Microsoft plans to be carbon negative by 2030, pours 1 billion into tech that sucks carbon...

nanoguy

TS Addict
Staff member

About a month ago, top tech CEOs signed a joint letter urging the United States to stay in the Paris Agreement and help combat climate change. Now, Microsoft has announced it wants to become "carbon negative" by 2030, which is essentially a promise to fund emerging methods that suck carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

This is a first among big tech companies, and it doesn't stop there. Microsoft says that by 2050 it wants to "remove from the environment all the carbon the company has emitted either directly or by electrical consumption since it was founded in 1975."

The Redmond company says it started efforts to become "carbon neutral" in 2012, through a combination of purchasing renewable energy and carbon offsets, as well as charging its business divisions an internal fee commensurate with the level of their emissions. By 2025, Microsoft will source all of its power from renewables, and will put together a fund to undo its damage to the climate.

To that end, the company has committed to a plan to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere by pouring $1 billion into making the current emerging technologies cheaper and more scalable. This also opens up the possibility for others to use these as a service in the future in order to reduce their own carbon footprint.

This year, Microsoft expects it will emit 16 million metric tons of carbon, 100,000 of which are direct emissions from vehicles, 4 million from the electricity it uses to run its operations, and 12 million from indirect emissions that come from say, manufacturing its Surface line of products.

Other tech giants are also planning to reduce their carbon footprint, with Google employees demanding a climate action plan to become neutral by 2030. Meanwhile Amazon's Jeff Bezos is an outspoken CEO that's calling for a less ambitious deadline of 2040 that all companies can adhere to.

Permalink to story.

 

kimo1

TS Rookie
MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric sciences emeritus professor behind more than 200 different scientific papers, said that climate alarmists’ voices seem to get louder and louder as the climate changes less. He also noted that in a 2007 paper, the UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admitted that it’s not possible to predict future climate states.

He believes that those sounding the alarm bell about climate change are using it as a way of getting what they want. Activists are seeking supporters and funding, while politicians are using it to gain power and money. The media, he says, uses it to grab headlines because “Doomsday scenarios sell.”

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) was caught publishing fake data on global warming in a failed attempt to debunk a UN report’s assertion that global warming was slowing down.

Meanwhile, data compiled by NASA showed that carbon dioxide was cooling the atmosphere instead of warming it up as commonly claimed. That’s not surprising when you consider the fact that 95 percent of climate software models have actually turned out to be wrong.

Carbon dioxide has been demonized, but the truth is that it’s what is sustaining life on our planet. If we got rid of it the way many climate change alarmists are pushing for, life on our planet would collapse. Plants wouldn’t be able to breathe and would essentially suffocate. We’d have no food to eat and it would spell the end of mankind. So why are some people on a mission to get rid of it?
 

Hardware Geek

TS Maniac
Want to capture CO2? Plant trees.
But that's too easy, and they want to patent the tech and sell it or sell services/carbon offsets to other companies, most probably at a profit. Pure capitalism that they are marketing as philanthropy to improve their image.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lounds

OneSpeed

TS Evangelist
MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric sciences emeritus professor behind more than 200 different scientific papers, said that climate alarmists’ voices seem to get louder and louder as the climate changes less. He also noted that in a 2007 paper, the UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admitted that it’s not possible to predict future climate states.

He believes that those sounding the alarm bell about climate change are using it as a way of getting what they want. Activists are seeking supporters and funding, while politicians are using it to gain power and money. The media, he says, uses it to grab headlines because “Doomsday scenarios sell.”

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) was caught publishing fake data on global warming in a failed attempt to debunk a UN report’s assertion that global warming was slowing down.

Meanwhile, data compiled by NASA showed that carbon dioxide was cooling the atmosphere instead of warming it up as commonly claimed. That’s not surprising when you consider the fact that 95 percent of climate software models have actually turned out to be wrong.

Carbon dioxide has been demonized, but the truth is that it’s what is sustaining life on our planet. If we got rid of it the way many climate change alarmists are pushing for, life on our planet would collapse. Plants wouldn’t be able to breathe and would essentially suffocate. We’d have no food to eat and it would spell the end of mankind. So why are some people on a mission to get rid of it?
Look, we are just trying to reduce the emissions from an alarming and upward trend - the balance has been altered to the point where the decimated vegetation on this planet can no longer maintain that balance (look at Brazil's Amazon basin) - put yourself in a booth with CO2 and a few plants and see how long you can live.
Look beyond that and go tell the Aussies and the those in California that it is getting cooler.

