Work test Shortlisted candidates will complete a one-hour work test designed to assess core skills relevant to the role.
3. Interview Selected candidates will be invited to a one-hour interview with a small hiring panel. There may also be additional short meetings with other team members to get to know you better.
4. Reference checks We’ll speak with 1–2 professional references before making a final offer.

This process might be lengthier than others, but we want to make sure that both you, and our team feel like this is a good fit, and feel excited about working together.

As we’re reviewing applications on a rolling basis, please expect to spend 1-2 weeks at most at each stage before hearing a decision about whether we’re continuing to progress your application.

Diversity and inclusion

We’re committed to building an inclusive workplace. We actively encourage applications from people of all backgrounds and identities, and we’re happy to make reasonable adjustments to make the application process or role more accessible. If you’re unsure whether you’re a good fit, we’d still love to hear from you.

But that raises a fair question: how effective is that work?

In other words: how much additional funding for high-impact charities is generated for every dollar spent on EAA’s own operations?

After reviewing three years of data, we now have an answer. Our best estimate is that for every $1 spent on our fundraising, donation processing, and outreach, $5 to $8 ends up with effective charities.

That’s not just a nice story — it’s based on a structured methodology developed by Giving What We Can, which we’ve followed and carefully adapted to our context. If you’re into the details, you can see the full explanation here.

Turning support into scaled impact

EAA doesn’t deliver aid programs directly — but we do more than just pass funds along. We help people discover, trust, and support some of the world’s most impactful initiatives.

That includes:

🤝 Making high-impact giving easier through tax-deductible donations

🎯 Running targeted campaigns that grow support for evidence-based programs

🧠 Advising major donors and partners on where their gifts can do the most good

🇦🇺 Building a national community of Australians focused on solving the world’s biggest problems

This kind of behind-the-scenes work can be harder to measure. But it’s no less real.

Between 2022 and 2024, we moved millions of dollars to high-impact programs, and we’ve now traced that movement back to the operational support that made it possible.

Our calculation includes:

🏦 The total money we moved to partner charities

🔄 Adjustments for how much of that was counterfactually caused by EAA

📊 The effectiveness of the recipient programs

🏗️ Our operational costs linked to fundraising and donation infrastructure

We even surveyed our own team to estimate how much impact they would have had in alternative roles — to avoid overestimating the value of their work here.

What this means for donors

We’re careful not to overstate our impact. But if you’ve ever wondered whether funding an organisation that supports effective giving is itself a high-impact donation, we now have a clearer answer.

Supporting EAA means enabling more Australians to give — and to give more effectively. It’s a way of backing not just a cause, but a multiplier effect.

While past operational grants from organisations like Founders Pledge have made this work possible, that kind of funding isn’t guaranteed or sustainable. Ongoing support from individuals who value impact at scale is vital to our future.

Want to be part of it?

If you’d like to support the work that helps others give better, you can donate directly to EAA’s operations — just look for the “Amplify my impact” option on our donation page.

Thank you for being part of the journey from generosity to genuine impact.

What We’ve Achieved Together 💪

Since 2015, we’ve grown from a small team of volunteers trying to enable tax-deductible grants to the most effective global health charities to becoming Australia’s leading platform for effective giving. In 2022-2023 alone, our incredible donor community:

• Supported over 1 million people
• Saved roughly 1,000 lives
• Provided 430,000 children with preventive antimalarial drugs
• Delivered vitamin A supplements to 420,000 people

Our Bold Vision for the Future 🌟

Our Mission: Support Australians to tackle the world’s most pressing problems

Our Vision: Australians are the world’s most generous and active supporters of effective causes

Three Objectives for 2025-2027:

1️⃣ Deliver More Money to High-Impact Causes

We’re targeting ~15% average annual growth. With most Australians ranking in the top 4% of global income earners, there’s incredible untapped potential for effective giving.

2️⃣ Build the Effective Altruism Community

From students exploring impactful careers to professionals seeking meaningful ways to contribute—we’re creating spaces for connection, learning, and action. EAGx will continue as our flagship community event.

