5 ms·
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,
by stiray 6y ago
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.
- samvher 6y agoYour 0 emission statement suffers from exactly the same criticism you're firing at Google. How was your bike built? How was your bus/train built? What's powering your bus/train? Also the assumption that a vegetarian diet is 0 emission is wrong - you're relying on a massive (oil-fueled) production system that emits a lot, to provide you with the food you buy. Sure, it's less than would be necessary if you ate meat but it's certainly not 0 emission. Edit - I need to read more carefully, OP already went into this, apologies.
- stiray 6y agoI think that I have explained it very well and I have put it there as an example why the claim from google is a fallacy. > 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. I wasnt clear enough?
- shadowgovt 6y agoReduced to 0 is 0 net emission. Compare: a company dedicated to nothing but planting trees can reduce its carbon emissions extremely quickly, well past the point where they're at net negative carbon emission, even though it probably took gasoline to drive the trees out to the planting site, the laborers eat food, the truck was made in a factory, etc.
- ClumsyPilot 6y agoEmissions 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
- dzelzs 6y agoDoes the 15% count in the production of any of the industrial processes that have been simply displaced to other locations?