Microsoft Makes Ambitious Carbon Neutral Pledge

Qedward writes "Chief operating officer Kevin Turner says Microsoft will be 'carbon neutral across all our direct operations including data centers, software development labs, air travel, and office buildings' from July 1, the start of the 2012 fiscal year. Turner added: 'We are hopeful that our decision will encourage other companies, large and small, to look at what they can do to address this important issue."

Comments

Microsoft

[Valacity]

I think this is a great initiative by Microsoft. They have shown that they greatly care about the environment and common good. Not only that, but they spend lots of money on their R&D (Microsoft Research) which has come up with tons of great things that has made the world better.

On top of that Microsoft's founder Bill Gates has spent most of his fortune to help the world, especially for healthcare and making the poor countries better. Even if you don't like MS products you have to have deep respect for them for this reason. Compare this to Google CEO's who spend their money on luxury yachts.

Re:Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

just posted an already a post praising MS and bashing Google...man someone has an axe to grind

Sadly because of Poe's law we will never truly be able to figure out which side he truly supports.

Re:Microsoft

[doston]

I think this is a great initiative by Microsoft. They have shown that they greatly care about the environment and common good. Not only that, but they spend lots of money on their R&D (Microsoft Research) which has come up with tons of great things that has made the world better. On top of that Microsoft's founder Bill Gates has spent most of his fortune to help the world, especially for healthcare and making the poor countries better. Even if you don't like MS products you have to have deep respect for them for this reason. Compare this to Google CEO's who spend their money on luxury yachts.

I have a better idea. How about stop raping the planet and exploiting the human inhabitants under wage slavery and see if food/medicine distriubtion doesn't improve. Sorry, but I'm not going to get all weak in the knees because some douche put the 50 billion he received by monopolizing into what amounts to a mutual fund where the profits go to vaccinating and helping people who never had to be in poverty in the first place, but for the inequitable economic system they were exploited under in the first place. Show me a poverty stricken country and I'll show you how it's capitalism and usually directly the US's doing. History goes back a long time, most of you seem to have a poor grasp of even current events. Take a look at what caused all this misery and you won't be so impressed by these generous foundations that are all the rage these days. And by the way, they're over reported (for a reason); most rich people sit on their money and leave it to their brats.

Re:Microsoft

[Surt]

As I always say: the level of your charity is defined by how much you have left when you're done.
A poor man with two dollars who gives one is far more generous than a rich man with 40 billion who gives 39 billion.

Re:Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off, bonch.

Re:Microsoft

[edumacator]

Bad deeds do not erase the good. Nor the other way around.

Re:Microsoft

[Jeremi]

As I always say: the level of your charity is defined by how much you have left when you're done.
A poor man with two dollars who gives one is far more generous than a rich man with 40 billion who gives 39 billion.

On the other hand, one dollar isn't enough to buy a single cup of coffee these days, whereas 39 billion dollars could improve the lives of a substantial number of people.

Your definition of generosity might be useful for deciding who gets in to Heaven, but it doesn't have much to say about who is making a difference in the world.

Re:Microsoft

[Surt]

Entirely true. Though at that end of the scale, I'd make an argument about harm done to acquire the billions vs good done with them.

Re:Microsoft

[Sir_Sri]

It's not like other MS founders don't have luxury yachts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octopus_(yacht), and lots of rich people don't necessarily feel the need to give the money to charity which may not be all that effective and robs governments of tax revenue from estate taxes (where such things exist) http://www.onlinecardonation.org/charitynews/archives/102.

It's not like MS trying to go carbon neutral is a bad thing. Both Google and apple have massive solar power generators, and there are lots of people trying to be better corporate citizens. But it's the modern equivalent of freeing your slaves when you die (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington), or giving colonies independence after looting them for all you can. Yes, MS is trying to do good now, hell they even make better products than they did 20 years ago, but the *only* reason they're behaving well is because they have taken more money from us than they know what to do with, and are hoping to earn back karma, a legacy, favour with some fictitious deity, or to make up for their own young naive decisions with the benefit of years of experience.

Again, none of this is bad, hell buying a 300 million dollar yacht isn't bad, if you have the money it's better spent paying people to build and maintain a boat than sitting as a pile of stock somewhere, and give someone else a chance to earn some dividends on that capital. But don't think for a minute that most other people wouldn't do the same thing given the problem of more money than they know how to spend. I would argue steve jobs never really had the chance, so we can't entirely fault him for not doing much personally for anyone else, where everyone else from that era has had a chance to think about their contribution not just to their companies but to humanity as a whole, Jobs never really got out of the mindset of 'the company'.

Re:Microsoft

[geekoid]

man gives his last two dollars, then what?

It' was stupid. Should have used that 2 dollars to get a pencil and paper and make a plan, then spend his time implementing his plan. In 5 years when he goes from nothing to middle class, he can then donate more money, and eat.

Your idea of charity is short sighted, and, frankly, stupid.
But you keep reciting shit religion has been telling people in order to get there last 2 dollar for as long as there has been religion.

Re:Microsoft

[cupantae]

I get it! If I get paid one penny at a time, keep no savings and donate some of my first pennies in each pay cheque, I'll be the most generous man in the world!

I'm no fan of MS or Gates, to be honest, but that is way too simplistic. Giving 39 of 40 billion is obviously more generous, because of the difficulty in regaining it and the enormous amount of power surrendered.

Re:Microsoft

[edumacator]

Should have used that 2 dollars to get a pencil and paper and make a plan, then spend his time implementing his plan. In 5 years when he goes from nothing to middle class, he can then donate more money, and eat.

This is a canard that helps us sleep at night. If only poor people worked harder or planned ahead, they would dig themselves out of poverty. For every story you find where this is successful, I could show you 100 people who worked as hard, planned as well, and ended up still poor. Bad planning or a bad work ethic is not what makes people poor. It's a confluence of factors that are by and large out of the individual's control.

To suggest otherwise simplifies a very complex and important global issue. Certainly there are elements of any population that just don't work hard, but that is generally not the case. You can argue that it isn't your place to help someone out of poverty; you can say that poverty is inevitable, but to allay your fears or guilt by claiming a person with only two dollars should write a five year plan to solve his woes and provide for others is extremely overly-simplified, don't you think? His idea of charity is not stupid. It is noble. We could compromise and say foolhardy if you wish. Nevertheless, kindness to another human being, whether you think people who do so are indoctrinated by religion or just plain caring, is something beautiful.

I know I'm blowing against the wind, but I'd suggest you tone down the name calling too. I know, I know...this is /., but I'm a romantic and believe people can have a civil discourse on important issues.

Re:Microsoft

[Surt]

Yes, that would indeed make you the most generous.

Re:Microsoft

[Surt]

If all you want to be is generous, it is what it is. If you want to be more famous or more effective, pure generosity may not be the best strategy.

Re:Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

So... is Microsoft going to also ban Soda Pop and other carbonated beverages in their buildings? Seems like the "sensible" CO2 adverse thing to do if it is such a horrible thing - right?

Folks - CO2 is GOOD. It helps plants grow. And plants make oxygen - something we HAVE TO HAVE to live. We exhale CO2 for God's sake (or rather due to God's sake).

Now CO - that is BAD. All it is good for is killing things, like people. And we try to get rid of it, even with cars - turning CO into (among other things) - CO2!

I vote for CO2 any day, and to kick the CO2 haters off the planet.

Re:Microsoft

[Neil Boekend]

The right amount of CO2 is good. A bit more won't hurt. A lot more is bad.
See it as water: Water is good for you, if you don't have it you'll die. If you have the right amount of water you live. A bit more water than you need won't hurt. Drowning (to much water) is bad.
One of the big questions with CO2 is: what is a little more than the right amount and what is a lot more (the right amount being what we have had for centuries)?

