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

Big tech’s pro-climate rhetoric is not matched by policy action, report finds

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 63 posts

Re: Big tech’s pro-climate rhetoric is not matched by policy action, report finds

#41

Post by cure »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #8

>Tech companies, which have some of the deepest pockets in corporate America, have been racing to come out with increasingly ambitious climate pledges. Amazon has a target to be net zero by 2040 and to power its operations with 100% renewable energy by 2025, and Facebook has a target of net zero emissions for its entire supply chain by 2030. >In 2020, Microsoft pledged to become carbon negative by 2030 and by 2050 to…

> So it seems that Big Tech is actually taking concrete steps to become carbon zero, and even carbon negative. The article is complaining that they are not spending enough money lobbying for climate legislation.

Yes. It is good that they are cleaning up their own house, but to avoid the worst of the climate crisis we need all the leverage we can get.

We are out of time, we need to act now. In other words, big tech also needs to step up their lobbying, because federal legislation is the biggest lever we have.

Re: Big tech’s pro-climate rhetoric is not matched by policy action, report finds

#42

Post by otikik »

epistasis wrote: post #10
_red wrote: post #2

>Lets strip mine 1000s of tons of rock to get lithium batteries and charge them with coal and claim the cars are climate friendly! works about as well as their 'self-driving' shtick

Lithium is not typically mined from rock today, though it may be in the future. And "concerns" about that mining would carry far more weight if there was also concern about one or both of 1) extracting 1000s of tons of rock for steel and other parts of car manufacturing, or 2) extracting many multiples of that from the earth in the form of fossil fuels, which end up in the atmosphere and change the climate. If a typi…

> If a typical car travels for 200,000 miles, and gets 30mpg, then that car will consume 47,000 pounds of gasoline (requiring even more oil extraction), and emit 128,000 pounds of CO2 in its lifetime.

For non-imperialists:

If a typical car travels for 320,000 kilometers, and gets 13km/l, then that car will consume 25,000 liters of gasoline (requiring even more oil extraction), and emit 58,000 Kgs of CO2 in its lifetime.

Re: Big tech’s pro-climate rhetoric is not matched by policy action, report finds

#43

Post by thehappypm »

r0f1 wrote: post #30

Question from an unknowing European: Lobbying on federal legislation is something that is allowed?

What is "lobbying"? Lobbying is a process where subject-matter experts discuss policy with lawmakers. Lawmakers are not necessarily experts in 100% of topics, are they? So the industries have experts that lawmakers talk to. And of course, these industries make political contributions.

With no lobbyists, lawmakers are likely to be fairly clueless. With too much money and influence, lobbyists really call the shots, and Congress is basically subservient to them. There's a space in between where lawmakers are informed but don't owe lobbyists anything.

Re: Big tech’s pro-climate rhetoric is not matched by policy action, report finds

#45

Post by campl3r »

r0f1 wrote: post #30

Question from an unknowing European: Lobbying on federal legislation is something that is allowed?

Lobbying isn't something that's not done I the EU or most european countries I'm aware of. Which countries are you referring to, which don't have lobbying?

Re: Big tech’s pro-climate rhetoric is not matched by policy action, report finds

#46

Post by bmhin »

Robotbeat wrote: post #39
blfr wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oil basically powers the modern world. Everything from food production through material manufacturing to basic transport collapses without oil. Food abundance, even if it's can be barely called that like corn syrup, is the most basic soma. No politician would even think risking it. Meanwhile you could swap out Facebook for any other social network with barely any noticeable change in the economy and world. People can…

Oil powers tractors, but that can easily be electrically driven. Nitrogen Fertilizers, which is probably what you are referring to, are made using hydrogen, not oil. That hydrogen is usually produced using natural gas (again, usually not oil), but until the 1950s or so when steam reforming started to utter dominate, we tended to make it with hydropower electrolysis. There’s no fundamental reason you need oil for food…

I think it's less that there are no viable alternatives and the very bleak consequences if food or power get screwed up. There's the saying "Nine meals between mankind and anarchy" that applies here. If you are messing with the food supply, you are playing with fire if things go sideways. People die, people starve, people riot.

