Don’t even leave a footprint

Posted April 17th, 2007 at 5:00 pm by David Filo, Chief Yahoo

 56 Comments / Filed in: Trends & News, Yahoo! For Good

Jerry Yang and I just announced at our quarterly employee all-hands that Yahoo! has committed to going carbon neutral this year. Essentially, that means we’re going to invest in greenhouse gas reduction projects around the world to neutralize Yahoo!’s impact on the environment. While doing our homework on this, we measured our carbon footprint and discovered that Yahoo! going carbon neutral is equivalent to shutting off the electricity in all San Francisco homes for a month. Or, pulling nearly 25,000 cars off the road for a year.

We’ve been focused on this area for a while now. Our commute alternatives program has been recognized annually by the EPA since 2001 for incentives like Wi-Fi enabled biodiesel shuttles, bike lockers, carpool matching, and sizeable public transit subsidies. Our recycling program keeps about 180,000 pounds of materials out of landfills each year. We use renewable power, hydroelectric energy, and passive cooling at our various facilities and data centers. And green-minded Yahoos have launched sustainability-focused products like the Yahoo! Autos Green Center and 18Seconds.org to show people how they can make a difference in their own lives.

We know carbon neutrality isn’t without controversy. And it’s honestly deserved if companies and individuals don’t first make an effort to find direct ways to reduce their impact. We’ll continue to be vigilant about cutting ours, looking for creative ways to power our facilities, encourage even more employees to seek alternative commutes, and generally inspire Yahoos around the world to think differently about their energy use. (For example, in honor of Earth Day, we’re challenging Yahoos to decrease their consumption by 20% this week to help build lasting habits.) We’ll also be deliberate about investing in offset projects that can verifiably deliver their expected environmental benefits.

We think our offset program counts, but since this is a new and emerging market, we expect to learn as we go, and we’ll be transparent with you along the way. In fact, we’d like your help in all this — we want your inventive and creative ideas for potential offset projects. Please weigh in over at Yahoo! Answers. And read more about our overall approach here.

Stay tuned for more green news from Yahoo! in the near future. And an early Happy Earth Day to you.

David Filo
Chief Yahoo

Photo from razorbern (a.k.a. Bernie DeChant)

Post a Comment Bookmark This Digg This

56 Comments Add your own

Tom Arnold | April 17th, 2007 at 5:58 pm

Congratulations David and the Yahoo team!

TerraPass applauds your announcement today. Focusing on energy use reductions in the data center is the biggest area for reductions in terms of carbon and costs.

I’ll wager the whole program, including offets will be ROI positive.

Makes me happy to be a Yahoo! shareholder as well.

Tom

kevin smith | April 18th, 2007 at 2:26 am

In the interests of promoting a genuine, critical debate about offsets, and coming from the perspective of the people who did the occupation of the Carbon Neutral Company offices in London in February, please have a look at “The Carbon Neutral Myth - Offset Indulgences for your Climate Sins” which you can download for free at http://www.tni.org

speedmaster | April 18th, 2007 at 4:01 am

I get the feeling that Gore is a modern PT Barnum, and the TerraPass people are hawking snake oil. ;-)

Dhrumil | April 18th, 2007 at 6:48 am

Congratulations team Yahoo.

As a small business head this makes me excited to see the possibilities can be for my team.

Sanford | April 18th, 2007 at 6:56 am

Mazel tov Dave - best efforts on the reduction of the carbon footprint.

Carl Buckholz | April 18th, 2007 at 7:08 am

I can’t believe as intelligent as you seem to be that you are falling for the global warming scam.
Think about it logically. Do you really think NYC is in danger of being flooded by the ocean’s level rising?
Where is the proof the level has risen even an inch?

Have faith in God (the God of the Bible).
He promised we would never again suffer a world wide flood. I believe him. I haven’t made Al Gore my god.
I go by what I see and feel and think through logically.
The Earth is always going through its natural cycle and that includes some warming and cooling in varying areas of the Earth.
Man cannot control the natural cooling and warming and anything we might think we are contributing is minute and of no consequence.
Where was man when Earth warmed enough to come out of the last ice age? I don’t think it was caused by the campfires the cavemen were burning.
Please wake up and don’t fall for this global warming line of bull.
The cost to our society will be tremendous if we let the global warming wakos have their way. It will be our undoing much more so then any risk of flooding in NYC.
PLEASE! don’t contribute to this nonsense.

