Decrement carbon: Stripe's negative emissions commitment • Hacker News Board

Re: Decrement carbon: Stripe's negative emissions commitment

#181

Post by WhompingWindows » Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 1:49 PM UTC

dgellow wrote: post #159

abalone wrote: post #117

Just to summarize (warm up those downvotes...): * “almost certainly more” than 84% of stripe’s emissions will not be sequestered because it’s “financially infeasible” * no mention of stripe’s actual carbon footprint * talk of startups and trillion dollar industry “by the end of the century” but no mention of government intervention / green new deal to turn the tide in the next decade before it’s too late Verdict: fre…

> We need massive mobilization at the federal level to hit the necessary emissions reductions within the next 12 years if we are to avoid a catastrophic rise in temperature. That doesn’t really make sense IMHO, global warming isn’t a US problem, it’s a worldwide issue. Let’s say the US becomes a benevolent dictatorship with the mission to reduce CO2 emissions by any mean necessary (and is somehow successful), you sti…

Come now, think creatively here, this going to war nonsense is a total straw man argument. Carbon-based import tariffs, sanctions, and having a very strong, innovative US clean tech to export/sell its tech to other countries who need but dont have the R&D budget.

Re: Decrement carbon: Stripe's negative emissions commitment

#182

Post by deftnerd » Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 1:52 PM UTC

simonebrunozzi wrote: post #14

It's a small step in the grand scheme of things... But it's a huge step (and commitment) coming from a single company. I can honestly say that no company the size of Stripe has even come close to being this "cool" (in a good way, not in a superficial sense) on so many things: company culture, remote-ok, perks, and now environment. At least from my point of view. Kudos. Lots of kudos. Keep the good work, guys. As a si…

I've actually been slightly interested in buying some cheap land outside of town and slowly planting trees to forest it over the next decade. The goal would be to plant enough trees to cover the carbon footprint of me and my entire family.

What I don't know is where I can find out which trees are particularly suited for carbon capture. From what I've read, fast growing trees will capture carbon quickly, but only if you harvest them, prevent rotting of the wood, and replanting a new crop.

Slow growth trees will store more carbon, but it takes a longer time for it to accomplish it.

I suppose it's like one of those "Good, Fast, Cheap - Pick two" situations. Is it better to capture a lot of carbon quickly to help the planet ASAP, or to kick-off the planting of trees that will capture carbon for the next 300 years?

Even when that's decided, how do I pick which trees aren't just suited for my area (relatively easily with native tree guides), but also well-suited for carbon capture and survival in an increasingly chaotic climate and ecosystem?

Re: Decrement carbon: Stripe's negative emissions commitment

#183

Post by cschwarm » Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 2:04 PM UTC

est31 wrote: post #64

surfmike wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t you then need to worry about enforcement mechanisms to keep those trees from getting cut down? If they’re all harvested after say n decades, there’s no net effect on climate.

Forests have evolved into recycling ecosystems. When a tree dies naturally, it gets decomposed by various fungi and other organisms which, over time, release the stored CO2 back into the atmosphere. So the CO2 is released one way or another. What matters is that the living tree stores CO2 in its wood. Cutting and replanting might even increase the amount of stored CO2 because any wood that's used in the building indu…

Burying biochar (the superset of charcoal, basically) in old coal mines or other geological structures is a feasible way for long-term storage. The carbon content can be up to 90%, depending on the method. Biochar can be made from nearly all forms of biomass as long as it's dry enought.

Re: Decrement carbon: Stripe's negative emissions commitment

#184

Post by brazir » Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 2:10 PM UTC

I personally wish more companies worked like this. I know in about six months once i sort out the spend rate for engineering at my startup i am going to be looking at if we can give back either to environment or to open source. There is an inevitability as the old die off and the young more hyper aware we forge ahead to a less pollution intense world.

