4 ms·

I don't understand how that can be possible. Is Google planting trees to remove carbon from the air ? I mean there are hundreds of google employees who take th

by polote 6y ago

I don't understand how that can be possible. Is Google planting trees to remove carbon from the air ? I mean there are hundreds of google employees who take the plane everyday and therefore emit carbon, how this carbon emission is removed ?

Arnt 6y ago
The former, more or less, except different. The very short version is: They calculated the total carbon emission of the company's activity to date, then paid someone to capture that amount of carbon. There are two subtle points: Google's past is finite, so there is a total amount of carbon that has been emitted. Planting trees etc. doesn't work (forever) against open-ended ongoing activities, but a specific amount of CO₂ is a different matter. It's possible to buy enough land, plant trees on it and keep ownership of the land. Of course one can discuss how to calculate a company's emissions. I find it quite laudable that they even tried.
- robjan 6y ago
  They bought carbon offsets which are more focused on preventing / reducing carbon from being generated. It's basically saying "if I stop x amount of carbon from being emitted somewhere in the world, it's as good as -ve carbon on the balance sheet".
  - polote 6y ago
    so basically company A says it built one solar panel for company B to use. Company A says it reduced its carbon emission and company B says it reduced also his. So we have reduced emission by a factor of 2 solar panels by using only one? seems smart!
    - Filligree 6y ago
      No, that's not how the calculation works.
    - robjan 6y ago
      More like Company A buys carbon credits which are invested in a company / NGO who provide replacements for (as an example) 30 year old tractors in the developing world. The polluting vehicles have been removed so therefore there is a reduction in carbon. Since Company A continues to produce carbon the net carbon is now 0.
    - Arnt 6y ago
      No, A says it does, and you claim B says, without presenting evidence.
Filligree 6y ago
Paying people up plant trees, or to use carbon-neutral sources of energy that they otherwise wouldn't. Carbon offsets are currently much cheaper than they really should be, because there's a lot of low-hanging fruit like the latter, but that doesn't mean they're not genuinely causing less CO2 to stay in the atmosphere than otherwise would.

by polote 6y ago

Arnt 6y ago

The former, more or less, except different. The very short version is: They calculated the total carbon emission of the company's activity to date, then paid someone to capture that amount of carbon. There are two subtle points: Google's past is finite, so there is a total amount of carbon that has been emitted. Planting trees etc. doesn't work (forever) against open-ended ongoing activities, but a specific amount of CO₂ is a different matter. It's possible to buy enough land, plant trees on it and keep ownership of the land. Of course one can discuss how to calculate a company's emissions. I find it quite laudable that they even tried.

robjan 6y ago
They bought carbon offsets which are more focused on preventing / reducing carbon from being generated. It's basically saying "if I stop x amount of carbon from being emitted somewhere in the world, it's as good as -ve carbon on the balance sheet".
- polote 6y ago
  so basically company A says it built one solar panel for company B to use. Company A says it reduced its carbon emission and company B says it reduced also his. So we have reduced emission by a factor of 2 solar panels by using only one? seems smart!
  - Filligree 6y ago
    No, that's not how the calculation works.
  - robjan 6y ago
    More like Company A buys carbon credits which are invested in a company / NGO who provide replacements for (as an example) 30 year old tractors in the developing world. The polluting vehicles have been removed so therefore there is a reduction in carbon. Since Company A continues to produce carbon the net carbon is now 0.
  - Arnt 6y ago
    No, A says it does, and you claim B says, without presenting evidence.

Filligree 6y ago

Paying people up plant trees, or to use carbon-neutral sources of energy that they otherwise wouldn't. Carbon offsets are currently much cheaper than they really should be, because there's a lot of low-hanging fruit like the latter, but that doesn't mean they're not genuinely causing less CO2 to stay in the atmosphere than otherwise would.