Sara Tucker | April 18th, 2007 at 7:26 am

I’m going to set Yahoo as my homepage right now.

I want to support companies who are taking leadership in ensuring our kids will inherit a livable planet.

Thank you.

anne | April 18th, 2007 at 7:45 am

CONGRATULATIONS!!! This is huge, and so positive to see. I’m saddenened that some people still haven’t woken up to the realities of global climate change and how we are contributing to it. I’m so glad that Yahoo is paying attention and taking action.

Jason | April 18th, 2007 at 7:47 am

To Carl -

I too am a Christian. God told Adam and Eve to take care of the garden and all of the animals in it. The way we currently strip the earth of dirty resources to fuel our own habits and desires are not caring for such an amazing gift.

If you spend the time to research global warming and the claims about rising seas, you will see that no one has claimed the rising sees will cause a world-wide flood. This is true to what God has promised. Instead the prediction is that it will flood coastal areas across the world. Very different, and also true to what God has promised in the book of Revelation. The economic and society impact of such an event occurring will cause destruction that models the predictions of John.

Also, let’s assume that you are correct and that this warming trend is just a natural cycle of the Earth. Does that mean we should continue to pollute the Earth even if it has no impact to global warming? The health and economic impact of continuing to use dirty energy sources will have a major negative impact to your and my children as the air, water and land become more polluted and fossil fuels are harder to find. Personally, I am not willing to let that happen.

It is our responsibility to take care of the Earth, and if you take the time to research the destructions that occur daily, you will understand that global warming is just the tip of the iceberg. There are many many more environmental changes necessary before we begin to take care of the earth as God instructed.

To Yahoo!

I don’t think carbon offsets are the ‘cure-all’ that many people claim them to be, but you recognize that already. I applade your efforts and encourge you to continue to focus on reduce and resuse as oppose to offsetting.

Good luck and thank you for your efforts. I look forward to reaping the benefits as the green industry grows and the economy continues to benefit from this recent focus.

Ian | April 18th, 2007 at 7:51 am

Congratulations Yahoo. It’s wonderful to hear some good news coming out of the US, though it was almost inevitable that some gullible fool would follow it up with ostrich-syndrome (see comment above). Sadly much of what we hear from that country are the inane ramblings of the gullible, who’ve fallen for the ‘truth’ according to an oil company PR release, or the guilty, who are complicit in it.

Of course going carbon neutral is not an end in itself, nor without complications, but is an important step in reducing our impact.

Your post though is not clear in the quantities. You say that going carbon neutral is equivalent to shutting off the electricity in all San Francisco homes for a month. Or, pulling nearly 25,000 cars off the road for a year.. Over what time period?

Chris Jara | April 18th, 2007 at 8:26 am

Im glad you guys are leading the way on this. I hope more tech companies follow your example.

Tom Raftery | April 18th, 2007 at 8:32 am

Congratulations on this initiative.

I’m involved in a project to build a carbon neutral data centre in Cork, Ireland (www.cix.ie) so I am well aware of the challenges you face.

Best of luck with it.

Tom.

hector | April 18th, 2007 at 9:27 am

This is great news. Evolution is about choices. History remembers success and i think Yahoo! has made the right choice.

Will there be envirnomental problems in the future? Yes! of course but its mankinds responsibility to eradicate the visible cancer and be ready for future headaches.

Should technology and software companies adopt this new envirnomental path? Yes! think of it as a change in times where roads turn into rivers and driving a car makes no sense instead start creating ships, boats, yatch, raft, anything….. stay afloat.

P.S.
“Is there God*? Yes and god guides you through your conscious. Less you listen, quieter god gets.”
*God -can be explained through science, matter of time.

Uno Who | April 18th, 2007 at 10:30 am

So what are you going to do: deduct the carbon output of a million dead Africans and pat yourself on the back at the next Hollywood get together?

FK | April 18th, 2007 at 11:07 am

Congratulations on going carbon neutral.

I have wondered, what is the carbon footprint of a web search?

You wouldn’t happen to have calculated this and be willing to share would you?