3️⃣ Sustain Our Organisation

We’re professionalising our operations, hiring our first CEO, and building the infrastructure needed to serve our growing community for decades to come.

Why This Matters 🌍

Australia is incredibly fortunate—we’re among the richest countries globally, with average incomes higher than 97.5% of the world. This puts us in an exceptional position to improve lives everywhere. With over 700 million people living on less than ~A$2.80 per day, transferring resources effectively can create extraordinary impact.

What’s Next? ⚡

We’ve just hired our new CEO, Grace Adams, and had our biggest fundraising month on record. We’re looking forward to implementing exciting new initiatives across fundraising, community building, and operations.

Read the Full Strategic Plan

You can read our Full Strategic Plan here.

Ready to be part of this journey? Whether you’re interested in effective giving, joining our community, or exploring high-impact careers, there’s never been a better time to get involved.

Check out our full strategic plan and discover how you can help make Australia the world’s most generous supporter of effective causes!

🎥 Watch the replay here

Hosted by EAA Chair Dr Michael Noetel, the webinar brought together expert speakers from GiveWell, Malaria Consortium, and GiveDirectly, organisations at the forefront of evidence-based, life-saving work.

Together, they gave us a unique, behind-the-scenes look at how high-impact charities are improving lives, and doing so with rigorous evidence, transparency, and cost-effectiveness at the core of their work.

What we learned together

💸 How billions in recent aid cuts are affecting vulnerable communities, and how organisations are responding

🌍 What impact looks like on the ground, from delivering malaria medicines to providing unconditional cash transfers

📊 Why cost-effectiveness estimates are evolving over time, reflecting ongoing research, new data, and program improvements

🔍 The importance of transparency and evaluation in ensuring your donations go as far as possible

Our expert speakers

We were delighted to be joined by:

• Meika Ball, Senior Research Associate at GiveWell
• Mousumi Rahman, Asia Deputy Regional Director at Malaria Consortium
• Kayla Fisher, Director of Special Projects at GiveDirectly

Each speaker shared firsthand insights from their work, highlighting both the challenges and exciting milestones that come with delivering evidence-based aid at scale.

✨ At Effective Altruism Australia, we believe in supporting the most effective programs because together, we can do more good — making a bigger, lasting difference in the lives of those who need it most.

🙏 We’re so grateful to our speakers Meika Ball (GiveWell), Mousumi Rahman (Malaria Consortium), and Kayla Fisher (GiveDirectly) for sharing their time, expertise, and reflections, and to everyone who joined us live.

If you missed the event, we encourage you to watch the recording and share it with anyone curious about how effective giving is driving high-impact, real-world change.

🎥 Watch the replay here

Current total: $1,926,393 📈 Goal: $2,250,000 🎯

86% of the way to our June 30 goal!

Last updated: Monday 27th June 2025, 10:00AM AEST

🎉 Update: Our first matching pool was fully exhausted on Thursday, June 26th! Thanks to some generous support from one of our donors, we’ve unlocked a second matching pool of $150,000 to continue doubling donations through June 30th.

Join us this June to help raise $2.25 million and amplify lifesaving impact

At the end of the last financial year in 2024 (EOFY), Australians like you stepped up, donating over $2 million to highly cost-effective programs.

🌟 As a result, we exceeded our annual fundraising average by $700,000 and our community’s 2024 giving is estimated to help more than 1.2 million people with improved health and economic opportunity, and about 670 lives will be saved.

📈 This EOFY, we need your help to beat that record and hit $2.25 million by June 30 — helping tens of thousands more children and families in need.

To help us get there, we’re offering a limited-time opportunity to double your donation thanks to generous donors. If you’re giving through EAA for the first time, or returning after more than 12 months, your gift will be matched dollar for dollar. See below for full details.

Donate

Double your gift — for new and past donors

🎁 Thanks to three generous matching donors, up to $250,000 in donations from new and returning donors will be matched this June — dollar for dollar, up to $5,000 per donor. If you haven’t donated with EAA since 31 May 2024, your donation is eligible for this match.