Re:Microsoft

[Barlo_Mung_42]

And you would be wrong with that argument. Even if you assume MS is responsible for all the jobs lost at netscape and word perfect plus 10 other companies of similar size you would be wrong. Those people went on to get other jobs and life went on. Weigh that against the 10s of thousands of lives that MS money has saved and harm done just doesn't compare.

Re:Microsoft

[Ghaoth]

Like all "do-gooders" they have put over a billion dollars into medical research and 200 million into agriculture. It is ratios like this that cause massive ongoing problems. People in developing countries keep breeding at an alarming rate. Medicine keeps them alive but they still stave and live in poverty. Little "real" money goes into making them support their own populations with food. This is a simplified statement obviously but it is a basic fact, no matter what the UN or other organisations would like t otell you. I worked in developing countries for over 30 years and have seen the problems. The Gates and the Geldoff's of this world are just compounding a problem that will become a tidal wave.

Re:Microsoft

[furytrader]

Why is that a canard? Do you believe individuals simply float on a wave of historical forces, and the *lucky ones* inevitability say it was their hard work that got them where they are? Instead of saying "It's a confluence of factors that are by and large out of the individual's control ...", the fact is people make choices every minute of every day that affect the well-being of themselves and those around them: Do I spend or save? Do I get things done or do I procrastinate? Do I watch TV or go exercise? Do I read a book or surf the Internet? Do I work hard at school to get more education or do I go hang out with my friends? Do I spend time with my family or do I pursue things for my own gratification?

Re:Microsoft

[godefroi]

History teaches us that there were no poor, unhappy, malnourished, or neglected people before 1776.

Re:Microsoft

[edumacator]

Do you believe individuals simply float on a wave of historical forces, and the *lucky ones* inevitability say it was their hard work that got them where they are?

No. I believe the people who are successful generally work very hard for their success. They persevere in the face of extreme difficulty and use their talents to great effect. I never discounted hard work. I'm saying that not every person that works hard will eventually rise out of poverty. There are many other contributing factors.

Do I spend or save? Do I get things done or do I procrastinate? Do I watch TV or go exercise? Do I read a book or surf the Internet? Do I work hard at school to get more education or do I go hang out with my friends? Do I spend time with my family or do I pursue things for my own gratification?

The fact that you chose these questions as your examples suggests that you don't understand many of the choices people living in poverty have to make.

Re:Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Theres a;ways someone.... Have you heard of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation?

Re:Microsoft

[Surt]

How about all the lives lost due to lack of progress in computer technology?

Re:Microsoft

[cthulhu11]

What about what MS did to housing costs in King County? Those 68,000 millionaires didn't come from Speakeasy.

Re:Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Very few men have only two dollars, even the poorest person in the world. That is because the vast majority of the world can earn at least $1 for a day's labor. Therefore, a person with two dollars only has two dollars in savings, but potential wealth of several hundreds of dollars or even thousands of dollars.

On the other hand, nobody comes to mind who can earn $1billion per day. The rich man's wealth is in savings, not potential future earnings. In this scenario, the rich person is giving more than the poor person in any real sense.

Re:Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the level of your charity is the provable amount of good that is done. If you spend either a lot or a little money and nothing good comes of it, it is an equally wasted effort.

Charge less

[XanC]

Other companies large and small will probably be wondering why they couldn't just pay less for their MS licenses instead.

Re:Charge less

[Anonymous Coward]

That seems pretty short-sighted.

Re:Charge less

[cowboy76Spain]

I find amusing that while everybody claims to know how capitalism works, they still get wrong.

Repeat with me:

The only relationships between costs and price is that, IF MY PRICE GOES BELOW MY COSTS, I GO BROKE.

If I get a product for free, I can sell it for $1 or $1.000.000. The decission will be based in which price gives me more profits (perhaps at $1 I get so many customers that it offsets the lower prices, in the other hand it will mean that I will have bigger production/distribution costs). With many products, market share is very affected by price, but that is not universal (you only get one dose of a vaccine, no matter how cheap the second one is; no matter how expensive is it, you will a bottle of water if you are in the middle of the desert).

The theory says that if I get a big difference between price and cost (-> profit) then other bussinesmen will catch up and enter my bussiness, leading to competition and eventually lowering prices. Of course, what is not usually said is the long list of "exceptions":

*) My product is unique -let it be by its properties, by copyright or even by marketing/branding-; nobody can copy it.

*) Time to market is big: even if the other bussinesmen begin trying to catch me today, they will spend years until they get a product ready (think of designing a car, or a full new OS).

*) Investment is big: bussinesmen do not have enough capital to invest as they should in this market, if they ask for loans the interest to pay will be a significant disavantage against me. And when if they finally get to do it, I am in a good position to dump prices so they can not recoup their investments, let alone get benefits (this one works better when coupled with the previous ones, see nuclear electricity).

Re:Charge less

[XanC]

Well, okay, then the shareholders should be wondering why their dividend is smaller than it should be.

Re:Charge less

[rtb61]

Sorry buy there is another real and true relationship between cost and price. It's called integrity, a sense of fairness. So as an estimator contract administrator in the highly competitive building industry, even though at many oppurtunities I could get away with 100% markup or more, I did not and only held to the original profit margin upon which the contract was based even when it was not disclosed.

Pride in profession, a sense of truly delivering valuable service to your fellow human beings, a degree of honour and integrity and looking back upon years of integrity and honest with a degree of pride (which you can never buy and of course the rich and greedy aren't interested in beyond falsely convincing people they are).

If you say it is a bargain and it is not, you are a liar and cheat, with honour or integrity and honestly not fit for normal human society.

One thing M$ certainly can do is invest the money in research and development to really achieve carbon neutrality in data warehousing, processing and distribution, be it applications or content. Now also it would be cool if they opened up the product of their research to the public so other companies can access and deploy it. So free open source technology to promote a healthier enterprise, it might find that external submission to M$ could substantively accelerate development.

Re:Charge less

[cowboy76Spain]

No, sorry, you are wrong.

You are entitled to your integrity, fairness, pride, however you word it. You are entitled to decrease your benefits whatever you want due to these issues (in fact, it is not that different from MS buying carbon credits).

However, if we go back to economic theory, these issues are counted as "cost of opportunity"... all of the money that you could be doing but that you do not get. (note that it is not the same that accepting now a lower profit in the hope of increased bussiness with your customers in the future). The fact is that, according to capitalism, you are in fact "giving" to your customers by selling below your price range. The "fair price" is what the customer can pay, not a penny more or less (fair not in a moral meaning, but economical).

In fact, there is no moral in economics. Things are described as they work. Later, moralists try to reason that with capitalism production is increased and so capitalism is good, but it is more of an afterthought and very dubious (some of their assumptions are not really found in reality).

It is not me who says so, but it is in the economy books (go ahead, check them). And please, inform yourself about what you are saying before calling anyone a liar and a cheater, because you might end making a fool of yourself...

Re:Charge less

[rtb61]

Which is exactly why economist never understand why companies go belly up when they get caught ripping off their customers while the companies psychopathic executives wander off with the bonuses and golden parachute. The world is littered with bankrupt companies employing your thinking, whilst companies that demonstrate and maintain integrity can survive centuries.

Re:Charge less

[Anonymous Coward]

Up until a few years ago, MS did not pay a dividend. As a shareholder, I did not wonder about this and was quite happy with it.

This can't be right

[geekoid]

from what I have read on Slashdot,l going green means massive taxes, a completly lock down on personal freedom, and removing the ability for companies to succeed. herp derp.

