Google deletes net-zero pledge from sustainability website

Post by _mlbt » Fri, Sep 05, 2025, 1:33 AM UTC

kjkjadksj wrote: post #168

_mlbt wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you would like to have the government take over all the houses and become your landlord instead? When they seize these properties, how should the government determine who gets to live where? Should it be based on your profession? Your family size? Your standing within the Party, Comrade? Perhaps your ability to bribe the government agent who is responsible for assigning housing? What if there’s not enough housing…

Same way it works today. Only rather than a portion of my salary going toward rent and supporting the lifestyle of my landlord, it goes to maintenance and development, and my landlord has to find something socially productive to do to get a meal and their bmw. Let me rent an apartment from my city for a fair market rate that does not factor in the landlord living off my back. Lets go a step further. Let me buy a home…

Post by makeitdouble » Fri, Sep 05, 2025, 3:24 AM UTC

gjm11 wrote: post #19

I think there's less to this than meets the eye. Previously, on https://sustainability.google/operating-sustainably/ : "We've set a goal to achieve net-zero emissions across all of our operations and value chain by 2030." and, in a table later, "Reduce 50% of our combined Scope 1, 2 (market-based), and 3 absolute emissions by 2030. Invest in nature-based and technology-based carbon removal solutions to neutralize our…

Post by p1mrx » Fri, Sep 05, 2025, 4:01 AM UTC

jltsiren wrote: post #159

p1mrx wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most of the time, carbon-free power was no more expensive than generic power Okay, let's ignore "most of the time" and focus on times when carbon-free power was more expensive. Were these companies actually footing the bill in that case? Because increasing the marginal funding toward clean sources when the grid is dirtiest is the whole point.

You can pay the market price for power or agree on a fixed-term fixed-price contract. In the latter case, the power company carries the risks. The market is cheaper on the average, especially if you can adjust your demand down when the prices are high. Back then, the prices were relatively stable, but today they fluctuate wildly due to the prevalence of wind power. In any case, carbon-free power from the grid is most…

Post by dwedge » Fri, Sep 05, 2025, 6:29 AM UTC

easygenes wrote: post #126

dwedge wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paving deserts with black heat absorbers that are only 10-20% efficient in converting that energy to electricity could well end up affecting climate more than burning coal would

Definitely not. At global scale, the offset effects of solar installations outweigh albedo effects on the order of about 30x. [0][1] [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01619-w.pdf [1] https://acs.figshare.com/articles/journal_contribution/Net_Radiative_Forcing_from_Widespread_Deployment_of_Photovoltaics/2871685

Post by easygenes » Fri, Sep 05, 2025, 7:41 AM UTC

dwedge wrote: post #177

easygenes wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely not. At global scale, the offset effects of solar installations outweigh albedo effects on the order of about 30x. [0][1] [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01619-w.pdf [1] https://acs.figshare.com/articles/journal_contribution/Net_Radiative_Forcing_from_Widespread_Deployment_of_Photovoltaics/2871685

It's about the localised effect of the heat generation https://www.westernsydney.edu.au/hie/stories/news_archive/so...