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

71–80 of 335 posts

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#71

Post by ZeroGravitas »

rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: post #62
what_ever wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get the analogy - could you explain more? Disc: Googler.

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?

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#72

Post by Aunche »

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.

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#73

Post by hannob »

This article misses the elephant in the room: The emissions created by the use of a companies product.

Google, like all large cloud providers, has lately heavily invested in collaborations with the oil industry: https://gizmodo.com/how-google-microsoft-and-big-tech-are-au...

Their whole emission calculation just ignores that factor.

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#74

Post by jnsie »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #47
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?

Who told you going carbon neutral was economy killing? And if it is, why are all the world's governments commited to doing it? I think you can probably trace that information source back to someone who makes their money pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

How many have actually done it though?

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#75

Post by rcMgD2BwE72F »

what_ever wrote: post #46
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.

I don't get the analogy - could you explain more? Disc: Googler.

Here's why offsets are bullshit. Imagine that I go and plant trees every weekend, because I like them and because I don't want to see my world burn. I'm planting trees, everyone is happy. One day, someone contact me and say "I like your work! Would you like to receive 50 cents for every next tree you plant? I want to support you. Just print a paper certifying that I'm supporting your work". I can't refuse that offer, right? I'm getting paid to plant trees! My new treelover friend is happy too: he's saving the world, and he can travel all over the world without remorse, since he's offsetting his flights.

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#76

Post by stiray »

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 actually operate and if I would be sarcastic - they actually create a greater need for materials where its production produce large amount of emissions.

I would even claim, that they would do far more if they would stop showing ads. The electricity footprint on world wide scale must be enormous - not from google serving them but actually reaching destination and browsers processing them - and not all electricity is coming from "green" sources.

I can claim 0 emission for myself except from (sorry, I just had to say it :D), farting and breathing. But 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. Anyway as a decades long vegetarian, strictly driven on public transport or bicycle (:D) I do my best here.

This is just publicity stunt from google PR and it doesn't really mean anything.

But looks like it worked. BBC cached it and is doing an article about it.

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#77

Post by barney54 »

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.

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.

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#78

Post by perfunctory »

> But the claim to have "offset" all of Google's historical carbon "debt" needs scrutiny.

> The company tells me its offsets so far have focused mainly on capturing natural gas where it's escaping from pig farms and landfill sites. But arguably governments should be ensuring this happens anyway.

Go figure.

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#79

Post by Filligree »

boogies wrote: post #68

But at what cost? Alphabet pressures local governments to let them drain aquifers to cool their machines¹, and powers them using vast swaths of bulldozed former habitats of endangered desert tortoises and focused beams of light that literally burn alive thousands of birds: Workers at a state-of-the-art solar plant in the Mojave Desert have a name for birds that fly through the plant’s concentrated sun rays — “streame…

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.

Re: Google says its carbon footprint is now zero

#80

Post by lowiqengineer »

what_ever wrote: post #46
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.

I don't get the analogy - could you explain more? Disc: Googler.

Weird time to flex, right?
Post reply on HN