10 ms·
I think there's less to this than meets the eye. Previously, on https://sustainability.google/operating-sustainably/ https://sustainability.google/operating-su
by gjm11 1y ago
I think there's less to this than meets the eye.
Previously, on https://sustainability.google/operating-sustainably/ https://sustainability.google/operating-sustainably/:
"We've set a goal to achieve net-zero emissions across all of our operations and value chain by 2030." and, in a table later, "Reduce 50% of our combined Scope 1, 2 (market-based), and 3 absolute emissions by 2030. Invest in nature-based and technology-based carbon removal solutions to neutralize our remaining emissions." and "Run on 24/7 carbon-free energy on every grid where we operate by 2030."
Now, in their 2025 Environmental Report at https://sustainability.google/reports/google-2025-environmental-report/ https://sustainability.google/reports/google-2025-environmen...:
"We aim to run on 24/7 carbon-free energy on every grid where we operate by 2030." and "We aim to reduce absolute, combined scope 1, 2 (market-based), and 3 emissions by 50% from a 2019 base year by 2030." (They also restate the thing about "to neutralize our remaining emissions" a bit later in the document.)
Exactly the same stated goals, just written in a different place. There's more hedging around it now: they call it a "moonshot" and say that they might not manage it, but they never actually promised to do it before.
- mullingitover 1y ago> There's more hedging around it now This is reasonable, it's a nearly impossible goal to achieve. Meanwhile: "Amazon meets 100% renewable energy goal 7 years early"[1] [1] https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/sustainability/amazon-renewable-energy-goal https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/sustainability/amazon-renew...
- spencer-p 1y agoAmazon claimed their energy usage was "matched with 100% renewable energy" in 2023, while Google's goal is to actually "run on 24/7 carbon-free energy". Google already claims to have matched 100% of their energy with renewables since 2017.
- deelowe 1y agoCarbon offsets are not the same as being carbon neutral.
- downrightmike 1y agoThey should just pave the mojave with solar panels. Nearly no one lives there and no one wants to live there and it is dead center to western states. If China can pave mountains, a little desert with caliche should be easy
- tjwebbnorfolk 1y agoAs a rule, if you're tempted to begin any sentence with "they should just..." -- don't. Electrical signal attenuation increases with the square of the distance, so you'll lose ~95% of the power to heat loss in the wires if you try to power Seattle from solar in Nevada -- not very eco-friendly, you'd agree? Also the extreme heat destroys solar panels. Also, dust. Also the permitting of stuff across state lines is so time-consuming it's effectively illegal. There are a lot of very good reasons why we haven't covered the desert in solar panels.
- Rebelgecko 1y agoSeattle is fine on power, you can pave the parts of the Mojave in California to power California instead (although tbh I think what we need most in CA is storage for when the sun goes down). I think you can also reduce heat loss by cranking the voltage up, right? I imagine that's how current interstate/cross-country power deals work
- downrightmike 1y agoBigger interstate wires hold more power and have a much higher thermal mass, which is fine until someone's tree shorts everything out because lines sag greatly with more heat/power
- amanaplanacanal 1y agoSeattle isn't a good example, as they have been carbon neutral since 2005. They have lots of hydro power in the Pacific Northwest.
- strongpigeon 1y ago
- notatoad 1y agocarbon-free energy on every grid where they operate also sounds like a significantly more ambitious goal than net-zero across the company, because it means actual reduction in emissions, rather than relying on offsets. if it's a serious committment to being carbon-free, i think this sounds like a positive change. if it's a moonshot that they have no real intention of actually meeting, then it's a lot less impressive. i guess we'll see...
- simianwords 1y agoWhat’s the real difference? Don’t offsets also do the same thing? If I emit 5g of CO2 but purchase similar in offsets - the offsets have to achieve a reduction of 5g unless something like a scam is going on.
- foota 1y agoSome of these offsets are of dubious quality. E.g., I think some of these offsets are from _not_ doing something that you might have otherwise done, but maybe you wouldn't have done that thing regardless.
- simianwords 1y agoInteresting. Maybe the offset should be the expected value of co2 that would not be emitted after accounting for probability. It doesn’t seem like a scam fundamentally.
- notatoad 1y agoi think that's exactly it, it's not fundamentally a scam, but it's not as simple as 1:1 "5g in, 5g out" because there's always some formula to calculate how much carbon has been "saved" by the company selling the offsets taking whatever actions they are taking. which gives the companies selling offsets a financial motive to maximize that calculation, and in some cases does lead to outright scams. the classic example is landowners selling offsets for the mature forests on their land - that's good! and incentivising the preservation of forests is good! but that forest already existed, and has existed for hundreds of years, so does it really make sense that some company can count it against their carbon emissions and claim to be "net zero" just because they paid a landowner to not cut it down? it makes the whole concept of offsets less of an overall pure good than emitters simply not emitting carbon in the first place, because that is actually a very simple and clear calculation.
- thegreatpeter 1y agoHow did the journalists who do this full time for a living, miss this part?
- bryan_w 1y agoMaybe they are malicious, or maybe just incompetent
- makeitdouble 1y agoThe original scope was "all of our operations and value chain", the new one " every grid where we operate", which is significantly smaller. It's also now limited to their electric ("grid") consumption. From the top of my head, on the previous definition a Google Street View car running the streets for instance would have been required to be net-zero emissions, while in the new definition I read it as out of scope. Overall that feels like a huge shift.