It is probably low, and to the extent that doing a web search saves you from making a physical trip it actually saves emissions, but I am curious what the impact of making one web search it.

Thanks.

Jack Herrick | April 18th, 2007 at 12:10 pm

Fantastic! We went carbon neutral at wikiHow too. For a short while there, wikiHow was probably the world’s most visited carbon neutral website. I’m glad to see that this is no longer the case. :) Great to see the world’s most visited website go carbon neutral. Congrats on this decision.

Brendan Woodward | April 18th, 2007 at 1:11 pm

Congratulations Yahoo. Your action will bring value to shareholders and Yahoo Users that take climate change seriously. I think that this is an appropriate investment and a significant statement from a great company. Moreover, your thoroughness and action focused agenda for sustainability will show others that it can be done right.

Brendan Woodward
http://www.Standardcarbon.com

Steve | April 18th, 2007 at 1:20 pm

How hypocritical to have bought into the carbon offset scandal. If people and companies really cared about the environment, they would just pollute less. You are not going to do this and neither is most of the public. But you’ll try to ease your conscience by purchasing carbon offsets. It may look good now, but when the public finally finds out this whole man-made global warming crisis was a hoax you’ll look like quite the fools. That is if you’re still around. Hope those second quarter earnings are better than the first quarter. Perhaps you should focus a bit more on your business and a bit less on global warming. I thought you folks were smarter than to fall for this hoax. Guess I was wrong. Clearly you have not done your homework and researched those scientists with opposing points of view and the research to support it. Shame on you.

Bruce Sterling | April 18th, 2007 at 1:39 pm

*Blogged it!

*Not only that, but I’m officially forgiving you for forcing me to sign onto FlickR under a Yahoo ID.

Lupus | April 18th, 2007 at 6:16 pm

Congratulations Yahoo. Every little helps, and such a popular website going carbon-neutral, even if it is into the shaky ground of carbon offsets, can at least get the word out. I was hoping you could publish a few more details though.

To Carl - [”Where is the proof the level has risen even an inch?”] It’s not a religious argument I’m looking for, but how can you berate people for believing in AGW, when there’s a lot more evidence for rising sea levels than there is for the existence of a god? I am genuinely curious.

Andrew Eisenberg | April 18th, 2007 at 8:27 pm

Very pleased with your choice. Carbon credits are still new and can be untrustworthy. Even in the best case, they will not be a panacea. However, with large companies like Yahoo! doing their due diligence and being open about it, carbon credits have the possibility to become an honest and mainstream way to reduce our impact.

Brian | April 18th, 2007 at 10:06 pm

One more reason why I am proud to be a Yahoo!

Gar Lipow | April 18th, 2007 at 10:38 pm

One thought: before you start purchasing carbon offsets, why not describe the “unavoidable emissions” you are offsetting publicly. Of course you have very smart people there, but you are kind of in the “wisdom of crowds” business. Why not tap that before assuming you have reduced as much as possible?

Matthew Curnow | April 18th, 2007 at 11:32 pm

Dear David,

Congratulations, Yahoo is once again showing the way for others to follow.

I work for Carbon Planet, we conduct comprehensive greenhouse gas emission audits for companies all around the globe.

Our highly respected written reports contain not only a very accurate picture of your carbon footprint, but recommendations on ways to reduce your emissions.

We would be more than happy to assist Yahoo in this matter.

Kind Regards,

Matt

Anon | April 19th, 2007 at 12:44 am

How about making some money instead of pissing it away on stuff like this?

Shahid | April 19th, 2007 at 7:27 am

Try focusing more on returning profits and managing the company. You owe it to shareholders to deliver and so far you are failing. I don’t know why Terry was “all smiles” during Q1, but I fail to see this company delivering its promises. Remember, this is a public company.

Josh S. | April 19th, 2007 at 7:29 am

I think this is great! Good job!

Mark W. McElroy | April 19th, 2007 at 12:44 pm

Congrats on your decision. My strong recomendation would be that you peg your reductions to a credible plan for not just lowering, but stabilizing, greenhouse gases to safe levels. Not everyone, or every company, has the resources required to go carbon neutral. But everyone can lower their emissions on a scheduled basis to help achieve a stabilization plan. If Yahoo! could show leadership in doing that, its impact on global warming would arguably be much greater than if it simply managed to go carbon neutral itself. Learn more about this at http://www.sustainableinnovation.org.

