5 ms·

Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates Join Forces to Invest in Clean Energy Technology

74 points by Perados 11y ago

odzhan 11y ago
"$20 billion by 2020" The Pentagon will spend 150 times this by 2020. It sounds like they're taking this climate change very seriously...
- alttab 11y ago
  If you're comparing them to the Pentagon then I'd say them entering the arena in earnest compared to their individual contributions is rather significant. And you have some smart people involved. If they want to "waste" their own money trying to save the planet god bless them.
  - c0nducktr 11y ago
    Did you not read the article before commenting? > According to the Washington Post, the 19 countries that have already joined Mission Innovation will increase their annual spending on clean-energy research and development to $20 billion by 2020. I believe odzhan was trying to show that 20 billion dollars between 19 countries still isn't that significant when compared to other budgets.
    - alttab 11y ago
      Better just be thankless masses then, nevermind.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- joshkpeterson 11y ago
  People are downvoting because this comes off as a derail, but actually this is a really important criticism of the US government to make. Even if you assume the purpose of DOD spending is National Security (a term abused so often, saying it makes me cringe), well ok. Climate change is a huge threat to national security. Congress needs to reallocate some funds, and it's really unfortunate that discussing the reduction of defense spending is so taboo in the mainstream.
- ztratar 11y ago
  Source on the $3 trillion Pentagon budget?
  - dewiz 11y ago
    just googling and found this, there are some tables in the document with pretty big numbers http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2016/FY2016_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudge...
  - smt88 11y ago
    The US is budgeted to spend $637 billion on the military in 2015. If the same is true for 2016-2019, the US will have spent $2.5 trillion. If you include 2020, then it's more than $3 trillion. Source: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?granuleId=BUDGET-2015-TAB-5-1&packageId=BUDGET-2015-TAB&fromBrowse=true http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?granuleId... (Or you could just Google it...)
  - dirtyaura 11y ago
    US military budget is approx. 600B dollars per year. Multiply by 5 years. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_militar...
- smt88 11y ago
  Republicans control Congress, and Congress controls the spending of the US. No matter how much Obama wanted to increase spending on clean energy, he simply doesn't have the power to move a huge amount of money.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
liquidise 11y ago
Perhaps i misunderstand things, but i feel like carbon-neutral solutions are not the answer in the long term struggle against climate change. The entire world contributes greenhouse gasses, but only a few nations are taking steps to mitigate these emissions. Even then, the large focus is on carbon specifically. it strikes me that greenhouse-negative technologies will be the only real answer here.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  It is not a case of either/or but both. We need to stop dumping GHG into the atmosphere and we need to work on ways to remove the GHG we have already dumped. We need to do both.
- epistasis 11y ago
  CO2 is the dominant forcing greenhouse gas, and accounting on it is fairly straightforward so it makes sense to focus on that. I agree that it's not enough though. We need both carbon neutral technology now as well as carbon capture in the future. However it is an order of magnitude or more easier to not emit now than it is to capture in the future, so we absolutely mush transition to carbon neutral as soon as possible, then use excess intermittent renewable energy to capture co2 from the air. We also need to incentivize that with carbon credits of some sort so that there are market forces. That's what Paris is about, and why we need to be pushing our US politicians to ask for much more than what the Obama administration is going to ask for. We need much more aggressive strategies.
  - steve19 11y ago
    To be fair to Obama, it matters little what he does or does not want. He has no hope in getting anything really meaningful approved by the Senate before his term is over. It is just not going to happen.
    - natmaster 11y ago
      Senators, 'dellow felegates', in response to this direct threat to the Republic, Mesa propose that the Senate give immediately emergency powers to the Supreme Chancellor.
aresant 11y ago
Classic TechCrunch. * Watch the Washington Post feed, notice the article trending in tech "Obama, Bill Gates to lead major effort to spur spending on climate research" * Change to a more tech-friendly, less politicized title "Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates Join Forces To Invest in Clean Energy Technology" * Include a broken link ("http://mission-innovation.net/" http://mission-innovation.net/") to first of the two organizations noted, Mission Innovation. * Don't bother linking to the organization's actual website http://www.breakthroughenergycoalition.com/ http://www.breakthroughenergycoalition.com/ I am bitching because I'm so protective of HN, just wish we could link to a better source.
- kumarm 11y ago
  That's really how media works. Everyone reposts the same story in their version. Here is the headline from Indian news paper for the same: Bill Gates, Ratan Tata, Mukesh Ambani and others join hands to give push to clean energy through innovations. Notice that Mark Zuckerberg is missing in headline and 2 Indian billionaires are added. Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/global-warming/Bill-Gates-Ratan-Tata-Mukesh-Ambani-and-others-join-hands-to-give-push-to-clean-energy-through-innovations/articleshow/49976922.cms http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/global-w... Edit: If you read the timeofindia article, you would think its a initiative pushed by India. If you read the comments on the article, you would think Indian Prime Minister Modi is making it happen.
- ACow_Adonis 11y ago
  Two days later, my local paper's technology writer sees the article in hacker news and rewrites it as original content for the print media. The cosmic ballet goes on...
- dang 11y ago
  > I am bitching because I'm so protective of HN An excellent thing to be, even if some bitching is involved :) There have been a bunch of submissions about this story, but as far as I can tell they all fall into the "announcement of an announcement" category, which is always fluff. Has the announcement been made for real yet?
toephu2 11y ago
Bill Gates's intro video on the project: https://youtu.be/YhgIY-Vghj4 https://youtu.be/YhgIY-Vghj4
Von_Jones 11y ago
WELL DONE CHAPS! Hopefully this will push governments into contributions of equivalent relative magnitude - ie many times the 20 BN that ZuckerGates are valiantly contributing.
gregmorton 11y ago
Clean air from Evil Gates and Asshole Zuckerberg, I won't breathe it.