So things have a strong incentive towards "if it aint broke don't fix it". You can argue a lot of it is in fact broken on some fundamental levels and the side effects of those two industries are massive but, at the moment, we have power and we have food (speaking for the US, not globally where that isn't the case).

The risk tolerance is very, very low. An unwillingness to accept any potential failure, regardless of impact, is frequently the single greatest problem for any change or reform.

Re: Big tech’s pro-climate rhetoric is not matched by policy action, report finds

#47

Post by rPlayer6554 »

Robotbeat wrote: post #39
blfr wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oil basically powers the modern world. Everything from food production through material manufacturing to basic transport collapses without oil. Food abundance, even if it's can be barely called that like corn syrup, is the most basic soma. No politician would even think risking it. Meanwhile you could swap out Facebook for any other social network with barely any noticeable change in the economy and world. People can…

Oil powers tractors, but that can easily be electrically driven. Nitrogen Fertilizers, which is probably what you are referring to, are made using hydrogen, not oil. That hydrogen is usually produced using natural gas (again, usually not oil), but until the 1950s or so when steam reforming started to utter dominate, we tended to make it with hydropower electrolysis. There’s no fundamental reason you need oil for food…

> easily

For for a couple of places yes. For the literal global economy it will take years to make the switch. I think renewable energy is great and we should definitely switch to it. But the sheer scale of the transition is enormous.

Re: Big tech’s pro-climate rhetoric is not matched by policy action, report finds

#48

Post by Robotbeat »

bmhin wrote: post #46
Robotbeat wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oil powers tractors, but that can easily be electrically driven. Nitrogen Fertilizers, which is probably what you are referring to, are made using hydrogen, not oil. That hydrogen is usually produced using natural gas (again, usually not oil), but until the 1950s or so when steam reforming started to utter dominate, we tended to make it with hydropower electrolysis. There’s no fundamental reason you need oil for food…

I think it's less that there are no viable alternatives and the very bleak consequences if food or power get screwed up. There's the saying "Nine meals between mankind and anarchy" that applies here. If you are messing with the food supply, you are playing with fire if things go sideways. People die, people starve, people riot. So things have a strong incentive towards "if it aint broke don't fix it". You can argue a…

The solution, then, is to build more supply. Energy austerity is never going to work. Clean energy abundance is the only possible way to a good future.

Re: Big tech’s pro-climate rhetoric is not matched by policy action, report finds

#49

Post by Robotbeat »

rPlayer6554 wrote: post #47
Robotbeat wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oil powers tractors, but that can easily be electrically driven. Nitrogen Fertilizers, which is probably what you are referring to, are made using hydrogen, not oil. That hydrogen is usually produced using natural gas (again, usually not oil), but until the 1950s or so when steam reforming started to utter dominate, we tended to make it with hydropower electrolysis. There’s no fundamental reason you need oil for food…

> easily For for a couple of places yes. For the literal global economy it will take years to make the switch. I think renewable energy is great and we should definitely switch to it. But the sheer scale of the transition is enormous.

Right, and the only way to do it is to start. Action is the only thing that matters in the transition. But we should realize that it’s not at all hopeless. Post-WW2, our electricity production used to double about every decade or so, so we ARE capable of quickly scaling. We just have to BUILD.

Re: Big tech’s pro-climate rhetoric is not matched by policy action, report finds

#50

Post by rPlayer6554 »

Robotbeat wrote: post #49
rPlayer6554 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> easily For for a couple of places yes. For the literal global economy it will take years to make the switch. I think renewable energy is great and we should definitely switch to it. But the sheer scale of the transition is enormous.

Right, and the only way to do it is to start. Action is the only thing that matters in the transition. But we should realize that it’s not at all hopeless. Post-WW2, our electricity production used to double about every decade or so, so we ARE capable of quickly scaling. We just have to BUILD.

I agree with you there, I don't agree with people that are against moving at all or even making it something important. I guess I just hear a lot of people act like the transition is trivial.

Also about the energy production doubling do you have a source?

Post reply on HN