Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stripe Climate

stripe.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 227 posts

Re: Stripe Climate

#91

Post by okr »

defterGoose wrote: post #83
lefrenchy wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly I think far too many people will not evaluate the Green New Deal on it's actual merits and instead write it off because Bernie Sanders, AOC, and others have written/supported it. The strife and division we are seeing in the US will be a significant impact to climate action. We've already seen its impact on something as simple as mask wearing becoming politicized and difficult to coordinate on.

I can only hope that those driving the division (older people) will be dead soon, so that the younger generations who are by and large more eco-friendly can get on with the difficult work that needs to be done. Its past time for the old, rotten way of thinking to be plowed under.

Aha. What is old for you and what is young?

(Younger generations eco-friendly? That must be a joke. My parents do even unplug devices at night to save energy.)

Re: Stripe Climate

#92

Post by el_nahual »

Quick reminder that carbon removal is a necessary but secondary step. We need to stop pumping more carbon into the air faster than we need to stop taking it out, simply because it takes more energy to get carbon out of the air than the energy that carbon was used for in the first place.

To use a financial analogy: We have a high-interest credit card. That debt has compounding interest rates, and the interest rate is accelerating because of positive feedback loops.

A "carbon removal" strategy is basically like putting X dollars on our accelerating-rate credit card in order to invest X in a fund with a lower interest rate than the card itself. Obviously this will result in spiraling debt.

The ONLY solution is to take carbon spending to ~0 and only then focus on removing it from the air.

Re: Stripe Climate

#93

Post by gwright »

defterGoose wrote: post #81
antr wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm an energy investor (primarily focused on renewables), and I couldn't disagree more. I could go on an on with examples of how government intervention has created busts across the renewables space for the past 20 years, and has thrown down the drain billions of tax payer money. I'd like to keep governments out of something that works without them.

It almost certainly doesnt though, and your personal experience over the last two decades or whatever probably means squat. If the US government is/was capable of succeeding with the Manhattan and Apollo projects, there's no reason to believe that the same wouldn't be true of similar gargantuan efforts today. I'm not saying that the US can solve AGCC by itself, but I am saying that uncoordinated efforts by loosely co…

> It almost certainly doesnt though, and your personal experience over the last two decades or whatever probably means squat.

We all know that an anecdote is not data, but being so dismissive towards someone with specific industry knowledge seems inappropriate.

Re: Stripe Climate

#94

Post by nanr »

graeme wrote: post #79

Would this or any portion of this be considered a business deduction? Eg a marketing expense where you can show social responsibility for prospective customers?

Nan from Stripe's Climate team here! You might be able to deduct it as a business expense, but you’ll want to talk to your tax advisor first. We have a little more on this in our FAQ: https://stripe.com/docs/climate/faqs

Re: Stripe Climate

#95

Post by abalone »

antr wrote: post #77
abalone wrote: post #73

The only realistic solution to carbon removal is massive government investment, like most other major Silicon Valley core technologies. We need the Green New Deal. Anything less is posturing. I would even go so far as to say that on an issue of this importance, where we have maybe a decade left to turn the tide, giving the impression that private enterprise can solve it is irresponsible. Put those donations into GND…

I'm an energy investor (primarily focused on renewables), and I couldn't disagree more. I could go on an on with examples of how government intervention has created busts across the renewables space for the past 20 years, and has thrown down the drain billions of tax payer money. I'd like to keep governments out of something that works without them.

My god this is an irresponsible comment. Where to begin? First, it fundamentally misunderstands the history of Silicon Valley tech development, which has been primarily funded by government institutions such as DARPA at its core. This is true for sustainable energy as well — it is federally funded research that is advancing solar panel efficiency, for example.[1]

Second, you have a profit motive to rewrite this narrative and position private tech investors as the key innovation enablers. This happens all the time. The reality is the VC industry cherry picks the fruit that DARPA and related agencies invest in or sustain through government procurement. It takes billions over decades of failures to produce something that can be brought to market, and it’s done at taxpayer expense. The profits are privatized.

I say it is irresponsible in this case because we are literally facing the doom of our planet. This is not time to screw around with easily disproven self-aggrandizing Liberterian narratives that would detract from the political activism we need to solve this problem. We must understand how our system really works if we hope to save ourselves.

[1] https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/nrel-darpa-both...

