Google Undercounts Its Carbon Emissions, Report Finds (theguardian.com) 21
An anonymous reader shares a report: In 2021, Google set a lofty goal of achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2030. Yet in the years since then, the company has moved in the opposite direction as it invests in energy-intensive artificial intelligence. In its latest sustainability report, Google said its carbon emissions had increased 51% between 2019 and 2024.
New research aims to debunk even that enormous figure and provide context to Google's sustainability reports, painting a bleaker picture. A report authored by non-profit advocacy group Kairos Fellowship found that, between 2019 and 2024, Google's carbon emissions actually went up by 65%. What's more, between 2010, the first year there is publicly available data on Google's emissions, and 2024, Google's total greenhouse gas emissions increased 1,515%, Kairos found. The largest year-over-year jump in that window was also the most recent, 2023 to 2024, when Google saw a 26% increase in emissions just between 2023 and 2024, according to the report.
New research aims to debunk even that enormous figure and provide context to Google's sustainability reports, painting a bleaker picture. A report authored by non-profit advocacy group Kairos Fellowship found that, between 2019 and 2024, Google's carbon emissions actually went up by 65%. What's more, between 2010, the first year there is publicly available data on Google's emissions, and 2024, Google's total greenhouse gas emissions increased 1,515%, Kairos found. The largest year-over-year jump in that window was also the most recent, 2023 to 2024, when Google saw a 26% increase in emissions just between 2023 and 2024, according to the report.
umm okay (Score:3)
In its latest sustainability report, Google said its carbon emissions had increased 51% between 2019 and 2024.
Why would anybody trust Google's number on that in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
The "advocates" beg the question of whether offsets matter and just throw them out in their analysis, while including any emission no matter how tangential. They are no more trustworthy than Google, and probably less. The Guardian can't be trusted at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Why would I trust The Guardian or some random "advocacy group"?
Better odds of honesty than self-reporting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why?
Because I used the word 'odds'.
I am only saying that this report...
What you originally said was: "Why would I trust The Guardian or some random "advocacy group"?", not "why would I trust this specific report"?
Re: (Score:1)
Well yes, that is what progressive Neo-liberals do; they lie.
Shocking that you would think Google, the Guardian or any 'advocacy group' would ever tell anything close to the truth it's only about there particular bottom line.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Google should be far and away better liars than they are it shows a real lack of professionalism.
Re: (Score:1)
Cool, give me 15% of your wealth since it's insignificant.
Re: (Score:2)
And it isn't even certain that Google did anything to lie or mislead anyone. This so-called advocacy group used very different, and entirely suspect, methods in their analysis. They're trying to advance their own agenda, like Google, and like Google they want the results to support their agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
Should we resolve that question before publishing "studies" that beg the question?
Motto: "Do no evil (Score:2)
...between 3:00am and 3:30am Sunday morning."
Why is anyone surprised? (Score:2)
It's not a positive association. Absolutely every company in the world would do the same.
Who is this group? (Score:2)
What? "Racial and economic justice"? Under all the word-salad in their self-description, it just sounds like they are a bunch of race-baiting socialists. Nowhere do they say they do any environmental work, and they don't mention this study at all. WTF?