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

Lessons learned after 5 years of climate tech entrepreneurship

oliviercorradi.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–38 of 38 posts

Re: Lessons learned after 5 years of climate tech entrepreneurship

#31

Post by smackeyacky »

m12k wrote: post #22
smackeyacky wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of companies think this way, but it isn't necessarily true that excess carbon emissions aren't a financial pain point. Putting aside the implementation of carbon taxes, there are a lot of enterprises out there who could increase their productivity and reduce carbon emission as a side effect. Agriculture in particular would fit in that category but any manufacturer emitting carbon is basically burning something…

> Efficiency and cost savings that just happen to reduce emissions? That's where the focus should be. Isn't that where the focus has already been for decades? Which has pretty definitely proven itself insufficient for curbing emissions at anywhere near the scales that we need?

Yes I would agree with that, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying. As an example, the NZ government is currently funding grants to reduce carbon emissions in livestock by 10%, which is an easily achievable target with current technology but the knowledge of how to do it isn't widespread.

A lot of this progress is unfortunately going to fall to governments and grants like this, which is probably where any carbon mitigation company needs to concentrate rather than venture capital. Once the claims about cost reduction can be proved, agriculture will follow soon enough.

Other industries will have similar grant schemes.

Re: Lessons learned after 5 years of climate tech entrepreneurship

#32

Post by smackeyacky »

tuatoru wrote: post #24
smackeyacky wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of companies think this way, but it isn't necessarily true that excess carbon emissions aren't a financial pain point. Putting aside the implementation of carbon taxes, there are a lot of enterprises out there who could increase their productivity and reduce carbon emission as a side effect. Agriculture in particular would fit in that category but any manufacturer emitting carbon is basically burning something…

Companies use fossil fuels because they have no choice, either because of chemistry or because of the doctrine of shareholder primacy, or because they lack access to credit. There are no alternatives to carbon-intensive inputs in the offing for many industries. For all of them, efficiency measures require capital investment. Borrowing to install efficiency measures reduces next-quarter returns to stockholders. Compan…

I don't agree with that. Any opportunity to make a 10% reduction in carbon emission that also saves you money should be pursued, and there should be a lot of them out there.

Re: Lessons learned after 5 years of climate tech entrepreneurship

#34

Post by ipaddr »

corpMaverick wrote: post #20
sokoloff wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From an engineering/economic perspective, I totally agree. From a sociology/philosophy perspective, a lot of the West was built on cheap carbon emission. Can we realistically take all that embodied energy that represents our current state and expect/demand that developing nations to pay the same price for carbon as we do, starting now?

Developing countries get to avoid the mistakes done by developed countries. For example, the amount car dependency in the US is unsustainable. Developing countries could build their cities with higher density, walk-able, and bike-able. It is cheaper, you get higher quality of life without such a high carbon footprint.

Developing countries go with the cheaper option. Is higher density cheaper? No not in low value real estate which is found in developing countries.

Re: Lessons learned after 5 years of climate tech entrepreneurship

#35

Post by andrewjl »

m12k wrote: post #8

The core problem here is that emitting carbon doesn't cost the polluters much, so helping them or their customers to avoid it doesn't save them money. It's not a pain point, so the only motivation for them to do anything about it would be altruism/"Look How Green We Are!" CSR marketing. That's why the world desperately needs a carbon tax, so emission goes from being an externality (i.e. somebody else's problem) to be…

The issue with a carbon tax is that it is unpopular for a plurality of voters. There are other types of policies that don't engender the same type of aversion. For example incentivizing banks to make carbon negative projects easier and cheaper to finance.

Re: Lessons learned after 5 years of climate tech entrepreneurship

#36

Post by andrewjl »

sokoloff wrote: post #14
m12k wrote: post #8

The core problem here is that emitting carbon doesn't cost the polluters much, so helping them or their customers to avoid it doesn't save them money. It's not a pain point, so the only motivation for them to do anything about it would be altruism/"Look How Green We Are!" CSR marketing. That's why the world desperately needs a carbon tax, so emission goes from being an externality (i.e. somebody else's problem) to be…

From an engineering/economic perspective, I totally agree. From a sociology/philosophy perspective, a lot of the West was built on cheap carbon emission. Can we realistically take all that embodied energy that represents our current state and expect/demand that developing nations to pay the same price for carbon as we do, starting now?

> Can we realistically take all that embodied energy that represents our current state and expect/demand that developing nations to pay the same price for carbon as we do, starting now?

It's a false dichotomy.

The US and others can share climate friendly technologies with developing countries on attractive (cheap) terms and at the same time compensate those that developed them out of tax coffers on market terms. Almost all climate related investment can be financed in the capital markets if World Bank, IMF provide guarantees to investors.

In exchange there'd be an expectation that these technologies are deployed on an accelerated timescale and in greater quantities by nations taking up this offer.

Re: Lessons learned after 5 years of climate tech entrepreneurship

#37

Post by m12k »

sokoloff wrote: post #23
tomrod wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can we realistically take all that embodied energy that represents our current state and expect/demand that developing nations to pay the same price for carbon as we do, starting now? Yes. Because the alternatives are stark and unwelcoming. And developed nations should enact development sharing to assist at the desire of the developing nations (way more than tokens and pittances). If we want to go far, we have to g…

What’s in it for a developing county to not defect? I think to make this work, you need transfer payments from developed countries to developing countries and to have those payments tied to effective carbon taxation. For that matter, we probably need transfer payments here in the US. Put another $5/gallon of taxes on gasoline and you smack the working class hard. Do that and give every individual (literally everyone)…

This policy is called "fee and dividend", and has a pretty well-fleshed out wikipedia article[1]. IMO it's the best way to implement a carbon tax while avoiding "yellow vest protests" or deepening inequality. A carbon tax will tend to increase the cost of consumption, and consumption makes up a larger part of your income the poorer you are. But with a dividend to give money back to households, you offset this, so a poor household that lowers their carbon footprint enough can even end up ahead.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fee_and_dividend

Re: Lessons learned after 5 years of climate tech entrepreneurship

#38

Post by m12k »

smackeyacky wrote: post #31
m12k wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Efficiency and cost savings that just happen to reduce emissions? That's where the focus should be. Isn't that where the focus has already been for decades? Which has pretty definitely proven itself insufficient for curbing emissions at anywhere near the scales that we need?

Yes I would agree with that, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying. As an example, the NZ government is currently funding grants to reduce carbon emissions in livestock by 10%, which is an easily achievable target with current technology but the knowledge of how to do it isn't widespread. A lot of this progress is unfortunately going to fall to governments and grants like this, which is probably where any carbo…

IMO that's exactly the argument why wee need a carbon tax. The status quo is that the only people who are really doing anything at all are some governments and the wokest part of the population. That's not nearly enough - we need all the companies and the whole population too. We don't just need to incentivize doing something else, but simultaneously disincentivize doing a lot of what we currently do, so everyone actually starts looking for alternatives. We can't just make emissions illegal without shutting down society, but we can (and should) make them painful.
Post reply on HN