Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 335 posts

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#81

Post by Arnt »

polote wrote: post #52

I don't understand how that can be possible. Is Google planting trees to remove carbon from the air ? I mean there are hundreds of google employees who take the plane everyday and therefore emit carbon, how this carbon emission is removed ?

The former, more or less, except different.

The very short version is: They calculated the total carbon emission of the company's activity to date, then paid someone to capture that amount of carbon.

There are two subtle points: Google's past is finite, so there is a total amount of carbon that has been emitted. Planting trees etc. doesn't work (forever) against open-ended ongoing activities, but a specific amount of CO₂ is a different matter. It's possible to buy enough land, plant trees on it and keep ownership of the land.

Of course one can discuss how to calculate a company's emissions. I find it quite laudable that they even tried.

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#82

Post by matthewmacleod »

namdnay wrote: post #14

I'm always suspicious about carbon offsets. From what I've seen buying flights for example, the price seems surprisingly low. Either being carbon neutral is not as economy-killing as some say, or the true price is much higher. Does anyone have more expertise on this?

To be blunt, carbon neutrality is indeed not economy-killing and you have been lied to by people who want you to believe that it is.

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#83

Post by dcolkitt »

namdnay wrote: post #14

I'm always suspicious about carbon offsets. From what I've seen buying flights for example, the price seems surprisingly low. Either being carbon neutral is not as economy-killing as some say, or the true price is much higher. Does anyone have more expertise on this?

> Either being carbon neutral is not as economy-killing as some say, or the true price is much higher.

I think the distinction you're overlooking is marginal price vs true price. It could easily be the case that reducing carbon on the margins is cheap.

Going from 100% of current levels to 99% may involve giving up some very low value activity. Especially because in most of the world the cost of carbon emissions is zero to begin with. But going from 1% to 0% could be extraordinarily costly, because it involves the highest value usage of carbon.

Another way to think about it is that carbon offsets may be very cheap, because so few people buy them. If the practice became more widespread, either because of social norms or government regulation, then the demand could easily push up the price to where it does become a significant cost.

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#84

Post by delegate »

the_gastropod wrote: post #19

I have mixed feelings about this. It’s wonderful that Google is making progress on their emissions. But I wonder if their business model is at all compatible with a 0 carbon world. Their entire raison d’être is to convince people to buy things they don’t need. They even have a very targeted flight purchasing service. This type of behavior we’ve grown accustomed to—of unbridled consumerism and excess—seems like it’s g…

I'm sad that people are down voting this, we should start to be honest about it if we want to find solutions to the problem that the world faces.

Through their ad business model, Google (and others like it, you know them) are enabling commerce at a scale never seen before. Remove the Internet and the world's economy would collapse..

Quick and dirty search - world GDP has grown 420% since 1970, before computers became mainstream.

How much of that is due to computers, the Internet and advertising, I don't know, but I suspect these are major factors.

Through their reach, these companies could have a huge impact, but they do nothing about it except use renewable energy in their data centers.. too little impact imo.

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#85

Post by gre »

Filligree wrote: post #79
boogies wrote: post #68

But at what cost? Alphabet pressures local governments to let them drain aquifers to cool their machines¹, and powers them using vast swaths of bulldozed former habitats of endangered desert tortoises and focused beams of light that literally burn alive thousands of birds: Workers at a state-of-the-art solar plant in the Mojave Desert have a name for birds that fly through the plant’s concentrated sun rays — “streame…

As opposed to the billions of animals, and millions of people, who die every year due to air pollution and radiation from coal ash? I'll take those costs.

There is a more expensive solution where neither birds nor humans have to die. How do we get to that instead?

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#86

Post by unethical_ban »

rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: post #75
what_ever wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get the analogy - could you explain more? Disc: Googler.

Here's why offsets are bullshit. Imagine that I go and plant trees every weekend, because I like them and because I don't want to see my world burn. I'm planting trees, everyone is happy. One day, someone contact me and say "I like your work! Would you like to receive 50 cents for every next tree you plant? I want to support you. Just print a paper certifying that I'm supporting your work". I can't refuse that offer,…

Your analogy misses a critical component: Your 50 cent stipend is typically attached to doing more than you were doing before.

And while the point of your analogy is clear, your neighbor could only travel the world without remorse if they fund a huge number of new trees.

Offsets are not as illogical as you make them sound.

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#87

Post by boogies »

Filligree wrote: post #79
boogies wrote: post #68

But at what cost? Alphabet pressures local governments to let them drain aquifers to cool their machines¹, and powers them using vast swaths of bulldozed former habitats of endangered desert tortoises and focused beams of light that literally burn alive thousands of birds: Workers at a state-of-the-art solar plant in the Mojave Desert have a name for birds that fly through the plant’s concentrated sun rays — “streame…

As opposed to the billions of animals, and millions of people, who die every year due to air pollution and radiation from coal ash? I'll take those costs.

You’re saying the alternative is doubling the entire world’s coal consumption? First, we’re talking about one company’s energy (and cooling). Second, what about nuclear, etc?

Your argument is a straw man.

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#88

Post by MattGaiser »

barney54 wrote: post #77
Aunche wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't displacing factories to third world countries. They're displacing dirty power with cleaner power. Obviously this won't be sustainable forever, but it's a good start.

Not necessarily. They are buying renewable power, however, the actually generation that power their data enters come from the grid and includes coal and natural gas. When the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining, they are powered by coal, nukes, hydro, and natural gas.

Google would need to build its own grid to have it only use its own wind and solar. That is not reasonable.

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#90

Post by MattGaiser »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #47
namdnay wrote: post #14

I'm always suspicious about carbon offsets. From what I've seen buying flights for example, the price seems surprisingly low. Either being carbon neutral is not as economy-killing as some say, or the true price is much higher. Does anyone have more expertise on this?

Who told you going carbon neutral was economy killing? And if it is, why are all the world's governments commited to doing it? I think you can probably trace that information source back to someone who makes their money pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

> And if it is, why are all the world's governments committed to doing it?

Committed is not the same is doing. Everyone was more "committed" for Kyoto too.

Post reply on HN