Yahoo! goes carbon neutral

Web company announces selection of offset projects 8

Back in April, Yahoo! announced that it will be going carbon neutral in 2007, and pledged to be entirely transparent about the process. They acknowledged the controversy around offsets:

We know carbon neutrality isn't without controversy. And it's honestly deserved if companies and individuals don't first make an effort to find direct ways to reduce their impact. We'll continue to be vigilant about cutting ours, looking for creative ways to power our facilities, encourage even more employees to seek alternative commutes, and generally inspire Yahoos around the world to think differently about their energy use. ... We'll also be deliberate about investing in offset projects that can verifiably deliver their expected environmental benefits.

A few hours ago, the company announced the investments that would bring it to carbon neutrality for 2006:

After much due diligence, Yahoo! has decided to offset its 250 thousand metric ton carbon footprint from 2006 through hydropower in rural Brazil and wind turbines in India. We've partnered with EcoSecurities and CantorCO2e, who helped us source, vet, and execute these projects.

(The hydropower project is of the eco-friendly run-of-river sort, not a huge dam.)

These sound like great choices -- I can't imagine even the grinchiest offset critic taking issue with them. But one aspect of the story struck me as somewhat remarkable.

When I talked to Chris Page, Yahoo!'s director of climate and energy strategy, she told me the total investment to offset a year's emissions was $2 million. Two million! I mean, that ain't nothing, but it really isn't all that much for a company with revenue of $6.7 billion in 2007. Hell, it probably cost 10 times that to get Flickr. It turns out Yahoo! doesn't emit all that much CO2, so it's not all that expensive to offset it.

On the bright side, going carbon neutral was fairly cheap for Yahoo! On the other hand, it's cheapness demonstrates that it's not doing a hell of a lot of good beyond the symbolism of it.

So why not maximize the symbolism? Why shouldn't Yahoo! make its entire history carbon neutral? Why not make its partners carbon neutral? Why not go carbon negative? Why not offer carbon neutrality to the most loyal customers?

If it's not Yahoo!, it will be Google or some other company come along to do it first. If the $2 million is any indication, such feats wouldn't be all that expensive, and they would be enormous public relations coups.

Time to start thinking big!

David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/drgrist.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. Sean Casten's avatar

    Sean Casten Posted 11:21 pm
    21 Oct 2007

    There is a tension hereIt strikes me that the companies that gain marketing value from going carbon neutral, buying RECs, etc. are inversely correlated to the companies that actually contribute to carbon emissions in a meaningful way - as your observation makes clear.  Whole Foods, Yahoo, etc. all get good PR from doing the right thing... but when all is said and done, their carbon impact is trivial.  By contrast, the really big emitters (power plants, steel mills, etc.) sell commodities that live or die by tiny price differentials and can't afford to invest in green PR.  Or, put another way, no one picks their rebar supplier based on their social responsibility.
    I don't know how one breaks this, or even if one needs to - but it does call to question how much one ought to make of announcements like Yahoo's.  (Which isn't meant to knock Yahoo - just the reality of the situation.)  By contrast, we probably ought to give a lot more praise to the Dows and BPs of the world who have made significant efforts to cut their CO2, and while they started from a much higher number, I am willing to bet that the aggregate impact is much larger.
    Food for thought, anyway.

    Permalink

  2. Glenn Hurowitz's avatar

    Glenn Hurowitz Posted 1:17 am
    22 Oct 2007

    Why not forests?Big kudos to Yahoo for going carbon neutral, but I must say I don't understand why they didn't do it by protecting tropical forests - they'd get a lot more bang for the buck in terms of both carbon saved, biodiversity protected, and social benefits than working with huge financial interests to install hydropower and wind turbines. And people would understand it more easily. Hopefully, they'll choose that option in the future.

    Permalink

  3. Delay And Deny's avatar

    Delay And Deny Posted 1:28 am
    22 Oct 2007

    I Offset Someone Today

    Hey, I rode my bike to work today.
    Shouldn't a motorist buy a "carbon offset" from me?
    Do you think I should wait at the street light and go up to them and demand they give me five bucks because I'm offsetting them?

    John Bailo


    Sutext:

    Permalink

  4. trock Posted 4:05 am
    22 Oct 2007

    maybe you deserve an offsetMaybe you should get a 'carbon offset,' but you are way, way behind on 'posting offsets.'   You owe big time here on that.

    Permalink

  5. BILL HANNAHAN Posted 6:02 am
    22 Oct 2007

    Carbon DilutionThe only way Yahoo can be carbon neutral is to remove 250,000 metric tons of carbon from the atmosphere each year and bury it in a way that will keep it SAFELY isolated for at least several hundred thousand years. They should also bury equivalent amounts of mercury, cadmium, arsenic, sulfur, uranium, NOx etc.
    At best this should be called carbon dilution.
    We should put a price on all emissions reflecting our best estimate of the cost of the damage they do, and let the market select winners and losers.

    Permalink

  6. mongabay Posted 11:55 am
    22 Oct 2007

    Yahoo dropped the ball on this oneYahoo could have shown itself to be a leader by pushing forward on avoided deforestation in Indonesia.  Instead it demonstrates yet again why it plays second fiddle.

    Permalink

  7. Biodiversivist's avatar

    Biodiversivist Posted 1:15 pm
    22 Oct 2007

    I'm with Glenn and MongabayThese carbon sinks are will be gone in my kid's lifetime if we don't find a way to save them. Yahoo!

    In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

    Permalink

  8. mongabay Posted 3:01 pm
    22 Oct 2007

    Had Yahoo been a leaderIndonesia is one of the most populous countries on Earth.  Its population is young and Internet use is growing.  Censorship of media and the Internet is not a significant concern.
    Through successful pioneering of a carbon finance program (an initiative that could eventually bring billions of dollars a year to the country), Yahoo could be known as the mover who made the concept a reality, establishing a solid basis for its brand, possibly translating to increased recognition and usage of its Web properties.  Importantly, with a relatively small commitment, financial or technical, Yahoo could trigger a movement that helps alleviate poverty, improve health, fight climate change, end "haze" pollution, and conserve resources and biological diversity.  
    Other potential benefits to Yahoo


    Yahoo establishes itself as a leader in carbon finance tied to poverty alleviation

    Yahoo diversified its carbon offset portfolio at a relatively low cost (perhaps offset a small office or data center)

    Tie-ins with rural health (malaria, dengue, dysentery all major problems in Borneo) and biodiversity conservation (orangutan, Sumatran rhino, proboscis monkey)


    More: http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0829-carbon.html

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement