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

191–200 of 214 posts

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

#191

Post by andbberger »

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…

if you were in that position i would hope that you would do some napkin math about the necessary scale of carbon capture. last i checked the most efficient process would require about 1000x the annual energy output of the world just to keep up with emissions.

it's an understudied area, research funding has the potential to go a long ways. eg coccolitophores are sparsely studied but have the potential for carbon capture at a scale not achievable by industrial facilities

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

#192

Post by emmelaich »

olivermarks wrote: post #43

'Mr. Doerr joins a growing list of ultrawealthy men donating huge sums of money to the fight against global warming. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos said in 2020 said he was committing $10 billion of his own money to a new initiative he called the Bezos Earth Fund, and last year detailed how some of the money would be spent. Mr. Bloomberg, the former New York mayor, said in 2019 he would spend $500 million to help close co…

The Xprize carbon removal is a $100m competition -- https://www.xprize.org/prizes/elonmusk

IMHO, all the competitors have something that can only make a difference at enormous scale. It's a huge risk to invest in anything that attempts to make a difference in the medium term.

[edit - I've also submitted this link to HN - https://www.xprize.org/prizes/elonmusk/articles/meet-the-com... ]

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

#193

Post by formerkrogemp »

bobbylarrybobby wrote: post #169
thinkcontext wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gates has talked about what has motivated him to donate the way he has, its no mystery. He says he was gobsmacked by how little money was devoted to the health problems experienced by poor countries and that comparatively small investments could have enormous impact. Also, I think you are underestimating how terrible malaria is > Globally, the World Health Organization estimates that in 2020, 241 million clinical cas…

I mean, that's bad, but those numbers aren't anything compared to what climate change is going to do. If the population of Earth drops by a billion over the next hundred years, that's 10M a year, on average. (I recognize that I'm not differentiating between premature deaths and a lack of replacement births, but still.)

I mean we should also recognize the effect it's currently having. Not just what the immediate future holds in the form of many climate catastrophes. I've noticed that, in general, the younger someone is the more concerned they are about this immediate present and future of climate problems.

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

#194

Post by formerkrogemp »

valarauko wrote: post #180
hpkuarg wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. ;-)

As glib as that option might be, the people most affected by malaria are disproportionately the ones least contributing to Climate Change in the first place, and tend to live in regions most affected by CC. I'd imagine the Gates could get far more bang for their CC bucks by lobbying for revoking the EPA/FDA/OSHA/VA. A few billions in the right super PACs and CC might be reversed ;-)

> I'd imagine the Gates could get far more bang for their CC bucks by lobbying for revoking the EPA/FDA/OSHA/VA. A few billions in the right super PACs and CC might be reversed.

So, your claim is that if we didn't have the FDA or EPA, then we wouldn't have climate change? I haven't such a ridiculous claim in awhile. What's the logic here? Even disregarding the other Federal agencies that you seem to dislike, how does the end of the Environmental Protection Agency hinder climate change in any capacity whatsoever? Is this just sarcasm implying that if more people die due to the absence of these agencies, then there will be less of a collective carbon footprint?

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

#195

Post by hall0ween »

chrisco255 wrote: post #156
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…

From your comment, I get the sense that you believe climate change isn't a top priority for humans.

I disagree, I hold the opinion that we humans are on course, and hold responsibility, for the sixth (current) mass extinction event. And that the cause of this has been human activity and our consumption habits [0].

Mass extinction, sounds sober, sounds like it might have an effect on humanity and human suffering on a global level, no? It may not be a concern if you are of the belief that humans _will not_ be among those included in this extinction event (and are wholly species-centered). I don't believe we will dodge the bullet of our own creation - it seems clear to me too few individuals are willing to change their habits to do. Let alone take the time to educate themselves on the topic.

Here are a collection of quotes in support of my argument, accompanied with citation:

"The overarching driver of species extinction is human population growth and increasing per capita consumption." [0]

"In the past 500 years, humans have triggered a wave of extinction, threat, and local population declines that may be comparable in both rate and magnitude with the five previous mass extinctions of Earth’s history." [1]

"Moreover, we have unleashed a mass extinction event, the sixth in roughly 540 million years, wherein many current life forms could be annihilated or at least committed to extinction by the end of this century." [2]

"Our review lays out arguments clearly demonstrating that there is a biodiversity crisis, quite probably the start of the Sixth Mass Extinction." [3]

Does this sound to you like one of the biggest problems facing humanity? If not, according to your rigorous and sober analysis, what is?

Lastly, I'd like to know, where are you pulling "Fewer people die from natural disasters today than ever in human history" from?

-----

[0] "The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection". Science. 344 (6187): 1246752. [1] "Defaunation in the Anthropocene". Science. 345 (6195): 401–406. (2014). [2] "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice". BioScience. 67 (12): 1026–1028.(2017) [3] "The Sixth Mass Extinction: fact, fiction or speculation?." Biological Reviews (2022).

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

#196

Post by wolverine876 »

whack wrote: post #89
wolverine876 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But, if you donate $1.1 billion to an eligible charity (and claim to have gotten nothing in return), then the US government basically pretends that you never made that money, and your tax bill goes down by roughly your marginal tax rate times the size of the donation. There are limits and caveats, but in general, it's a pretty fair treatment. I think it's highly unfair in that it shifts decisions on social spending…

The US government gets $0.16B less that it can control in social spending. But in return, a regulated non-profit institution gets $1.1B more in its budget. That's a pretty good tradeoff for the social good. For an alternative way of looking at things - almost any economist would tell you that it is wise to tax negative externalities and subsidize positive externalities. This is one of the most foundational insights f…

> The US government gets $0.16B less that it can control in social spending. But in return, a regulated non-profit institution gets $1.1B more in its budget.

There's no reason to think the non-profit accomplishes anything or doesn't accomplish negative things. And there is an opportunity cost to the non-profit getting that money rather than, for example, schools.

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

#197

Post by tofuahdude »

simulate-me wrote: post #153
tofuahdude wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You can't see how improving educational programs specific to climate change benefits the public?

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

#198

Post by x3iv130f »

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…

Goodluck convincing wealthy industrialized countries to do anything impactful when most of that wealth comes from exploiting the environment (or exporting it somewhere easier to exploit.)

Even a billionare will find himself running against trillion dollar interests trying to make real progress.

Eradicating malaria is a problem able to be sovlved.

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

#199

Post by simulate-me »

tofuahdude wrote: post #197
simulate-me wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You can't see how improving educational programs specific to climate change benefits the public?

Very tenuous that this specific donation will do that. Most likely it will be used for a building (which requires concrete, a major CO2 contributor), and the rest will go to the university's endowment where it will sit.

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

#200

Post by etempleton »

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 Gates is interested in low hanging fruit where he knows his money can make an immediate and measurable impact at a large scale. Malaria is a good target because we know how to prevent Malaria. And realistically a lot of deaths can be saved with a relatively small amount of money, attention and coordination.

Energy is complicated and will take a lot more money to solve then he has.

Post reply on HN