4 ms·

High taxation of fossil energy together with rolling-out of new energy/carbon-removal technology seem to be a real way out of this catastrophe. Does anyone hav

High taxation of fossil energy together with rolling-out of new energy/carbon-removal technology seem to be a real way out of this catastrophe. Does anyone have a list of startups and established companies actively working on any of those crucial solutions? Only found this through a quick Github search: https://github.com/flamato/awesome-climate-change-ressources/blob/master/README.md https://github.com/flamato/awesome-climate-change-ressources...

ben85ts 7y ago
There's a tech group https://techimpactmakers.com/ https://techimpactmakers.com/ with a couple startups in the slack workspace.
koheripbal 7y ago
These are both big projects not well suited to startups. Taxation needs to be agreed upon at the international level. CO2 has an atmospheric half-lifetime on the order of decades. If we would just switch to zero emission energy, like nuclear power, we could get through the next century and survive.
jokoon 7y ago
Don't solutions already exist? There is a lot to do with engine size and vehicle size and weight, especially in the US. Nuclear energy and trains are possible, even if they require electrifying the railroads. Drastically reduce beef consumption is also a thing to do. Not sure about those "carbon removal" techs. A lot of the CO2 tends to go in the atmosphere. The biggest problem is a political one: You can't fight unemployment and inequality and try to reduce emissions. I can see ideology being a big problem when dealing with climate change. Although fighting climate change can also be an opportunity to steer away from an ideology of competition and go back to cooperation, because politically it WILL BE a nightmare. Things can also derail into complete anarchy where it becomes everyone for himself, where poor people will have to bear high temperatures.
- semi-extrinsic 7y ago
  > The biggest problem is a political one: You can't fight unemployment and inequality and try to reduce emissions. Why do you believe this is true? It seems to me like many efforts to reduce emissions are also likely to reduce inequality, some also increase employment. For instance: * Make public transport free and increased capacity, good on all three counts * CO2 tax on big emitters will reduce profits of these companies, which are usually high margin industries with few unskilled/low-pay workers * Higher taxes on air travel affect poor people less than rich people * Current trends point towards rich countries committing to subsidise emissions reductions in poor countries
- mistermann 7y ago
  I've read easily over 100 articles and forum discussions on this topic, and it's rare to encounter someone who believes the main problem we have is political. I too believe this overlooked dimension is the most important, and have some ideas for your consideration that I hope may strengthen this perspective. 1. "...You can't fight unemployment and inequality and try to reduce emissions" - I would argue that this is an obvious complication, but I don't believe that it is an impossibility, under current conditions. It seems to me that the net amount of productivity and wealth on the planet is overwhelmingly sufficient to satisfy this issue on a material basis, but the problem is more so distribution of wealth and technology (and all the obvious complications that come along with that, of course). If this wasn't the case, then I would agree that your "can't" assertion would be correct, but luckily this seems to not be the case. 2. It is true that the problem is political, but I would argue that there are lower levels of abstraction that more accurately communicate the essence of the problem: 2a. Politics inherently derives from public consensus, even in authoritarian states (if to a lesser degree). From anything I've seen, there is nothing remotely approaching public consensus on climate change, both what to do about it, or even whether it's a real thing. It seems to me that the science is conclusive enough that consensus should be much higher than it is, so what might explain this anomaly? 2c. Public consensus inherently derives from human psychology, and I see very little evidence that humans think primarily in a logical manner, in groups or on an individual basis. In fact, there is ample evidence, both anecdotal and clinical, suggesting they do the very opposite of that. [Politics] --> [Public Concensus] --> [Human Psychology] I believe (speculatively, of course) that these ideas better describe the reality of the situation we find ourselves in, but I see next to no discussion on it. I'd very much like for these ideas to get into the mainstream for discussion, but other than beating them like a dead horse on HN and elsewhere, I'm not sure how this can be accomplished. It's encouraging to encounter someone else who seems to notice this aspect of the problem, so at the very least it may be useful to try to discuss and improve the overall idea, in hopes that the message might eventually become strong enough to get some traction in the zeitgeist. EDIT: Two academics I've found who work most closely in this domain are Jonathan Haidt [1] and Daniel Kahneman [2], any suggestions of others to look into are appreciated. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Haidt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Haidt [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman
mar77i 7y ago
How is Climeworks not on the list?

