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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[Surt]

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

In related news

[Scareduck]

Microsoft to hire Accenture to audit these 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.

[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.

[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.

[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: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"

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: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: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: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.

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)

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: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~

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: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.

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".