Carbon Neutrality: What It Means And What It Doesn't Mean

The Wall Street Journal reported today on corporate goals of "carbon neutrality" and just what those goals entail. The story presents a highly skeptical view of just how much of Dell's carbon footprint the company has successfully offset with carbon credits -- the reporter guesses that "the company is only neutralizing about 5% of the greenhouse gases that go into the making and use of its products."

Then the story offers a skeptical view of the concept of carbon credits themselves, which do not actually reduce the amount of pollutants created or fossil fuels used by a company.

Some of the few hopeful words in the story:

Dell's drive offers an early road map of the thorny questions companies will face as they attempt the massive emission reductions scientists say are needed to curb global warming. In a global economy with so many interconnected players, figuring out who should be responsible for cutting which emissions -- and how to ensure those cuts happen -- is dizzyingly complicated. Amid that confusion, Dell's story illustrates the fuzziness of some of today's corporate environmental claims.

Some observers say companies pledging carbon neutrality at this point could be jumping the gun. There's not yet uniform agreement on what should be counted in such programs, says Pankaj Bhatia, a policy expert at the World Resources Institute, a Washington-based environmental group that is working with many corporations, including Dell, to develop a standard for carbon neutrality.

In October, an all-star team of green panelists for the Huffington Post asked questions of a Dell sustainability expert, including asking about greening customers' computer usage and the supply chain. As the WSJ reports, those areas are not included in Dell's self-described carbon footprint, but Dell's Director of Sustainable Business, Tod Arbogast, offered some answers (disclaiming beforehand that it gets a little wonky):

We're taking a series of steps to drive environmental efforts throughout our global supply chain. Last year, we became the first in our industry to join the Carbon Disclosure Project's Supply Chain Leadership Collaboration to help suppliers access standard methodologies to report CO2 emissions. We also began requiring primary suppliers to report greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions data during quarterly business reviews. If a supplier doesn't identify and report specific emissions data, its overall score will likely be reduced. A Dell supplier's volume of business can be affected by the scores earned on reviews.

Comments

[Myshkin57]

Has anyone ever shown that carbon offset credits achieve anything at all? I've yet to read anything substantive to suggest they do.

[markinaz]

It means they decided to jump on a bandwagon.

[Wheels76]

Operating under the assumption that carbon credits truly work (not making a case that they do), it seems reasonable that carbon neutrality should be limited to the amount of resources consumed to manufacture and bring products to market. But, having Dell's computers be powered in a carbon-neutral manner would be difficult to gauge, and even achieve. Some people will plug their computer into the grid, others may be running off of roof solar, while others may be purchasing power from renewable sources from the power company. Seems like it's reasonable to leave that burden to the consumer, and let manufacturers focus on cleaning up production.

[magen]

A company going green usually means that they've done nothing but start an advertising campaign to try to convince people that they're going green, but in reality have done nothing to reduce their carbon footprint.

We've all seen those feely goody "beyond petroleum" commercials, right??

Can anybody here name one thing that BP has done to go green BESIDES make commercials??

[burleyque]

While I do think it can do some good, it just seems like something to make people feel better about being bad. It doesn't help change behavior or stop the bad things from happening. While I'm sure Al Gore planted a forest of trees to offset all his Inconvenient Truth travel, wouldn't it have been better for him to just hop on a bio-bus instead (ala Willie Nelson)?

[climatebabes]

Standards for carbon neutrality only serve an eager consultancy industry that will suck the life out of what really matters : reducing emmision. There is no limit to the amount of offset that would benefit our planet, so lets state offset is required for each kWh used from fossil fuels (for any purpose) in any part of the production chain. We do not need perfect carbon neutrality, only as much offset as we can achieve. Whoever has good ideas or stories can send them to [e-mail]