This offer is valid from June 1 through midnight June 30, or until matching funds are fully allocated.

💛 Your support this June could be the difference that saves lives and improves futures.

Matching terms and conditions

⏰ The matching offer is effective from 1 June 2025 until midnight AEST on 30 June 2025, or until all matching funds have been used.

The match applies to donations of up to $5,000 from new first-time or past donors only — defined as individuals who have not donated to Effective Altruism Australia Ltd. (EAA) since 31 May 2024.

Eligibility

First-time donors: Individuals who have never donated with EAA.

Past donors: Individuals whose last contribution was made before 31 May 2024. Please use the same email address used for past donations.

Where are the matching funds from?

🤝 Several generous donors have committed a combined $250,000 in matching funds. These funds will only be unlocked for EAA partner charities as match-eligible donations are made, ensuring that your donation directly triggers additional support.

When is the offer available?

📅 This offer starts June 1 2025 and ends midnight June 30 2025.

Who is eligible?

First-time new donors who have never given directly with EAA. This includes those who have supported EAA’s programs via Giving What We Can but are now making their first donation direct through EAA’s website.

Past donors whose last donation with EAA was made over 12 months ago. If you are a returning donor, simply use the same email address to donate as you have in the past and if your last donation was any time before 31 May 2024, your new donation will be doubled up to $5,000.

Which programs does matching apply to?

🌍 Matching is available for all the below list of partner programs and funds, as well as donations to EAA’s operations. However some areas have limitations — see table below.

Donations will be matched dollar for dollar to the same program or fund.

First Round (Exhausted Thursday, 26 June)

Second Round (Announced Friday, 27 June)

What your donation can achieve

Your donation will go to our high-impact partners delivering proven, cost-effective interventions such as malaria prevention, vitamin A supplementation, cash transfers, mental health support, and more, helping save and improve lives in the world’s poorest communities.

Every year, millions of children die from preventable causes—malaria alone takes around 425,000 young lives annually. By hitting our target, our partner charities can expand their reach and help protect even more vulnerable children and families around the world.

And at a time when tens of billions of dollars in aid are being slashed by governments, the support of individual donors like you is more crucial than ever.

🌍 Give effectively and impact lives

Together the 2025 campaign’s efforts will save lives, reduce emissions, and help to support children and families globally, making a real difference that goes beyond numbers to transform lives. Thank you for your commitment to effective giving.

Helen Keller VAS

Vitamin A supplementation for children under 5 years old

A donation of $50 AUD could enable 16 children to get vitamin A supplements for a year.

New Incentives

Incentives to caregivers who get their children vaccinated

A donation of $230 AUD could enable 8 children to be enrolled in the vaccination incentive program.

Malaria Consortium

Seasonal malaria chemoprevention to protect children under 5 from malaria

A donation of $100 AUD could enable 9 children to get malaria protection for a year.

Against Malaria Foundation

Nets to protect sleeping spaces from malarial mosquitoes

A donation of $75 AUD could enable 20 people to be protected by nets for 2–3 years.

GiveDirectly

Unconditional cash transfers for poverty relief

A donation of $775 AUD could lift one person out of poverty for a year.

Notes and sources

Impact calculations are approximate and derived from a combination of EAA’s 2024 quarterly regrant data (not published), GiveWell’s average cost per intervention and cost per life saved for its top charities (available here), GiveWell’s estimated number of people sleeping under each antimalarial net (available here), GiveWell’s estimate of cost per child enrolled in New Incentives’ program (available here), StrongMinds’ published information on cost per person treated (available here), and information provided to us Evidence Action, Unlimit Health, and GiveDirectly. See our calculations here.

In 2024, the Effective Altruism Australia community achieved something extraordinary: raising $5.74 million for our high-impact partners around the world.

This generosity is estimated to support over 1.2 million people through highly cost-effective programs delivering malaria prevention, vitamin A supplementation, cash transfers, mental health care, and more.

Each year, millions of children still die from preventable diseases. Malaria alone kills around 425,000 children under five annually. Thanks to this community’s generosity this past year, some of those deaths will be prevented.

