20 ms·
Billionaires who made their fortunes by trying to stop climate change
- fenwick67 7y agoIt's amazing to me that Trevor Milton (of Nikola) is a billionaire when his company hasn't even built a factory yet. What a time to be alive.
- 0x00000000 7y agoI’ll buy 0.0000001% of your company for $1 and you can be a “billionaire” too.
- jgalt212 7y agothere is some definite financial engineering going on there. btw, I have a pre-idea/pre-founder start up I like to pitch. It's sort of like a SPAC without any special purpose. I'd appreciate any VC intros that can be made.
- _bxg1 7y agoThe omitted word "These" at the front seems important
- pmarreck 7y ago"Plausibly Deniable Clickbait"
- gus_massa 7y agoIt was probably removed by the automatic filter of titles in HN. If you send an email to the mods hn@ycombinator.com they will probably fix it.
- montalbano 7y agoAs the OP, I can confirm it was automatically removed. I stuck to the HN guidelines and did not editorialise the title.
- dang 7y agoThanks! Sorry the software got it wrong in this case. It's ok to click 'edit' and fix it when that happens.
- dang 7y agoYes, the software clips most leading "this" and "these" because it's such a common clickbait device. Unfortunately sometimes the result is worse. I've reworded it to make sense without resorting back to "these".
- harry8 7y agoPratt does packaging and inherited the business and vast wealth. Made it? No. Grew it? Maybe - haven't looked at the detail. Recycling of this kind has a stink of "tax optimisation and subsidy claim" about it but I don't know this as a fact in this case. It's a massive stretch to say he made his fortune trying to stop climate change when he grew it by growing his inherited packaging business. Claiming he made it trying to stop climate change completely degrades the whole idea of this story, really. Number 4 on the list. Net Green Worth 6.8 billion. The same has his entire net worth. It's comic. If you haven't thought about it much, landfill use is very, very low on the list of things to address in stopping climate change. As its own issue it lacks the climate change urgency yet always get itself shoehorned into the climate debate somehow with subsidy to follow. No doubt we'll have yet another hollywood style celebrity who knows nothing, is famous for being attractive to look at and if they have any skill at all it is lying convincingly go on to tell us to tackle climate change we should refill our water bottles in stead of placing them in the bin in the follow up article. "Well it's a start" No it isn't, it's nothing at best, it's a distraction from adults talking intelligently and undermines grass roots movements, which is the whole point of the publicising of celebrity advocacy in general. "Let's ignore this person who knows and makes a solid case, because Angelina Jolie has thoughts her publicist would like to share as long as you agree to these terms so she massage her image while you farm your clicks." Bloomberg. Yeah. Bloomberg claims to be better than this. Now let's play "What has this article got to do with Mike Bloomberg trying to undermine the reform of the massive corruption in the Democrat party?" Unless you think he's actually seriously trying to be elected, which is something worth discussing if you do. What isn't worth discussing is weather Bloomberg News are, possibly among other things, his personal propaganda, because they've actually announced that themselves. Genunine idealogically Republicans and Democrats alike are all desperate for reform. From just about anywhere, which is a concern because there are places we don't want it from, like the extremes. Under-qualified Obama got in on that ticket. Democrats voted for Donald because "Just maybe a maverick outsider, and anyway unlikely to be actually worse" Plenty of republican support for Bernie because "Just maybe a maverick outsider and anyway unlikely to be actually worse" It saddens me that Bernie as the most credible Democrat reformer would have smashed Donald as the most credible Republican reformer at the last election. It saddens me because Donald was the most credible Republican reformer and that there still doesn't seem to be anyone better among Republicans standing against him. Anway back to businesses making money saving the planet. We need more. This list is very, very thin and contains ring ins.
- vermilingua 7y agoA considerable number of these "green billionaires" are riding on the backs of Lithium battery development and production. Lithium mining, refining, and the battery-making process hardly seem green to me. Is there any research (not funded by these billionaires) to show definitively that battery production is a substantial net gain?
- legitster 7y ago#3: Wind-power manufacturing #4: Paper recycling #5: Solar cell manufacturing #6: Renewable power #7: Solar manufacturing About half of them have nothing to do with lithium.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- vermilingua 7y ago50% is pretty much how I would define "considerable". Additionally, solar is also made of some pretty awful stuff. Better than burning dead tree, but by how much?
- montalbano 7y agoIn addition to my other comment on amortising manufacturing pollution of electric cars, see the below scientific articles on the time required for energy payback of solar panels. Many people are investigating this. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123859341000374 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978012385... https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0038092X01000330 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00380...
- vermilingua 7y agoThank you for these. The solar articles talk about the energy payback of the PV systems, but is this necessarily equal to the environmental cost to produce them? I would think that energy usage != CO2 cost, as energy may not factor in mining, refining, etc.
- rorykoehler 7y agoSince when is manufacturing palm oil stopping climate change? Palm oil is responsible for massive biodiversity and carbon sink loss.
- celim307 7y agothis is news to me, everything I read pointed to palm oil causing deforestation
- rorykoehler 7y agoPrecisely. This is a bigger threat than CO2 because once the biodiversity is gone it's gone. We can always cleanup the carbon once we have the tech to deploy at scale.
- imtringued 7y agoBiodiversity appears automatically if you stop human intervention. The problem isn't that it's irreversible. It's that we destroy it at a faster rate than it recovers.
