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

211–220 of 335 posts

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#211

Post by bawolff »

lhorie wrote: post #207
bawolff wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even with all those caveats, its still an impressive milestone and a step in the right direction.

I'm partially curious and partially skeptical. Is this "a step in the right direction" in the same way as recycling? (i.e. people thinking 100% of recyclables actually get recycled vs the reality being a lot of it end up in landfills or worse, and the parallel overproduction of plastics turned into a worldwide ecological disaster)

Maybe its a step in the rigt direction the way aluminium recycling is (i.e. actually useful)

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#212

Post by robertlagrant »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #147
rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>typically attached to doing more than you were doing before. I'd love to read the details. Here [0], Easyjet pretend to be offsetting 100% carbon emitted during their flights: https://www.easyjet.com/fr/developpement-durable Where are the huge Easyjet forests? Planted just so the rich can fly? I'm sure they have some kind of contract, somewhere, but I can't verify that. And of course any "new" tree can be attached t…

Are you being willfully obtuse or do you seriously believe the only way (or even the most effective way) to lower carbon emissions is by planting trees?

He's saying when companies buy carbon offsets, they're potentially just giving money to people who would've planted the trees anyway.

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#214

Post by robertlagrant »

ip26 wrote: post #122
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?

being carbon neutral is not as economy-killing as some say I think this is a big part of it. Just look at carbon tax proposals. A commonly suggested initial tax is $40/ton. My family racks up about 4-6 tons of CO2 each year driving. That's $160-240/yr. By comparison, registration is ~$300 and insurance is ~$700. A large portion of the voting public opposes virtually all regulation & taxes simply on principal. For thi…

You're already taxed (potentially a lot) on fuel. Adding another tax that's harder to measure consumption for seems like a bad idea.

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#215

Post by dzelzs »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #158
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…

Emissions embedded in durable goods, that is the heavy industry you are talking about - are not actually that major. Heating, electricity, transport and food are by far the majority of our emissions. Industrial processes are like 15% of uk emissions or so

Does the 15% count in the production of any of the industrial processes that have been simply displaced to other locations?

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#216

Post by read_if_gay_ »

gre wrote: post #85
Filligree wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Like what? Build a giant fence around it?

Why the hell would you even care that much about 3,500 fucking birds? There are FAR better uses for taxpayer money than figuring out how to save a vanishingly small number of them, when we kill them in the billions for dinner anyway.

The plant still seems to be a decent step forward, and nothing ever is going to be perfect. If we're going to go down that road, then we're completely paralyzing ourselves, because no matter your solution, some construction worker will step on a rat, and now we need to go figure out the more expensive solution where no rats have to die.

You're playing an impossible game.

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#217

Post by throwaway894345 »

robertlagrant wrote: post #212
throwaway894345 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you being willfully obtuse or do you seriously believe the only way (or even the most effective way) to lower carbon emissions is by planting trees?

He's saying when companies buy carbon offsets, they're potentially just giving money to people who would've planted the trees anyway.

Right, but (1) there's no evidence to support this, the whole point of offset certification is to prevent this sort of fraud and (2) there are lots of more effective carbon offset initiatives than planting trees, so of course we shouldn't expect to see massive new EasyJet forests.

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#218

Post by boogies »

read_if_gay_ wrote: post #216
gre wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Like what? Build a giant fence around it? Why the hell would you even care that much about 3,500 fucking birds ? There are FAR better uses for taxpayer money than figuring out how to save a vanishingly small number of them, when we kill them in the billions for dinner anyway. The plant still seems to be a decent step forward, and nothing ever is going to be perfect. If we're going to go down that road, then we're com…

Like nuclear.

Why the heck would you care about soda fizz and not about the 2.9 billion wind and solar deaths contributing to the 29% loss of the entire country’s birds? (Or the endangered species being killed, or the human deaths?)

https://townhall.com/columnists/katiekieffer/2019/09/23/29-b...

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#220

Post by Spivak »

nend wrote: post #162
actuator wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> emissions from their commute Isn't stuff like this kind of out of their hand unless the state itself tries to fix this.

Why would an employees commute be out of the hands of the employer? Companies already provide incentives to help employees with commutes: public transit benefits, wfh days, shuttle services. It seems especially obvious at the moment that companies could simply eliminate tens (or even hundreds) of thousands of commutes instantly by letting the vast majority of their employees wfh permanently (or much more frequently a…

Because I can just not use those services and take my car to work? Like large employers can dangle some pretty substantive carrots but I don't think courts would let them get away with any sticks.
Post reply on HN