Australians making a global impact

We’ve captured this collective impact in our 2024 Donor Impact Report, with last year’s EAA donations estimated to:

• Protect over 300,000 people from malaria
• Deliver vitamin A to more than 730,000 children
• Fund school-based deworming for 177,000 children
• Back climate efforts that avoided 23,000 tonnes of CO₂ emissions, equal to 177,000 one-way flights between Sydney and Melbourne
• And support thousands more children and families through vaccine incentives, group therapy, and unconditional cash transfers.

These life-changing impacts are quietly happening day by day, yet their effects are profound and lasting, improving human wellbeing and combating climate change in tandem.

Global aid cuts

At the same time, we are witnessing serious challenges across the global aid landscape, with billions of dollars in aid being cut by the US and UK governments, creating uncertainty for many vital programs. The support of individual donors and communities like ours has never been more important.

Over the past year, our small EAA team has been proud to support you and thousands of Australians committed to using their donations, careers, and spare time to address the world’s most pressing problems.

This work is only possible with the support of donors like you. By supporting our operations, you can multiply your impact, with a $100 gift to EAA’s operations unlocking an average of $500-880 in additional donations to our partners. Simply choose “Amplify my impact” in the donation form.

Thank you for giving effectively

Together these efforts are saving lives, reducing emissions and expanding opportunities for children and families experiencing poverty. More than one million people will be helped by donations made in the past year —a new record for our community and something we can all celebrate.

These numbers tell a powerful story. This generosity has not just changed statistics, it has changed lives.

Thank you for your commitment to effective giving — we’re excited for what we’ll achieve together in 2025 and beyond.

Introduction

Globally, inequality is rising. As a society, we often think that the wealthy should be compelled to help solve these issues—but what if that wealthy person was you?

When we imagine the top 1% of global earners, generally we picture the ultrarich on their super yachts headed to private islands.

Yet, a closer look at global income data reveals a different perspective—earning A$95,000 a year post-tax places you in the top 1%. Even earning an average Australian income of A$55,000 places you in the top 4% of income-earners worldwide.

For someone earning an average income and living in a rich country, philanthropy is your superpower for doing good.

“But everything is cheap over there, and stuff is expensive here.”

Yes, things cost more in Australia, but these numbers already account for that.

It may seem counterintuitive, especially right now when Australians are facing a cost of living crisis, but by global standards, the purchasing power of most Australian adults is among the strongest in the world. This means the money you make still buys you more.

When Australians travel to low-income countries, we like the cheaper drinks and food. But, even when you account for this difference in prices, we’re still at the top of the global rich list, because the calculations account for ‘purchasing power parity.’

Put simply, purchasing power is an individual’s ability to buy goods and services. Factors affecting purchasing power include income, inflation, cost of living and currency value.

Purchasing power parity can then be used to compare the cost of living between countries and to make adjustments for the economic output or income levels of different nations.

A simple way to think about this is: can I buy the same packet of two minute noodles in Australia for the same cost as I can in Nigeria? The short answer is no.

Accounting for purchasing power, Nigerian noodles are 20x more expensive

Living in a major Australian city like Sydney can feel expensive: we spend about 30% of our salaries on housing. Even accounting for this, by global standards, Australians have it pretty good.

Not only are average Australian salaries among the highest in the OECD, the cost of our food and transport is generally cheaper than other OECD cities, and access to free healthcare and childcare help make incomes go further and enhance our quality of life.

Compare this to Nigeria, where the average salary is between A$2,400 – 5,000 per year. Now, the cost of basic items in Nigeria might appear low, with average rent per month around ₦50,000 (approximately A$130). But, with salaries so low, the average person in a major city like Lagos or Abuja spends more than 50% of their income on housing. Declining wages, combined with high inflation, means that essential goods and services are becoming increasingly expensive for Nigerians.

These factors combine to highlight that while a package of two minute noodles might cost less in Nigeria (A$0.94 in Australia and A$0.68 in Nigeria), adjusting for incomes that same package of noodles costs 2000% more in Nigeria than it does in Australia.

