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

311–320 of 335 posts

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#311

Post by bawolff »

komali2 wrote: post #291
dragonwriter wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Capitalism does not mean we can’t have legislation to protect humanity Mostly, it does. > think of the clean air act and a host of others (e.g. OSHA) Those laws are at odds with capitalism, because they limit the control of private capital owners over the application of that capital in favor of social direction or limitation by the State on others’ interest. Now, you can support that as necessary for the good of so…

This is correct and shouldn't be downvoted. You can like capitalism while acknowledging its faults.

Its a very missing the forest for the trees definition.

Like how my computer is technically a regular expression because the universe is finite so it can be simulated by a large enough finite state machine.

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#312

Post by bawolff »

lhorie wrote: post #239
bawolff wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In which case the price of offsets spike, and actually reducing emissions become a more attractive option. It aint perfect, but still seems to be in the right direction towards getting to where we need to go.

If history is any indication, I feel that what will happen instead is that someone else will start to sell "carbon offsets" for cheaper that secretly aren't quite following the spirit of carbon offset in some obscure overlooked sense. Then when the cat is out of the bag many years down the road, the big corps get to shrug and say "hey I did my part buying them" in some corporate speak that makes them sound good, and…

And then you have laws and regulations for what is a valid offset.

Its not like this is a new problem - regulation of markets for fake goods has been a thing for a long time.

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#313

Post by footballnate29 »

air7 wrote: post #249
ohthehugemanate wrote: post #109

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 emis…

> do you count secondary services your employees use I find this question to be a classic ridiculous slippery slope. For example: Do you count the foot print of the plane that takes employees on vacation bought using the company's salary? Or the foot print of the extra child they decided to bear thanks to the finical stability the company offers? I feel these type of claims should not be taken literally but rather as…

Companies can't control their employees and you shouldn't be expecting them too. This is part of the problem. We are finally making headway yet people still complain and find ways to degrade. Just be happy that they kind of care and are trying to better our environment. Maybe instead of roasting them you could use your time wisely and suggest even more ways to reduce carbon foot prints.

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#314

Post by epistasis »

syshum wrote: post #290
epistasis wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fine, you keep doing you. Just done stop other people from living the way they want to.

There is one group politically that wants to prevent people from living they way they want, and it is not Rural people

Not sure what "rural" has to do with this, because nearly all land in the US is rural and it's super easy to find any sort of rural life one wants, in addition to it being super cheap.

However, there is a massive undersupply of dense living in the US, because it has been legislated out of existence, not because people don't want it.

And I would point out that many "rural" towns have fantastic dense living in their core, that allow people to walk for daily errands, etc.

The real enemy of density is not rural vs. urban, because these do not tough each other at all. The people who prevent density are the suburban enclaves that, through heavy and excessive regulation, prevent people from building anything except for single family residential sprawl for miles upon miles, necessitating a car for something as simple as getting a pint of cream.

Which is the way that many people want to live, which is great for them, and they should be allowed to do that! But we need to stop letting them say to others: "I don't want to live in density, so you shouldn't have the very option of it because the mere existence threatens me."

I've been fighting for smart density in my town for quite a while, and no rural person would ever oppose this, because they are not in town! And I think they realize that the more people in town, the fewer crowding into their rural life.

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#315

Post by AlexTWithBeard »

thu2111 wrote: post #223
bluGill wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is commonly done. I work for John deere and we have a team dedicated to making sure that our products don't use conflict minerals, which if I understand correctly means mined with slave labor. I know for a fact that we have all of our suppliers traced 6 levels deep just to ensure that the whole chain is okay. We can put whatever want on the list, though we sometimes run into problems because we are too small to ge…

That's not what conflict minerals means. That term means what it says: that the minerals come from a (civil) war zone where people are killing each other over the right to extract them. That extraction may well also include slavery in some places, but it's not exactly the same thing.

While this is not exactly the same, the idea is very similar. I was very surprised to find out the corporations drill multiple levels down through the layers of contractors to promote ethical stuff. That's impressive.

The credit must be given when it's due.