ben85ts 7y ago

There's a tech group https://techimpactmakers.com/ https://techimpactmakers.com/ with a couple startups in the slack workspace.

koheripbal 7y ago

These are both big projects not well suited to startups. Taxation needs to be agreed upon at the international level. CO2 has an atmospheric half-lifetime on the order of decades. If we would just switch to zero emission energy, like nuclear power, we could get through the next century and survive.

jokoon 7y ago

Don't solutions already exist? There is a lot to do with engine size and vehicle size and weight, especially in the US. Nuclear energy and trains are possible, even if they require electrifying the railroads. Drastically reduce beef consumption is also a thing to do. Not sure about those "carbon removal" techs. A lot of the CO2 tends to go in the atmosphere. The biggest problem is a political one: You can't fight unemployment and inequality and try to reduce emissions. I can see ideology being a big problem when dealing with climate change. Although fighting climate change can also be an opportunity to steer away from an ideology of competition and go back to cooperation, because politically it WILL BE a nightmare. Things can also derail into complete anarchy where it becomes everyone for himself, where poor people will have to bear high temperatures.

semi-extrinsic 7y ago
> The biggest problem is a political one: You can't fight unemployment and inequality and try to reduce emissions. Why do you believe this is true? It seems to me like many efforts to reduce emissions are also likely to reduce inequality, some also increase employment. For instance: * Make public transport free and increased capacity, good on all three counts * CO2 tax on big emitters will reduce profits of these companies, which are usually high margin industries with few unskilled/low-pay workers * Higher taxes on air travel affect poor people less than rich people * Current trends point towards rich countries committing to subsidise emissions reductions in poor countries
mistermann 7y ago
I've read easily over 100 articles and forum discussions on this topic, and it's rare to encounter someone who believes the main problem we have is political. I too believe this overlooked dimension is the most important, and have some ideas for your consideration that I hope may strengthen this perspective. 1. "...You can't fight unemployment and inequality and try to reduce emissions" - I would argue that this is an obvious complication, but I don't believe that it is an impossibility, under current conditions. It seems to me that the net amount of productivity and wealth on the planet is overwhelmingly sufficient to satisfy this issue on a material basis, but the problem is more so distribution of wealth and technology (and all the obvious complications that come along with that, of course). If this wasn't the case, then I would agree that your "can't" assertion would be correct, but luckily this seems to not be the case. 2. It is true that the problem is political, but I would argue that there are lower levels of abstraction that more accurately communicate the essence of the problem: 2a. Politics inherently derives from public consensus, even in authoritarian states (if to a lesser degree). From anything I've seen, there is nothing remotely approaching public consensus on climate change, both what to do about it, or even whether it's a real thing. It seems to me that the science is conclusive enough that consensus should be much higher than it is, so what might explain this anomaly? 2c. Public consensus inherently derives from human psychology, and I see very little evidence that humans think primarily in a logical manner, in groups or on an individual basis. In fact, there is ample evidence, both anecdotal and clinical, suggesting they do the very opposite of that. [Politics] --> [Public Concensus] --> [Human Psychology] I believe (speculatively, of course) that these ideas better describe the reality of the situation we find ourselves in, but I see next to no discussion on it. I'd very much like for these ideas to get into the mainstream for discussion, but other than beating them like a dead horse on HN and elsewhere, I'm not sure how this can be accomplished. It's encouraging to encounter someone else who seems to notice this aspect of the problem, so at the very least it may be useful to try to discuss and improve the overall idea, in hopes that the message might eventually become strong enough to get some traction in the zeitgeist. EDIT: Two academics I've found who work most closely in this domain are Jonathan Haidt [1] and Daniel Kahneman [2], any suggestions of others to look into are appreciated. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Haidt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Haidt [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman

mar77i 7y ago

How is Climeworks not on the list?