
Microsoft will be carbon negative by 2030 - thisisedrick
https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2020/01/16/microsoft-will-be-carbon-negative-by-2030/
======
jknoepfler
Alright, I'll drink the Kool-Aid. I think this is an excellent strategic
investment for Microsoft that also aligns with timely ethical priorities. I
didn't read the post and think "this is corporate glossy bullshit," I read it
and thought "this is an actual strategic initiative that is driving broad
organizational alignment, which has measurable success criteria, and which
makes sense."

I am genuinely surprised by the sincerity, cogency, and aspirational nature of
this initiative and its associated PR glossies.

I am measurably more likely to work at and invest in Microsoft after reading
this.

I guess they've hacked my demographic?

~~~
nscalf
Should I be satisfied if you're doing the right thing for the wrong reasons?
I'm always unsure about this. If a politician is making all the right noises,
but clearly doesn't care about the topic, should I be satisfied? I really
don't know. That's how I feel about this, it's clearly a PR move, but I think
I'm happy about that?

~~~
baddox
> Should I be satisfied if you're doing the right thing for the wrong reasons?

I tend to think YES, assuming you're _actually_ doing the right thing instead
of just _saying_ you're doing the right thing. For example, when good ideas
happen to coincide with profit motive, I think that's a wonderful thing, and
really the best-case scenario in a market economy. Apple's seemingly genuine
focus on privacy is a perfect example: many people criticize it as being
driven only by profit (perhaps as a way to compete with Google), while I say
it's great if that's true!

~~~
anko
I just want to mention that apple has been 100% renewable for a while now, and
publish a detailed environmental report;
[https://www.apple.com/au/environment/pdf/Apple_Environmental...](https://www.apple.com/au/environment/pdf/Apple_Environmental_Responsibility_Report_2019.pdf)

~~~
umvi
Yeah but they rely heavily on Chinese companies that are not 100% renewable.
That's like someone saying they have never murdered anyone while routinely
paying for hit men to get their hands dirty. Technically correct, but
misleading.

~~~
anko
I'm not sure what you're arguing, that nobody's perfect? Microsoft is aiming
here to be carbon neutral in 2030. In ten years.

From my linked report; A more energy efficient supply chain.

In 2015, we started engaging directly with suppliers to help them reduce their
energy use. We aim to educate them about energy efficiency, identify energy
efficiency project opportunities, and manage those projects to completion. We
prioritize facilities with the highest energy use and potential for
improvement. Then we conduct energy audits and train suppliers to uncover
opportunities for energy efficiency—like replacing outdated or inefficient
heating, cooling, and lighting systems; repairing compressed air leaks; and
recovering waste heat. The assessments provide suppliers with a cost-benefit
analysis for implementing energy efficiency improvements. Since the inception
of this program in 2015, we have engaged 59 suppliers at 85 facilities. In
2018, our program implemented energy efficiency measures that prevented
466,000 metric tons of CO₂e from entering the atmosphere.

So they are working with suppliers and have been for the past 5 years. They
also have been cleaning up the chemicals their suppliers use.

You can't compare what they are doing to murder; it's legal for starters. But
if you're relying on all the companies you do business with to make up your
definition of 100% renewable, it's likely you'll never get there. They don't
say anything about the energy used by the banks they do business with either.

~~~
jdlshore
In the article, Microsoft says they are carbon neutral _today_. They make a
distinction between being carbon neutral—offsetting all their emissions—and
being “net zero”. The latter is harder because it requires actually removing
carbon from the atmosphere, not just paying someone else not to emit carbon.

They also make a distinction between Scope 1 (direct emissions), Scope 2
(emissions created by energy providers), and Scope 3 (emissions created by
suppliers). Their Scope 3 emissions are two orders of magnitude higher than
their Scope 1 emissions, if I’m remembering it right. Their commitment is to
be net negative _including_ Scope 3 emissions.

I was impressed. They went well above and beyond a simple PR move.

------
thomas11
The bigger, of course also more distant and vague, announcement is that "by
2050 Microsoft will remove from the environment all the carbon the company has
emitted either directly or by electrical consumption since it was founded in
1975."

~~~
zantana
Begs the question does this include the inefficiencies in its products over
the years, which due to their breadth of their adoption, effected hundreds of
millions of computers?

I'm thinking the carbon footprint of Windows update's endless (seemingly
needless?) grinding and rebooting alone ends up being more than they ever
emitted manufacturing and building software.

