I'll be honest, any time I see EA groups latch onto an idea, its a good heuristic that the idea is fucking terrible.
EA's point that charities that provide malaria medication and vitamin A supplementation for pour children are very cost effective ways to save lives are very good. That might make other good points too. They are often very good at convincing people that certain charities are worthy of donation. I think it's possible that we'll see similar arguments form members of that group for extreme climate change measures.
As a general rule, EA groups have a tendency to latch onto ideas that are radical, ideas outside the overton window. You shouldn't assume that automatically means they're bad unless your heuristic is "we should never stray outside the overton window, ever".
I have no issue with radical ideas "outside the window" personally, but often find that EA groups tend to go right for barely workable "grand plans" and often don't listen to the people with boots on the ground, actually doing the work.
I'd give specific examples, but it would be doxing myself as many of them are extremely specific.