[HN Gopher] Lessons learned after 5 years of climate tech entrep...
___________________________________________________________________
Lessons learned after 5 years of climate tech entrepreneurship
Author : corradio
Score : 88 points
Date : 2021-11-18 13:40 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (oliviercorradi.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (oliviercorradi.com)
| m12k wrote:
| The core problem here is that emitting carbon doesn't cost the
| polluters much, so helping them or their customers to avoid it
| doesn't save them money. It's not a pain point, so the only
| motivation for them to do anything about it would be
| altruism/"Look How Green We Are!" CSR marketing. That's why the
| world desperately needs a carbon tax, so emission goes from being
| an externality (i.e. somebody else's problem) to being priced
| into the activities that emit. So the producers get a real
| incentive to change, and throw money at the problem, because it
| helps their bottom line to do so. So those that can easily change
| to less emitting techniques will do so. So those that can't will
| help fund research into tech that will. So there's a market for
| green tech like this. So consumers will favor less carbon-
| intensive products, not just if they are hippies, but simply
| because they value their wallets.
|
| The only way to make a massive, global change like this up and
| down the supply chain is to give everyone involved - from
| producers to logistics to consumers - a direct economic incentive
| to do so. A carbon tax fits that bill, and allows the market to
| do what it does best.
| smackeyacky wrote:
| A lot of companies think this way, but it isn't necessarily
| true that excess carbon emissions aren't a financial pain
| point. Putting aside the implementation of carbon taxes, there
| are a lot of enterprises out there who could increase their
| productivity and reduce carbon emission as a side effect.
|
| Agriculture in particular would fit in that category but any
| manufacturer emitting carbon is basically burning something
| that they could burn less of and save money.
|
| So I don't think carbon emission reduction is necessarily a
| good way to market a company. Efficiency and cost savings that
| just happen to reduce emissions? That's where the focus should
| be.
| tuatoru wrote:
| Companies use fossil fuels because they have no choice,
| either because of chemistry or because of the doctrine of
| shareholder primacy, or because they lack access to credit.
|
| There are no alternatives to carbon-intensive inputs in the
| offing for many industries. For all of them, efficiency
| measures require capital investment. Borrowing to install
| efficiency measures reduces next-quarter returns to
| stockholders. Companies with low profits have a hard time
| borrowing.
|
| Yes, it may be a pain point, but it's also a coordination
| problem (or three).
|
| The cases where efficiency provides a clear benefit? Few and
| small, on the global scale.
| m12k wrote:
| > Efficiency and cost savings that just happen to reduce
| emissions? That's where the focus should be.
|
| Isn't that where the focus has already been for decades?
| Which has pretty definitely proven itself insufficient for
| curbing emissions at anywhere near the scales that we need?
| sokoloff wrote:
| From an engineering/economic perspective, I totally agree. From
| a sociology/philosophy perspective, a lot of the West was built
| on cheap carbon emission. Can we realistically take all that
| embodied energy that represents our current state and
| expect/demand that developing nations to pay the same price for
| carbon as we do, starting now?
| glogla wrote:
| Do we have other choices, when the alternative is the
| Apocalypse?
|
| And it's not like rest of the world doesn't benefit at all.
| The early adopters always pay more, the late adopters get to
| leapfrog.
| shreyshnaccount wrote:
| I agree with this, but the gp prolly wanted to brimg up
| that developed countries will offer subsidies that
| develping ones cant, just like in agriculture. Imo
| developed countries need to enact it first, and without
| subsidies and then pressure developing countries, even
| though developing countries produce more carbon. From a
| pure logic perspective thats not the optimal solution, but
| i think thats the only remotely plausible one that will
| make a global carbon tax work
| corpMaverick wrote:
| Developing countries get to avoid the mistakes done by
| developed countries. For example, the amount car dependency
| in the US is unsustainable. Developing countries could build
| their cities with higher density, walk-able, and bike-able.
| It is cheaper, you get higher quality of life without such a
| high carbon footprint.
| tomrod wrote:
| > Can we realistically take all that embodied energy that
| represents our current state and expect/demand that
| developing nations to pay the same price for carbon as we do,
| starting now?
|
| Yes. Because the alternatives are stark and unwelcoming. And
| developed nations should enact development sharing to assist
| at the desire of the developing nations (way more than tokens
| and pittances).
|
| If we want to go far, we have to go together.
| sokoloff wrote:
| What's in it for a developing county to not defect? I think
| to make this work, you need transfer payments from
| developed countries to developing countries and to have
| those payments tied to effective carbon taxation.
|
| For that matter, we probably need transfer payments here in
| the US. Put another $5/gallon of taxes on gasoline and you
| smack the working class hard. Do that and give every
| individual (literally everyone) who files a tax return 1000
| gallons worth of the tax. Commit to reducing the gallon
| subsidy by 25 gallons per year per person and increasing
| the tax by 5% per year for the next 20 years. Evaluate
| every 5 years and see how you're doing towards your goals.
| At the end, you're taxing gas about $10/gallon in today's
| money and subsidizing everyone $5K (in today's money) to
| cover some of the increased costs of goods and transport,
| but giving a painful signal at the pump to incent
| minimizing gas consumption.
|
| I've thought about those numbers for five minutes.
| Undoubtedly, better numbers can be chosen, but I think
| we're going to have to give money in one motion and take it
| away in carbon taxes in another in order to be able to
| implement carbon taxes steep enough to change behavior.
