All the things they're suggesting are essentially programs to figure out, sustainability, and not at all actually programs that implement it.
'We're gonna have so many conversations at company-paid dinners about how we could make our business less environmentally-damaging! Aren't we great!? Please clap.'
The metrics one in particular is even more gross, because
> "This work will enable an apples-to-apples data-driven approach to assess the best approaches to help achieve our shared goals."
is just saying that they don't accept current sustainability methods as being 'fair' enough to them- not "apples-to-apples" comparisons- to allow them to consume more and emit more than others like they think they should be entitled to, just because they're larger.
Like, no, businesses do not have some inherent right to exist. If your business cannot exist without causing harm, no one has to allow you a 'reasonable' or 'fair' amount of harm to do as a baseline.
It's bizarre because realistically, Google as a company basically only consumes electricity. That's it's dominant environmental input. Even E-waste is going to be irrelevant - just put it in a container in the desert somewhere for the next 1000 years.
So their entire sustainability model can basically just be: "solar panels and some type of energy storage".
My thoughts on all of Microsoft’s sustainability objectives and claims too. Invest in about 10% real flashy offsets but buy some credits so sweep the rest under the carpet
All the things they're suggesting are essentially programs to figure out, sustainability, and not at all actually programs that implement it.
'We're gonna have so many conversations at company-paid dinners about how we could make our business less environmentally-damaging! Aren't we great!? Please clap.'
The metrics one in particular is even more gross, because
> "This work will enable an apples-to-apples data-driven approach to assess the best approaches to help achieve our shared goals."
is just saying that they don't accept current sustainability methods as being 'fair' enough to them- not "apples-to-apples" comparisons- to allow them to consume more and emit more than others like they think they should be entitled to, just because they're larger.
Like, no, businesses do not have some inherent right to exist. If your business cannot exist without causing harm, no one has to allow you a 'reasonable' or 'fair' amount of harm to do as a baseline.