
The Climate and Cloudflare - zackbloom
https://blog.cloudflare.com/the-climate-and-cloudflare/?hn
======
cagenut
This is great. RECs are not enough but they are damn sure directionally
correct.

However they have only covered the energy generation related footprints of the
PoPs and offices.

My bet is they have a small army of sales reps that fly one or more times a
month, and that they consider frequent fly-togethers a core part of their
embrace of remote workers. Probably something on the order of single digit
million miles per year total?

~~~
ijpoijpoihpiuoh
For anyone wondering why RECs are not enough: they don't make you carbon
neutral, not even in theory. Even though renewable energy is better than non-
renewable, the processes that built the renewable plants might not be carbon
neutral. Also, renewable energy credits might just displace the previous user
of renewable energy to non-renewable, which means that you won't have impacted
the total renewable energy usage ratio of the planet at all.

To be carbon neutral, you'd have to buy carbon offsets like Google [1] do.
There's a lot of really complicated accounting that goes into making sure that
you aren't just pushing the dirt from one place to another when you think
about renewable energy and carbon offsets.

[1]:
[https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/www.google.com/en...](https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/www.google.com/en//green/pdfs/google-
carbon-offsets.pdf)

------
tony_cannistra
Conflicted here, because clearly the Cloudflare angle on publishing a piece
like this is to establish themselves as the "climate-conscious" choice for
dns/CDN/etc (among their competitors). While I really appreciate the required
assumption that customers should care about the stance of their service
providers re: their environmental impact, more cloudflare sales == more CO2 in
the atmosphere. I guess it's better than higher sales for another less-
responsible company, though. Still, the growth mindset is ever-present.

------
bogomipz
Wow, Cloudflare using Earth Day as a marketing opportunity for their CDN? How
depressing and yet I'm not surprised. The claim that edge caching is somehow
better for the planet is disingenuous as best.

------
floatrock
This article was an earthday content piece, but even by content-marketing
standards it has a very high fluff:content ratio. Cloudflare's tl;dr is: 1)
using edge caches makes you greener because you don't need to recompute on
your own CPU's, and 2) we offset our energy with RECs. Oh, and of course they
had to tie in Serverless in a half-hearted way.

The RECs bit is interesting, but the cache efficiency bit is about as
interesting as saving energy by not washing your hotel towels every day --
technically true, but overuse that line and it smells like greenwashing.

More interesting topics would be talking about how to move their operations
energy balance from RECs to actual renewables. Google is legitimately the
corporate leader in this space (and general-corporate, not just tech-sector-
corporate) -- they've given lots of talks about how they went from REC offsets
to buying stakes in renewable farms to now their goal is to match consumption
with renewables every hour instead of every day/month (ie the time shifting of
renewables issues). GCP's tagline is they're the greenest cloud provider...
that line is cute too, but there's more legitimacy and seriousness behind that
claim than a metaphorical "help us save water and energy by not washing towels
every day" flyer.

Other more interesting takes on this topic are:

\- optimizing data center operations to minimize energy (again google/deepmind
wrote the classic "AI can save HVAC costs" whitepaper on this)

\- actual placement of data centers around renewable hubs (when wind became a
big industry in Iowa, for example, all the big tech companies brought some
data centers there to take advantage of it)

\- looking at energy across the entire company (eg Amazon not really doing
much around electrifying the transportation its service depends on)

------
robomartin
The entire Climate Change sector has now reached the pinnacle of all jokes. It
is a sad, very sad, example of when ignorant politicians (current and past,
from all political sides) grab a hold of an issue they think has political
value. Truth be damned. Facts be damned. And science be damned.

Of course, in the increasingly religious climate (again, on both sides of the
issue) scientists do not dare speak up for fear of losing everything from
research grants to their jobs. It is as horrific a transgression of what
science is supposed to be about as imaginable. It's politics silencing
science.

To be absolutely clear (because these days you have to issue a disclaimer):
Yes, climate change is real. Yes, we made it worse.

OK. Calm down. Explain.

Let's take irrefutable scientific evidence first: Based on ice core
atmospheric samples we know that CO2 levels, over the last 800,000 years (and
likely a lot longer) have fluctuated up and down about 100 ppm. We also know,
from the same data, in rough terms, that it takes about 25,000 years for a 100
ppm rise and about 50,000 years for it to drop back 100 ppm. Again, rough
strokes. It has never happened much faster or much slower than this. Let's say
+/\- 50%.

OK, so, the planet, THE ENTIRE PLANET, without a single human being, building,
machine, power plant, cars, trains, planes, ships, etc. The entire planet,
needs about 50,000 +/\- 25,000 years to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentration
by 100 ppm. Hard to refute this based on the very reliable evidence we have
from ice core samples.

In science we have been known to use simple analytical techniques to get a
sense of proportion about things, about what the answer should or might be. A
simple example of this is to check the units after a calculation to make sure
we ended up with apples rather than oranges. Another example is to check the
proportion or scale of things. If you accelerate a 1 Kg object with a 1 N
force you don't expect to reach the speed of light in one second. That answer
would be wrong and it doesn't take a lot to understand this.

Back to earth and our problem.

Here's the answer politicians (and others) need to provide:

Given that a planet devoid of humans and anything human-made requires at least
50,000 years to reduce atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm:

How do you propose to "save the planet" in just a few years by any method
whatsoever, even the elimination of all human life and human creations on
earth?

That is the question someone has to answer.

People are proposing to accelerate a process that would require a planet-scale
system from a rate of change of 100 ppm in 50,000 years to, say, 100 ppm in 50
to 100 years. That is a ONE-THOUSAND-FOLD improvement on the rate of change!

To press the point further: If humanity did not exist and all of our toys were
gone it would take at least 50,000 years.

Very simple analysis reveals that the narratives out there are laughable at
best.

What's the next question then?

OK, say we develop a technology that could accelerate this rate of change
--again, PLANETARY SCALE-- a thousand fold.

How much energy would be required in order to reduce CO2 by 100 ppm in 50 to
100 years?

How many and what kind of resources? Mining? Manufacturing? Surface area?
Water?

How much pollution will be generated by this process? Remember, it is going to
have to run 24/7 for a hundred years.

Will the process itself raise the temperature of the planet? Remember, we are
trying to affect a planetary-scale system, not your backyard.

What are the ecological and other side-effects of deploying such massive
natural and energy resources over a century?

Again, simple analysis reveals that even if we transported the entire United
States into space (beam me up!) nothing would change. In fact, CO2 levels
would continue to rise exponentially.

These people are demented.

The scientific community needs to rise against this madness and speak the
truth. When you have scientists scared for their lives not to tow the
politically convenient line you have the makings of a disaster worse than what
we purportedly tried to fix in the first place.

What's the solution then?

I don't know. Nobody knows. Because there is no money in approaching this
problem from a perspective that will go counter to what politicians need to
use to win elections. And so, any researcher daring to do so is likely to end-
up driving Uber for a living.

Here's what we do know: Plant billions of trees! This is the natural
technology WE KNOW captures CO2 and WE KNOW how to deploy at scale without
massive ecological and other consequences. Deforestation is part of the reason
humans have contributed to this issue. Plant damn trees!

Here's something else we know: It will take THOUSANDS of years for a
meaningful reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere. Generations. Hundreds of
generations. Humanity might not even be around by the time this happens. So,
let's cool it with all the crazy stuff and virtue signaling and start talking
about real scientific reality for a change.

Easy example: Make front lawns in a megalopolis like Los Angeles illegal. No
more grass in front of homes. It's a waste of water. And, to add insult to
injury, there's all those damn gas-powered mowers, blowers and trimmers. It's
a travesty. Instead, require one to two trees per home in the front instead of
grass. It will make streets beautiful and capture CO2. It's a better use of
water and you eliminate mowers, blowers and trimmers burning gas for no reason
at all.

Anyhow, I could go on. Cloudflare would help the universe far more if they
planted trees like it's the end of the world. It isn't, of course, but if we
keep talking about the wrong solutions it will be, eventually, at least for
humans.

Disagree? No problem. Explain how you would accelerate the planetary-scale
historical rate of change a thousand-fold and not turn the planet into an
ecological disaster in the process. Simple.

