Patch’s Post

Newsletter | Google Halts Carbon Credit Purchases; Sets Up $1.4B Carbon Removal Fund #Google is making sweeping changes to its #climateneutrality strategy, no longer relying primarily on carbon credits and no longer claiming its operations are carbon neutral. Instead, it has set a new goal of achieving net zero emissions by 2030. This goal will be achieved by reducing its own emissions and investing in projects that actively remove carbon dioxide from the air. 📩 Subscribe Climind Newsletter: https://lnkd.in/g_9xXkdB 🔍 Detail News: https://lnkd.in/eJXKycfM Google's #greenhousegasemissions significantly increased to approximately 14.3 million tons of CO2 equivalent in 2023, nearly 50% more than in 2019. Scope 1 emissions (direct emissions) were about 79,400 tons, accounting for 1% of the total carbon footprint; Scope 2 emissions (purchased electricity) were about 3.4 million tons, accounting for 24%; and Scope 3 emissions (supply chain and other indirect emissions) reached 10.8 million tons, making up 75%. This increase was mainly due to the surging energy demand from data centers and #artificialintelligence. #ClimateChange #CarbonNeutrality #NetZero #Sustainability #GreenFinance #Google #ClimateAction #EmissionsReduction #CarbonFootprint

Just saw this article re. Google strategy morphing from carbon offset strategy to net-zero by 2030. That means bringing emissions down dramatically throughout their immense supply chain. How does a company here in Canada know if they're part of that supply chain or that of a like minded mega-company? How do you see how/whether you should be getting out in front of this? #Sustainability #SupplyChain #SustainableSupplyChain #ZeroEmissions #TechForGood #CorporateResponsibility #FacilitiesManagement #BuildingOperations https://lnkd.in/gJBXdnQu

### Google's Pioneering Move in Carbon Capture Pricing Google has recently set a new benchmark in sustainability by negotiating the lowest price yet for a direct air carbon capture contract. This transformative agreement was reached with Holocene, showcasing a significant leap forward in environmental responsibility and innovative partnerships. In a groundbreaking step, a major portion of Google's payment to Holocene is being made upfront, well before the carbon credits are actually delivered. This upfront payment model not only offers financial stability to the project but also accelerates its deployment, potentially setting a new standard in the industry. What are your thoughts on upfront payments for green initiatives like this? Could it be the key to faster and more effective climate solutions? #Sustainability #CarbonCapture #InnovativeFinance #GreenTech #ClimateAction #GoogleInitiatives

Is this bad news, actually, good? Like so many other companies of late (bp, Shell, Unilever,The Coca-Cola Company, Nestlé,….), Google is falling behind prior commitments to ameliorate planetary damage. In fact, Google’s carbon emissions have increased 48% since 2019. Microsoft’s #emissions have increased 30% since 2020. So what is good? Google, announced that it will shift from buying #carbonoffsets (which have proven very hard to govern due to a myriad of challenges including assuring additionally, permanence and quality) to buy carbon-removal credits for its residual emissions. These are higher quality and, yes, more expensive. What can we take from this…. 1️⃣ The primary reasons for Google and Microsoft missing their own carbon targets is the growth of energy needed for data centers to power AI. Microsoft added 500 MW of additional data center space between July ’23 and April ’24 and had plans to add an additional 1GW in the next six months…then another 1.5GW in H1’25. Google recently announced plans to open a $1B data center in Kansas City. 2️⃣ Voluntary #reporting and #sustainability targets are no match for systemic financial goals. Microsoft and Google are both leaders when it comes to #decarbonization and investment in new sources of energy…and yet….growth and profit are the oxygen of our system. 3️⃣ Carbon offsets remain an oft abused form of indulgence. The first carbon offset was issued by WRI in 1989 (for $0.02 to $0.03 per ton)….and yet, today, the market remains insufficiently assured and standardized. According to the architect of the first offsets Mark Trexler, Ph.D “The market is set up in a way where climate change mitigation is simply much less important than the maximum quantity of projects, tons and minimum prices.” As a result, while more capital is needed urgently to decarbonize….offsets have yet to demonstrate their quality (see: "The Great Carbon for Cash Hustle" in The New Yorker). A system problem will not ultimately be solved by individual actions…. That said, Google’s shift to removals from offsets seems like a move in the right direction. Tariq Fancy John Elkington Joel Makower Matt Dwyer Andrew King Leslie Johnston, M.Sc. Glenn Hurowitz Lucas Joppa Rajeshwar Bachu Dr Mohsen Gul Judy Samuelson Lisa Sachs Maxine Bédat Elizabeth Segran, Ph.D. Elizabeth Seeger Elisabeth SteynThomas Kamei Lawrence Heim Dr. Vidhura Ralapanawe Saqib Sohail Tim Mohin Rachel Arthur Brian Deese Bill Weihl Bill McKibben

