rose S.’s Post

The negative publicity surrounding carbon credits has had a significant impact on the strategies of major companies like Google and others. As we all know, data centres are becoming a growing problem, with energy consumption on the rise. This problem also further extends to huge volumes of water used for cooling with AI super computers compounding problems in drought-stricken regions. Google has decided to revamp its approach to climate neutrality. Instead of relying heavily on cheap carbon credits, the company has set a new target of net-zero emissions by 2030. This ambitious goal will be achieved through a two-pronged attack of reducing their own emissions and investing in projects that actively remove carbon dioxide from the air. In the past, Google balanced its emissions with carbon offsets, which are essentially certificates representing prevented emissions. However, their latest environmental report shows a shift away from this strategy. Google's reliance on powerful artificial intelligence has significantly increased their overall emissions, with their carbon footprint ballooning by 48% between 2019 and 2023. Google will prioritise directly cutting emissions and investing in proven carbon removal technologies. While these methods may be more expensive, they demonstrably take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. It's worth noting that this technology also has its critics. www.terrypaule.com www.wegrowwater.com #ClimateAction #Sustainability #CarbonNeutrality #Innovation

🤔 How much should I spend on carbon removal? Here’s the science-backed answer. Recently Google chose to buy carbon removal credits to compensate for residual emissions. 😰 But carbon removal is costly. You’re looking at over £400/tCO2e. So for those who don’t have access to the bank of Google, how much carbon removal should you buy? 🧑🔬 Here’s what the Oxford Offsetting Principals say. You should offset 100% of your residual carbon emissions annually. BUT take a portfolio approach. This science-backed offsetting portfolio uses a blend of carbon credits e.g. more affordable emission reduction credits AND pricy carbon removal. The portfolios simultaneously scale essential carbon removal technologies 📈 for long-term success, while protecting and restoring ecosystems and communities 🌱 today. They maximise climate impact. For example, say you need to offset 1000 tCO2e. Just using permanent carbon removal could cost £4,000,000. Most of us don’t have the annual budget to cover that. However, using the Oxford Offsetting Principle portfolio approach, it's manageable. Today, Lune’s prebuilt Oxford Offsetting Principles Portfolio blends forest conservation, enhanced rock weathering, concrete mineralisation, and wetland restoration to maximise climate impact. As you decarbonise, the amount of residual emissions will decrease each year. Reducing the overall size of your offsetting portfolio. At the same time, you should rebalance your offsetting portfolio so it’s made up of more carbon removal credits, and fewer emission reduction credits. So by the time you hit net zero in 2050 (i.e. only 10% of your original emissions remain), your offsetting portfolio should be made up of 100% permanent carbon removal. This is in line with the SBTi. 🏆 So the 10% of emissions left should be offset by 100% permanent carbon removal. What do you think of this approach? #CarbonCredits #SBTi #ESG #NetZero

Highly interesting whitepaper from Microsoft diving into the topic of carbon accounting and how to align corporate actions with Nationally Determined Contributions under the Paris Agreement. The carbon markets need robust guidelines urgently and I applaud Microsoft for their leadership!

Google's latest environmental report announces it will no longer maintain operational carbon neutrality from 2023, cease purchasing carbon credits, and focus on developing #carbonremoval technologies to acquire 62,500 tonnes of #carbonremoval credits from 2024 to 2028. 👉 https://buff.ly/466AD6s 📌 Introduction to carbon removal technologies: what are #DACCS and #BECCS? 👉 https://buff.ly/3VYTOuj

🌍🔍 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

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.

10 gigatons of CO2... To be captured, avoided or recycled. One tree absorbed just 21kg of CO2 per year. Oceans currently absorb 30% of CO2 we produce. Nature cannot keep up with the pace of global industrialization...

What is Microsoft doing in terms of Carbon Dioxide Removal? The important of transparency and intersection between Corporates (private sector) and government on the double accounting to accelerate the progress and mitigate the global warming… #cdr #sustainabilitymatters #climaterisk

Google has released its annual Environmental Report and revealed it has increased its contribution to the climate crisis, thanks to its prioritization of AI development this year. In its annual Environmental Report–which highlights its efforts to mitigate contributions to climate change–Google has admitted that its greenhouse gas emissions have soared, thanks to its prioritization of AI. Key Points: In 2021, Google committed to reaching “net zero” by 2030, intending to cut its emissions by half (compared to 2019), and run on carbon, pollution-free energy. But, its emissions grew by 13% last year (which are 48% higher than they were in 2019), producing 14.3M metric tons of carbon dioxide pollution, equivalent to the amount 38 gas-fired power plants release. The biggest contributor to the increase was its data centers—which require huge amounts of electricity to train and power its AI models—having released 1M metric tons of pollution last year. Why you should care: According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), global AI data centers use 1% of the world’s electricity, but with the rise in AI, this is expected to double by 2026, pushing us further away from reversing the climate change, with other big tech companies reporting similar results to Google (Microsoft's greenhouse gas emissions were around 30% higher last year).

We hosted a fascinating discussion with Randy Spock from Google's carbon removal team and our own Bee Hui Yeh on building effective corporate carbon removal strategies. Three critical insights stood out for anyone looking to apply Google’s lessons to their programs: 1️⃣ Simplicity in strategy: Focus on two fundamental needs — certainty of impact and scale of impact. Everything else follows from there. 2️⃣ Collective action > individual effort: Maybe counterintuitively, not even Google is going it alone in carbon removal. Wherever they can, they favor collaborative platforms over building large internal teams. 3️⃣ Reframing risk: Instead of trying to eliminate all risks, ask "are these risks worth taking on behalf of the planet?" Randy summed up Google's long-term vision (and all of our vision in the climate movement) beautifully: "We're building a cathedral here, folks – we're building something that's going to be most valuable in mid-century. And we need to set that foundation right." That cathedral won’t be finished in a day or even in a decade — which means we have to start today. For companies looking to develop their carbon removal strategies, the message is clear: Think big, act collectively, and stay focused on what the planet needs. Watch the webinar on-demand — link is in the comments. #CarbonRemoval #ClimateAction #Sustainability