IMHO, companies should work directly to limit their scope-1 and most of their scope-2 emissions. they should buy carbon credits to offset their scope-3 (and may

IMHO, companies should work directly to limit their scope-1 and most of their scope-2 emissions. they should buy carbon credits to offset their scope-3 (and maybe some of their scope-2) emissions. the scope-3 emissions of one company are the scope-1 emissions of another company, so the hope is that, as everyone tackles their own scope-1, we reduce emissions to 0 (which is the goal). more on emission scopes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/gauravsharma/2023/06/11/understanding-scope-1-2-and-3-emissions-and-the-need-for-such-categorization/?sh=20172f4b1ff9 https://www.forbes.com/sites/gauravsharma/2023/06/11/underst... quick summary: * scope 1 -- direct emissions, for meta this might be nothing * scope 2 -- carbon emissions made indirectly by a company to facilitate its daily operations via energy and utility purchases, the most obvious examples of which being power, heating and cooling. for meta this is probably most of their emissions. meta should be involved in PPA (power purchasing agreements) to directly fund renewable energy to run their operations. buying credits to offset powering their datacenters by burning coal would probably qualify as "pointless greenwashing" * scope 3 -- indirect emissions, excluding those included in scope 2, both up and down the value chain. for meta, this would be stuff like flights they buy for their employees to travel to meetings. this is the kind of thing that should be covered with carbon credits, meta should not be, like, building electric airplanes.