Google says it’s no longer carbon neutral. Is that a good thing? According to the tech giant's latest environmental report, Google has ended its mass purchase of cheap carbon offsets and thus stopped claiming that its operations are carbon neutral. The company now aims to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2030. Earlier, the company claimed it’s been carbon neutral in its operations since 2007. This status was based on purchasing carbon offsets to match the volume of emissions that were generated from its buildings, data centers and business travel. But in its latest report, the company states: “Starting in 2023, we’re no longer maintaining operational carbon neutrality.” This move from Google came in line with a changing market — where the focus will be reducing greenhouse gas emissions to the extent possible and offset only residual emissions that too with high-end carbon offsets. In 2022, Google bought nearly 3 million tons of carbon offsets to counterbalance its direct emissions and business-travel emissions. Though the company did not declare what specific projects those offsets came from, its sustainability report stated that the credits were verified “under the Climate Action Reserve (CAR), American Carbon Registry (ACR), Verified Carbon Standard (VCS), or the UNFCCC Clean Development Mechanism.” But now, instead of bulk purchase of emissions-avoidance offsets, Google says it’s going to focus on absolute reductions in emissions and buy carbon-removal credits for its residual emissions In this year’s report, Google also confirmed that the company has “formally committed to the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi).” The group is a watchdog of corporate climate goals and recommends that companies focus on reducing their emissions and only use offsets for a small fraction of residual emissions. Google’s shift from carbon neutrality to net-zero emissions reflects a more ambitious goal. While carbon offsets played a role in the past, the focus now is on reducing emissions directly and investing in sustainable solutions. Whether this change is “good” depends on one’s perspective, but it aligns with broader efforts to combat climate change. #carbonmarkets #carbonneutrality #netcarbonzero #ghg

As discussed at the end of the document, additionality is a key aspect of reconciling private sector and NDC accounting for removals. There is no "right answer" when it comes to reconciling the various factors and objectives that are in play, but one can pretty easily tell whether a proposed reconciliation approach will be biased towards allowing a lot of "false positive" offsets to be counted, or towards keeping a lot of "false negatives" from being counted. In this case, the three key criteria: 1) not legally mandated, 2) not fully government funded, 3) not common practice will clearly let in A LOT of false positive (fake) offsets. That's not inherently a fatal flaw (since there is no "right answer"). If, for example, one could convincingly argue that the proposed approach would generate enough private sector funding to fundamentally advance global CDR outcomes and materially impact future climate change, that might "justify" a lot of false positives if there is no other way to accomplish the same aim. But while the report may assume this fact, it's not really evaluated much less proved. And since the document doesn't even mention false positives, it's a lot more self-serving than not.

🌍🔍 Google's Carbon Neutrality: Greenwashing or Genuine Progress? In the wake of Google's latest announcement about their commitment to carbon neutrality, I can't help but wonder if this is another case of corporate greenwashing. While it's commendable that tech giants are stepping up to address climate change, the details behind their claims often paint a different picture. 💡 Google proudly states they’ve been carbon neutral since 2007 and aim to operate on 24/7 carbon-free energy by 2030. But how much of this is actual reduction in emissions, and how much is offsetting through carbon credits? 🚫 Here's the controversy: Are carbon offsets just a convenient way for big companies to buy their way out of genuine environmental responsibility? Offsets can sometimes fail to deliver real reductions and may even delay meaningful action. The tech industry’s energy consumption is skyrocketing, and renewable energy credits alone won't cut it. 🔍 It's crucial to scrutinize the fine print of these pledges. How transparent is Google about its carbon footprint? What measures are they taking beyond purchasing offsets? Are they investing in sustainable technologies or just banking on a clean image? As professionals and consumers, we need to hold these corporations accountable. Celebrating their achievements is necessary, but so is demanding honesty and substantial action. #Google #CarbonNeutral #Greenwashing #Sustainability #TechIndustry #ClimateChange #EnvironmentalResponsibility

🌳♻️ Exciting News! Microsoft continues its commitment to sustainability with a second major carbon offset purchase in Brazil's reforestation efforts! 🌍 Teaming up with re.green, Microsoft has agreed to buy 3 million tons of carbon removal credits over 15 years, underscoring Brazil's potential as a global leader in carbon offsetting. 🇧🇷 Backed by a former Brazilian central banker and billionaire investors, re.green aims to manage an area the size of Puerto Rico within 15 years. 🌿 Despite challenges, including greenwashing, re.green's innovative approach to reforestation is gaining momentum, with plans to register projects with Verra, a carbon offset verifier. 💼 Let's applaud this partnership for its impact on the environment and as a model for corporate responsibility! 👏 https://lnkd.in/gf4iifuy #CarbonCredits #CarbonRemoval #Sustainability #ClimateAction #Microsoft #Reforestation #Brazil

Google is no longer claiming to be #carbonneutral as its emissions have increased due to artificial intelligence. The company now aims to reach net-zero carbon by 2030. This shift in approach reflects Google's commitment to addressing the environmental impact of its operations. By acknowledging the emissions associated with its AI technology, Google is taking a more transparent and accountable stance on sustainability. The company's new goal of achieving net-zero carbon by 2030 demonstrates a recognition of the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate climate change. Google's willingness to reassess its environmental impact and set ambitious targets for carbon reduction is a positive step towards a more sustainable future.

Last week, Amazon trumpeted that it had purchased enough clean electricity to cover the energy demands of all the offices, data centers, grocery stores, and warehouses across its global operations, seven years ahead of its sustainability target.  That news closely followed Google’s acknowledgment that the soaring energy demands of its AI operations helped ratchet up its corporate emissions by 13% last year—and that it had backed away from claims that it was already carbon neutral. If you were to take the announcements at face value, you’d be forgiven for believing that Google is stumbling while Amazon is speeding ahead in the race to clean up climate pollution.  But while both companies are coming up short in their own ways, Google’s approach to driving down greenhouse-gas emissions is now arguably more defensible. Here’s why: https://trib.al/o1E0SEO