Live data from Hacker News

Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

bbc.com

331–335 of 335 posts

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#331

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…

> I have not read this article

Technically, this is also a small contribution towards reducing the carbon footprint.

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#332
Microsoft is the winner in this PR battle: "When it comes to carbon, neutrality is not enough," said Microsoft president Brad Smith.

Fucking right.

But how are you going to reverse it? It has never been done. The technology doesn't exist, except as ideas or sometimes prototypes. It doesn't scale.

With greenhouse emissions you can't put the genie back into the bottle. It took a very green earth with no industry on it billions of years to lock up the carbon that we've released over the last few centuries. If all this talk of carbon offset was worth anything, atmospheric CO2 and methane would be reducing. It's not. It's still accelerating. Putting money into carbon offset programs doesn't suck your flight's CO2 out of the atmosphere, or somehow remove the methane produced by the herd of cows that produced every steak you've ever eaten. It's not any different to paying the church to absolve you of sin. One could argue that the Catholic church did some good with the money (maybe?) but the main effect of buying indulgences is that you feel better about your sins. Californians still watered their lands during droughts because they felt that they somehow earned the right: "I paid for that water"

Sorry. I'm just entirely pessimistic about this. As a kid I used to think that people were so stupid back in the 1600s-1800s, for causing extinctions left and right. The unfortunate Dodo, Tasmanian Tiger, Great Auk, Passenger pigeon. The generations that inhabited earth within our living memory have done far worse. We are now seeing some of the dreaded "feedback loops" we were warned about: Methane release from melting ice, decreased summer ice coverage reducing reflected solar energy.

Mass extinctions will be the new normal. We'll start to see more of those weird "hundred of thousands of birds mysteriously dead" posts.

The only thing that made a dent in our emissions was covid-19. I'm starting to wonder if it wasn't part of some "benevolent" 12 Monkeys plot. (Kidding! That was humans being fucking stoooooopid too)

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#333
post #21

How about the carbon footprint of their users while using their services?

How about the carbon footprint of [insert arbitrary company]'s users while using their services? It is totally nonsense and doesn't help at all. Forgiving my own displeasure at google-everything, I think I can at least appreciate that they might not be all evil all the time – perhaps they could even influence people in a positive way? Also excuse the related tangent and cherry picking, I am not condoning most of Chin…

I am not talking about Google specifically. It is true for any company, you are right, but I don't think you can claim to be have offset your carbon footprint completely until you account for the global impact of your business on this planet.

To give an extreme example, how would you react if Exxon Mobil were to claim to be carbon-neutral because they offset the footprint of all their datacenters, offices, drilling facilities, and supply chain? I am sure you would call bullshit, as their whole business is about extracting carbon from the earth to put it back in the atmosphere.

I just think it is unfair to claim that you have zero impact on this planet until you really offset it for real.

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#334
post #287
post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maintaining "net zero" takes a lot of work/money. It's not something you can do once. Every time you put carbon into the atmosphere, you have to go buy an offset. Over time those offsets get more expensive.

Wouldn't they be cheaper as businesses invest to use less carbon over time.

Like I said, low hanging fruit goes first. Later efficiency gains will be more expensive.

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Can you provide an alternate source? I'm not sure if cowspiracy is adequate for the claim you are making.
Post reply on HN