~~~
robomartin
Here's further support for planting trees. Published by the Yale School of
Forestry & Environmental Studies:

"Planting 1.2 Trillion Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions,
Scientists Find"

I'll expand on what I said before: Make front lawns illegal throughout the US.
Require two or more trees to be planted (use some kind of a formula for the
exact amount). We can probably get to half a billion trees just with this
approach. However, this has the added effect of eliminating emissions from gas
powered mowers, blowers, trimmers, etc. We would consumer less water to grow
lawns, capture CO2 effectively to grow trees and reduce emissions from the
aforementioned demonic devices in the process. I call that a good start until
we figure out other methods that might operate at scale without destroying the
planet in the process. Actually, there are at least a couple more things at
scale we could do that would be net positive on many fronts. More on that
later.

[https://e360.yale.edu/digest/planting-1-2-trillion-trees-
cou...](https://e360.yale.edu/digest/planting-1-2-trillion-trees-could-cancel-
out-a-decade-of-co2-emissions-scientists-find)

~~~
Sjoerd
I agree that landscaping choices could be more environmentally friendly.
However, planting trees in yards will have a limited impact; if 1.2 trillion
trees cancel a decade of CO2 emissions, half a billion trees will cancel about
36 hours of CO2 emissions.

~~~
robomartin
Very true. However, it would be better than all the demented proposals
floating about.

The truth is that, short of a ground-braking discovery of a kind that is hard
to describe we are not going to "save the plante" for thousands of years. No
matter what we do.

We need to stop talking about destroying entire economies, solar panels,
killing cars, trains and planes, and the ridiculous idea of buying carbon
credits (really?) and start talking about the reality of this problem.

