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

161–170 of 227 posts

Re: Stripe Climate

#161

Post by marcosdumay »

immmmmm wrote: post #30

Removing carbon from the atmosphere is a fight against the second law of thermodynamic. To win a fight against Entropy one needs energy, and typically a lot of. My question is simple: where do we find enough energy to capture the carbon that was emitted during the 200 last years? Because we consume already too much energy i fear..

There isn't that much entropy on CO2 dispersal through the air. At least not when compared to the original burning of the fuel.

There is only one of those 4 projects that try to reverse the burning reaction, and it uses solar energy (gathered by algae). The others won't see this problem.

Re: Stripe Climate

#162

Post by WhompingWindows »

I don't know much about spaceflight, but with SpaceX's rapidly reducing the cost of launching objects into orbit, would it make sense to block some small % of heat/radiation from the sun with mirrors or shades? We could use the LaGrange point or could focus on blocking light hitting the poles, to decelerate ice loss there? I wonder when that cooling would make sense financially and how it would be enacted.

Re: Stripe Climate

#163

Post by gwright »

falcolas wrote: post #100
gwright wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

1) doesn't justify telling someone their experience means "squat"

2) since when do you have to be vetted/credentialed to participate in a discussion here?

Re: Stripe Climate

#164

Post by markdown »

There are some quotes half-way down the page. One of them is from someone called Cabel Sasser. He has the title of Co-Founder, but it doesn't say of what. The company logo is just a P. Anyone have any ideas?

Re: Stripe Climate

#165

Post by grzm »

markdown wrote: post #164

There are some quotes half-way down the page. One of them is from someone called Cabel Sasser. He has the title of Co-Founder, but it doesn't say of what. The company logo is just a P. Anyone have any ideas?

Cabel Sasser is a cofounder if Panic. (https://panic.com/)

Re: Stripe Climate

#166

Post by hugoromano »

Climate by Stripe is nonsense. We need action and mindset change, not another fee. Eventually people will be arrested by carbon offsetting fraud, fake projects and ecosystem destruction. Wait for it...

Re: Stripe Climate

#167

Post by eloff »

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…

No, your conclusion is wrong. You don't need to put more carbon into the atmosphere to take carbon out. Nobody would fund that, well without bad subsidies anyway.

We need to reduce the amount of carbon we put into the atmosphere AND increase the amount we take out. There is no reason not to pursue both strategies at the same time - indeed time is short and everything we can do counts.

Re: Stripe Climate

#168

Post by jackdeansmith »

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…

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

I object to the "only then". Cutting emissions is absolutely the top priority, but we're going to need to scale up carbon removal dramatically by around mid-century. By starting soon we can bring costs down and get the tech ready for when we really need it to scale.

Re: Stripe Climate

#169

Post by sampo »

tkzed49 wrote: post #69
jl2718 wrote: post #65

Sorry, but this feel-goodism around carbon capture doesn’t work. They paid $775/ton. Coal is $30/ton. Those are not carbon-free facilities and salaries. Capture requires energy that could be used to reduce carbon emissions demand. 2nd law of thermodynamics says you can’t win this game. The best carbon capture technology is plants and plankton. The best carbon strategy is to use less. Buying offsets feels like peniten…

The linked article specifically explains that this does not involve the traditional practice of purchasing offsets and is focused on research.

> is focused on research

So while their punchline is "Remove carbon as you grow your business", when you read the fine print, they don't even promise to remove any carbon? At least the fine print is honest.

Re: Stripe Climate

#170

Post by el_nahual »

eloff wrote: post #167
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…

No, your conclusion is wrong. You don't need to put more carbon into the atmosphere to take carbon out. Nobody would fund that, well without bad subsidies anyway. We need to reduce the amount of carbon we put into the atmosphere AND increase the amount we take out. There is no reason not to pursue both strategies at the same time - indeed time is short and everything we can do counts.

Agreed. What I was trying to convey is that reducing new emissions to ~0 is a necessary win condition. It's not optional...and it's also urgent because those emissions reproduce. We're going to have to cut emissions to 0 anyway, so the sooner we do so, the better...by a LOT.

And besides being urgent, it's also something that we know how to do. As in, today. We have the technology! (It's called massive carbon taxes). Or at least we're much closer technologically than we are to any sort of clean, insanely efficient sequestration tech.

Perhaps this is obvious to you, but if you read the replies to my comment you'll see a number of replies where the tenor is "it's impossible to enact carbon taxes to reduce our emissions so let's work on sequestration instead."

Post reply on HN