If you want facts from NASA, go here --> https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
According to your NOAA, "Carbon dioxide levels are tracked closely by the world’s scientists as a measure of how human activity is changing the planet’s atmosphere. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases every year, and the rate of increase is accelerating. While it averaged about 1.6 ppm per year in the 1980s and 1.5 ppm per year in the 1990s, the growth rate increased to 2.2 ppm per year during the last decade.

"CO2 levels are continuing to grow at an all-time record rate because the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas have also been at record high levels,” said Pieter Tans, lead scientist of NOAA's Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network. "Today's emissions will still be trapping heat in the atmosphere thousands of years from now." found here--> https://www.noaa.gov/news/carbon-dioxide-levels-breach-another-threshold-at-mauna-loa

By your estimate, Venus should be a cold planet with all its greenhouse gases.


 
  • Like
Reactions: Lounds

Mr Majestyk

TS Evangelist
MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric sciences emeritus professor behind more than 200 different scientific papers, said that climate alarmists’ voices seem to get louder and louder as the climate changes less. He also noted that in a 2007 paper, the UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admitted that it’s not possible to predict future climate states.

He believes that those sounding the alarm bell about climate change are using it as a way of getting what they want. Activists are seeking supporters and funding, while politicians are using it to gain power and money. The media, he says, uses it to grab headlines because “Doomsday scenarios sell.”

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) was caught publishing fake data on global warming in a failed attempt to debunk a UN report’s assertion that global warming was slowing down.

Meanwhile, data compiled by NASA showed that carbon dioxide was cooling the atmosphere instead of warming it up as commonly claimed. That’s not surprising when you consider the fact that 95 percent of climate software models have actually turned out to be wrong.

Carbon dioxide has been demonized, but the truth is that it’s what is sustaining life on our planet. If we got rid of it the way many climate change alarmists are pushing for, life on our planet would collapse. Plants wouldn’t be able to breathe and would essentially suffocate. We’d have no food to eat and it would spell the end of mankind. So why are some people on a mission to get rid of it?
I love how the crackpots and loonies latch onto the one dissenting voice and put them on a pedestal. Peddle you crap on an alt-right forum where infantile conspiracy theories abound.
 

Evernessince

地獄らしい人間動物園
MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric sciences emeritus professor behind more than 200 different scientific papers, said that climate alarmists’ voices seem to get louder and louder as the climate changes less. He also noted that in a 2007 paper, the UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admitted that it’s not possible to predict future climate states.

He believes that those sounding the alarm bell about climate change are using it as a way of getting what they want. Activists are seeking supporters and funding, while politicians are using it to gain power and money. The media, he says, uses it to grab headlines because “Doomsday scenarios sell.”

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) was caught publishing fake data on global warming in a failed attempt to debunk a UN report’s assertion that global warming was slowing down.

Meanwhile, data compiled by NASA showed that carbon dioxide was cooling the atmosphere instead of warming it up as commonly claimed. That’s not surprising when you consider the fact that 95 percent of climate software models have actually turned out to be wrong.

Carbon dioxide has been demonized, but the truth is that it’s what is sustaining life on our planet. If we got rid of it the way many climate change alarmists are pushing for, life on our planet would collapse. Plants wouldn’t be able to breathe and would essentially suffocate. We’d have no food to eat and it would spell the end of mankind. So why are some people on a mission to get rid of it?
"These estimates were criticized by Kevin E. Trenberth and others,[52] and Lindzen accepted that his paper included "some stupid mistakes". When interviewed, he said "It was just embarrassing", and added that "The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque." Lindzen and Choi revised their paper and submitted it to PNAS.[53] The four reviewers of the paper, two of whom had been selected by Lindzen, strongly criticized the paper and PNAS rejected it for publication "


FYI his paper was over the Climate Change model being used, not on whether it is occurring or not. He believed that as climate changes continue, the amount of particulate in the air would increase to the point where the amount of energy being reflected by particulate would neutralize climate change. That theory was disproven using events like Vulcanic eruptions, which emit a lot of particulate into the air. Some people seem to believe that high water particulate in the air caused by increasing temperatures could offset the warming effect but you need only walk into any greenhouse to realize just how unlikely that is.
 