It is a planetary scale problem with a natural rate of change in the order of
100 ppm per 50,000 years. Anyone talking about "saving the planet" for the
next generation or anything even remotely close needs to explain how we are
going to accelerate this rate of change a thousand-fold without killing
everyone in the process and using-up more energy than this planet can produce.

Basic scientific principle: You don't get something for nothing. If you are
going to produce a planetary-scale change at 1000x the natural rate the side
effects could be worse than the problem.

As I said before multiple times, the natural rate of change is what happened
when humanity basically wasn't here --certainly our cities, power plants,
planes, etc. were not here. Simple conclusion: If we destroy and eliminate ALL
of humanity and all things we built it would take about 50,000 years to reduce
atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm. Anyone claiming to make a 1000x improvement to
this rate of change while we are all still here (and our toys) has a
supernatural problem to answer for.

Yes, sure, let's stop polluting unnecessarily. Swapping lawns and mowers for
trees seems like a win-win at many levels. You stop producing pointless
pollution, reduce water waste and convert carbon into trees. After that we
need to look at reforestation at a massive scale.

I guess my point is that trees is the only "technology" we know we can deploy
at scale without killing everyone on this planet in the process and using-up
so much energy and resources that we'll create a larger problem.

------
spaceheretostay
> In order to reduce our carbon footprint, we have purchased RECs to match
> 100% of the power used in all those data centers and offices around the
> world as well.

I have never understood this kind of thing, is it like carbon credits? It is
the wildest fallacy ever to think that we can just pollute as much as we want,
and then pay some cash into a future-help pot and call it a carbon footprint
reduction. How does this actually reduce their carbon footprint? Isn't that
impossible? Once you have polluted you have polluted. No amount of money can
reduce the pollution you have already put out there, even if you are (at a
later date) spending money to clean it up.

There is no possibility of the funds collected being sufficient to undo the
damage caused by the pollution. Once the pollution is out there, it's already
causing multi-decade damage. Paying out cash to clean it up is a losing
battle, like using a bucket to empty a sinking ship with a hole in the hull.

Props to Cloudflare for caring about the environment and working towards a
long-term sustainable internet. But I don't get the RECs thing - how is this
not just a huge logical fallacy that corporations buy into to make themselves
look better?

~~~
ip26
Look, here's the core of it. Suppose I fly long haul airplanes. Long haul
electric planes don't exist, so I _have_ to burn fuel. But I care about the
environment, so I contract Carbon Engineering to remove an equal amount of
carbon from the air. Thus my planes are carbon neutral- every pound is later
removed- and it's all priced into my airline tickets.

REC's are just a bit more abstract. Emissions avoided are as good as emissions
removed from the air. First rule of conservation. So instead of contracting
Carbon Engineering, who is still working down their cost per ton, I pay out of
my pocket to install solar panels on the roof of somebody else's factory,
averting the carbon emissions their electricity demands would create. So
again, in net, flying my planes produces carbon, but buying a ticket on my
plane also pays for solar panels that save carbon.

Wait, sorry, it's one more level of abstraction- I didn't actually install
those solar panels, I just paid a chunk of money to somebody to help them
install solar panels when they couldn't otherwise- it's a pain to do things in
units of "one whole solar installation", and I don't want to worry about the
details like which roof to put them on.

Sure, it would be great if we could halt all carbon output today, right now.
But we can't. So REC's help send more money to the renewable energy industry,
bring more capacity online faster, and advance their R&D quicker than would
otherwise. REC's aren't a tool for getting us to zero; they are part of
getting the ball rolling in a downward direction.

~~~
spaceheretostay
I think you have based this all on false assumptions, which is why we have a
communication breakdown. I still don't get it.

> Thus my planes are carbon neutral,

How though? The carbon went into the atmosphere first. Then - some time later,
how long? - an equivalent amount has been removed. But that takes time and
that time is lost forever, the heat has been captured and the Earth warmed,
already.

> Emissions avoided are as good as emissions removed from the air.

These two things are not equivalent. Emissions avoided are _fare better_ that
emissions removed from the air. Emissions removed from the air have already
produced a warming effect on the Earth, while avoided emissions have not.

> So again, in net, flying my planes produces carbon, but a ticket on my plane
> also pays for solar panels that save carbon.

This doesn't make any sense though. You have still made a large carbon output,
and your assumption is that _without your plane, the house would never convert
to solar_ but that simply isn't true. It's a false dichotomy and I don't
understand how these two things could be equal to each other (removal vs. non-
output). They are physically different processes with different consequences.

> to help them install solar panels when they couldn't otherwise.

This doesn't make sense to me though.

> REC's help send more money to the renewable energy industry, bring more
> capacity online faster, and advance their R&D quicker than would otherwise.

That's good! But it has _nothing to do_ with Cloudflare "reducing" their
carbon footprint.

~~~
ip26
I think fundamentally, you're demanding perfection. Which is why you're
talking past everyone. Here in the real world, there's a line between "today"
and "zero", and it's not a delta function.

Also, how do you "not understand" that someone might not be able to install
renewables without financial assistance? It's a _huge_ capital outlay, often
with marginal payoff.

