19 ms·
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 s
by 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 agoThey 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 agoso 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 agoNo, that's not how the calculation works.
- robjan 6y agoMore 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 agoNo, A says it does, and you claim B says, without presenting evidence.