Hacker News Reader

Comment by lpapez | Hacker News Reader

Neither is it a problem which can be solved with magical techno solutions alone.

The primary way is to solve it is through systemic and habit change, so I would say if these people wanted to help the environment, they're better off getting into politics.

View on HN

You don't have to engineer magic solutions to be part of the solution. Configuring Salesforce and automating payroll for a climate company is still helping. There's an industry around changing minds as much as there around reducing CO2.

Something tells me these Wall Street types aren’t going to be too interested in the pervasive industrial re-regulation necessary to make a dent in atmospheric CO2 levels over the next century.

> Something tells me these Wall Street types aren’t going to be too interested in the industrial re-regulation necessary to make a dent in atmospheric CO2 levels over the next century

What or who is that? Wall Street’s rank and file is left of centre on social issues.

Regulation of emissions isn't a social issue. It's an economic one.

In the way worker non-discrimination isn’t a social issue.

Steve Castle from Futurama [1] is all I can think of when I read this

https://futurama.fandom.com/wiki/Steve_Castle

Do you think the severance money may go towards efforts to find a cure for boneitis?

You're very, very wrong. Most Wall St employees are coastal, big city, college-educated. They tend to be overwhelmingly liberal. I was at the Goldman Sachs headquarters the day after the 2016 election and the mood was utterly morose.

It’s not really about liberal versus conservative. Their livelihood depends on the federal government maintaining a certain consistent laxity in financial regulation; unfortunately, it seems like consistent strictness in regulation will be necessary to make real progress on climate change.

This theory of mine explains their post-2016 depression, I think. Everyone knew he would make chaotic policies and wild card political appointments. I’m sure he was horrid for their bottom line.

But yeah, I could be wrong. Never really got in with that crowd for some reason. If GS’ charitable arm has given some reasonable fraction of their pool to green charities or something, I’ll change my mind.

I think you're missing what we're getting at. OP was talking about rank and file employees. 99% of people who work at Goldman Sachs don't really give a shit what's good for Goldman Sachs. A substantial percentage actively dislike their employer, but just want a nice paycheck. They are people working a job. Like 1/4 of GS employees are technologists. They don't know or care about how climate regulation affects their business. In fact, a lot of employees jobs are mitigating compliance risk so they literally depend on onerous regulation to stay employed. I'd wager a substantial percentage of GS employees don't even know how to trade stocks.

I find it really hard to believe that even a mere “technologist” wouldn’t understand how their bread gets buttered, but maybe they’re even less engaged than I’ve heard & seen.

I think we’re starting to talk past each other, but for the sake of pointing out where we seemingly agree: GS employees are more-or-less self-interested, and they do depend on gaming (or mitigating risk, I suppose) regulations to stay employed. Neither of those make great bullet points on a green tech pivot resume, which was more or less my original point?

I brought up their charitable org specifically because I recall an acquaintance who works there saying it was more employee-driven than the average corporate tax amelioration scheme. Maybe he was wrong? He’s only been there for five years or so.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com