Re: Stripe Climate

#96

Post by ta1234567890 »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #89
abalone wrote: post #73

The only realistic solution to carbon removal is massive government investment, like most other major Silicon Valley core technologies. We need the Green New Deal. Anything less is posturing. I would even go so far as to say that on an issue of this importance, where we have maybe a decade left to turn the tide, giving the impression that private enterprise can solve it is irresponsible. Put those donations into GND…

It seems pretty unlikely that a very specific bundle of proposed legislation is the only way to address climate change. Are all other countries doomed to failure because they don't have the Green New Deal?

Not because of not having a GND, but if the US doesn't take drastic measures soon, yes all other countries are doomed.

Because the US alone is the 2nd biggest contributor to carbon emissions in the world, and probably the only country that can make China (the 1st carbon emitter) cut theirs.

Re: Stripe Climate

#97

Post by colincooke »

el_nahual wrote: post #92

Quick reminder that carbon removal is a necessary but secondary step. We need to stop pumping more carbon into the air faster than we need to stop taking it out, simply because it takes more energy to get carbon out of the air than the energy that carbon was used for in the first place . To use a financial analogy: We have a high-interest credit card. That debt has compounding interest rates, and the interest rate is…

While ideal, this isn't very realistic. Likelier is that we will slowly get off carbon intensive energy sources and production mechanisms, but fail to move off them entirely for a long period. In this period it is essential that we invest in the technology required to stablize our climate, i.e. carbon capture.

With the proper clean energy generation capacity these systems can exist in harmony. Where carbon capture buys us more time to get more people on board with cleaner mechanisms. In addition, as this page points out, sustained investment is essential to technological development. By pushing down the cost of capture we allow for new economic opportunities, which provide both incentives (carbon tax for example) and direct benefits (using that tax income for capture).

Re: Stripe Climate

#98

Post by cialowicz »

el_nahual wrote: post #92

Quick reminder that carbon removal is a necessary but secondary step. We need to stop pumping more carbon into the air faster than we need to stop taking it out, simply because it takes more energy to get carbon out of the air than the energy that carbon was used for in the first place . To use a financial analogy: We have a high-interest credit card. That debt has compounding interest rates, and the interest rate is…

I'm not super familiar on the subject, but are you sure the analogy holds?

If we build enough capacity to scrub more carbon from the atmosphere than we add each year, then the problem will taper off, no? In your analogy, we'd be moving money from the high rate card to a lower rate one, and also making more $$$ than we spend annually.

Re: Stripe Climate

#99

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

ta1234567890 wrote: post #96
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems pretty unlikely that a very specific bundle of proposed legislation is the only way to address climate change. Are all other countries doomed to failure because they don't have the Green New Deal?

Not because of not having a GND, but if the US doesn't take drastic measures soon, yes all other countries are doomed. Because the US alone is the 2nd biggest contributor to carbon emissions in the world, and probably the only country that can make China (the 1st carbon emitter) cut theirs.

I agree that it's important to take lots of action on climate change as soon as possible. That's why it seems counterproductive to tell a company they should stop taking direct action and start promoting the Green New Deal. It's too urgent of a problem to insist that only people with a particular political stance should help.

Maybe the specifics of the Green New Deal are getting lost in translation here? The package isn't just about climate change; like its namesake, the Green New Deal includes provisions about labor rights, education, healthcare, etc. Not everyone who wants to address climate change will necessarily agree with the Green New Deal proponents on those other problems. (And that glosses over a lot of disagreement even on climate change - for example, the Green New Deal doesn't include nuclear power which many people feel is essential.)

Re: Stripe Climate

#100

Post by falcolas »

gwright wrote: post #93
defterGoose wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It almost certainly doesnt though, and your personal experience over the last two decades or whatever probably means squat. If the US government is/was capable of succeeding with the Manhattan and Apollo projects, there's no reason to believe that the same wouldn't be true of similar gargantuan efforts today. I'm not saying that the US can solve AGCC by itself, but I am saying that uncoordinated efforts by loosely co…

> It almost certainly doesnt though, and your personal experience over the last two decades or whatever probably means squat. We all know that an anecdote is not data, but being so dismissive towards someone with specific industry knowledge seems inappropriate.

FWIW, the grandparent's industry specific knowledge is in investment into developing renewable energy companies. This isn't very applicable to the article or problem at hand.
Post reply on HN