> But the tech giant says it kept operational carbon emissions down by continuing to purchase massive amounts of clean energy.
I never got this line of reasoning. If you are using 37% energy and you buy it from providers of clean energy, doesn't that mean that someone else won't be able to use that energy and will have to use fossil fuels anyways? It's the equivalent of "reducing" a country's emissions by forcing companies to move to a country where they ARE allowed to pollute and just importing the produce from there.
> But the tech giant says it kept operational carbon emissions down by continuing to purchase massive amounts of clean energy.
I never got this line of reasoning. If you are using 37% energy and you buy it from providers of clean energy, doesn't that mean that someone else won't be able to use that energy and will have to use fossil fuels anyways? It's the equivalent of "reducing" a country's emissions by forcing companies to move to a country where they ARE allowed to pollute and just importing the produce from there.