This is laugh.
Google says its carbon footprint is now zero
91–100 of 335 posts
Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero
#92Earlier 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.
> they are powered by [...] nukes [...]
Dear diary,
Today HN taught me that nuclear power comes from atomic bombs.
What a time to be alive.
codetrotter
Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero
#93Earlier 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.
Powered by nukes? That is not how nuclear reactors work.
Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero
#94Offsets are helpful, but are not the solution. At best, they're a stepping stone.
The only sustainable solution is reduction in usage. I'm not sure how feasible that is, or how to achieve it necessarily, but that's the only sustainable basis to proceed on.
Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero
#95This is an outright lie.
Google's carbon footprint is still positive, but their net greenhouse gas footprint is negative now, according to some particular accounting scheme which posits that 1 ton of methane is equivalent to 34 tons of carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide and methane are not equal, and arguably not even equivalent, since methane's impact is short term compared to that of carbon dioxide. That's why the equivalence ratio depends on the time horizon chosen. (100 years is customary, but if Google assumed 20 years, that makes the numbers balance even more cheaply.) So if the headline said "greenhouse gas footprint", it would be technically correct, but misleading. The way it's written, it's a lie.
Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero
#96This is like rich countries moving factories to third-world countries where industry emits more CO2. They pretend to be responsible for less and less greenhouse gases even though they consume more physical goods, with larger carbon footprint. Worst, they feel fine flying and buying SUV because their not that dirty compared to people in undeveloped countries whose carbon footprint keeps increasing.
Reminder: Tesla is only profitable because it sell carbon tax credits to makes of ICE vehicles so they in turn can produce the less efficient cars which are basically just status symbols.
Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero
#97Earlier 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,…
You have accidentally made a point in favour of paying for planting trees while from the tone of your post the reader is lured towards the conclusion that it's somehow bad.
Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero
#98This is quite impressive, but it is also somewhat meaningless. I suppose I'd draw an analogy to a cake shop boasting that it had achieved net-no industrial accidents over its existence - a great record, but also not really a particular stretch to achieve. Carbon emissions aren't about servers. They are about, in order of priority: * How do we feed people cheaply without fossil fuels (both as fertiliser & for crop tra…
Yes, I agree that the title should be "Google data centers achieves zero carbon footprint", but still it is not zero effort to achieve it. I would imagine data centers to use non trivial power to run.
Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get the analogy - could you explain more? Disc: Googler.
I rephrased my comment (hopes it help). Another mediocre analogy on the subject that you may find both relevant and funny: "I spread germs all over town today but I bought coronavirus offsets so we’re all good". via https://twitter.com/WeiZhangAtmos/status/1245890907511181312
Hrm, that's not a bad idea. Perhaps if we use the market to fix the pandemic. The Invisible Hand covering your mouth when you sneeze.
Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero
#100I 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…
They bought carbon offsets which are more focused on preventing / reducing carbon from being generated. It's basically saying "if I stop x amount of carbon from being emitted somewhere in the world, it's as good as -ve carbon on the balance sheet".