Hacker News Reader

Comment by abalone | Hacker News Reader

Just to summarize (warm up those downvotes...):

* “almost certainly more” than 84% of stripe’s emissions will not be sequestered because it’s “financially infeasible”

* no mention of stripe’s actual carbon footprint

* talk of startups and trillion dollar industry “by the end of the century” but no mention of government intervention / green new deal to turn the tide in the next decade before it’s too late

Verdict: free market ideologues are not ever going to be leaders on climate. We need massive mobilization at the federal level to hit the necessary emissions reductions within the next 12 years if we are to avoid a catastrophic rise in temperature.

View on HN

The first sentence literally said this:

>As part of Stripe’s environmental program, we fully offset our greenhouse gas emissions by purchasing verified carbon offsets.

The sequestration is in addition to those offsets. They’re trying to advance sequestration technology by boosting demand. They’ll be offsetting and sequestering more than 100% of their emissions. The excess cost referred to sequestration, not offsets.

Government has done basically nothing for 30 years. I really, really want governments to take it seriously, tax carbon, etc. but I welcome private companies stepping in to try things too.

Not sure who you're arguing with, as the post you're responding to literally only addresses sequestering. Offsets alone are not a solution to the urgent need to turn the tide on climate change. They offer an easy way for CO2 emitters to sort of greenwash what they're doing and keep doing it.

"Private companies trying things" is fine but as we can see from the reactions to this press release that the standard for private companies trying things is incredibly low and nowhere near what's required to hit the IPCC targets.

We agree on one thing though: government has not done nearly enough historically. Of course much worse could be said for industry, the primary source of CO2 emission (along with the military) and fundamentally incentivized to exploit externalized costs and pollute our planet.

> We need massive mobilization at the federal level to hit the necessary emissions reductions within the next 12 years if we are to avoid a catastrophic rise in temperature.

That doesn’t really make sense IMHO, global warming isn’t a US problem, it’s a worldwide issue. Let’s say the US becomes a benevolent dictatorship with the mission to reduce CO2 emissions by any mean necessary (and is somehow successful), you still have the global problem. And then what, do you go to war against other countries?

You do your part, other countries try to do the same, and various means and strategies are implemented and shared globally.

This “but we can’t fix it all alone, it’s a global issue” thinking mode has to go. All contributions are important in reducing the speed of warming, whether your neighbour participates or not.

Interestingly, the longer you wait, the more you can expect people with more extreme agendas to pop up around the globe because they will see the point in coercion to save the world. Early investment at a massive scale is worth it.

> This “but we can’t fix it all alone, it’s a global issue” thinking mode has to go.

Ok, why? It is a global issue, that’s not something we can ignore. You can change your way of thinking if you want, but I don’t see why you would ignore that point. I find it disingenuous to say “if the US government doesn’t do X in 12 years then we are doomed”, because it’s not true. Of course I’m not saying that nothing should be done, and I never said it cannot be fixed (or dealt with), that’s just you putting words in my mouth. But the US government has a terrible history at dealing with other countries, and creating a giant mess all around. Just imagine Trump deciding to focus on climate issues, I cannot see how that wouldn’t result in a complete disaster with international conflicts.

I think that we should keep the framing on the global aspect, and think about it as a common goal.

I don’t disagree with the rest of your comment, I completely support any effort at a local level.

Come now, think creatively here, this going to war nonsense is a total straw man argument. Carbon-based import tariffs, sanctions, and having a very strong, innovative US clean tech to export/sell its tech to other countries who need but dont have the R&D budget.

How is it a straw man argument? I’m not a US citizen, I look at the country history at dealing with international actors. The country has a terrible history at cooperating with others in a peaceful way, or even consider common interests. If for some reasons the US government decides to that its mission is to tackle climate issues, I don’t think it will take long before they come with a rational for a climate war.

> Carbon-based import tariffs, sanctions, and having a very strong, innovative US clean tech to export/sell its tech to other countries who need but dont have the R&D budget.

Sure, that’s all fine. That’s really not what I would expect from a country that systematically refused to collaborate on climate issues with others, but that would be great.

Given how the US is one of the worst polluters, both in absolute and relative terms, and how at a policy level it is way behind, a "benevolent dictatorship with the mission to reduce CO2 emissions by any mean necessary" would have a huge global impact.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com