Yes let's shame corporations for spending money on and supporting things that need more support. /s

Somehow folks want this little problem of climate change to go away without any change in their own behaviors. Somehow corporations who sell them goods will just magically "be green" while flying around the world and drinking out of plastic bottles and subscribing to the latest fast-fashion website. But then when the corporations say "yes we should be green" that's a problem too. You just can't please some people, they're just here to complain, not actually see anything positive in the world.

▲

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS an hour ago | parent [-]

Don't forget that they buy countless things from China, who is by a very large margin the largest polluter in the world.

▲

ehhthing an hour ago | parent [-]

I dont know why people bring this up. China has nowhere near the highest per capita pollution levels.

▲

ericmay an hour ago | parent [-]

Per-capita can be bad and so can overall scale. It wouldn't matter if Norway was the highest per-capita because like 5 people live there.

	▲	omgwtfbyobbq 14 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Per capita is worse by definition, unless your arguing that people with higher per capita emissions are somehow more valuable to society than those with lower. The other aspect is that China provides a large industrial base for the West, which is arguably the West just externalizing/offshoring their emissions anyway.

▲

vlovich123 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

It’s unclear. It helps Google with their marketing that they’re a net zero carbon company. But if what’s happening is they’re displacing previous nuclear power users onto dirtier, that’s not really reducing carbon and it’s making it seem like Google isn’t the problem when it actually is - without them that community might otherwise be 100% nuclear and it would be no different from a macro level from Google adding that consumption to dirty sources.

	▲	happosai 14 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> But if what’s happening is they’re displacing previous nuclear power users onto dirtier, that’s not really reducing carbon That's not the case, because in EU (and thus Finland) electric production is under cap-and-trade. There is just no way to increase dirty electricity production in EU. Apart from political pressure to change rules, which for example Italy is doing because Italy built their grid on gas...
	▲	jryle70 an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> they’re displacing previous nuclear power users onto dirtier They are not. The plant may not survive beyond 2030 without this order.
	▲	parineum an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It's a good thing that green energy isn't a fixed quantity and more can be built if there's demand, which is exactly what Google is doing. It's great for marketing and, you're right, that's why they are doing it but the reason it's good for marketing is that their customers care about the environment. This is the exact invisible hand mechanism in action. It's their preferences changing the behavior of one of the biggest corporations in the world and all they can do is act like it doesn't count because they don't actually care