Good Job MS.

Re:This can't be right

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh. "Carbon neutral" is mostly a bunch of BS.
The cheapest way to be "carbon neutral" is to hand some country, preferably the cheapest one possible, a bunch of cash to plant some trees that they might have been planning to plant anyway, probably some monoculture to replace hills that had been burned or chopped clear of trees already.

Or you can pay someone to promise not to burn stuff through a project they may not have been wanting to do anyway.

If the world actually tried to make the human race anywhere *near* carbon neutral it *would* be hideously expensive.
"herp derp"

Re:This can't be right

[interkin3tic]

a completly lock down on personal freedom

Indeed. Every story dealing with the climate, the charge is made that climate change is a conspiracy to deprive you of your freedom. And then it's never explained who is going to be taking the freedoms and what freedoms are going to be taken.

Well, aside from comments that "they" are going to regulate your breathing. I assume those comments aren't serious though. I vaguely recall someone arguing that it was just a plan by Al Gore to get laid. Not sure how many people subscribe to that particular conspiracy theory though.

Re:This can't be right

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm assuming your joking here because no one can really be that ignorant and have any kind of opinion on this topic.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/11/03/al-gore-the-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire/

Al Gore set himself up to make a billion dollars, but Obama couldn't get cap and trade passed through Congress. Had it passed Gore would have instantly become one of the richest people in the country. They were also setting up a $300 billion carbon trading network in Chicago, every company that emits CO2 was going to have to buy offsets from other companies/countries that didn't, and many liberals were planning on taking a percentage of every one of those trades.

You want freedoms limited? Try building a coal fire power plant. Try putting in an oil pipeline between Canada and the US. Try and drill for oil or get a lease to drill for oil on any federal land.

Like I said before, I have to assume you are joking or trolling because you can't really be that ignorant.

Re:This can't be right

[doston]

from what I have read on Slashdot,l going green means massive taxes, a completly lock down on personal freedom, and removing the ability for companies to succeed. herp derp.

Good Job MS.

Do you learn everything you know from Slasdot? I mean, if I went by your posts, I'd be miguided, too. Open a book, dummy.

Re:This can't be right

[Anonymous Coward]

So wait... I thought conservatives thought getting rich was GOOD?

But I guess when Al Gore does it, it's BAD, right? Because EVERYTHING he does is bad, right?

I sure wish conservatives were even remotely capable of being consistent, and voiding complete and utter systemic hypocrisy. Jesus.

I mean, you don't see conservatives bitching about how House Speaker Boehner has set himself up to get rich off the Keystone Pipeline, and then started pushing it in Congress, do you? Because THAT is just free enterprise right? Good lord...

And yeah, there are restrictions on building a coal fired power plant. How is that bad again? I mean, your freedom to build one stops at the nose of everyone who has to breathe the pollutants. There are COSTS, enviornmental ones, that regulation makes explicit... so corporations can't get rich off of something and then dump the clean-up on taxpayers. So how is regulation bad again?

Your'e an ignorant idiot and a troll.

Re:This can't be right

[Surt]

I favor people being completely free to do anything that has no impact on shared resources. So build all the coal plants you want, as long as they don't vent to our shared atmosphere. Build a pipeline, but if it spills, you better have insurance sufficient to pay for the worst case cleanup effort. Etc. It's really all pretty straightforward and sane if you think about it.

Re:This can't be right

[Ichijo]

If the world actually tried to make the human race anywhere *near* carbon neutral it *would* be hideously expensive.

Really? How much would that be?

And how much would it cost the world not to become carbon neutral?

Re:This can't be right

[Anonymous Coward]

It wouldn't be that expensive. It would cost me $10,000 one time to go solar and long term LiFePO4 batteries to run my energy efficient house.
Or I could pay $30/month, $360/year for coal, dirty air, mountain top removal, coal ash...

So, in 25 years I could get 25 years of clean air, or I could be stuck renting my energy from some power company that uses a lot of coal power.

Re:This can't be right

[Anonymous Coward]

Hideously expensive?

Or reflective of the true cost?

Or do you lament the cost of water treatment and bans on dumping toxic waste as an unnecessary expense passed onto the consumer?

Re:This can't be right

[geekoid]

AS sson as you can keep all the impact form those things only on you property,. go for it. But tyou better gaurentee it, and you better clean of every molecules the goes onto someone else property.

", every company that emits CO2 was going to have to buy offsets from other companies/countries that didn't, and many liberals were planning on taking a percentage of every one of those trades."

well that's completely wrong, . you need to find someone who doesn't actually follow the details of these things to peddle your shit.

I can list a whole bunch or reports and research that's right down the hallway. But instead I will simply point out the lowest common denominator.
If what you said is true, it would be all over the republican ad campaign. Instead we have implied lies that have been thoroughly discredited.

Sorry jackass you are wrong and your view is wrong.

More oil is drilled in US territory the there has been in 50 years

I also can't go into my neighbors yard and shit on his lawn. Oh the terrible lack of freedom I suffer from~! woes is me~ woes~

Re:This can't be right

[geekoid]

No, but apparently you learned your sense of humor from nobody.

I read more book before I was 20 then most people read in their lifetimes.
Although now that I have a kindle, I don't even like to read hard copies.
Except for engineering and mathematics.

Re:This can't be right

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe we should drop the term "carbon neutral" and call it environmentalism.

Also, is global warming, if it exists, man-made or not? Does it matter? Environmentalism for the sake of less pollution. I don't care if being "green" stops global warming. Stop pollution for the sake of stopping pollution.

And businesses should focus on being more efficient rather than dealing with "offsets". I'm not all too familiar with Microsoft's campus, but do their roofs have solar panels? Yes, I realize it's Washington state, but couldn't they help reduce their grid reliance by having solar power?

Re:This can't be right

[interkin3tic]

You're saying some people who are urging us to fight a real problem have some special interest in it. I suppose that would be a conspiracy, but the climate change skeptics I was referring to are claiming that climate change is a hoax entirely.

Furthermore, that's a scheme to make money.

You want freedoms limited? Try building a coal fire power plant. Try putting in an oil pipeline between Canada and the US. Try and drill for oil or get a lease to drill for oil on any federal land.

Now you must be the one trolling or joking. Those aren't personal freedoms.

Finally, you're presumably saying Al Gore et al are bad because they're enriching themselves at the expense of everyone else. That's what coal-fired power plants do, UNLESS you make them pay for the external costs (pollution, climate change). Which you're also arguing against.

Re:This can't be right

[Unoriginal_Nickname]

If the human race were truly carbon neutral (instead of just fudging it by buying carbon offsets from the flooded European market,) you'd be dead, so I guess you probably don't care about how much it would cost.

Re:This can't be right

[Derek Pomery]

Solar cells wear out you know...
And they are hardly energy neutral to create.

But I suspect we will need all of the above.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/3000/followup-why-dont-we-ditch-nukes-em-and-em-coal

Re:This can't be right

[Unoriginal_Nickname]

The manufacture of solar cells and LFP batteries is not a carbon-neutral process. You would need to plant a lot of trees to make up for the coal and oil that was burnt to make your home energy-efficient.

We also have finite resources. It might cost you $10,000 today, but there is almost no demand for household solar. The real marginal cost of solar power adoption would be much higher than that.

Re:This can't be right

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a difference between getting rich with WILLING customers by providing them a wanted good or service and getting rich by government mandating your customers give you money.

I'm sorry you are too stupid to understand.

As for you all saying banning coal fired plants is good, you wanted an example of restricting freedom and you all agree with it. While we are at it lets ban abortions since that is provably killing FAR more people than anything from climate change can be shown to be doing.

