I am concerned about the incredible concentration of money and resources into a few academic institutions. Obviously Stanford is an incredible school, but I am not sure Stanford will do more with $1B than 10 2nd tier schools would do with $100M each.
Stanford gets $1.1B for new climate school from John Doerr
11–20 of 214 posts
Re: Stanford gets $1.1B for new climate school from John Doerr
#12We are burning incredible amounts of coal 40 years after we started talking about climate change. I believe around 40% of global electricity is from coal. We keep waiting for the windmills and batteries to solve the problem, while kicking the can down the road https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/03/more-tha...
The amount of energy we use is expected to increase in 30 years. The percentage of that from coal is expected to go down. Great, right?
No, we are basically on a path to burn the same amount of coal in the future (but a larger percentage of our energy will come from other sources).
I’m not a doomer but we aren’t taking this issue seriously at all. The policy solutions exist but the political power isn’t there. I’m starting to think our best chance is a technological leap in carbon capture.
Re: Stanford gets $1.1B for new climate school from John Doerr
#13The most encouraging signal on climate to me is that the “money” seems to finally be waking up.
ESG policies - backed by data monitoring requirements to combat greenwashing from sovereign wealth funds are real, arduous, and creating business and capital incentives with environmental alignment.
Early stage climate tech funds - of which their are many today where there were few even a few years ago - are giving a new generation of entrepreneurs something to focus on beyond monetization efforts.
And of course both company and billionaire branding is shifting to the importance of climate, carbon neutral solutions.
I take this all much less as a sign of altruism but of market efficiency - a shift towards making “saving the planet”profitable is the only model I believe will ever move the needle.
So to that end I applaud this effort - Just signaling viability of a career in the space is a great step in the right direction
Re: Stanford gets $1.1B for new climate school from John Doerr
#14We are burning incredible amounts of coal 40 years after we started talking about climate change. I believe around 40% of global electricity is from coal. We keep waiting for the windmills and batteries to solve the problem, while kicking the can down the road https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/03/more-tha...
> kicking the can down the road
When I was a kid, I remember my uncle introduced me to a guy he worked for who had made his initial fortune way back. It turns out that he bought a company that sold inner tubes for car tires, and when the automakers first moved to tubeless tires, the business owner wanted to sell. So, my uncle's friend bought him out cheap, and then targeted all the buyers of the new cars with tubeless tires. Apparently, the new car buyers didn't trust the tubeless tires yet, and the first place then went was to my uncle's friend to get tubes for their tubeless tires.
The lesson here is that change is hard, and as humans, we aren't very good at it. My guess is that humanity will be kicking the can down the road for quite awhile.
Re: Stanford gets $1.1B for new climate school from John Doerr
#15I am concerned about the incredible concentration of money and resources into a few academic institutions. Obviously Stanford is an incredible school, but I am not sure Stanford will do more with $1B than 10 2nd tier schools would do with $100M each.
> I am not sure Stanford will do more with $1B than 10 2nd tier schools would do with $100M each
Absent data, it's difficult to say. There are economies of scale, even if just in experience administering such projects.
Re: Stanford gets $1.1B for new climate school from John Doerr
#16Tell me you care more about your legacy than actually helping the world without telling me you care more about your legacy than actually helping the world.
Re: Stanford gets $1.1B for new climate school from John Doerr
#17What do your do with a degree in climatology? It’s not a good idea to get these odd degrees as they are not good for signaling to potential employers.
If it's from Stanford, pretty much whatever you want. So, basically, investment banking or data science (those are still two separate jobs right?).
"If it's from Stanford, pretty much whatever you want."
That not true at all. The name of the university can only get you so far. For example, if you have a climate-related degree, can you really compete with Stanford CS majors for a SDE job? Or with ME majors for a product design position?
IMO if you get into Stanford and can pay for the degree, it would be a waste to spend it in a major like that unless you're really passionate and have very specific goals.
"So, basically, investment banking or data science"
Well, those are definitely not "whatever you want".
Re: Stanford gets $1.1B for new climate school from John Doerr
#18We are burning incredible amounts of coal 40 years after we started talking about climate change. I believe around 40% of global electricity is from coal. We keep waiting for the windmills and batteries to solve the problem, while kicking the can down the road https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/03/more-tha...
[deleted]
Re: Stanford gets $1.1B for new climate school from John Doerr
#19Is investing in a university endowment the best way to put $1.1B to work combating climate change? How about investing in companies developing clean energy technologies?
Probably not, but it probably is the best way to get a building/department named after you.
Re: Stanford gets $1.1B for new climate school from John Doerr
#20I am concerned about the incredible concentration of money and resources into a few academic institutions. Obviously Stanford is an incredible school, but I am not sure Stanford will do more with $1B than 10 2nd tier schools would do with $100M each.
This is a very fair concern. First off, most of this funding will go to a building. The rest will go mostly to an endowment.
The concentration of mega-gifts at the top has very perverse impacts.
Harvard built a $100M building a few years ago that is used by a total of 100 people a year.
Philanthropy combines prestige, PR, and “legacy” in a way that massively overvalued those three vs. any kind of measurable impact.
The alternative you are suggesting is badly, badly needed in the non-profit world.
But the “brand” game has won vs the execution game, esp. in higher Ed.