Re: Decrement carbon: Stripe's negative emissions commitment

#185

Post by antisemiotic » Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 2:15 PM UTC

cschwarm wrote: post #183

est31 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forests have evolved into recycling ecosystems. When a tree dies naturally, it gets decomposed by various fungi and other organisms which, over time, release the stored CO2 back into the atmosphere. So the CO2 is released one way or another. What matters is that the living tree stores CO2 in its wood. Cutting and replanting might even increase the amount of stored CO2 because any wood that's used in the building indu…

Burying biochar (the superset of charcoal, basically) in old coal mines or other geological structures is a feasible way for long-term storage. The carbon content can be up to 90%, depending on the method. Biochar can be made from nearly all forms of biomass as long as it's dry enought.

Now I wonder how would old coal miners feel if you told them nowadays the coal is supposed to go in the ground.

Re: Decrement carbon: Stripe's negative emissions commitment

#186

Post by ako » Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 2:16 PM UTC

nightski wrote: post #49

gbrown wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's literally economics 101: externalities, but for some crazy reason in the US it's seen as a leftist anti-capitalist issue.

Because you are acting like this would punish the company. It might to an extent but in reality consumers would hurt the most. That in my opinion is why it doesn't happen.

It’s meant to ‘punish’ consumers: it needs to be painful enough that consumers reduce their consumption, otherwise pollution will not be reduced.

Re: Decrement carbon: Stripe's negative emissions commitment

#187

Post by mapster » Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 2:22 PM UTC

rsanek wrote: post #92

mapster wrote: post #59

I've seen a lot of tech companies carefully analyzing impact of commute. Essentially re-locating closer/central to employees like using the commutestudy tool. 100% public transit commute is a long term goal, so work/live distance should be as short as possible short term.

> 100% public transit commute is a long term goal Why is this a goal? Public transit isn't inherently cleaner. What makes it environmentally more attractive than personal ownership of electric vehicles, or a transit system subsidized by the government instead of run by it?

Even personal elec vehicles is a dumb way for millions to get to/from work in the future. Its very 'western' and old way of thinking. In 100yrs ppl will be either walking/biking/public transit or remote.

Re: Decrement carbon: Stripe's negative emissions commitment

#188

Post by JimiofEden » Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 2:24 PM UTC

mcot2 wrote: post #158

Why not invest in new solar power generation instead of removing co2 at this point.

Why not both?

At least in terms of priority, the damage is done and is already in the atmosphere. imo, we need to first focus on cleaning that up and getting some form of homeostasis before it gets much worse, WHILE working on solar/nuclear/renewable tech to make sure we don't just relapse and make the problem worse again.

I'm optimistically hoping that's the route we'd take anyways. Money tends to say otherwise tho. =(

Re: Decrement carbon: Stripe's negative emissions commitment

#189

Post by ant6n » Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 2:27 PM UTC

dgellow wrote: post #159

abalone wrote: post #117

Just to summarize (warm up those downvotes...): * “almost certainly more” than 84% of stripe’s emissions will not be sequestered because it’s “financially infeasible” * no mention of stripe’s actual carbon footprint * talk of startups and trillion dollar industry “by the end of the century” but no mention of government intervention / green new deal to turn the tide in the next decade before it’s too late Verdict: fre…

> We need massive mobilization at the federal level to hit the necessary emissions reductions within the next 12 years if we are to avoid a catastrophic rise in temperature. That doesn’t really make sense IMHO, global warming isn’t a US problem, it’s a worldwide issue. Let’s say the US becomes a benevolent dictatorship with the mission to reduce CO2 emissions by any mean necessary (and is somehow successful), you sti…

Given how the US is one of the worst polluters, both in absolute and relative terms, and how at a policy level it is way behind, a "benevolent dictatorship with the mission to reduce CO2 emissions by any mean necessary" would have a huge global impact.

Re: Decrement carbon: Stripe's negative emissions commitment

#190

Post by comicjk » Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 2:34 PM UTC

mikeg8 wrote: post #62

lkschubert8 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I mistaken in thinking that afforestation is technically a carbon sequestration strategy?

No, you are not. Trees naturally capture carbon in the form of wood. I noticed that distinction too in the post and assume they meant "modern" carbon sequestration engineered by humans.

There's also a big middle ground. For example, some semi-green power is generated by breaking wood into flammable gases + carbon ("biochar"), then burying the carbon and burning the gases.