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#316

Post by finiteloops »

paul_f wrote: post #259
ohthehugemanate wrote: post #109

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 emis…

Sorry, buts carbon offsets are utter BS. Google has a 500,000 square foot office in Los Angeles. The City of Los Angeles gets 20% of its electricity from a coal plant in Utah. Power is fungible, you cannot select the source for your power if on the city's grid. Therefore, Google's electricity comes from burning coal. Seriously, you cannot just cut a deal with the building next door and say, I'll give you a bunch of c…

Seems like its BS, but lets boil it down to a simple unit example:

Company g pulls 1 unit of electricity from a coal power plant that produces just that 1 unit of electricity. By buying carbon offsets, g indirectly funds a power developer to replace the coal plant with a solar plant.

In this example, offsets produce the same net reduction as building their own solar power plant. As long as you purchase offsets from reputable organizations that require the deployment of proceeds to directly offset carbon that would not otherwise have occurred, then it works.

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#317

Post by bluGill »

AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #315
thu2111 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what conflict minerals means. That term means what it says: that the minerals come from a (civil) war zone where people are killing each other over the right to extract them. That extraction may well also include slavery in some places, but it's not exactly the same thing.

While this is not exactly the same, the idea is very similar. I was very surprised to find out the corporations drill multiple levels down through the layers of contractors to promote ethical stuff. That's impressive. The credit must be given when it's due.

Those multiple levels have proved very powerful. When the big earthquakes hit Japan industry all over the world was quickly able to figure out parts of the supply chain was most critical, vs what could be sourced elsewhere. (as I recall all the pure silicon for chips is made in Japan, so those factories were given all the electricity needed, while other factories that had competition elsewhere had to wait to get the limited power left). Companies that had their suppliers traced out that far were able to work stay in production much longer than those that didn't find out until months latter when things got through all the levels.

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#318

Post by jjeaff »

wolco wrote: post #284
ewidar wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does not need to be a slippery slope though. I would expect companies to count plane emissions when their employees go on business trips, but not on holidays. I would also expect companies to count emissions produced by their employees when they work remotely, which should be a part of the total emissions of their home. Sure, they may not be able to get an exact number, and it will be lots of estimates, but it doe…

If they didn't receive those high salaries they wouldn't be able to take those personal trips. The more employees the higher the multiplier. So what are we exactly offsetting.

But it makes no sense to attribute the personal decision of the employee into the carbon footprint. Because paying a high salary does not require that the person take airplane vacations. Some don't. And for those that do, they would have the option to pay to reverse or offset those emissions.

Should the company also reduce their carbon footprint calculations since paying employees more will make then more likely to own a tesla or other electric?

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#319

Post by cgriswald »

footballnate29 wrote: post #313
air7 wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> do you count secondary services your employees use I find this question to be a classic ridiculous slippery slope. For example: Do you count the foot print of the plane that takes employees on vacation bought using the company's salary? Or the foot print of the extra child they decided to bear thanks to the finical stability the company offers? I feel these type of claims should not be taken literally but rather as…

Companies can't control their employees and you shouldn't be expecting them too. This is part of the problem. We are finally making headway yet people still complain and find ways to degrade. Just be happy that they kind of care and are trying to better our environment. Maybe instead of roasting them you could use your time wisely and suggest even more ways to reduce carbon foot prints.

Where to draw the line is a legitimate question and without it the claim that any real headway is being made is dubious. Some companies offer bussing services in the Bay for their employees so they don’t have to drive as far. If they remove those busses and their employees have to drive in is the company that much closer to carbon neutral even though now all their employees have to drive in and more carbon is in the atmosphere as a result?

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#320

Post by SparkyMcUnicorn »

xdavidliu wrote: post #192
SparkyMcUnicorn wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do we feed people cheaply without fossil fuels (both as fertiliser & for crop transport)? Agriculture (even without fossil fuels) has a far greater impact on the environment than all fossil fuel use combined. Why the focus on fossil fuels for all your points?

> Agriculture (even without fossil fuels) has a far greater impact on the environment than all fossil fuel use combined Can I get a source for that claim? A quick Google gives me the following: > Globally, fossil fuel-based energy is responsible for about 60% of human greenhouse gas emissions, with deforestation at about 18%, and animal agriculture between 14% and 18% (estimates from the World Resources Institute, UN…

Here's a full infographic with sources [0].

I did watch this documentary, and while I don't agree with some of the conclusions or outlook, it does serve up some facts I wouldn't have looked into had I not seen it.

[0] https://www.cowspiracy.com/infographic

Post reply on HN