- rorykoehler 7y agoDepth dissappears with extinction
- lowii 7y agoBuilding millions of electric cars and shipping them around the world is extremely energy intensive. Many countries where those cars are shipped to use fossil fuels as their main source of electricity too. Nothing about it is green or will "stop climate change", but it gives them good marketing.
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoUsing fossil fuel generated electricity is still more efficient than drilling oil, cracking it into petrol, along with lubricant oil to stop your ICE seizing, driving it to a petrol station, filling your car and burning it at awful efficiency. Renewable sources of electricity are a huge improvement to be encouraged, but EVs running off fossil generated electricity are better than petrol or diesel ICE.
- standardUser 7y agoMaking and distributing anything always requires energy. Making and distributing things that lead to fewer carbon emissions is the only way to slow climate change.
- ses1984 7y agoMaking and distributing fewer things could also slow climate change.
- literallycancer 7y agoMass suicides or nuking half the world's population would probably slow climate change too, but for some reason none of those is considered a reasonable solution.
- ses1984 7y agoYou really compared reducing production and consumption to mass suicide or nuclear war, ok.
- 7y ago
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- gowld 7y agoThis is greenwashing PR.
- devpts11 7y agoYeap. I'm surprised there aren't more "Citizens United for Climate Change" astroturfing PACs to Hoover-up money from individuals to transfer over to desperate billionaires. Oh wait, that's what tax breaks, loopholes and corporate welfare are for... silly me. Maybe billionaires could go door-to-door with hat in hand if they need a 12th yacht?
- dang 7y agoWe've banned this account for posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait. Cam you please not create accounts to do that on HN? We're trying for something a bit different from internet default here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- woodandsteel 7y agoWhen someone says a link is all wrong, but doesn't say what they think the truth is, I assume it is probably because they know the link is right, but don't want to admit it.
- marta_morena 7y agoIts quite a blow to the credibility of this article, if Elon Musk is listed second as "climate change billionaire". Since when is building electric vehicles preventing climate change? Where do people think where this energy comes from? If we even have enough resources to furnish every living soul with an electric car, the electricity for that is certainly not coming from solar panels or windmills.
- dwaltrip 7y agoElectric vehicles can run off carbon neutral sources. They can take advantage of any future improvements in electrical power generation and storage. It is literally impossible for ICE vehicles to be carbon neutral. Solar and wind are already becoming more profitable than running existing coal plants in some areas. Market forces in tandem with continued technological development will accelerate these shifts. It would also be prudent for government to nudge this process along.
- _Microft 7y agoThe problem with ICEs is not that they emit carbon dioxide but that the fuel they use is from fossil sources. This adds additional carbon into the carbon cycle which was 'locked away' for millions of years but is now re-introduced into the shorter term carbon cycle with all the effects that has. So theoretically one could have carbon neutral ICEs by not using fossil fuels, which could be sourced by converting carbon dioxide into fuel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process#Carbon_dioxide_reuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_proces... I don't think that this is a reasonable thing to do though. Go electric instead. Producing and transmitting electricity is easier and also more flexible as different sources (solar, wind, hydro, nuclear...) can be used.
- tonyedgecombe 7y agoWe are a long way from making our energy carbon neutral. The UK is often cited as being ahead yet all we have done is pick the low hanging fruit. Dealing with the rest is going to get increasingly difficult and expensive. If you are really serious about lowering your carbon impact then you will be visiting the bike shop rather than car showroom.
- robertofmoria 7y agoDoes anyone have actual data that suggests any of these people have had a positive impact on "climate change?" Does anyone have any data that "Climate Change" is even bad? Also, if everyone is SOOO concerned with CO2 emissions or waste in general why is Nuclear power not being discussed? It is only the most clean energy source on the planet considering waste to energy production lb for lb. Also, does anyone know the pollutants created making solar panels or super light weight material for wind mills? If not, why not? That is something to be concerned about is it not? Point is most if not all of you haven't a clue about "Climate Change" just like the political scene. For the last 60+ years "global cooling," "global warming," and lastly "climate change" have been used to make unethical people a lot of money playing off people's ignorance and fear.
- ketzu 7y ago'Does anyone have any data that "Climate Change" is even bad?' Depends on what you consider "bad". But there seems to be a lot of material that climate changes is mostly negative economical and health wise for humans. (e.g., http://www.oecd.org/env/the-economic-consequences-of-climate-change-9789264235410-en.htm http://www.oecd.org/env/the-economic-consequences-of-climate... ) 'Also, if everyone is SOOO concerned with CO2 emissions or waste in general why is Nuclear power not being discussed?' It's impossible to escape the nuclear discussion on this topics. Many threads about anything climate or CO2 related are full of discussion of nuclear. 'It is only the most clean energy source on the planet considering waste to energy production lb for lb.' I couldn't find any numbers on this, but I am willing to believe it. Could you provide a citation? I'd like to know more about it. 'Also, does anyone know the pollutants created making solar panels or super light weight material for wind mills?' It has been in mainstream news and outlets a few times, so I assume most people are aware that toxic materials are used to produce solar panels. As far as I can tell from the reports I saw, these can be disposed of reliably, and fairly easily while still being safe. (unlike nuclear waste as far as I can tell.) 'If not, why not?' Most people have limited capacities and do not concern themselves with everything. 'Point is most if not all of you haven't a clue' This is true for most people on most topics and has never stopped anyone from forming an option, discussing it on hackernews, or call people that might actually have a clue out on not having a clue.
- 7y ago