Live data from Hacker News

Big oil helped shape Stanford’s latest climate-research focus

chronicle.com

41–50 of 141 posts

Re: Big oil helped shape Stanford’s latest climate-research focus

#41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"imagine a world where there is just too much wood (woodworkers be salivating) and there are massive jungles everywhere we could fit one." That's how the world looked like, before humans chopped or burned them down and let cattle, goats and sheep prevented new forests from growing again. Reforesting at least parts of that back, would capture significant amounts of CO2. No matter that a old tree composes at some point…

What regions of the world are we talking about? Northern Africa? South America?

All of them?

Except the iciest colds in the north and most arid deserts, forests used to be the norm.

edit: of course not every land was covered by forests, prairie also existed natural, but forests were a lot more common, than they are today.

Re: Big oil helped shape Stanford’s latest climate-research focus

#42
post #30
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is vague but it sounds like you're downplaying the seriousness of funding sources. This isn't a paranoid conspiracy or dramatic judgement. Companies really do pay for particular research results that benefit them. This has been going on at least since gasoline had lead in it.

I think you might be misunderstanding the amount of distrust placed in the root comment. He's claiming the more prestigious a University is, the more likely they are to take unethical funding because increased funding leads to more prestige. It's an attack on the integrity of modern science as practiced by academia, not on a subset of studies.

I kind of think the status of US schools is not very well known, or at least not consistently known:

To summarize the situation. US education institutes are laying off hundreds of teachers, cancelling courses, cutting services, etc. across the board. If a teacher is hired, it is most likely for part-time, on lower wages, with fewer benefits. If a teacher is guaranteed tenure after x many years, chances are they will be laid off, and their programs cancelled before this happens. At the primary level, schools are being aggressively merged, and sometimes even closed, to save money for the school district.

At the same time administrators in said schools are ballooning, more administrators are being hired, and their pay keeps going up (while other staff pay is stagnant). If there is money being allocated to the schools, it most likely goes into administration, not education. Administration has also become a political gig. Administrators move between school systems, get higher and higher positions, fill out their resumes, and gain prestige (all the while being payed more and more). What they actually do, is anybodies guess, most of the time they are simply in the way of teacher making actual changes which would benefit students. A typical scenario is a new higher administrator comes in, wants to look important and decides to create more administrator position and hire a security contractor to impose a security theater on campus.

I guess this this what your grand-parent was talking about. And how it comes to no-ones surprise when funding for this ballooning administration costs come from the same industry which is killing us all and our climate.

Re: Big oil helped shape Stanford’s latest climate-research focus

#43
post #31
post #27

Opposing nuclear was the first catastrophic mistake environmentalists made, causing them to be a net negative overall in terms of climate change. Opposing carbon capture will be the next (and possibly last) one. If you think climate change is a serious problem, then you need to put aside your moral beliefs and think like an engineer about solutions. There is no math that allows you to conserve/renewables your way to…

[flagged]

There was a recent pro-nuclear article posted here on HN which was authored by a fossil fuel lobbyist (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35658318). I know you are fishing for the opposite response, but it seems very likely at this point that the fossil fuel industry is funding pro-nuclear propaganda.

Re: Big oil helped shape Stanford’s latest climate-research focus

#44
post #3

Ever-growing armies of ever-better-paid administrators aren't going to magically pay for themselves. And a university won't be atop America's merciless academic pecking order for long if it's burdened with scruples about funding sources.

As cynical as we can count on these people to be - they're also smart enough to recognize that continually whoring themselves out to the highest bidder can, apart from undermining Stanford's integrity (which they obviously don't care about), also be detrimental to their bottom line in the longer run.

In fact this seems to be the only way they eventually learn:

In response, more than 800 people affiliated with the university have signed a letter calling for a funding ban, and some alumni say they won’t donate to their alma mater until it happens.

https://stanforddaily.com/2022/11/30/from-the-community-we-r...

Re: Big oil helped shape Stanford’s latest climate-research focus

#45
post #34
post #27

Opposing nuclear was the first catastrophic mistake environmentalists made, causing them to be a net negative overall in terms of climate change. Opposing carbon capture will be the next (and possibly last) one. If you think climate change is a serious problem, then you need to put aside your moral beliefs and think like an engineer about solutions. There is no math that allows you to conserve/renewables your way to…

Carbon capture is cleaning up dog shit in the kitchen with a toothpick instead of training it to go outside.

