3 ms·

Thanks for the feedback. While I agree that carbon offsets can seem like a guilt-eraser, I believe they're just another "wedge" in trying to reduce our impact.

by gsiener 19y ago

Thanks for the feedback. While I agree that carbon offsets can seem like a guilt-eraser, I believe they're just another "wedge" in trying to reduce our impact. As I mentioned above my company is a renewable energy consultancy - we help clients get more efficient with their energy use, and then cut their use of fossil fuels through solar and wind technologies. We even make biodiesel from waste cooking oil. Until we can fly jets without burning petroleum products, I think offsetting is a great way to supplement all the other efforts.

ivankirigin 19y ago
The marginal dollar spent to help the environment is best spent on research to make alternatives cheaper than carbon producing fuels. This means that a reasonable consultancy would always advocate simply spending money on such research. Things like compact florescent light bulbs are becoming popular. Why? Because there is a cost savings in power over regular light bulbs, NOT because they are good for the environment. Reuse and reduction of unnecessary energy is a good thing. Money spent on alternatives that don't scale into a global solution is money wasted. But I didn't actually answer your question: what is involved in building such a site? Briefly, software engineers build up a back end in a language like Perl, PHP, Python, or Ruby. They are supported by databases like mysql or sqllite. They run on servers rented in a hosted configuration or purchased and installed at a co-location facility like an ISP. The front end involves HTML, javascript, and maybe some Flash. It also involves work to ensure the interaction design makes sense so people know how to use your site. I answer so generally because your site isn't doing anything too difficult. Lots people could make it. You'll want to hire people to get this done. Job boards like dice.com might be the way to go, but hiring good people is generally a hard problem.
- gsiener 19y ago
  "The Nobel Peace prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a report yesterday summarizing over 5 years of scientific research on the impacts and future predictions of climate change. It is not an uplifting read but important that everyone understand the scientific consensus. "What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment." - Rajendra Pachauri, a scientist and economist who heads the IPCC The paragraph from the report that I found most revealing was the following: "Climate change is likely to lead to some irreversible impacts. There is medium confidence that approximately 20-30% of species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature increase exceed 1.5-2.5 degrees C (relative to 1980-1999). As global average temperature increase exceeds about 3.5 degrees C, model projections suggest significant extinctions (40-70% of species assessed) around the globe." The IPCC's economic analyses say that trend can be reversed at reasonable cost. Indeed, it says, there is "much evidence that mitigation actions can result in near-term co-benefits (e.g. improved health due to reduced air pollution)" that may offset costs." While I agree that research is necessary, it takes a long time. There are already a lot of grants and VC money going into greentech, but more money doesn't always correlate to faster progress (as all of you know).
  - ivankirigin 19y ago
    Subsidizing alternative energy that isn't cost effective won't make it more cost effective. Also, it will increase the supply of energy, and increase the demand of cheap carbon-producing energy to match. Total energy consumption will increase. My point is not that climate change is unimportant. My point is that carbon offsets that invest in the current generation of hopelessly expensive alternative energy approaches will NOT help the situation. While you think research takes a long time, how long will a net harmful solution take to solve the problem? Investing in research will help. It is the only long term solution.

by gsiener 19y ago

ivankirigin 19y ago

The marginal dollar spent to help the environment is best spent on research to make alternatives cheaper than carbon producing fuels. This means that a reasonable consultancy would always advocate simply spending money on such research. Things like compact florescent light bulbs are becoming popular. Why? Because there is a cost savings in power over regular light bulbs, NOT because they are good for the environment. Reuse and reduction of unnecessary energy is a good thing. Money spent on alternatives that don't scale into a global solution is money wasted. But I didn't actually answer your question: what is involved in building such a site? Briefly, software engineers build up a back end in a language like Perl, PHP, Python, or Ruby. They are supported by databases like mysql or sqllite. They run on servers rented in a hosted configuration or purchased and installed at a co-location facility like an ISP. The front end involves HTML, javascript, and maybe some Flash. It also involves work to ensure the interaction design makes sense so people know how to use your site. I answer so generally because your site isn't doing anything too difficult. Lots people could make it. You'll want to hire people to get this done. Job boards like dice.com might be the way to go, but hiring good people is generally a hard problem.

gsiener 19y ago
"The Nobel Peace prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a report yesterday summarizing over 5 years of scientific research on the impacts and future predictions of climate change. It is not an uplifting read but important that everyone understand the scientific consensus. "What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment." - Rajendra Pachauri, a scientist and economist who heads the IPCC The paragraph from the report that I found most revealing was the following: "Climate change is likely to lead to some irreversible impacts. There is medium confidence that approximately 20-30% of species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature increase exceed 1.5-2.5 degrees C (relative to 1980-1999). As global average temperature increase exceeds about 3.5 degrees C, model projections suggest significant extinctions (40-70% of species assessed) around the globe." The IPCC's economic analyses say that trend can be reversed at reasonable cost. Indeed, it says, there is "much evidence that mitigation actions can result in near-term co-benefits (e.g. improved health due to reduced air pollution)" that may offset costs." While I agree that research is necessary, it takes a long time. There are already a lot of grants and VC money going into greentech, but more money doesn't always correlate to faster progress (as all of you know).
- ivankirigin 19y ago
  Subsidizing alternative energy that isn't cost effective won't make it more cost effective. Also, it will increase the supply of energy, and increase the demand of cheap carbon-producing energy to match. Total energy consumption will increase. My point is not that climate change is unimportant. My point is that carbon offsets that invest in the current generation of hopelessly expensive alternative energy approaches will NOT help the situation. While you think research takes a long time, how long will a net harmful solution take to solve the problem? Investing in research will help. It is the only long term solution.