See how that works? You make statements that show complete lack of intelligence and get hammered. Now it is time for you to resort to the failed liberal debate tactic of doing nothing but calling other people names.

Re:This can't be right

[Anonymous Coward]

they moved the Skype servers to Linux?

Re:This can't be right

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I looked (when being pitched a carbon credit exchange IPO), most of the Carbon credits traded in Europe were being sourced in China.

Obvious scam is obvious.

Re:This can't be right

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought being able to open a business and provide a good/service to customers willing to pay for it was a freedom. I didn't realize that we lived in a socialist economy where you must get the permission of the government before you can do anything.

Sorry, you are the one DEMANDING personal freedoms be taken away and then telling me I'm trolling for pointing it out. Are all /. posters so ignorant? Its really beginning to appear that way.

Re:This can't be right

[Anonymous Coward]

Opening a business and providing a good/service to customers willing to pay for it is a freedom.

Drilling on land you don't know is not a personal freedom.
Putting an oil pipeline across international borders is not a personal freedom.
Emitting great quantities of coal-ash into the atmosphere is not a personal freedom (though it's the closest one).

How is it a surprise that you need to get the permission of a government to put an oil pipeline between two different countries?

Re:This can't be right

[Anonymous Coward]

Adapt or Die?

Re:This can't be right

[interkin3tic]

I didn't realize that we lived in a socialist economy

I see I have indeed been trolled. Well, good job I guess? May your life measurably improve as a result of me foolishly taking you seriously.

Re:This can't be right

[Anonymous Coward]

Got an early start on the tequila this evening, eh?

Re:This can't be right

[edumacator]

And then it's never explained who is going to be taking the freedoms and what freedoms are going to be taken.

Most people would rather be scared than right. That's why so many conservatives are saying Obama wants to make all your decisions about healthcare. You know, just like he took over the whole US car industry, designing cars from the Oval Office and such nonsense.

Re:This can't be right

[FireFury03]

Maybe we should drop the term "carbon neutral" and call it environmentalism.

Also, is global warming, if it exists, man-made or not? Does it matter? Environmentalism for the sake of less pollution. I don't care if being "green" stops global warming. Stop pollution for the sake of stopping pollution.

I agree that pollution can't be good, so we should stop it irrespective of whether it can be proved to be actually linked to specific badness like climate change. However, Using the term "environmentalism" is a bad idea - to most people, an "environmentalist" is a wannabe do-gooder with no real grasp of reality. You know, the sort that seem to think we should ditch nuclear power because everyone knows that *every* power station chernobyls after a few years and that we can supply our entire power demand with windmills.

And businesses should focus on being more efficient rather than dealing with "offsets".

The whole offsetting or plant-a-tree thing is a complete fraud anyway. You want to be "carbon neutral", so you pay someone to plant a tree. You get a nice feel good glow. In 10-20 years time, someone chops that tree down and uses it for firewood, releasing all that carbon back into the atmosphere. Unless you can *guarantee* those trees will be protected over geological timescales (hint: you can't), its all a bit of a waste of time and money. Far better to spend that money *actually* reducing your carbon (or other pollution) footprint.

Re:This can't be right

[FishTankX]

Or you could pocket the money you saved on the solar installation, put it into a 20 year bond, and have $40,000 minus the $8000 in electricity for that interval. Just saying.

A big reason why alternative energy is not taking off, is because the economics are not attractive yet. If the economics were attractive, then there would be a massive demand for solar and wind, and that isn't happening very quickly

Re:This can't be right

[bef]

Do you have and evidence to support your claim? Or are you just inventing this? I don't see any theoretical reason why we could be net carbon neutral, or even net sequesterers.

Re:This can't be right

[bef]

Buying cheap is BS? I thought it was the capitalist way.

Re:This can't be right

[godefroi]

It's even worse than that. You'd need to KEEP planting trees so you could replace the cells (both solar and LFP) to keep them running. Going solar isn't a one-time cost, it's an ongoing cost.

Re:This can't be right

[Asic Eng]

Eh, not much. Here is a report from the Royal Academy of Engineering. Using today's technology, if we build new power plants to produce our electricity from wind power rather than natural gas (the cheapest option) then we pay twice as much per kWh. (That's including standby costs.)

Now obviously using current technology we can't go 100% wind power (something has to *provide* standby), plus we'd need electric cars to reduce carbon emissions from transportation. However we have everything to get started now, and costs from wind power can only go down as operations scale up. In time we'll find the best way to handle standby (e.g. via hydrogen or improved battery technology, electric cars could help). Fossil fuels can only go up in costs, and always mean dependence on other countries in mainly unstable regions of the world.

How much of a price increase that means for an individual is hard to predict - there are many factors: how fast power plants get replaced (cheapest option would be to run them until they would normally go out of service anyway), how soon production costs go down, how much more efficient appliances get etc.

If we end up paying about twice as much for our electricity is that really the end of our lifestyle? Plus we'd have much reduced pollution allowing us to breathe much cleaner air, keep energy producing jobs in the country and would not flood our coastal cities. The US might even keep Florida around, and that's a nice place to retire, I hear.

Oh yeah?

[Moblaster]

Sounds like a lot of hot air to me.

Re:Oh yeah?

[Anonymous Coward]

They should be cleaning all that garbage code...

Re:Oh yeah?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like a lot of hot air to me.

More like hot carbon.

Re:Oh yeah?

[rwa2]

So I just started working for M$ this year.

They're a big proponent of alternative commutes, so there's lots of incentive to bike to work, carpool, etc. http://www.gortrip.com/ . Everyone gets a free bus pass. (yeah, I know everyone can write off ~$120 a month in taxes for using public transit, but not every company bothers with it).

They also run a pretty generous on-demand shuttle service around their campus and surrounding facilities. (I know Google does the same, but we never hear about the M$ one.) They also have a special bus that ferrys like 12 bikes at a time across the 520 bridge, since the city busses can only 3 at a time.

Also, most of their cafeteria stuff is compostable, which leads to some hilarity because all their compostable plastic utensils melt in hot food / drinks. But it's great fun using that to demonstrate to visitors how strong the coffee is.

Re:Oh yeah?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've worked up there too, loved the environment - the MS campus is programmer heaven.

Re:Oh yeah?

[cthulhu11]

Instead of "alternate commutes", which are more about public relations than anything else, why not pull their OS out of 1983 and make it more conducive to telecommuting, so that people don't have to travel in the first place? Yep, I know their shuttle service -- their buses frequently block legitimate traffic. Calling it "generous" is typical for MS -- treat employees like kings, and the rest of the region like shit. Compostable cafeteria stuff. Feh. If they cared about being "carbon neutral" they'd stop serving meat in their cafeterias and at their functions.

Re:Oh yeah?

[nitzmahone]

Multi-monitor Remote Desktop (which kicks the hell out of anything else for performance), PPTP/L2TP/SSTP VPN in the box, fast-user switching- what more do you need to make an OS "conducive for telecommuting"? Works fantastically for me...

In related news

[Scareduck]

Microsoft to hire Accenture to audit these claims ...

Re:In related news

[timeOday]

Deception and creative accounting would be more of an issue if somebody were compelling them to do it, but that's not the case.

Re:In related news

[XanC]

It would also be an issue if they were making a claim to score marketing points without really caring whether they lived up to it.

Re:In related news

[Surt]

LOL. Sometimes I wonder how anyone lives with themselves working for a company like Accenture. And yet so many people do. Really undermines my limited faith in humanity.

