
Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates Join Forces to Invest in Clean Energy Technology - Perados
http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/29/breakthrough-energy-coalition/
======
aresant
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
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-w...](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)

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.

------
liquidise
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.

~~~
epistasis
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
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
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.

------
Von_Jones
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.

------
toephu2
Bill Gates's intro video on the project: [https://youtu.be/YhgIY-
Vghj4](https://youtu.be/YhgIY-Vghj4)

------
odzhan
"$20 billion by 2020"

The Pentagon will spend 150 times this by 2020.

It sounds like they're taking this climate change very seriously...

~~~
ztratar
Source on the $3 trillion Pentagon budget?

~~~
smt88
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...](http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?granuleId=BUDGET-2015-TAB-5-1&packageId=BUDGET-2015-TAB&fromBrowse=true)

(Or you could just Google it...)