~~~
seveneightn9ne
How would they decide that some computation was "needless"? If it was the best
they could do at the time I'd argue it wasn't needless. If they were
intentionally wasting CPU/energy for no reason it would be a different story.

------
ktpsns
Something I notice regularly on large companies and universities, literally
any organization which is bigger then a single building: The vast amount of
energy waste.

This starts at heating rooms like crazy (because it is unmanaged), having
unneccessary equipment, computers and lights running all night (because they
are unmanaged) and goes up to transportation. It's so simple things like truck
drivers who prefer to keep their diesel running during loading/unloading. I
guess they do so because either they were told by incompetent managament, have
the wrong belief that their batteries could not power the lights, or some
other disbelief.

Saving energy starts in the small, also if started by something big. Having
said that, I guess a company of the size of Microsoft will have a huge
potential to save energy.

~~~
mixmastamyk
Indeed, also at every tech office I've worked at, late at night I'd see all
the lights in the entire building on until 11pm on the chance the cleaning
crew might still be emptying a wastebasket.

Not to mention the nightly vacuuming of entire floors. A waste of energy and
time, that also made it really hard to get work done without noise cancelling
equipment.

~~~
sushisource
The worst is just empty buildings waiting for a tenant that blaze lights 24/7

~~~
asdff
salt on the wound is when you see a new mixed use apartment with the vacant
retail on the ground floor being a pit of coarse gravel before a tenant (and
their custom floor) are found, but lit up like a target all the same.

------
throwmeaway2344
30,000 employees drive their cars every morning to their suburban campus,
conveniently located in unincorporated land between Redmond and Bellevue. Are
they going to neutralize that CO2?

Do they have a plan to prevent employees from driving 20 miles each way every
day? Their new campus renovation has tons of parking for cars. Any bike lanes?
Bus stops?

~~~
polyomino
That would Be categorized as type 3 emissions, which they intend to cover.

~~~
throwmeaway2344
business travel is different from commute. they chose to save money by
building away from where people live. most of their employees drive, redmond
campus has more than 15,000 parking spots.

vendors and contractors are not allowed to use shuttles and connectors, that
probably adds another 5,000 cars

i want to believe they want to right their wrongs, but their initial decision
to be far away from any population area has contributed a lot of co2 over the
last 30 years.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
>There’s another aspect of carbon math that’s also essential. This is the
difference between being “carbon neutral” and being “net zero.” While they
sound similar, in fact they’re different.

>Given common usage, companies have typically said they’re “carbon neutral” if
they offset their emissions with payments either to avoid a reduction in
emissions or remove carbon from the atmosphere. But these are two very
different things. For example, one way to avoid a reduction in emissions is to
pay someone not to cut down the trees on the land they own. This is a good
thing, but in effect it pays someone not to do something that would have a
negative impact. It doesn’t lead to planting more trees that would have a
positive impact by removing carbon. In contrast, “net zero” means that a
company actually removes as much carbon as it emits. The reason the phrase is
“net zero” and not just “zero” is because there are still carbon emissions,
but these are equal to carbon removal. And “carbon negative” means that a
company is removing more carbon than it emits each year. While we at Microsoft
have worked hard to be “carbon neutral” since 2012, our recent work has led us
to conclude that this is an area where we’re far better served by humility
than pride. And we believe this is true not only for ourselves, but for every
business and organization on the planet.

>Like most carbon-neutral companies, Microsoft has achieved carbon neutrality
primarily by investing in offsets that primarily avoid emissions instead of
removing carbon that has already been emitted. That’s why we’re shifting our
focus. In short, neutral is not enough to address the world’s needs.

>While it is imperative that we continue to avoid emissions, and these
investments remain important, we see an acute need to begin removing carbon
from the atmosphere, which we believe we can help catalyze through our
investments.

> Solving our planet’s carbon issues will require technology that does not
> exist today. That’s why a significant part of our endeavor involves putting
> Microsoft’s balance sheet to work to stimulate and accelerate the
> development of carbon removal technology. Our new Climate Innovation Fund
> will commit to invest $1 billion over the next four years into new
> technologies and expand access to capital around the world to people working
> to solve this problem. We understand that this is just a fraction of the
> investment needed, but our hope is that it spurs more governments and
> companies to invest in new ways as well.

This is one of the most exciting and potentially impactfull announcements. My
biggest issue with companies that make a big deal about being "carbon neutral"
and "carbon offsets" is that many times it is "voodoo accounting" in which
they pay money to another company which claims to have prevented some carbon
emission in an unaccountable developing country. Basically, these carbon fees
just are another form of indulgences in which rich people pay money to be able
continue their sins while feeling good about themselves.

However, "carbon removal" is a game changer. Based on human nature, I do not
believe we will be able to change behavior enough to save ourselves. I think
our only hope of preserving our civilization is with carbon removal
technology.

That is why I am so glad that Microsoft is specifically focusing on this. If
other large companies did this, I think there is a good chance that we could
innovate our way out of the climate change crisis.