Re:In related news

[timeOday]

I think it would be somewhat dangerous as an empty marketing ploy. There is enough sentiment against both Microsoft and environmentalism to ensure that in a couple years somebody will at least try to prove this effort was either futile or undertaken cynically in the first place.

Re:In related news

[Anonymous Coward]

One of my friends used to. But it made her so sick of corporate life that she now works for a charity.

Surprisingly, some good can come from Accenture!

Re:In related news

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL. Sometimes I wonder how anyone lives with themselves working for a company like Accenture. And yet so many people do. Really undermines my limited faith in humanity.

I actually work for Accenture, the Services side. It is really a good company with benefits that are better than most. The management in our unit is also some of the best people I have ever worked for. I don't know much about our Consulting side but if you are confusing us with Arther Anderson then don't, We split from them before Enron even happened.

Re:In related news

[Surt]

I assure you Accenture is doing plenty of evil all by itself, I wasn't confusing them with anyone else. For one little example, they are acting as a patent troll, trying to put smaller competitors out of business with completely bogus patent claims.

I don't see how this is possible.

[cpu6502]

They use a lot of electricity. Unless Microsoft is planning to buy "carbon offset" credits, so they can pollute and yet just handwave it away.

I'd prefer they take a pledge to be megabyte neutral, and learn to develop a new OS that doesn't use any more megabytes of RAM (or virtual ram) then Windows 7. Ditto for Office, Visio, and other products.

Re:I don't see how this is possible.

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows 8 uses less ram than windows 7, which is about the same as windows xp.

You just have to turn off the trimmings.

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/10/07/reducing-runtime-memory-in-windows-8.aspx

Re:I don't see how this is possible.

[Anonymous Coward]

False dichotomy. They can do both. And actually, they are. Win8 system requirements are less than Win7's.

Re:I don't see how this is possible.

[el jocko del oeste]

They use a lot of electricity. Unless Microsoft is planning to buy "carbon offset" credits, so they can pollute and yet just handwave it away.

That's exactly what they're doing. They're touting their effort to reduce their energy usage and their purchase of carbon offsets to cover the energy that they can't avoid using.

Re:I don't see how this is possible.

[girlintraining]

They use a lot of electricity. Unless Microsoft is planning to buy "carbon offset" credits, so they can pollute and yet just handwave it away.

They can also claim their Microsoft-branded hardware like the XBox, keyboards, mice, etc., are all made by other companies, so they're not responsible for anything but the ink used to print "Microsoft" on it. And having dug into their statement... it appears they've done exactly that. They appear to be claiming only their offices and data centers towards the "carbon neutral" claim. It's not hard to claim you're "carbon neutral" when all you do is lease office space and consume electricity. -_- I'll believe in a "carbon neutral" statement when they adjust for the cost of manufacture and disposal of their computers, office equipment, company vehicles, as well as the total lifecycle of all the products that carry the Microsoft brand name.

Re:I don't see how this is possible.

[cpu6502]

Okay. That means somebody else (us maybe) has to cut back on their pollution to offset Microsoft's pollution credits.

Re:I don't see how this is possible.

[noh8rz3]

I agree mostly with you. Yu're right, they can directly mitigate their own emissions when possible, and buy renewable energy credits to cover the rest. RECs aren't hand waving. It's an established system for optimizing and maximizing green hous gas reductions across the economy.

Re:I don't see how this is possible.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and the market will decide how much that somebody gets paid to do it. As long as there's no outright fraud, I don't see how that's any worse than directly reducing emissions.

Re:I don't see how this is possible.

[Anonymous Coward]

While certainly that may be part of it, a large number of the datacenters in question are intended to run from "clean" sources such as hydro-electric. Lot of big buildings are going up along the Columbia river for example for all the big data center players.

Re:I don't see how this is possible.

[cpu6502]

Someone's going to pay me to turn-off the heat & sit in a cold house? Cool. Where do I sign up?

Re:I don't see how this is possible.

[shutdown -p now]

They use a lot of electricity

I don't know about all operations, but the bulk of development work, and most internal servers and such, are in Redmond, and elsewhere in Puget Sound area. Most electricity generated there comes from hydro - about 75% - and you can actually get 100% renewable sourcing for your own power bill if you're willing to pay extra to the power distribution company (they'll basically buy more kWh from "green" provides with that money, even if their prices are higher).

I'd prefer they take a pledge to be megabyte neutral, and learn to develop a new OS that doesn't use any more megabytes of RAM (or virtual ram) then Windows 7

This is essentially what the bar is for Win8 - it should run on any PC that runs Win7 today, which in practice means same or lower RAM usage. It's actually lower overall, because of all optimizations that had to be done to squeeze it onto tablets (for the ARM edition especially), which still have an effect on desktop machines.

Re:I don't see how this is possible.

[Jeremi]

Okay. That means somebody else (us maybe) has to cut back on their pollution to offset Microsoft's pollution credits.

Yup, but it also means that Microsoft will (indirectly) be paying for that improvement. It's hard to see that as a bad thing.

Re:I don't see how this is possible.

[pnot]

They use a lot of electricity. Unless Microsoft is planning to buy "carbon offset" credits, so they can pollute and yet just handwave it away.

It seems they're taking the obvious step of trying to make sure that the power comes from carbon-neutral sources. From TFWhitepaper linked from TFA:

we are considering a portfolio of approaches, including: Signing long-term renewable power purchase agreements... Investing capital in new renewable energy projects... Connecting data centers directly to innovative energy sources...

Read all about it here.

Re:I don't see how this is possible.

[cpu6502]

Windows 8 will run in half a gigabyte? Sweet. That means my 10-year-old PC can use it (just barely).

Re:I don't see how this is possible.

[shutdown -p now]

Win7 runs in half a gigabyte. Win8 uses less than that.

Re:I don't see how this is possible.

[cpu6502]

P.S.

I'm surprised microsoft is still making 32 bit versions of Windows. If this was apple they'd just abandon all the 32 bit computers (as they abandoned PPC computers after just 3 years).

Re:I don't see how this is possible.

[shutdown -p now]

Medfield is 32-bit only, if I remember correctly, and it's kinda important for the upcoming tablets.

Re:I don't see how this is possible.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Yup, but it also means that Microsoft will (indirectly) be paying for that improvement. It's hard to see that as a bad thing.

True as long as the carbon credits are priced in the right ballpark.

The idea is to turn an externality (a cost to society at large) to something the "invisible hand" of the market will take care of fixing. As long as the market for carbon credits is well regulated it does not get any more libertarian than this.

Re:I don't see how this is possible.

[geekoid]

BAsed on what?

Earlier this month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recognized Microsoft as the third largest purchaser of green power in the U.S., purchasing more than 1.5 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) of green power annually. This is enough green power to offset 46 percent of our electricity use, and is the annual equivalent to taking more than 150,000 passenger vehicles off the road.

So it's a a lot more the offsets.

Carbon offset vary. Some are good , some are pretty thin. I didn't see that the specifically meant by carbon offsets.

Re:I don't see how this is possible.

[Anonymous Coward]

How about developing an OS that doesn't use any carbon while running? THAT'd be carbon neutral.

Re:I don't see how this is possible.

[Imrik]

Would an OS that doesn't actually run count?

Re:I don't see how this is possible.

[Johnny Mnemonic]

and most internal servers and such, are in Redmond, and elsewhere in Puget Sound area

No, they're not. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10020902-56.html

One of those DCs probably use more than the rest of their offices and corp servers combined.

Re:I don't see how this is possible.

[shutdown -p now]

This one is still in WA, so my earlier figure of 75% hydro still applies.

Re:I don't see how this is possible.