| coryrc wrote:
| Washington state voted on a smaller version of that,
| I-732, but it was opposed by half the environmental
| groups because they couldn't skim money off the top for
| themselves. So unfortunately it's going to be hard to
| pass such laws.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Washington_Initiativ
| e_7...
| [deleted]
| geewee wrote:
| Having worked in the ClimateTech sector for a few years (and with
| no intention to stop) - I can definitely emphasize with the
| potential for burnout. It's really ease to start caring immensely
| about your work, which can be great - but also needs some sort of
| balance so that it doesn't hit too hard when it doesn't work out.
| diafygi wrote:
| > Failure to pick problems that are relevant for both will result
| in increased decision making complexity at all levels of the
| organisation: do we optimise for impact (the environmental
| problem) or for revenue (the customer's problem)?
|
| I've been an climate tech entrepreneur for the past 7+ years, and
| the most reliable way I've found to accomplish the combo viable-
| business + climate-impact:
|
| 1. Get a job at a revenue generating climate-change-fighting
| company (solar, EVs, policy/regulatory consulting, etc.).
|
| 2. Keep your eyes open for pain points that your company (or
| especially you in your position) would pay money to solve.
|
| 3. Quit and start a company solving that pain point (or if you're
| not the founder-type, go work for a company trying to solve that
| pain point).
|
| I suppose this kind of strategy would work in many other
| industries, but it's especially effective in climate tech,
| because:
|
| (a) As OP mentions, the pain points are very hidden to the
| general public, so you really need to be actually working inside
| the industry to find and understand them (since energy often has
| very complex business models and regulatory constructs).
|
| (b) By focusing on finding pain points for already climate-
| change-fighting companies and solving them, your impact goals are
| already built-in, since you're enabling more impact by default.
| So you don't have to worry as much about finding the magical
| combo of viable-business + impact.
|
| (c) The climate-change-fighting sector is so young that many of
| the pain points are still major issues and don't have many viable
| solutions yet. In other more mature industries, many pain points
| already have established companies solving them, so there's less
| of green field for new companies.
|
| Anyway, for people looking to fight climate change, by far the
| biggest thing you can do is join the industry and make a career
| out of it. There's so much ceiling here!
| exdsq wrote:
| Any chance of mentioning a few of those issues from point 2
| that lets someone skip point 1?
| clomond wrote:
| I think thread parents point is that the problems are obtuse
| and plentiful enough that in order to understand them you
| need to be involved in point 1, which is arguably the hard
| part.
|
| You need to do your own discovery.
| gleglegle wrote:
| Tomorrow's efforts have been creative and very interesting to
| follow. It was sad to hear that the demand is so weak for their
| solutions.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Hey Olivier, thanks not only for sharing your learnings, but for
| electricitymap. I believe it's foundational for measuring and
| directing electrical climate change efforts, and wish you the
| best on this next part of your entrepreneurial journey.
| corradio wrote:
| Thank you for the kind thoughts. These kind of messages are
| what keep us going ;-)
| guico wrote:
| Nice read, thanks for sharing
| jackconsidine wrote:
| > Most people don't see the large impact differences of actions
| they undertake in they everyday life (North)
|
| Anyone ever used the app Joro [1]? It calculates your carbon
| footprint based on your credit card transactions (via Plaid
| integration) and provides convenient ways to offset. I've been on
| it for a few months and it's had a huge impact by way of
| behavioral nudges. Also, the carbon calculations are surprisingly
| solid.
|
| [1] https://www.joro.app/
| moralestapia wrote:
| Hi Olivier, nice to read you here. I'm bootstrapping a climate
| tech related business in Mexico and would like to have a chat
| someday. Please get in touch! Email in my bio.
| ulnarkressty wrote:
| Since I imagine there are a lot of interested people in this
| thread: is there a list or an index of companies that one could
| work at if one was interested to make a difference? Can't really
| find any on Linkedin.
|
| Or maybe the opposite is needed - a list of companies one should
| be ashamed to work at due to their negative impact on the
| climate?
| stonlyb wrote:
| https://climatebase.org/ and https://jobs.urban.us/ are two
| good places to look for higher end and more nuanced career
| opportunities to help mitigate climate change.
| gtomitsuka wrote:
| Go to jobs under https://lowercarboncapital.com/
| grvdrm wrote:
| @corradio - would be interesting to chat with you about your
| ideas/goals.
|
| I don't work in climate tech but adjacent to it: property
| insurance. We spend a lot of time thinking about ways to mitigate
| losses from a variety of natural catastrophes. Some of the
| increased frequency/severity is increasingly thought to be from
| climate change. I won't go into that here.
|
| There are a lot of contradictions. Insurers are paid to take
| risks but increasingly move away from those risks. But the actual
| events - wildfires, floods, etc. - affect people and businesses
| every year. Coastal property is at risk from sea-level rise, and
| sunny-day flooding is common in Miami and other places.
|
| So, I wonder if what you might focus on instead is tech that
| helps fill some of those gaps. Offer products that help folks buy
| protection for things that an insurer might not cover unless you
| give them a lot of cash. Do it more cheaply with tech, if
| possible. Private flood already exists, but I still think there's
| a lot of opportunity and runway for other folks in that market.
| Floods and the other perils are increasingly climate-related
| problems that people can touch and feel. They cause damage. They
| upend lives and businesses.
|
| Other folks are tackling wildfire insurance, tornado insurance,
| and etc. A couple of examples: https://solainsurance.com
| https://ourkettle.com
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-11-20 23:01 UTC)