~~~
selimthegrim
If they take every dollar Chevron is paying them to enhance oil recovery with
deep learning and then put it in this climate innovation fund then maybe I'd
believe them.

------
bitL
Carbon-negative like in reality, or by outsourcing dirty jobs like how Germany
is the greenest country by dumping their garbage in Poland?

~~~
harikb
While I agree with the point you are making, it must be noted that garbage is
not "dumped", like someone is throwing stuff across a wall. I am sure Poland
is paid lots of money to take the garbage.

~~~
ed_balls
There should be a ban on exports, unless it is proven they are recycled.

You buy garbage from Germany to recycle in Poland. You store it in some field
temporarily, before the recycling. You set them on fire, getting rid of the
problem. To avoid liability you blame the badly recycled trash e.g. candles.
Now it's hard to do in Poland, since the regulations have changed, but I bet
you could pull it off in Ukraine.

------
perfunctory
> At Microsoft, we expect to emit 16 million metric tons of carbon this year.

So, Microsoft emits as much carbon as the whole of Ireland? Or did I get it
wrong?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhous...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions)

(1 ton of carbon = 3.67 tons of carbon dioxide)

~~~
jdlshore
That includes 12 million tons from their supply chain, IIRC.

------
makach
It is important to have goals to work towards, good luck to you Microsoft and
thanks for leading the way!

------
sremani
I have not seen anything in this letter than #2 Cloud provider in the world is
going to be carbon-neutral in 10 years.

Just because I have not seen does not mean its not there. But the meat and
potatoes are missing -- especially a company that is building massive data-
centers around the world.

~~~
jdlshore
They said they are already carbon neutral. Now they are aiming for net zero or
lower and also including their supply chain. They included quite a few
concrete details about how they will do it, including an internal carbon
“tax.”

------
perfunctory
Is their carbon accounting public? Is anybody auditing it? Not really familiar
with how this works. Quick googling didn't turn up anything. Could anyone
point me in the right direction?

------
tantalor
What about sales and operation of PCs running Windows?

------
fierarul
Does Microsoft take ownership of all the wasted electricity / carbon due to
their mandatory updates?

------
jammygit
We still shouldn't let them off the hook for their invasive telemetry lately,
but for such a large, energy hungry company to be carbon negative is
legitimately a great thing.

------
ravenstine
That's all great, but it's not really enough. We're past the point of no
return for global warming unless we remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

How come Microsoft or Bill Gates don't invest in better CO2 scrubber
technology that might make that feasible? Or do they and I just haven't heard
of it?

Then again, maybe such a thing could become a "weather weapon".

~~~
Voloskaya
This article is talking about removing CO2 from the atmosphere, did you not
read it before commenting?

> How come Microsoft or Bill Gates don't invest in better CO2 scrubber
> technology that might make that feasible? Or do they and I just haven't
> heard of it?

Bill Gates is doing just that:
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/04/carbon-e...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/04/carbon-
emissions-negative-emissions-technologies-capture-storage-bill-gates)

~~~
Barrin92
also probably noteworthy to add that Microsoft is a private firm who is not
directly incentivized economically to do this (apart from maybe attracting
some environmentally conscious workers), so this is already quite a lot.

It says much less about Microsoft and much more about the political state of
affairs that a company appears more forward-looking than most other
institutions. It's quite sad really.

