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

101–110 of 335 posts

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#101

Post by hobofan »

YetAnotherNick wrote: post #32
roenxi wrote: post #15

This 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.

Wondering if that also applies to Alphabet as a whole or only Google. I find it especially interesting due to everyone screaming "but muh CO2 footprint", every time big ML projects are announced by them (e.g. AlphaGo) that use enormous resources for training.

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#102

Post by rcMgD2BwE72F »

Aunche wrote: post #72
rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: post #41

This 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.

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.

Displacing dirty power with clean power cannot bring your carbon footprint to zero. Your cleanest power cannot not emit. Google may become cleaner but that isn't the point.

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#103

Post by rcMgD2BwE72F »

MattGaiser wrote: post #88
barney54 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Pretending to have an "all-time carbon footprint" to be "zero" isn't reasonable either.

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#104

Post by samvher »

stiray wrote: post #76
rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: post #41

This 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.

Very well said. I wonder (actually I really dont - it is clear that it doesnt) if 0 emission include also creation of silicon resin, PCBs, wiring, electricity,... And to back up parent claim - where where they produced? I am not saying it is nothing - surely better than nothing - but it is "a tad" spitting into the sea. The major footprint comes from heavy industry that is creating the materials so google can actuall…

Your 0 emission statement suffers from exactly the same criticism you're firing at Google. How was your bike built? How was your bus/train built? What's powering your bus/train? Also the assumption that a vegetarian diet is 0 emission is wrong - you're relying on a massive (oil-fueled) production system that emits a lot, to provide you with the food you buy. Sure, it's less than would be necessary if you ate meat but it's certainly not 0 emission.

Edit - I need to read more carefully, OP already went into this, apologies.

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#105

Post by actuator »

This has been very commendable from Google, since they started working towards it.

Sure, there have been environmental impact from this as others have pointed out, but since they were one of the earliest movers on these things, we can expect them to run into issues which hopefully they will work towards fixing for everyone. Also, we do need to compare the impact with the impact of what it replaces to keep things in perspective.

I am glad that more companies have joined them on this, since it looks like it will be very hard to convince some governments to course correct on these issues.

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#106

Post by stiray »

samvher wrote: post #104
stiray wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very well said. I wonder (actually I really dont - it is clear that it doesnt) if 0 emission include also creation of silicon resin, PCBs, wiring, electricity,... And to back up parent claim - where where they produced? I am not saying it is nothing - surely better than nothing - but it is "a tad" spitting into the sea. The major footprint comes from heavy industry that is creating the materials so google can actuall…

Your 0 emission statement suffers from exactly the same criticism you're firing at Google. How was your bike built? How was your bus/train built? What's powering your bus/train? Also the assumption that a vegetarian diet is 0 emission is wrong - you're relying on a massive (oil-fueled) production system that emits a lot, to provide you with the food you buy. Sure, it's less than would be necessary if you ate meat but…

I think that I have explained it very well and I have put it there as an example why the claim from google is a fallacy.

> once I start to count in how my food was produced, how the goods I am using were produced etc. this is just not true.

I wasnt clear enough?

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#107

Post by polote »

robjan wrote: post #100
Arnt wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

so basically company A says it built one solar panel for company B to use.

Company A says it reduced its carbon emission and company B says it reduced also his. So we have reduced emission by a factor of 2 solar panels by using only one? seems smart!

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#108

Post by rcMgD2BwE72F »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #71
rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Isnt this effectively what all governments are doing? Paying people to stay home so that other people with essential roles can carry on with less chance of spreading covid?

No. That would be the case only if essential workers were using their government-issued permit to go to night clubs without mask nor physical distancing, and pretend to not spread germs because others are staying at home.

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#109

Post by ohthehugemanate »

There's a really good explanation of different loopholes in calculating carbon emissions in the Microsoft carbon target announcement from last year[1].

Eg do you count secondary services your employees use, like food services or emissions from their commute? Do you count partner services, like shipping providers for physical product? These, along with your direct emissions, are categorized into three "scopes" of emissions. Do you include purchased offsets against emissions, and at what rate? This is what most companies (including MS, since 2012) use to be "carbon neutral". Companies are selective about which scopes they include, and they pay for the total in offsets.

The point of the blog lost is to be clear (and holier-than-thou) about MS's announced goal: to remove more carbon than they produce in all three scopes each year by 2030 ("net negative"), and to remove all the carbon Microsoft has ever produced in all three scopes from the atmosphere by 2050. Actual carbon removal, not offsets.

I have not read this article so I have no idea what google is or isn't claiming here. But I learned a lot from the MS blog post so I thought I'd share.

[1] https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2020/01/16/microsoft-will-b...

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#110

Post by dalbasal »

Aunche wrote: post #72
rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: post #41

This 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.

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.

At least in europe, both have happened. A meaningful portion of the gains have been from deindustrialization of one kind or another.

This isn't an indictment of all carbon reduction. Most meaningful policies will have reshuffling. There are no perfect moves.

That said, it's important to try and get into the nuance, be skeptical. In this case, the guts are in the "what does carbon offset really mean?"

Any carbon accounting system (tradable credits, carbon taxes, etc.) is abstract. You can achieve "carbon neutral" by buying credits or by actually reducing carbon. FWIW, I think there definitely is a value to DIY as opposed to carbon accounting stuff. IE, powering your own data centre with clean energy is superior to using gas electric and offsetting that with purchased credits.

Post reply on HN