[pijokela]

Here in Europe, you are already "payed for using less electricity" because the carbon market thing has raised your electricity price. Unfortunately, electricity users are all either paying more or at least the same. Carbon neutral electricity producers are the ones making money.

Re:I don't see how this is possible.

[wvmarle]

Even with "carbon off-set credits" you are generally not carbon neutral.

Carbon neutral to me means: not adding any extra carbon to the atmosphere (typically as CO2). This means that for ever ton of carbon emitted thanks to burning of fossil fuels for electricity for office, or for fuel for a trip by plane, you would have to take out a ton of carbon back from the atmosphere.

Growing trees is not doing much: only when a tree grows it takes in carbon. Most forests, when fully grown, don't take in much, as the dead wood rots away, and carbon is released again in the process. There is not much we can really do at the moment to take the carbon back from the atmosphere.

So sequestering carbon may work - but I wonder whether that's in a commercial workable state already. As far as I know it's just experimental, and the scale must become enormous to make our world carbon neutral. The CO2 in our air is also only about 0.3% so that's not easy to filter out in really large quantities, and the next problem is where/how to store it permanently.

Solar energy may be a true carbon neutral option, as soon as you can use just solar energy to make more PV panels or other types of solar power plants. Same for wind/wave/tidal powers. Nuclear fission or fusion should be carbon neutral too.

Re:I don't see how this is possible.

[Rogerborg]

Technically what they're doing is claiming to be "carbon neutral", and inviting other companies to address that "important issue".

Never mind, when we're sailing around with Kevin Costner looking for Dryland, the free marketeers will just invent a new planet.

Re:I don't see how this is possible.

[bef]

Well it reduces you heating bill so yes.

Re:I don't see how this is possible.

[Anonymous Coward]

What's insightful about not even reading the article?

Re:I don't see how this is possible.

[Anonymous Coward]

If this was apple they'd just abandon all the 32 bit computers (as they abandoned PPC computers after just 3 years).

OSX 10.0 was released in March 2001. It ran on a PPC CPU.

OSX 10.5, the last OSX version with a PPC version, was released in October 2007.

I'm not even looking at pre-OSX, and we've already more than doubled your "3 year" claim.

Why must you post such obvious lies? All it does is make us distrust your every word.

Ambition: to be neutral

[interkin3tic]

I am strongly ambivalent on this story.

Will this help prevent global climate change? To quote Futurama: "Neutral President: All I know is my gut says maybe."

Re:Ambition: to be neutral

[crutchy]

marketing: "how are we going to win with the tree huggers?"
ivy league nerd: "we have some trees outside"
ballmer: "what's a tree?"
marketing: "we have trees? that's carbon-neutral enough for me"
legal: "do we have a patent for trees? i've also seen trees at apple headquarters. we had better chop them down and then sue them for patent violation just in case. after we cut down their trees, marketing launch a fud campaign against apple for being a pollution chugging bad guy"

Re:Ambition: to be neutral

[Anonymous Coward]

A few years ago it was estimated that the global carbon footprint of datacenters had matched the airline industry at approximately 2% of global carbon output.
I can only imagine it's gone up from there.

Re:Ambition: to be neutral

[cupantae]

And I think it's roughly neutral in terms of good and bad. Here's my personal summary:
I'm assuming that the things written in the article are true.

The good:
- Microsoft will spend money on planting trees and all that jazz with the carbon offsets.
- This loss of money will promote efficiency as a cheaper alternative to buying offsets.
- More large companies publicly reacting to climate change might be some evidence to deniers that this is not some kind of hippy nonsense.

The bad:
- The effectiveness of carbon offsets is disputed. (Look it up. I'm not discussing it.)
- Purchasing "green energy" is not nearly as beneficial as cutting use. Geothermal, tidal, wind and hydroelectric power all have their environmental drawbacks. In fact, realistically, solar power is the only kind of energy which is effectively unlimited from our point of view. But even then there is power consumption in the production and maintenance of solar cells/farms. It's not a simple matter of "chuck on more green energy".
- Microsoft sits on a shitload of cash. They have money to play around with this stuff. If this is effective as a marketing strategy (because that's what it is), it might force smaller companies to sink cash into this just to keep up. Is this a good thing?

My answer is, it's a good thing if and only if the measures taken are genuinely helpful for the environment. I've never been impressed by carbon offsets. If Microsoft sinks a lot of money in to efficiency R&D, I'd applaud that. If this sets a trend of increasing energy efficiency across the industry, they'll have done marvellous work.
As it stands, this post reeks of press-grabbing buzzwords rather than real commitment to change. Only time will tell.

in tomorrow's news...

[crutchy]

...microsoft pledges to make contact with the borg

It's not hard being Carbon Neutral

[leathered]

..for a fucking software company. Wake me when a company involved in things like steelmaking, mining, transport and heavy engineering become carbon neutral.

Re:It's not hard being Carbon Neutral

[timeOday]

Microsoft's pledge includes their use of the services you mentioned. If all the customers of all airlines, for example, were carbon neutral including their use of air transport, then the problem is solved. Whether that's possible I don't know, but since we are hardly even making an effort yet, large gains are relatively easy.

Re:It's not hard being Carbon Neutral

[bloodhawk]

They aren't just a software company. They have a huge amount of online services which consist of a large number of datacenters and hundreds of thousands of servers around the world. not to mention all their offices and services staff.

Re:It's not hard being Carbon Neutral

[gmanterry]

Microsoft's pledge includes their use of the services you mentioned. If all the customers of all airlines, for example, were carbon neutral including their use of air transport, then the problem is solved. Whether that's possible I don't know, but since we are hardly even making an effort yet, large gains are relatively easy.

You do realize, I hope, that the purpose of the TSA is in fact not anything to do with stopping terrorism. Their sole purpose is to push the population into a mentality where they refuse to fly. This is the reason Congress will do nothing to stop the TSA from molesting children and the elderly. The sole purpose is to decrease air travel and therefore reduce emissions from planes. They are doing a better job each year. The government just invented two more terrorist plots that they have saved us from so they can expand the intrusiveness even more. I hope none of you hold airline stocks.

Re:It's not hard being Carbon Neutral

[im_thatoneguy]

By my estimates Alcoa uses 22.4 billion kw/h per year smelting Aluminum. (One of the most electricity intensive industries).

All data-centers in the US used 66 billion kw/h and Microsoft has some of the largest data-centers in the world. I'm sure they're not up to Alcoa's standards but they also aren't insubstantial.

Re:It's not hard being Carbon Neutral

[CaseCrash]

Yeah, Jesus Fucking Christ. Microsoft does something good, going carbon neutral by trying to reduce their energy use and paying for carbon capture through trees and such and the entire comment threads are just anti-Microsoft crap:
"Carbon neutral doesn't mean anything"
"Google was already carbon neutral"
"i don't like windows"
"microsoft is going to fake it"
"blah blah blah"

Why can't we just be glad they're doing something they don't need to for social (and sure reputation) good?

No, no, no! ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft is EVIL EVIL EVIL they're a MONOPOLY!!!!!

"Green" is a farse and it IS a way to tax us more, limit our FREEDOMS, and bring our way of life to an END! The fact that MS is involved just proves that "Green" is EVIL!!

AAHHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHH!! Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrg.

*Head assplodes*

Re:No, no, no! ....

[lightknight]

*I can't believe I'm doing this*

Green is fine (a few things, here and there, as a libertarian, I'd have to differ over, but many of their ideas are sound).
New Green is insane (they're going places which make many of the older Greens say 'WTF').

Re:No, no, no! ....

[doston]

Microsoft is EVIL EVIL EVIL they're a MONOPOLY!!!!!