Evernessince

地獄らしい人間動物園
Want to capture CO2? Plant trees.
There's a great article on this topic here: https://phys.org/news/2019-07-exaggerating-carbon-dioxide-absorbed-tree.html

TLDR; Trees offer a cheap and enticing way for companies to continue to pollute while not actually providing any guaranteed carbon removal. The costs of planting trees here is certainly understated and they assume a 100% success rate planting them. What's not mentioned is that planting trees that will actually survive and work well in the ecosystem is a large endeavor. Think about all the times invasive species were introduced to combat some sort of nuisance. Every time, it turns out being a bigger problem that the one it solved. Now imagine that on a massive scale with trees. Imagine invasive african honey bees taking a liking to one of the breeds of trees planted millions of times as part of this project, that would be extremely bad as they are very aggressive. By the time you hire people who do know where to plant these trees, to take care of them, and to make sure they aren't having an adverse impact on the local ecosystem, you will likely be looking at a similar cost to other methods of CO2 control.
 
Last edited:

PEnnn

TS Maniac
Amazing how some people would believe the lobbyists and lawyers employed by the oil and coal industries but not 97% of the worlds scientists...just because their Orange Leader and industry shills tell them so!!

 

yRaz

Nigerian Prince
MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric sciences emeritus professor behind more than 200 different scientific papers, said that climate alarmists’ voices seem to get louder and louder as the climate changes less. He also noted that in a 2007 paper, the UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admitted that it’s not possible to predict future climate states.

He believes that those sounding the alarm bell about climate change are using it as a way of getting what they want. Activists are seeking supporters and funding, while politicians are using it to gain power and money. The media, he says, uses it to grab headlines because “Doomsday scenarios sell.”

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) was caught publishing fake data on global warming in a failed attempt to debunk a UN report’s assertion that global warming was slowing down.

Meanwhile, data compiled by NASA showed that carbon dioxide was cooling the atmosphere instead of warming it up as commonly claimed. That’s not surprising when you consider the fact that 95 percent of climate software models have actually turned out to be wrong.

Carbon dioxide has been demonized, but the truth is that it’s what is sustaining life on our planet. If we got rid of it the way many climate change alarmists are pushing for, life on our planet would collapse. Plants wouldn’t be able to breathe and would essentially suffocate. We’d have no food to eat and it would spell the end of mankind. So why are some people on a mission to get rid of it?
I worked as a diver cleaning up ship wrecks in the keys after hurricane Irma. I spent tons of time in the coral reefs seeing first hand what climate change has done. I wasn't a believer until I saw a place I loved being destroyed first hand. Fema is changing insurance laws because flooding is destroying so much property in the keys that it's trying to get out of paying for it. Flooding in key largo and key West is constant now, it's only been doing this for the last 5 years. Fema changed the flood zones last year because of the changes in sea level rise.

Deny it all you want, like I did, but you can't eat money. I didn't care until I saw something I loved being destroyed climate change. I hope you are fortunate enough to experience what I did.
 
Last edited:

GamerNerves

TS Enthusiast
People baited very quickly. It's just the typical Microsoft hate masked beyond scientific "facts". Microsoft is doing good and let's hope United States goverment will act on that plea from CEOs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OortCloud

Danny101

TS Evangelist
But that's too easy, and they want to patent the tech and sell it or sell services/carbon offsets to other companies, most probably at a profit. Pure capitalism that they are marketing as philanthropy to improve their image.
Bingo! Money and power-the real climate change.
I'm more concerned about garbage and chemicals leaking into the environment, the produce, and the water.
 

tkabou

TS Addict
They can't predict tomorrow's weather with 100% accuracy, why should I believe these same people making forecasts about what the world climate and ocean temperatures will be in 30, 50, 100 years. Until all those proclaiming climate change give up their ways (private jets, etc), I'm not changing mine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Danny101

Danny101

TS Evangelist
420,000 Years of Data Suggests Global Warming is Not Entirely Man-Made

 

Danny101

TS Evangelist
Based on the analysis of entrapped air from ice cores extracted from permanent glaciers from various regions around the globe, it has been demonstrated that global warming began 18,000 years ago, accompanied by a steady rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Humans are quite likely the cause of a large portion of the 80 ppm rise in CO2 since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, and from a distance, it looks possible that increasing CO2 may cause atmospheric temperatures rise. However, on closer examination it is seen that CO2 lags an average of about 800 years behind the temperature changes-- confirming that CO2 is not the primary driver of the temperature changes.
 

Danny101

TS Evangelist
So you see Climate Change, as it relates to CO2 is a bandwagon, ostensibly with opportunities for profit and control. It isn't for science sake only. They could scoop up, curtail, and even reverse the CO2 trend and it not make a damn bit of difference to the "we're all going to die!" changes in temperatures. But a whole hell a lot of people are to profit and a hosts of others, lives ruined over this crap. The science of this continues to carry a lot of holes as to man's actual effect. At the very least, we can not be trashy. The earth has chugged along long before we were here and it will continue to chug along long after we're gone. We are but a vapor in the sands of time. Live and adapt. That's really all we can do and not destroy livelihoods over it.
 