The dog has been dirtying the kitchen floor for long enough already that we're also going to need that toothpick.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change AR6 fact sheet on carbon dioxide removal:

"Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) refers to technologies, practices, and approaches that remove and durably store carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. CDR is required to achieve global and national targets of net zero CO2 and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. CDR cannot substitute for immediate and deep emissions reductions, but it is part of all modelled scenarios that limit global warming to 2° or lower by 2100."

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/outreach/IPCC_A...

Re: Big oil helped shape Stanford’s latest climate-research focus

#46
post #8
post #2

Stanford really taking a reputational hit these days. That's some shady business that.

Nah. Funding research to show your business isn't a problem is shady. Funding research to solve the problem could be a good thing, depending what the find.

Trusting the results is basically impossible now though. Even if they’re solution focused, you don’t know if they were adjusted in scale.

Re: Big oil helped shape Stanford’s latest climate-research focus

#47
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

There was a recent pro-nuclear article posted here on HN which was authored by a fossil fuel lobbyist ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35658318 ). I know you are fishing for the opposite response, but it seems very likely at this point that the fossil fuel industry is funding pro-nuclear propaganda.

I wouldn't put it past them that they want to increase the wedge between nuclear and renewables as much as possible. For them it's easy to be pro nuclear, as it's expensive and slow to build thanks to heavy regulatilon. While we argue nuclear vs. solar and wind, they can sit back and keep profiting from fossile fuels.

Edit: just read the article a bit. It's just as I thought. "Only nuclear can save us" bullshit, whereas a genuine writer would have written "Only a combination of green energy sources can save us". FF industry doing their thing..

Re: Big oil helped shape Stanford’s latest climate-research focus

#48
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has been demonstrated repeatedly that the source of funding does implicitly bias research results. But the bigger effect is the appearance of working on the solution is often used to prevent real mitigation efforts that are here and now, such as higher costs for CO2 emissions, reforming the carbon trading scheme, and investing in moving to more use of green electricity. We spend on the order of $900B a year on the…

We don’t need to strong arm the world to access oil, we are a net exporter of oil. There’s lots of bad things to say about our foreign policy, but the idea that it’s about oil should have died with the Iraq War (where we spent trillions of dollars but didn’t get any oil).

You think the US bush and Bush senior administration would of given a thought about Iraq if it wasn’t an oil producing resource?

Re: Big oil helped shape Stanford’s latest climate-research focus

#49
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is vague but it sounds like you're downplaying the seriousness of funding sources. This isn't a paranoid conspiracy or dramatic judgement. Companies really do pay for particular research results that benefit them. This has been going on at least since gasoline had lead in it.

the bigger issue you overlooked is the constant growth of bureaucratic overhead sucking up the watershed of resources and leaving only a trickle for the people actually putting together the curriculum, teaching and researching. The administrators are useful to a point but they vastly overstate their importance and erode everything they touch overtime like a malignant cancer in a lot of organizations.

"lot of organizations" your being generous.

Re: Big oil helped shape Stanford’s latest climate-research focus

#50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All I'm saying is that the technical debate between these different methodologies is what matters. If we agree on that, I have no dispute with you. I don't know what carbon capture method is best or how big of an impact carbon capture can have. I would like to see the research, which is what the article is about.

"I would like to see the research, which is what the article is about." The article is about how big oil changed Standford's research focus. And their interest is simply to leave everything as it is and stall any further oil limitations, so they can profit, like they used to, without having to fundamentally change. But yes, they are totally free to fund research that is in their interest and if they happen to find a…

Different areas have different power availability from different sources at different times of the year. We have limited capacity to move and store that energy.

If the price of re-extracting released carbon is baked into into burning fossil fuels, then carbon capture will only be viable in places where energy is cheap, such as places with good conditions for solar, wind or hydro.

The economic viability of carbon capture is thus entirely dependent on the quality of the regulatory framework around carbon emissions. If we don't have that, then any advances in carbon capture technology won't matter. If we do have that, then giving the carbon capture industry a bit of a headstart with research will make the necessary overall emissions targets we need easier to reach.

So while carbon capture is indeed touted as an excuse to avoid those regulations by opportunistic politicians, those politicians would find some other excuse to oppose those regulations. So don't let them lead you think that carbon capture isn't an important part of the solution that is being developed by people who care deeply and climate change.

We've waited far to long already and simply can't afford to ignore any part of the solution that can help reduce total emissions faster.

Post reply on HN