"Green" is a farse and it IS a way to tax us more, limit our FREEDOMS, and bring our way of life to an END! The fact that MS is involved just proves that "Green" is EVIL!!

AAHHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHH!! Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrg.

*Head assplodes*

This must be a corporation with personhood who's achieved self awareness. Yeah, I guess it would seem bad to this...uh..."person".

Raise EU prices 30%, buy carbon credits, simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Last week, they annouced a price raise of about 30% to EU customers.
This week, they are buying carbon credits.

Seems a little tooooo planned to me.

F/LOSS software is still free, even with a 30% price increase.

Switiching to Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

They plan on doing that by first switching to a more efficient OS... aka Linux

Err... Google Carbon Neutral since 2007

[Anonymous Coward]

Great that Microsoft is going carbon-neutral, that they're "hopeful that our decision will encourage other companies, large and small, to look at what they can do to address this important issue," but Google's been carbon neutral since 2007:
http://www.industryleadersmagazine.com/how-has-google-managed-to-be-a-carbon-neutral-company-since-2007/

Dell has been carbon neutral since 2008:
http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/dell-reaches-carbon-neutrality-goals-5-months-ahead-of-schedule.html

If anything, Microsoft is a bit late to the party. Still, good work.

Re:Err... Google Carbon Neutral since 2007

[sandytaru]

If every company in the world became carbon neutral, then Google might have accomplished something big. Now, given what the electricity situation is in Japan at the moment, the real news is going to be when Sony or Hitachi goes neutral.

Re:Err... Google Carbon Neutral since 2007

[Anonymous Coward]

Google's been carbon neutral since 2007

That's an interesting read. About 25% of Google's power consumption is actually renewable. The other 75% is traditional energy offset by various pressure group payoffs including carbon offsets and investing in pressure group directed projects.

None of that accounting includes the vast amount of pollution created and energy consumed to make the thousands of Asian manufactured motherboards, hard disks, RAM devices, chassis, etc. that Google consumes every day to operate. In the end, a tiny fraction of the energy Google is responsible for consuming to render your services is actually 'renewable' and the rest is hand-waved with pressure group payoffs or smuggled onto other ledgers that Google doesn't answer for.

Cool. Is that what Dell does too? I didn't bother to read the story at that link; I try to limit my intake of bullshit.

Re:Err... Google Carbon Neutral since 2007

[geekoid]

And to their credit, that mention they aren't he first in the article.

Re:Err... Google Carbon Neutral since 2007

[geekoid]

I think with the incoming heat deaths and rolling blackout,l Japan might change their tune. When they do, I hope they look at cutting edge plant, not those 50 year old monstrosity designs.

Re:Err... Google Carbon Neutral since 2007

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry to pick your post for this, but fuck are people stupid. If you really think a giant profit making company can ever be anything approaching "carbon neutral" then you are truly clueless. Profit = carbon. What do you think people do with the money they take home? They buy things. They burn gas, they build houses, they eat, they breathe, they buy a 60 foot yacht, the execs decide to build a new plant, warehouse, shinier office, etc., etc., etc.

Do you really think there's a formula that takes all of this into account where they can just pay some non-carbon producing entity to front them because said entity wasn't planning on producing carbon in the first place? And I haven't even touched on the more tangible carbon inherent in business operations and production.

BTW: the same principle applies to cost. If it costs more, then it has a bigger carbon footprint. More cost means someone is making more money which means they burn more gas, they build bigger houses, they eat more, they breathe more, they buy a bigger yacht, the execs decide to build a bigger plant, warehouse, shinier office, etc., etc., etc. This is a direct attack at foolish green energy policies. If solar and wind power cost an order of magnitude more per kWh than fossil fuel generated electricity IT INHERENTLY HAS A BIGGER CARBON FOOTPRINT. The fact that I don't see this easily graspable concept, ever, in any AGW discussion tells me all I've ever needed to know about most peope that pretend they care about the planet.

Re:Err... Google Carbon Neutral since 2007

[ChristofferC]

I just want to say: great post! The things you mention are so damn obvious if you actually use your brain for a few seconds.

Alternative source

[should_be_linear]

They are extracting energy from flying chairs. Ba-Dum-Tssssss

won't change much

[Anonymous Coward]

usual it just means they pay a tiny extra too say all the power that is already carbon neutral, windmills etc, is the power they use

Sneaky bass tards

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like someone at M$ was smart enough to keep some of the math bugged pentiums and they are using them to figure out what carbon neutral equals now.

A good chunk of this is through "carbon offsets"

[Quila]

That means the modern-day indulgences to paid to the Church of the Environment, not actual carbon output reduction. A bunch of Al Gore's wealth is in such companies (makes you wonder why he pushes the issue).

But some of the stuff is just good ideas for energy efficiency that anybody should be able to get behind. We'll see how happy the shareholders are.

As far as your statement goes, this is a company doing it voluntarily. The various authoritarian types in NGOs and governments have been talking about FORCING companies to do this, FORCING people to abide by their new rules, and using our taxes to pay other countries to not pollute. There is such a thing as "liberal authoritarian" in the political ideology spectrum, and environmentalists tend to be the most authoritarian.

Re:A good chunk of this is through "carbon offsets

[Anonymous Coward]

There is such a thing as "liberal authoritarian" in the political ideology spectrum, and environmentalists tend to be the most authoritarian.

Companies need to be told, in no uncertain terms, that illegal polluting will result in a fine that will more than offset the profits to be gained by doing so.

Call it "authoritarian" if you like. Companies don't have feelings, families, or rights. They exist solely according to a charter granted by the state. It is perfectly acceptable for the state to dictate to them exactly how they will be allowed to exist.

Microsoft pledging Carbon-neutrality...

[Iniamyen]

...Is sort of like Starbucks pledging to stop using the red bug dye. Some people will say it's responsible of them, but I really don't give a rat's ass.

Re:Microsoft pledging Carbon-neutrality...

[geekoid]

And yet. you narcissism made you think we care you don't care.

Re:Microsoft pledging Carbon-neutrality...

[Iniamyen]

Meh, I don't care that you don't care that I don't care. So there ;-)

lol

[daniel78]

Since you're arbitrarily comparing Microsoft founders to Google CEOs (as if that was even in any way relevant to his story) it seems a little ironic you'd bring up private yachts, when Paul Allen is infamous for his own "mega yacht"

Uhhh, thanks?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Thanks for working to induce another ice age instead of helping with global warming and CO2 production to increase plant growth rates and arable land.

Re:Uhhh, thanks?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you seriously under the delusion that the climate change brought about by greenhouse gases is going to /improve/ agriculture?

Amazing

[ezwip]

While I applaud their effort to remain neutral by paying for it things like Fukishima make me wonder if this is just PR and pushing a carbon tax.

Sharholder lawsuits

[doston]

Yeah, the whole article is just a business case for this because they know what would happen if there wasn't a business case. And there wouldn't be a business case, but for carbon taxes. Exactly how it was supposed to work. Good job, government. Good job doing what you had to do, MS.

Hi, chief operating officer Kevin Turner here,

[mugurel]

Actually, we don't need to buy credits for carbon neutrality, just raising the prices will do the trick:

Let's call the carbon load associated with Microsoft activies X, and the price of a Windows license P. Furthermore, Q is the the money the average Windows user earns, after subtracting P. Finally we will denote by Y the total carbon load associated with the goods he/she buys at the value of Q, on average. If we increase the price of a Windows license by 100*((C*X/(Y*P)-1)%, the user will have less money to spend (and subsequently incur less carbon overhead), to extent that Microsoft carbon footprint is neutralized.