For every one pack of noodles someone can buy in Nigeria, you can buy twenty.

The power of your position

Being among the richest people globally, our opportunity—and responsibility—to give back is greater than ever.

If the top 1% of global earners in Australia donated 10% of their income (still placing most of them in the top 1-2%) to effective charities, that would equate to A$61.7 billion per year. Directed to highly effective charities, that money could provide literally billions of life-saving interventions like anti-malarial bed nets, vitamin A supplements, and deworming treatments.

Globally, if the top 1% globally all donated 10%, we could raise $3.6 trillion in just two years. That’s enough to provide clean water and sanitation for all, end hunger and malnutrition for good, eradicate malaria, massively reduce HIV and tuberculosis, eliminate neglected tropical diseases, prevent the next pandemic, and more.

Source: Longview Philanthropy “What if the 1% gave 10%?”

Yes, these are hypotheticals—but the enormity of these accomplishments is a valuable reminder of what we can do when we act together toward a common goal.

If you find yourself in the top 1%, committing 10% of our income is a powerful way to make a difference by supporting highly effective charities.

If 10 percent is too much for you, start with 5 percent or 1 percent. The aim is to start giving effectively now, to positively impact lives today, and into the future.

Explore taking a Pledge today

You’ll be among 10,000+ other pledgers from 116 countries.

But what if the biggest difference you could make came not from how you live—but where you give?

While lifestyle changes are important, recent research reveals that supporting systems level change can supercharge our impact on decarbonisation and reduce the worst effects of climate change.

Research from Founders Pledge reveals that donating to the most effective climate charities is likely the best way we can tackle climate change—with US$100 preventing 10 tonnes of CO₂ emissions, equivalent to flying 3-5 round trips from Sydney to London.

Climate impact of lifestyle decisions compared to effective donations (tonnes of CO₂)

What makes a charity effective?

System level impact

When it comes to climate change, influencing policy is one of the most effective levers for creating systemic change. Governments control the regulatory landscape which both enables and constrains industrial developments, emissions, and energy consumption.

Supporting policy initiatives that push for stricter emissions standards and targets, and provide incentives for renewable energy and the development of new technologies to reduce emissions, can yield disproportionately large results.

Neglected solutions

When we think about climate solutions, renewable energy like wind and solar or scaling up adoption of electric vehicles, often come to mind. While these solutions are creating important pathways to reducing emissions globally, they will not be enough.

By focusing on climate solutions that are neglected or underutilised, there is the opportunity to shift policies, public awareness, and investment to gain the traction needed to rapidly reduce pollution and decarbonise economies.

Evidence-based

Evidence should be the driving force for action. To maximise the positive impact of an individual’s actions, making decisions based on high quality research and data is critical to ensuring that resources—time, money, and effort—are directed toward the most effective solutions.

Which climate charities are most effective?

Effective Altruism Australia works with two evaluation partners, Giving Green and Founders Pledge, which each perform rigorous research to identify some of the world’s most effective, evidence-based, high-leverage climate initiatives.

The charities identified by both organisations have been included in the Effective Altruism Australia: Environment Fund to make it easy for individuals to donate to the most effective climate charities.

Donating to Effective Altruism Australia’s Environment Fund is recommended as the best way to maximise your impact for reducing emissions and combating climate change. The fund currently includes three organisations we believe are having an outsized impact:

1. The Clean Air Task Force

The Clean Air Task Force is a U.S. based nonprofit organization that has been dedicated to tackling air pollution since its establishment in 1996. The Clean Air Task Force has an established track record of successfully influencing policy on zero-emission power solutions, methane emissions reduction and ‘hard to abate’ sectors like shipping and aviation. The Clean Air Task Force now works globally, operating in Africa and Europe.

Why it matters: The Clean Air Task Force focuses on reducing greenhouse gas emissions from ‘hard to abate’ sectors like power generation, heavy industries, and transportation. By addressing emissions from these sectors and advocating for underdeveloped technologies, the Clean Air Task Force has made real and lasting impacts of emissions reductions. This includes advocating for changes to the U.S. Environmental Protection Act, which contributed to the retirement of more than one-third of U.S. coal-fired power plant capacity over the past decade.

2. Opportunity Green

Opportunity Green is a UK-based nonprofit founded in 2021, that seeks to reduce emissions from aviation and maritime shipping through focused regulatory and policy initiatives. Since its inception, the organisation has worked to promote the adoption of clean energy alternatives, build coalitions and integrate the voices of climate vulnerable countries like Small Island Developing states (SIDS) and Least Developed Countries (LDCs) into international policy dialogues.

Why it matters: Aviation and shipping are two of the most neglected sectors in the climate conversation. In 2022, global shipping accounted for 2% of total global greenhouse gas emissions, while in 2023, aviation was responsible for 2.5% of total global greenhouse gas emissions. Combined, this is equivalent to the emission produced by the European Union in 2023. With emissions from both aviation and shipping set to increase over the coming decade, the work of Opportunity Green will be vital to build international cooperation, support infrastructure development for green hydrogen and upgrade technologies to reduce pollution.

3. Project InnerSpace

Launched in 2022, Project InnerSpace is a U.S.-based nonprofit that aims to accelerate the growth and uptake of geo-thermal energy around the world. As a source of carbon-free heat and electricity, geo-thermal energy holds immense potential to replace fossil fuels, especially in the Global South. Project InnerSpace is currently focused on identifying and mapping geothermal resources worldwide, providing crucial data to guide the development of new projects and breaking down barriers to investment to make geo-thermal a viable component of climate mitigation efforts.

Why it matters: Project InnerSpace’s focus on underutilised technology and enabling energy transition pathways for the Global South are critical for emissions reduction. Geothermal energy is one of the most reliable and sustainable sources of carbon-free energy. Unlike solar or wind, geothermal energy can provide constant, baseload power, meaning it isn’t intermittent and can work around the clock. These kinds of solutions will be critical to reducing emissions, particularly in Southeast Asia which is on course to account for 25% of global energy demand growth between now and 2035.

If you’re serious about reducing emissions and tackling climate change, consider acting where it counts most and making a tax-deductible donation to the Effective Altruism Australia Environment Fund today.

Whether you’re new to effective altruism or already thinking hard about how to do more good, these episodes will challenge assumptions, inspire action, and offer practical ways to make a difference. They’re perfect for listening on a commute, a walk, or whenever you’re ready to tune into some thought-provoking content.

And if we’ve missed any of your favourites, please send them through to us!

🎧 1. Lives Well Lived

Host: Peter Singer

Hosted by philosopher Peter Singer, Lives Well Lived explores how people find meaning through helping others. The tone is warm and reflective, focused less on metrics and more on values, choices, and stories that shape the way we live and give.

• Ideal audience: Listeners new to effective altruism or those interested in the moral and personal aspects of doing good.
• Start with:
  • Charlie Bresler – The road to effective altruism
  • Profit for Good – building businesses that donate 100% of their profits to charity
  • Sigal Samuel – Optimising morality

🔗 Listen Here

🎧 2. 80,000 Hours Podcast

Host: Rob Wiblin

This is one of the most in-depth podcasts on how to solve the world’s most pressing problems. Rob Wiblin interviews leading thinkers on everything from global health and AI risk to climate change and ethics – often for two to four hours at a time.

• Ideal audience: Individuals familiar with effective altruism concepts seeking deeper, technical explorations; those aiming to maximise their career impact; and newcomers open to long-form content.
• Start with: Effective Altruism: An Introduction – This curated 10-episode series is a crash course in using evidence and reason to do good. You’ll hear from key figures like Holden Karnofsky, Toby Ord, and Will MacAskill on how to think clearly about your impact – whether you’re donating, choosing a career, or just trying to be a better global citizen.

🔗 Listen Here

🎧 3. Clearer Thinking with Spencer Greenberg

Host: Spencer Greenberg

Not strictly an effective altruism podcast, but it often overlaps. Spencer Greenberg interviews experts on how to make better decisions, avoid common reasoning traps, and approach complex moral questions with clarity.

