Google Reverses Lifelong Carbon Emissions To Fight Climate Change (cnet.com) 38
A few months after Microsoft pledged to undo by 2050 the climate harm it's done to the atmosphere by emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, Google said it's already done so. "We have eliminated Google's entire carbon legacy," Chief Executive Sundar Pichai said Monday in a blog post. From a report: Carbon dioxide, which can trap heat from the sun in the earth's atmosphere in a process called the greenhouse effect, is a key part of climate change problems humans are causing on the planet. Google said it became carbon neutral in 2007, meaning it offset carbon emissions related to its operations. That's typically done by purchasing "carbon offsets," actions like planting trees, but carbon offsets are a complex and sometimes shady business. The search and Android giant reversed its carbon footprint by buying "high-quality" carbon offsets, Pichai said. Carbon emissions are a major issue for companies seeking to become more environmentally responsible. Google has long pushed for sustainable operations. That's easier at a profitable tech giant, though, than at a more conventional business.
You have been fined one carbon credit... (Score:4, Funny)
Now what are those three sea shells for.....
Re:You have been fined one carbon credit... (Score:5, Insightful)
carbon offsets are a complex and sometimes shady business
No, carbon offsets are ALWAYS a shady business.
Purchasing "carbon offsets" is complete absolute bullshit and does nothing to reduce emissions. You're just generating more pollution and then "offsetting" it by buying credits from someone who generates less pollution. Its just a shell game, shuffling things around, and there is no net reduction of emissions.
There is only one way to reduce carbon emissions and that is BY ACTUALLY REDUCING WHAT YOU PUT INTO THE ATMOSPHERE.
Re: (Score:1)
Remember every time that you do a GOOGLE search another bird bursts into flames at the Ivanpah Solar Electric Facility.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Sea shells are sequestered carbon. Was that your point or it's just a reference to Demolition Man. In the US release Taco Bell won the franchise wars. In countries with no Taco Bells, Pizza Hut won the franchise wars. Same parent company.
Carbon credits are about the money.
Re: (Score:1)
In countries with no Taco Bells,
The horror!
Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. Google didn't reverse anything. They paid an environmental tax. That's it.
Re: (Score:2)
Came here to say this. I'm so tired of this greenwashing nonsense.
Re: (Score:3)
That's true, but it is more than greenwashing.
The big idea is that it biases the market in favor of businesses that lower our carbon footprint. For example, if you are only motivated by profit and have to choose between building a coal plant or a wind farm that are normally as profitable, you will build the wind farm to benefit from the carbon offsets.
It is like the "all our electricity comes from renewable sources" bullshit. It is bullshit in a sense that they use the same electricity as everyone else, the
Re:Bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
Not even that. Carbon offsetting means they paid other people to do stuff that reduces carbon emissions, e.g. building renewable energy projects. The problem is that doesn't actually remove any carbon from the atmosphere, it just prevents some being emitted in the future.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. Somehow these people act as there is no real problem, just some small administrative oversight. The Fermi Paradox becomes less mysterious to me all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google thinks it can get rid of carbon by burying the bodies.
Re: (Score:2)
Hi..I was a really bad..girl. Punish me with your dick in my mouth!! >> http://bit.do/fJpuZ [bit.do] [bit.do]
Pffft, yeah right. Who has the upper hand there, the punisher or the punisher? I’m not falling for that one again.
In other news, (Score:1)
Shady old trees... (Score:1)
That's typically done by purchasing "carbon offsets," actions like planting trees, but carbon offsets are a complex and sometimes shady business.
I'll say. As we've recently noticed, those darn trees have a tendency to go up in flames, causing loss of lives, homes, air pollution, and, wait for it, a pile of CO2 emissions.
Planting trees is only half the battle. At some point later on, you've got to go back and HARVEST them trees. Build houses and other fine wood products with them and you'll probably be fine. But leave them sitting around too long and you're just creating a huge future fire hazard.
Buying your way to the Feels (Score:3)
Now instead of taking shortcuts, Google actually tried to offset its carbon footprint, we would see some change. Buying carbon credits is the same as paying a sin tax: he behavior continues and the government gets some coin. Just another day in the life of extreme corporations.
Carbon Sequestration (Score:1)
I'd rather see companies like Google and Microsoft make technological advances in carbon sequestration, then use this technology to actually offset the carbon they introduce into the atmosphere. The carbon tax is just good PR.
Where is my BS flag!!! (Score:2)
Dang it!! Throw the brown flag!!
Something here stinks!!
So, let's see now... (Score:2)
Bubba pays Fred not to kill Ned... Fred never intended to anyway, but he agrees and takes the money. Having purchased an "offset", Bubba now murders Ned, but nobody goes to jail because in never happened, because Bubba is "murder neutral".
or...
Sam pays Erik not to cheat on his wife. Erik was planning to cheat on his wife, but in exchange for some cash agrees not to and in fact pushes for more money and makes the additional promise to actually go celibate for a week (Sam agrees to pay Erik the higher price f
Only one way this works (Score:2)
Nonsense (Score:3)
For a reason that most people pushing carbon offsets don't notice.
Carbon offsets are in limited supply. The reason that Google can pay a certain price for them is that there's a certain supply, and a certain demand. If many companies bought carbon offsets, the demand would go up. Since only so many carbon offsets can be produced, that means that the price of carbon offsets would go up and it might not even be possible to buy enough of them at all.
In other words, the fact that everyone is not buying carbon offsets makes it deceptively cheap and easy for the few companies who are to do so. The fact that Google can do so economically doesn't show that it would be economical as a general practice.
BS (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Some of the carbon is retained in the soil. As above, so below.
Indulgences! Get your indulgences here!! (Score:2)
The real threat of CO2 is oceans ... and calcium (Score:2)
CO2 is absorbed by the oceans. And too much CO2 causes calcium to not be absorbed into the water column. And if that process stops, life will be killed in the oceans.
No life in the oceans and well, kiss the food chain goodbye and we're all dead.
It's not global warming. It's climate change .... THAT IS THE TERM TO USE!
https://www.conservation.org/b... [conservation.org]
Long story short (Score:1)
I am not impressed (Score:1)
Did they factor in the carbon footprint of ads running on client machines? Nope.