just read an article in which Sky has said they will aim to become Carbon Neutral in a few years time, as Sky products are basically driven by electricity, TV, Broadband, phones, etc, can they actually claim to be Carbon Neutral, as it isn't possible to use their products without using some sort of energy, or is it they just pass the blame onto us? (discuss)
Carbon Neutral Claims
- Thread starter Fadcode
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
Carbon Neutrality is a bit of a funny one. It's something we're actively pushing at works.
It basically works by you assess your carbon load in terms of the amount of Carbon you put out to the environment and how much carbon you arrange to put out the the environment. We've started asking for carbon reports from our suppliers so we can see what their carbon load is so we see a whole supply chain load. Eventually you'll reach a number that basically says to produce x tons of product you generate y tons of carbon. You can also get carbon reports for non-tangible resources as well, internet companies are starting to provide information on how many tonnes per year a terabyte of storage on servers costs.
Using this information you can see how much you need to do to become neutral or negative, that is you capture equal to or more than the carbon your product produces.
The carbon load can be reduced in a number of ways such as:-
Elimination, getting rid of gas/coal energy supplier in lieu or renewable sources.
Reduce the carbon needed by increasing efficiency of production.
Mitigate carbon load by funding carbon capture projects.
Those of a health and safety bent will notice these priorities are similar to risk reduction. A lot of companies are treating Carbon loading as a risk now which has shifted focus, I believe, for the better.
As for these massive companies claiming to be carbon neutral, I wouldn't be surprised if they are throwing millions at carbon mitigation as it's easier than changing their own processes, while good, it could be better.
It basically works by you assess your carbon load in terms of the amount of Carbon you put out to the environment and how much carbon you arrange to put out the the environment. We've started asking for carbon reports from our suppliers so we can see what their carbon load is so we see a whole supply chain load. Eventually you'll reach a number that basically says to produce x tons of product you generate y tons of carbon. You can also get carbon reports for non-tangible resources as well, internet companies are starting to provide information on how many tonnes per year a terabyte of storage on servers costs.
Using this information you can see how much you need to do to become neutral or negative, that is you capture equal to or more than the carbon your product produces.
The carbon load can be reduced in a number of ways such as:-
Elimination, getting rid of gas/coal energy supplier in lieu or renewable sources.
Reduce the carbon needed by increasing efficiency of production.
Mitigate carbon load by funding carbon capture projects.
Those of a health and safety bent will notice these priorities are similar to risk reduction. A lot of companies are treating Carbon loading as a risk now which has shifted focus, I believe, for the better.
As for these massive companies claiming to be carbon neutral, I wouldn't be surprised if they are throwing millions at carbon mitigation as it's easier than changing their own processes, while good, it could be better.
Here's an interesting article on the way the internet consumes stuff generally
www.theguardian.com
Waste from one bitcoin transaction ‘like binning two iPhones’
Study highlights vast churn in computer hardware that the cryptocurrency incentivises
www.theguardian.com
Similar threads