• Ideal audience: General listeners interested in self-improvement and big ideas; seasoned EAs seeking broader rationalist perspectives.
• Start with:
  • Critiquing Effective Altruism (with Ajeya Cotra & Michael Nielsen)
  • What should the EA movement learn from the FTX scandal? (with Will MacAskill)
  • Estimating the long-term impact of our actions today (with Will MacAskill)

🔗 Listen Here

🎧 4. Hear This Idea

Hosts: Fin Moorhouse & Luca Righetti

A curious, thoughtful podcast exploring philosophy, economics, and global priorities research. The hosts interview researchers and advocates working on big-picture problems – and ask smart questions along the way.

• Ideal audience: Listeners seeking intellectual yet clear discussions; newcomers and seasoned EAs interested in novel research.
• Start with:
  • Luke Freeman on Giving What We Can and Community Building
  • Marcus Daniell on High Impact Athletes
  • Rory Stewart on GiveDirectly and Massively Scaling Cash Transfers

🔗 Listen Here

🎧 5. GiveWell Conversations

Host: Elie Hassenfeld (CEO & Co-founder, GiveWell)

A new podcast from GiveWell that goes behind the scenes on how they respond to real-time global health challenges. If you’re curious about how funding decisions get made – and how they save lives – it’s well worth a listen.

• Ideal audience: Donors, policymakers, and global health advocates interested in GiveWell’s decision-making and grantmaking.

🔗 Listen Here

Bonus: thought-provoking TED Talks

💡 Peter Singer – The why and how of effective altruism

The talk that sparked a movement. A clear, compassionate case for giving based on both heart and reason.

📊 Natalie Cargill – How to solve the world’s biggest problems

Smart, practical thinking about how to pick the causes that matter most – and why neglected problems are often where you can help the most.

Whether you’re just starting your journey or looking to deepen your understanding, these conversations offer a fresh perspective on how to live, give, and act with purpose.

Let us know your favourites—we’d love to feature more listener picks in the future!

“Many of us feel that tackling climate change is about switching off lights or driving less. While these actions matter, we need to understand that climate change requires more than individual efforts—it calls for systemic change,” says Dr Michael Noetel, Chair and Director of EAA.

According to a Founders Pledge report, a donation of $1000 to the world’s most effective climate charities yields more environmental impact than all of the following combined:

• buying an electric car,
• avoiding 10 international flights,
• eating plant-based food only, and
• retrofitting your house with green heating and LED lights.

This observation led to the inception of the EAA Environment Fund, which focuses on high-leverage, evidence-based, and neglected areas within the climate change space. The Environment Fund’s approach seeks to “find the biggest levers—like new technologies or major governments—and ensure our top charities can get much more bang for your buck,” Dr Noetel explains.

The EAA Environment Fund consults with evaluation parters Giving Green and Founders Pledge, who conduct robust research into what works. The fund then partners with those charities so Australian donors can support the most effective program.

For the launch of the fund, EAA has partnered with three such charities: the Clean Air Task Force, the Evergreen Collaborative, and Carbon180. These organisations drive change through technological advancement, advocacy, and innovative policy solutions.

Dr Noetel emphasises the dynamic nature of the Fund: “Every quarter, we consult with our evaluation partners to see where your donation could go the furthest. We then provide grants to those charities, so your dollar goes as far as it can.”

The launch of the EAA Environment Fund represents a challenge to Australians to reevaluate their approach to climate change, taking collective action to not only achieve net zero emissions but to actively reverse the trend.

“Together, we can get to net zero and beyond. I hope you’ll join us in taking the next steps,” Dr Noetel encourages.

For more information, visit www.effectivealtruism.org.au/environment

About Effective Altruism Australia

Effective Altruism Australia (EAA) is an Australian charity dedicated to improving the way we help others. By using evidence and reason to determine the most effective ways to do good, EAA directs funds to the most impactful causes and organisations in the world.

Media Contact

Dr Michael Noetel michael.noetel@eaa.org.au