Pathetic; Who Cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, instead of directing their efforts towards software innovation - which, since they are a software company, is what they should be doing - they're worried about green BS and all the concomitant blather that goes along with it. Glad I'm not a shareholder. Microsoft is a shadow of its former self which, I'm sure, pleases many people on this site. I used to think they were a great company....now...I just think they're pathetic. This green BS carbon-neutral nonsense just affirms it

Re:Pathetic; Who Cares?

[protocolture]

Actually I am the opposite. I used to rage hard at them during the IE6 /windows xp era that was fucking ridiculous. But I now acknowledge that their new products are steps in a direction away from that dinosaur. Truly I think that some people around here only hate on vista/7 because their favorite operating systems could compete against xp, but are having a tougher time with their new gear.

now if only...

[JustNiz]

now if only they could become product neutral.

FRIST PSOOT

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never seen EFNeT SERVERS.

Didn't they support Heartland Institute?

[Fry-kun]

https://pinterest.com/climatebrad/heartland-institute-sponsors/
Looks like almost $60k and they haven't withdrawn their support (yet?)

Re:Didn't they support Heartland Institute?

[Anonymous Coward]

I belive that support is in the form of free software licenses that they offer to many (all?) registered 501(c) non-profits.

What is "Green Power"?

[tomhath]

Earlier this month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recognized Microsoft as the third largest purchaser of green power in the U.S., purchasing more than 1.5 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) of green power annually. This is enough green power to offset 46 percent of our electricity use

Does MS pay extra for it? Or is this just a feel good thing? "We requested that the electrons we pull off the grid came from windmills". What difference does it really make since the total amount of energy used is the same whether MS uses "green" energy or not?

Re:What is "Green Power"?

[daniel78]

It's also less impressive when you consider that Washington state, where MS is headquartered, produces nearly 75% of its electricity from renewable sources (hydroelectric source) anyway. In effect, MS could easily be making zero effort at all to use "green" energy, and still be able to quote impressive looking figures.

carbon neutral?

[Anonymous Coward]

Being carbon neutral? that for sissies! Real men should be carbon negative!

That's not where the power is used.

[queazocotal]

Consider what tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of a percent they'd have to drop CPU load in every copy of windows, in order to equal the trivial saving they are attempting to make.

Here we go again.

[protocolture]

Someone posts a Microsoft article and all the GNU/Linux astroturfers come out.

And also....

[InspectorGadget1964]

They are going to resurect the dead. Slow down the speed of light. Create a working teleportation machine. Create a device that cleans the air from polutants, it is free to make, does not polute during manufacturing and they are going to give it away!

Saving the precious memory

[codecore]

Yes. We must be very diligent to spend effort to minimize our use of these rare and precious memory. We must save memory for future generations, because if we're not careful, we'll run out. It's become so expensive at $10/GB. What will we do? Help us!

An idea...

[wbr1]

MS can power their data centers from the hot air put forth by Ballmer's mouth.
This is the second time I have posted this comment... the first mysteriously disappeared. I am really beginning to wonder who foots the bills at /.

Re:An idea...

[cowboy76Spain]

This is because the first time WE(the ominous conspiracy of evil overlords who control the internet from our black helicopters) pardoned you...

However, your perseverance and technical expertise has defeated our cleverly masterminded operation, and your clever words have been made public. This time there will be clemence.

If I were you, the next time you go driving somewhere, I would be cautious. I would be looking at the side lanes before entering an intersection. I would respect right of way. I would check in the mirror before switching lanes... or else

You have been warned :-P

Re:An idea...

[geekoid]

Cause you certainly couldn't make a mistake. no no,. they are watching you, and out ogf all the anti-MS posts, they pick yours to mysteriously disappear.

They know all the accounting tricks

[vik]

They've managed to fiddle the figures to show virtually no taxable profit, so fiddling them to show zero carbon emissions should be a piece of well-iced cake.

Vik :v)

In other news...

[cowboy76Spain]

Half of the MS employees perish in a cave collapse during the company picnic.

The CEO explained to the press that MS had found the way to combine "carbon secuestration" with "reduced operation costs"

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no company picnic anymore. Part of the cost-cutting MS went through after the recession first hit.

Government virtual money.

[Anonymous Coward]

(to Americans) I find it funny how people think that this is a good thing, look the Government loves another way to take your money. Now they have a virtual credit system called Carbon credits. Trade em all you want, though you have to buy them from the government. This is another form of tax. I predict this will begin to cycle down to you the Citizen, don't like the taxes? TOO BAD, they are here to stay. READ up on the LOST treaty, read what executive orders have been past in the 6 years. You have lost your country and you do not even know it yet.

Let's handicap our smaller competitors...

[Anonymous Coward]

'We are hopeful that our decision will encourage other companies, large and small, to look at what they can do to address this important issue."

Translation: "We hope enough of our competitors are foolish enough to waste capital they could be using to compete more effectively."

Not if you look at the whole picture

[Waffle Iron]

Don't forget that this is a company whose entire business model is based on planned obsolescence and the endless hardware upgrade treadmill. Without that carbon-belching "ecosystem" of hardware "partners", Microsoft would be toast.

A similarly meaningless situation would occur if Bucyrus, the producer of gargantuan coal strip mining machines, had made their factories "carbon neutral".

Re:Not if you look at the whole picture

[bef]

I presume this applies to their own server farms.

big deal

[swell]

So Microsoft is going green.
Easy for a company that makes ones and zeros.
Not so easy for a steel mill, a trucking company or auto manufacturer.

Re:A good chunk of this is through "carbon offsets

[Anonymous Coward]

I am all for increased energy efficiency and I applaud MS for this effort but I deeply reject carbon offset trading as a modern form of selling of indulgence.

What about indirect carbon footprint?

[ArsenneLupin]

What about indirect carbon footprint due to wasted CPU cycles due to Windows' inefficiencies?

What about carbon emitted by users fuming at Windows numerous bugs?

Pollution due to throwing away perfectly good computers that user erroneously thought broken due to various Windows problems or Trojan infections?

ROFL

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft: The moral choice.

Next you are going to tell me the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation is a real charity, and not a way for Bill to hide his money while diversifying his ability to control the world.

Tree Farm

[Anonymous Coward]

Which merely means M$ replanted a tree farm for the logging industry.

Example: The ACME Logging Company just harvested 30,000 hybrid pines. A company like M$ purchases and subsidizes replanting 30,000 hybrid pines to be harvested again 15-20 years from now. M$ gets a tax break, ACME Logging Company gets cheap pines.

It's just a game to these people.

Re:A good chunk of this is through "carbon offsets

[Quila]

Companies need to be told, in no uncertain terms, that illegal polluting will result in a fine that will more than offset the profits to be gained by doing so.

Note "illegal polluting." That means all the liberal government has to do is define anything as "illegal polluting" in order to implement your authoritarian dream. The concept did make sense for actual pollutants that actually hurt real people now, but that's not what you want. You want them to kowtow to you, bow to your god. Greenpeace was a good example in viciously and unfairly going after Apple in environmental reports purely because Apple refused to play their game (or donate any money) even when Apple had a better environmental record than higher-rated companies.

They exist solely according to a charter granted by the state. It is perfectly acceptable for the state to dictate to them exactly how they will be allowed to exist.

I agree with that, but only the totally naive think the authoritarianism will be felt only by the companies. This is designed to control people, too. Simple example: Want to force people to stop using incandescent bulbs? Force the companies to stop manufacturing or selling them.

offset eyes are smiling

[fche]

Those of us in the carbon offset industry will smile for the few more years the scheme will last.

Is this going to cost me more to pirate?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, will it?