"#Ryan and #Coveney in heated row over data centres"
Okay, so I was just having a discussion about this on Mastodon the other day. It's 2024, dammit. #DataCenters should only get approval from the #government entities regulating them IF they are demonstrably #carbonneutral. Full stop.
WaPo finally posted a modest critique of meat industry greenwashing.
<💬>
Under another new California law, companies also must disclose the emissions created throughout their supply chains, and the Securities and Exchange Commission is working on a similar requirement.
It all has big food companies rushing to show progress in cutting emissions, particularly after so many of them promised to zero out their net release of greenhouse gases — known as going “carbon neutral” — by 2050 or earlier, in alignment with the Paris agreement on global warming. In the backdrop is a contentious debate over how those companies should calculate their carbon footprints.
The fight has shifted to an obscure independent organization called the GHG Protocol, a group made up of corporations, scientists and environmental groups that writes accounting rules for greenhouse gas emissions that will guide what climate claims companies can make under new state laws.
Among the companies involved in determining when and how farming and harvesting methods can be used to erase the emissions impact of products like hamburgers and dairy are McDonald’s, Nestlé and the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef, to which meat giants Tyson Foods and Cargill belong.
The deliberations of the GHG Protocol, which is managed by the World Resources Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, are kept confidential. But discord spilled into public in the fall, following its publication of draft guidelines for farm and forestry emissions. Dozens of environmental groups and academics say the rules as proposed would allow companies to declare climate-unfriendly products such as lumber, paper, beef and milk carbon neutral — or even carbon negative — by making modest land use adjustments that don’t truly mitigate the emissions of those products.
</💬>
There's certainly going to be more and more tension due to these corporations trying to find better greenwashing, better methods of faking data, more sophisticated bullshit.
"Apple faces scrutiny from European environmental and consumer groups over its claims that its latest devices are “carbon neutral,” a term that Brussels proposes to ban in corporate marketing because it is “misleading.”"
🌱 New report casts doubt on Apple’s first ‘carbon neutral’ products
➥ @verge
「 Apple has backtracked when it comes to transparency about its supply chain emissions, the new report says. That makes it difficult to see how Apple is able to market its products as carbon neutral, meaning the company didn’t produce more carbon dioxide emissions than it could capture or offset while making the device 」
#Apple#BigTech#Environment#CarbonNeutral: "Apple needs to disclose more information about its suppliers to back up claims about its first carbon-neutral products, says a new report by an environmental organization that had previously given the company high marks.
Apple has backtracked when it comes to transparency about its supply chain emissions, the new report says. That makes it difficult to see how Apple is able to market its products as carbon neutral, meaning the company didn’t produce more carbon dioxide emissions than it could capture or offset while making the device.
“We believe there is a need for full disclosure and explanation of how Apple achieves carbon neutrality of its products, given the increase in carbon emissions from some of its suppliers.”
“We believe there is a need for full disclosure and explanation of how Apple achieves carbon neutrality of its products, given the increase in carbon emissions from some of its suppliers,” the report says."
In case you missed: Tim Cook talks about Apple's mission to become carbon neutral, the company's position in regards to X (Twitter) and Texas politics in this CBS News interview:
Chipmaking powerhouse TSMC bumped up its carbon neutrality commitment by a decade, from 2050 to 2040. This is notable, but I also pay attention to round-the-clock carbon neutrality, which is Google's present push. #ClimateChange#CarbonNeutral#2040#2050#TSMC
"Shell has become the latest large company to pull back from carbon offsets amid concerns many have no environmental impact, it has emerged, as the Carbon Trust discontinues its “carbon neutral” labelling scheme based on offsetting."
Over 𝟙𝟝𝟛,𝟘𝟘𝟘 square km of Canadian land were burned in 2023, bigger than South Korea's total land area of 𝟙𝟘𝟘,𝟛𝟛𝟡 square km.
In 2023, the number of burned areas in #Canada is nearly double the 1995 record.
As of August 2023, 𝟝,𝟠𝟠𝟙 fires have been reported across Canada.
Forest fires in Canada this year have released 𝟚𝟡𝟘 𝕞𝕚𝕝𝕝𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕥𝕠𝕟𝕟𝕖𝕤 of carbon, doubling a previous annual record, account for over 𝟚𝟝% of the global total for 2023 to date.
Every business that claims it is #CarbonNeutral based on so-called carbon trading, every politician who promotes #CarbonTrading schemes, should be treated as criminal. This is deliberate deception.
Read an interesting article in Bike Magazine about efuels, and adding that to a chat I had with someone from Mobil1
via KTM, it seems like the switch to non-fossil hydrocarbons could be accelerated by taxing C12 isotopic content. Or perhaps the lack of C14/C13.
Besides #CO2 sequestration, indirect effects of NBS in #emission reduction through changes in human behaviour play critical role in reducing #urban emissions.