Last edited:

DaveBG

TS Evangelist
420,000 Years of Data Suggests Global Warming is Not Entirely Man-Made
Exactly dude!!! I am telling you those green I****s have no idea what they are talking about. We (you and I) both know that fossil fuels are clean and do not cause global warming. We also know that they provide better heat in the cold days.

Listen now, go to your garage and start your car. Close the door. The best heat comes from the burned fossil fuel and it will keep you warm. Stay there for like an hour using cheap natural clean energy. The best type!!!
I have tried this many times it works like a charm!!! No more cold days from this cooling planet!
 
  • Like
Reactions: PEnnn and Danny101

Danny101

TS Evangelist
Exactly dude!!! I am telling you those green I****s have no idea what they are talking about. We (you and I) both know that fossil fuels are clean and do not cause global warming. We also know that they provide better heat in the cold days.

Listen now, go to your garage and start your car. Close the door. The best heat comes from the burned fossil fuel and it will keep you warm. Stay there for like an hour using cheap natural clean energy. The best type!!!
I have tried this many times it works like a charm!!! No more cold days from this cooling planet!
Of course that's carbon monoxide, not dioxide!
 
  • Like
Reactions: BadThad

OortCloud

TS Evangelist
Climate change isn't real, the earth is flat and we never landed on the moon right?

What a depressing set of comments... Sometimes I think we deserve to be wiped out as a species because we can be so narrow minded and blinkered.
 

Uncle Al

TS Evangelist
MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric sciences emeritus professor behind more than 200 different scientific papers, said that climate alarmists’ voices seem to get louder and louder as the climate changes less. He also noted that in a 2007 paper, the UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admitted that it’s not possible to predict future climate states.

He believes that those sounding the alarm bell about climate change are using it as a way of getting what they want. Activists are seeking supporters and funding, while politicians are using it to gain power and money. The media, he says, uses it to grab headlines because “Doomsday scenarios sell.”

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) was caught publishing fake data on global warming in a failed attempt to debunk a UN report’s assertion that global warming was slowing down.

Meanwhile, data compiled by NASA showed that carbon dioxide was cooling the atmosphere instead of warming it up as commonly claimed. That’s not surprising when you consider the fact that 95 percent of climate software models have actually turned out to be wrong.

Carbon dioxide has been demonized, but the truth is that it’s what is sustaining life on our planet. If we got rid of it the way many climate change alarmists are pushing for, life on our planet would collapse. Plants wouldn’t be able to breathe and would essentially suffocate. We’d have no food to eat and it would spell the end of mankind. So why are some people on a mission to get rid of it?
If you go back and reread the more creditable sources, nobody is trying to "get rid of it"....obviously without the planet would not continue, but regulation and management at a livable level is the goal. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see the incredible shrinking of the ice caps, or the "garbage islands" in the South Pacific oceans. Every organism has a tipping point. Environmental protection simply goes back to that old attage:

"Better to have it and not need it then to need it and not have it" ......
 

GeforcerFX

TS Evangelist
I think the doomers are doing more harm to combating pollution and high CO2 then helping, they have a very long history of guessing wrong which gives people a parade of data to roll out in defense of the current systems. I am looking forward to what we can do with renewable energy and carbon capture technology, also we really need to get desalination going along the west and east coast, get cost down there and we can stop draining river basins dry trying to feed ourselves. I still view plastic as prop the biggest problem we have created that we have no real solution for yet.
 
I think the doomers are doing more harm to combating pollution and high CO2 then helping, they have a very long history of guessing wrong which gives people a parade of data to roll out in defense of the current systems. I am looking forward to what we can do with renewable energy and carbon capture technology, also we really need to get desalination going along the west and east coast, get cost down there and we can stop draining river basins dry trying to feed ourselves. I still view plastic as prop the biggest problem we have created that we have no real solution for yet.
Its almost like some people know how to write but they don't know how to read.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PEnnn

PEnnn

TS Maniac
They can't predict tomorrow's weather with 100% accuracy, why should I believe these same people making forecasts about what the world climate and ocean temperatures will be in 30, 50, 100 years. Until all those proclaiming climate change give up their ways (private jets, etc), I'm not changing mine.
Yeah, absolutely, dude!!

When you see a fire approaching fast, don't be a wuss and leave your home (as directed or not)!! just stay put and then, and only then, if it reaches your front door you can decide leave. Or just stay a bit longer and think it over!

Better be sorry than safe!!