If you look at the actual essay, it takes the form "Obviously we need to work on the obvious things like nuclear war and global warming -- but there are some less obvious things that are also really important."

Then it argues that we need to be able to predict what extinction threats are most dangerous/urgent/tractable, with some kind of widely trusted institution doing the predicting. (IMO it would pretty much have to be something like a prediction market or that one superforcasting tournament. Anything more conventional, like the IPCC that the essay mentions as a model, will naturally become so politicized that they become untrusted and unworthy of trust.)