What.
https://funds.effectivealtruism.org
https://www.givewell.org/maximum-impact-fund
The common argument is that the best way to try and make an impact on climate change is to fund lobbyists to make change at governmental levels https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2021/12/most...
However causes like malaria prevention are pretty unsexy and don't get much love even though it's cheap, easily preventable.
Also, not talked about != not a worthy cause area to pursue.
The idea is to spend each marginal dollar in a high impact way, and a marginal dollar into a cause area that is already flush with cash won't make a big difference.
Getting more talent (instead of money) into the field is a different kind of intervention, but the energy field fails a different metric here which is "tractability," in the sense that EA people don't have any particular expertise or advantage in recruiting or training game-changing talent for the field, so it's not "tractable" even though it would hypothetically be nice if more top talent were in the field.