Facebook Hits Renewable Energy Goal Ahead of Earth Day (cnet.com) 24
Facebook said Thursday that since 2020, all its operations have been fully supported by renewable energy, hitting a goal the social media giant set in 2018 to combat climate change. From a report: The social network made the announcement ahead of Earth Day, an annual event on April 22 that focuses on environmental protection. The milestone shows what tech firms are doing to offset the harmful impacts they have on the environment as they make new devices and power data centers amid a growing appetite for tech products. For years, environmental groups such as Greenpeace have been putting increasing pressure on businesses like Facebook to become more eco-friendly.
Facebook also said its operations reached "net zero emissions," which the company says means "removing the same amount of greenhouse gas emissions from the atmosphere as we emit." These emissions contribute to some pollution and a warmer climate, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency. The social network said in the last three years, it cut down on its greenhouse gas emissions by 94%, surpassing its 75% reduction goal. Some of the emissions Facebook reduced came from its data centers, offices and other buildings the company leases.
Facebook also said its operations reached "net zero emissions," which the company says means "removing the same amount of greenhouse gas emissions from the atmosphere as we emit." These emissions contribute to some pollution and a warmer climate, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency. The social network said in the last three years, it cut down on its greenhouse gas emissions by 94%, surpassing its 75% reduction goal. Some of the emissions Facebook reduced came from its data centers, offices and other buildings the company leases.
Are they accounting for "hot air"? (Score:2)
Trade? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No worse than Tesla claiming it turned a profit when all they did was sell more and more green energy credits. Without those trades they would still be losing money, as they had for every year of their existence. Just like the cab companeis Uber and Lyft.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly right. Facebook, Google, and most others are using carbon credits and other forms of energy offsets to make these sorts of announcements, which is nothing more than buying absolution. Apple is the only major tech company I’m aware of that has made one of these “100% renewable” announcements that doesn’t rely on offsets. They’re actually powering 100% of their global operations off renewable energy (including retail), and are now working on migrating their suppliers and
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly right. Facebook, Google, and most others are using carbon credits and other forms of energy offsets
That is a good thing. The credits and offsets mean the carbon reductions can be more efficient.
which is nothing more than buying absolution.
Perhaps we shouldn't be demanding absolution. Energy is fungible, so it makes no sense to demand that a social media company be "carbon-free". It makes more sense for the power companies to reduce carbon and for other companies to focus on their own businesses. We need broad carbon reduction strategies for our entire economy, not hundreds of expensive little boutique PR projects.
Apple is the only major tech company I’m aware of that has made one of these “100% renewable” announcements that doesn’t rely on offsets.
Apple is under more pressure bec
Re: (Score:3)
Bit hard to do when half you people (Republicans) don't even believe it's happening.
Red states are actually doing better than blue states at converting to renewables.
The leading states for wind power are Texas, Oklahoma, and North Dakota.
It turns out that profits are a better motivator than virtue.
And why did you play along with the fantasy that Apple is 100% renewable?
Apple is not 100%, and because they don't use offsets, they are reducing emissions less. The HQ in Cupertino is 100% renewable, but California already gets a big share of power from renewables and the rest comes from gas. So the solar panels on the HQ's roof don't make a big difference. If the
Re: (Score:2)
PS having more windmills doesn't mean Republicans believe climate change.
Who cares what people believe?
It is what they do that matters, not what they think.
If wind turbines are installed for profit rather than principle, the electricity generated is the same.
Re: Trade? (Score:3)
How are they powering their retail stores with renewable energy when those stores are in malls powered by grids on natural gas?
Sounds like you drank the Kool-Aid on some PR announcement.
Re: (Score:2)
They actually address that issue in their documents on the subject. Long story short, they’re either purchasing renewable energy from companies already on the grid, which is how it works in most places, or else they’ve built their own renewable energy sources, oftentimes in concert with local companies, then connected them to the grid.
There aren’t that many power grids in the world, so this isn’t a tremendously difficult thing for a massive corporation to do in the small quantities n
Re: (Score:3)
Just so I understand (Score:5, Interesting)
Before the change:
Amount of electricity generated: 100TW
Share of renewable: 20%.
Share of Facebook's electricity coming from renewable: 20%
Share of everyone else's electricity coming from renewable: 20%
After the change:
Amount of electricity generated: 100TW
Share of renewable: 20%.
Share of Facebook's electricity coming from renewable: 100%
Share of everyone else's electricity coming from renewable: 19.9%
Nothing changed, but Facebook feels good. Is that it?
Re: Just so I understand (Score:2)
You seem to think Hunter Biden is a very important person. The rest of us don't. If you want news about random people around the Internet, you're going to have to hunt for it. The news is for covering important stories and people. Hunter Biden has never done anything newsworthy, so there's nothing to see.
Re: (Score:2)
The point is, the more corporations and communities commit/pledge to using renewable-derived electricity, the more market pressure there will be towards renewable such that the share of renewable increases more than that 20% you mention.
Pledging to use only renewable helps to catalyse political will towards renewable. Pretty soon, dirty electricity will be in surplus, prices will fall and it may become unsustainable to run dirty electrical plants.
It's not rocket science.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as all the corporations who pledge to use only renewable electricity do not consume more than 20% (in my example) of the total power, there is exactly 0 market pressure for more renewable energy.
Re: (Score:2)
And perhaps more importantly, if they do reach over 20%, then some of them will give up as the cost will increase.
The good way to fix this is not for an individual or corporation to pledge anything, but to tax (or cap and trade) polluting electricity generation so that the market determine which polluting plant needs to close first and what type of renewable energy should be used instead. All that energy will be provided to the whole grid, and not specifically to Facebook. Unless Facebook disconnect itself
clean input = toxic output (Score:2)
No it didn't. (Score:2)
You forgot to count the energy Facebook wasted on all the victims' computers by not having died yet.
It would help much more if the ceased operations (Score:2)
It would help the environment and society much more if Facebook ceased operations.
Everyone would be much better off.
Through ACTUAL changes? Or "carbon credits" (Score:3)
The first I could actually applaud.
The latter? Smoke and mirrors.