Strong upvote for bothering to read the terms and conditions!

"You say that viewed from your and many EA’s moral framework, nature has no value?"

No - Gemma said nature has no "intrinsic moral value". There is a difference between intrinsic value and instrumental value. Intrinsic value is something that is valued for its own sake. Instrumental value is where something is valuable because it contributes to something else. 

Nature clearly has instrumental value, i.e. "we care about environmental protection primarily because of its impact on sentient beings".

But nature isn't the only thing that has an impact on sentient beings. The question is how we should best use additional resources (e.g. time and money) to improve outcomes for sentient beings.

Spending more on protecting nature is obviously one option, but not the only one. If we spend more on nature, we have less to spend on human disease and animal welfare etc. So we need to consider all the options, and focus on where we can do the most good.

That might be right. Another explanation is that even if she takes x-risk seriously, she thinks it's easier build political support around regulating AI by highlighting existing problems. 

I don't have a clear answer - but if your concern is intense suffering of animals, why not get involved with animal rights/welfare activism? Is there a reason to favour climate activism?

This is just speculation, but I wonder if it's more cost-effective to donate to a Senate candidate who is also running in a Presidential swing state? Maybe Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, or Arizona?

It seems plausible that a strong Senate candidate could inspire voters to get out and vote for a President they're not enthusiastic about - essentially a 'reverse coattails' effect (though I don't think there's particularly strong evidence for this)

Also in the article "The Animal and Plant Health Agency - part of the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs - gave the product the go-ahead."

I think there are a bunch of EAs working at Defra - I wonder if they helped facilitate this?

Lab-grown meat approved for pet food in the UK 

"The UK has become the first European country to approve putting lab-grown meat in pet food.

Regulators cleared the use of chicken cultivated from animal cells, which lab meat company Meatly is planning to sell to manufacturers.

The company says the first samples of its product will go on sale as early as this year, but it would only scale its production to reach industrial volumes in the next three years."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c19k0ky9v4yo

I have taken the pledge but I'm not currently donating 10%, so don't feel I can authentically promote it to others right now.

I guess it's worth waiting to see what each party says in its manifesto.

But unless the polls dramatically tighten, it doesn't seem particularly valuable to spend time weighing up which party to vote for at a national level because it's highly likely (>90%) that Labour will win.

What might be valuable is considering the top couple of candidates in your local constituency (once candidates are confirmed) and going along to a hustings event to directly ask them for their views. Some constituencies will be determined by a relatively small number of votes - potentially a few hundred or even a few tens. But even if it's a relatively safe seat, this could help nudge the winning candidate to support better safety/regulation.

I'm also confused as to why $10bn per disease is suggested, given the much higher costs of the listed examples. 

However, it seems plausible that costs per disease will substantially decrease as we learn more about biology and how to successfully run eradication campaigns. For example, developing a new vaccine technology against one virus could make it much easier and cheaper to develop vaccines against related viruses.