74 points by Perados 11y ago

"$20 billion by 2020" The Pentagon will spend 150 times this by 2020. It sounds like they're taking this climate change very seriously...

alttab 11y ago
If you're comparing them to the Pentagon then I'd say them entering the arena in earnest compared to their individual contributions is rather significant. And you have some smart people involved. If they want to "waste" their own money trying to save the planet god bless them.
- c0nducktr 11y ago
  Did you not read the article before commenting? > According to the Washington Post, the 19 countries that have already joined Mission Innovation will increase their annual spending on clean-energy research and development to $20 billion by 2020. I believe odzhan was trying to show that 20 billion dollars between 19 countries still isn't that significant when compared to other budgets.
  - alttab 11y ago
    Better just be thankless masses then, nevermind.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
joshkpeterson 11y ago
People are downvoting because this comes off as a derail, but actually this is a really important criticism of the US government to make. Even if you assume the purpose of DOD spending is National Security (a term abused so often, saying it makes me cringe), well ok. Climate change is a huge threat to national security. Congress needs to reallocate some funds, and it's really unfortunate that discussing the reduction of defense spending is so taboo in the mainstream.
ztratar 11y ago
Source on the $3 trillion Pentagon budget?
- dewiz 11y ago
  just googling and found this, there are some tables in the document with pretty big numbers http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2016/FY2016_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudge...
- smt88 11y ago
  The US is budgeted to spend $637 billion on the military in 2015. If the same is true for 2016-2019, the US will have spent $2.5 trillion. If you include 2020, then it's more than $3 trillion. Source: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?granuleId=BUDGET-2015-TAB-5-1&packageId=BUDGET-2015-TAB&fromBrowse=true http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?granuleId... (Or you could just Google it...)
- dirtyaura 11y ago
  US military budget is approx. 600B dollars per year. Multiply by 5 years. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_militar...
smt88 11y ago
Republicans control Congress, and Congress controls the spending of the US. No matter how much Obama wanted to increase spending on clean energy, he simply doesn't have the power to move a huge amount of money.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

liquidise 11y ago

Perhaps i misunderstand things, but i feel like carbon-neutral solutions are not the answer in the long term struggle against climate change. The entire world contributes greenhouse gasses, but only a few nations are taking steps to mitigate these emissions. Even then, the large focus is on carbon specifically. it strikes me that greenhouse-negative technologies will be the only real answer here.

danieltillett 11y ago
It is not a case of either/or but both. We need to stop dumping GHG into the atmosphere and we need to work on ways to remove the GHG we have already dumped. We need to do both.
epistasis 11y ago
CO2 is the dominant forcing greenhouse gas, and accounting on it is fairly straightforward so it makes sense to focus on that. I agree that it's not enough though. We need both carbon neutral technology now as well as carbon capture in the future. However it is an order of magnitude or more easier to not emit now than it is to capture in the future, so we absolutely mush transition to carbon neutral as soon as possible, then use excess intermittent renewable energy to capture co2 from the air. We also need to incentivize that with carbon credits of some sort so that there are market forces. That's what Paris is about, and why we need to be pushing our US politicians to ask for much more than what the Obama administration is going to ask for. We need much more aggressive strategies.
- steve19 11y ago
  To be fair to Obama, it matters little what he does or does not want. He has no hope in getting anything really meaningful approved by the Senate before his term is over. It is just not going to happen.
  - natmaster 11y ago
    Senators, 'dellow felegates', in response to this direct threat to the Republic, Mesa propose that the Senate give immediately emergency powers to the Supreme Chancellor.

aresant 11y ago

Classic TechCrunch. * Watch the Washington Post feed, notice the article trending in tech "Obama, Bill Gates to lead major effort to spur spending on climate research" * Change to a more tech-friendly, less politicized title "Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates Join Forces To Invest in Clean Energy Technology" * Include a broken link ("http://mission-innovation.net/" http://mission-innovation.net/") to first of the two organizations noted, Mission Innovation. * Don't bother linking to the organization's actual website http://www.breakthroughenergycoalition.com/ http://www.breakthroughenergycoalition.com/ I am bitching because I'm so protective of HN, just wish we could link to a better source.

kumarm 11y ago
That's really how media works. Everyone reposts the same story in their version. Here is the headline from Indian news paper for the same: Bill Gates, Ratan Tata, Mukesh Ambani and others join hands to give push to clean energy through innovations. Notice that Mark Zuckerberg is missing in headline and 2 Indian billionaires are added. Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/global-warming/Bill-Gates-Ratan-Tata-Mukesh-Ambani-and-others-join-hands-to-give-push-to-clean-energy-through-innovations/articleshow/49976922.cms http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/global-w... Edit: If you read the timeofindia article, you would think its a initiative pushed by India. If you read the comments on the article, you would think Indian Prime Minister Modi is making it happen.
ACow_Adonis 11y ago
Two days later, my local paper's technology writer sees the article in hacker news and rewrites it as original content for the print media. The cosmic ballet goes on...
dang 11y ago
> I am bitching because I'm so protective of HN An excellent thing to be, even if some bitching is involved :) There have been a bunch of submissions about this story, but as far as I can tell they all fall into the "announcement of an announcement" category, which is always fluff. Has the announcement been made for real yet?

toephu2 11y ago

Bill Gates's intro video on the project: https://youtu.be/YhgIY-Vghj4 https://youtu.be/YhgIY-Vghj4

Von_Jones 11y ago

WELL DONE CHAPS! Hopefully this will push governments into contributions of equivalent relative magnitude - ie many times the 20 BN that ZuckerGates are valiantly contributing.

gregmorton 11y ago

Clean air from Evil Gates and Asshole Zuckerberg, I won't breathe it.