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

Stanford gets $1.1B for new climate school from John Doerr

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 214 posts

Re: Stanford gets $1.1B for new climate school from John Doerr

#151

Post by leesec »

t_mann wrote: post #141
leesec wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look up breakthrough energy. He's investing a lot into climate.

Ok, thanks, I didn't know about that. 2B is a very decent amount of money. But it sounds more a VC that invests in highly risky, but ultimately profitable ventures. Carbon capture doesn't even feature in their wikipedia description ( It invests in a variety of startup companies that are attempting to commercialize new concepts such as nuclear fusion, large-capacity batteries to store renewable energy, and microbe-gen…

I mean dive deeper, they are funding carbon capture and currently no carbon capture anywhere close to profitability.

Re: Stanford gets $1.1B for new climate school from John Doerr

#152

Post by hpkuarg »

valarauko wrote: post #139
t_mann wrote: post #134

One thing that I don't get - if I was in the enviable position to make such donations, the one thing that I'd do is fund a company/foundation with a single goal - capture the maximum amount of carbon (+equivalents, +research into other ways to fixing climate change). There must be something I'm missing because I don't get eg what Bill Gates is doing. He says he wants to give away most his fortune to fix the biggest p…

I think malaria is absolutely worthy of the investment. Malaria is one of those issues that isn't top of the mind for much of the Western world, but is one of the absolute major killers worldwide, right now. It's also relatively a low hanging fruit in terms of return for money spent vs improvements in human well being. Climate Change is a big deal, but is it killing as many people on an annual basis as malaria, with…

In fact, one might say that the easiest bang for the Gates buck in terms of addressing climate change is pulling their anti-malaria funding. ;-)

Re: Stanford gets $1.1B for new climate school from John Doerr

#153

Post by simulate-me »

tofuahdude wrote: post #67
kwertyoowiyop wrote: post #16

Tell 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.

Why criticize someone for caring about their legacy when they're making an enormous contribution to the public good? Wrong lens. Who cares about his ego when he's making a real impact?

How is donating to Stanford, a private university, making an enormous contribution to the public good?

Re: Stanford gets $1.1B for new climate school from John Doerr

#154

Post by ChrisLomont »

t_mann wrote: post #134

One thing that I don't get - if I was in the enviable position to make such donations, the one thing that I'd do is fund a company/foundation with a single goal - capture the maximum amount of carbon (+equivalents, +research into other ways to fixing climate change). There must be something I'm missing because I don't get eg what Bill Gates is doing. He says he wants to give away most his fortune to fix the biggest p…

I wouldn't allocate money solely on the scale of the problem faced. I'd allocate it according to where it has the best utility. And several billion towards malaria is likely a much better outcome for humanity than a few billion towards climate change. It will move the needle more for on malaria than for climate change.

Re: Stanford gets $1.1B for new climate school from John Doerr

#155

Post by argonaut »

t_mann wrote: post #134

One thing that I don't get - if I was in the enviable position to make such donations, the one thing that I'd do is fund a company/foundation with a single goal - capture the maximum amount of carbon (+equivalents, +research into other ways to fixing climate change). There must be something I'm missing because I don't get eg what Bill Gates is doing. He says he wants to give away most his fortune to fix the biggest p…

The US government is already investing billions in carbon capture. Oil companies are also investing in this area. Coal companies are probably doing the same. I would guess Saudi Arabia is very interested in this area as well.

I don't think any rich companies or rich countries are spending much money on malaria. So Bill Gates probably feels like he can make a bigger difference there.

Re: Stanford gets $1.1B for new climate school from John Doerr

#156

Post by chrisco255 »

t_mann wrote: post #134

One thing that I don't get - if I was in the enviable position to make such donations, the one thing that I'd do is fund a company/foundation with a single goal - capture the maximum amount of carbon (+equivalents, +research into other ways to fixing climate change). There must be something I'm missing because I don't get eg what Bill Gates is doing. He says he wants to give away most his fortune to fix the biggest p…

How many people die per year from natural disasters and where does that fit in the overall picture of human suffering? Take that figure and deduct by whatever amount is the natural baseline (since eliminating inclement weather is impossible). Fewer people die from natural disasters today than ever in human history and despite world population being at all time highs.

You can believe the hype about a particular issue being "the biggest problem facing humanity" or you can look at it with a sober analysis.

Re: Stanford gets $1.1B for new climate school from John Doerr

#157

Post by edmundsauto »

rayiner wrote: post #108
RosanaAnaDana wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats simply not true. Engineering 'solutions' to climate change like more efficient or cleaner technologies, or things like direct air capture are also social signaling, although more veiled and perhaps self delusional. These solutions are the equivalent of building more lanes on a highway instead of going with public transportation solutions. If anything many of these technologies may end up making climate change d…

Colleges should offer a Bachelor of Science in Social Engineering. It would consist of spending four years writing “social engineering does not work” on a blackboard over and over.

Public health has a history of social engineering, sometimes successful.

Re: Stanford gets $1.1B for new climate school from John Doerr

#158

Post by metacritic12 »

daterdots wrote: post #11

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.

Is that true though? There's the idea of the 10x programmer, and from looking at academia, such thing as a 10x researcher as well.

In biology, the median 100th-ranked university professor is making incredibly incremental contributions (like applying a well known technique to the 300th gene). The average top university professor is making groundbreaking achievements.

I almost view it as the opposite -- if you gave the Watson and Crick lab (back in its heyday) $100, much more real impactful science would result compared to giving 100 me-too scientists $1.

Re: Stanford gets $1.1B for new climate school from John Doerr

#159

Post by 11101010001100 »

t_mann wrote: post #141
leesec wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look up breakthrough energy. He's investing a lot into climate.

Ok, thanks, I didn't know about that. 2B is a very decent amount of money. But it sounds more a VC that invests in highly risky, but ultimately profitable ventures. Carbon capture doesn't even feature in their wikipedia description ( It invests in a variety of startup companies that are attempting to commercialize new concepts such as nuclear fusion, large-capacity batteries to store renewable energy, and microbe-gen…

The ROI on this donation to stanford will be very similar to investing in carbon capture technology. I'll let you estimate that ROI.

Re: Stanford gets $1.1B for new climate school from John Doerr

#160

Post by t_mann »

ChrisLomont wrote: post #154
t_mann wrote: post #134

One thing that I don't get - if I was in the enviable position to make such donations, the one thing that I'd do is fund a company/foundation with a single goal - capture the maximum amount of carbon (+equivalents, +research into other ways to fixing climate change). There must be something I'm missing because I don't get eg what Bill Gates is doing. He says he wants to give away most his fortune to fix the biggest p…

I wouldn't allocate money solely on the scale of the problem faced. I'd allocate it according to where it has the best utility. And several billion towards malaria is likely a much better outcome for humanity than a few billion towards climate change. It will move the needle more for on malaria than for climate change.

I guess it's a matter of personal preference. If I was rich to the point that I could focus entirely on having an impact instead of making money, I'd basically ask myself a variation of Hamming's questions (originally meant as advice for academic researchers: 1. What are the most important problems in your field? 2. Are you working on one of them? 3. Why not?).
Post reply on HN