Regards,

Mark W. McElroy

Carl Sarnstrand | April 20th, 2007 at 12:41 am

Congratulations to Yahoo for being the second search engine in the world after Picsearch that is carbon free. All responsible companies should have a policy in this area. We call upon Google and Microsoft Live to follow Picsearch and Yahoo. Please read more about the world’s first carbon free search engine on http://www.picsearch.com/menu.cgi?pl=en&item=PR_20070322.

Best Regards
Carl Sarnstrand
carl.sarnstrand@picsearch.com
Picsearch

Bill McGran | April 20th, 2007 at 7:58 am

I’m not sure why people think google is such a big deal?
My self Yahoo is much better Company as far as i can see.
Yahoo your doing a great Job!

Harper Trow | April 20th, 2007 at 8:06 am

I just switched my search bar in Forefox from Google to Yahoo. Thanks for having the courage to see that people want their searches to be green. In a world where consumers are increasingly voting with their wallets, your good will towards the environment will be rewarded with market share. Congratulations on taking an early lead in the Environmental Arms Race.

Harper Trow

Janis Mara | April 20th, 2007 at 8:54 am

This is good news - and less than a week before Earth Day! - with far-reaching consequences, and Yahoo gets a huge pat on the back for the decision - not to mention its commute alternatives and recycling programs, use of alternative energy and other green projects. Indeed, some may say these active projects are far more effective than carbon offsets, which as Chief Yahoo David Filo noted, are a hot topic (we’ve had a huge dialog going on our blog about offsets for weeks). But overall, congratulations, Yahoo!

Janis Mara
http://www.ecotality.com

Paul Shinkle | April 20th, 2007 at 3:45 pm

Congratulations on being carbon neutral.

Has Yahoo! also gone ethics neutral? You know that the people of China suffer under a violent and repressive regime, yet you contribute to this undemocratic environment by ratting out someone using Yahoo! to exercise their *human* right to free speech.

The limits to just profits begin at the corporate complicity with undermining the Rights of Mankind.

Max Wolfe | April 21st, 2007 at 2:54 pm

Congratulations on leading the way! When a company as large as yours takes global warming and air quality seriously, it send a positive message to everyone.
Offsets are like democracy, very imperfect but much better than the next best thing (to paraphrase someone). In this case, the next best thing is, for most people, just a lofty ideal. As a consultant who must take about 50 airline trips per year, I can’t have my job, making the positive contributions to society that I do through that job and supporting my family, without creating a hell of a lot of CO2. With wisely chosen offsets, managed through a monitored program, I can immediately do my part to reduce my carbon impact. Or….I can quit my job, sell my car, and lower my winter thermostat to 50. Ain’t gonna happen.

Skip Mendler | April 21st, 2007 at 7:17 pm

Hi! Just wanted to express a hope that the green resources y’all have put together for the Earth Day page at events.yahoo.com will still be available afterwards - maybe you could start a new subdomain/portal like, say, environment.yahoo.com or green.yahoo.com where folks could go to access this info. Thanks, and keep up the good work!

David Dalka | April 23rd, 2007 at 9:00 am

Yes! Good job on the logos and information as well.

http://www.daviddalka.com/createvalue/2007/04/22/earth-day-2007-a-search-engine-view/

David Fox | April 23rd, 2007 at 1:38 pm

Way to go! Take a look at http://www.biomimicryinstitute.org - we’re furthering the work of Janine Benyus in the new science of Biomimicry - innovation inspired by nature.

RP Herman | April 23rd, 2007 at 8:06 pm

Dear David and Jerry - Congratulations on going carbon-neutral. Next stop is becoming a HIP company. HIP measures Health, Wealth, Earth and Equality = and how it drives profits. Obviously, there is a business case for carbon-neutrality, but also for sustainable, profitable growth.

Fast Company magazine adopted this approach in evaluating 21 public companies at http://www.fastcompany.com/investing/

Happy to help Yahoo be HIP if you like, Paul Herman, CEO + Founder, http://www.HIPinvestor.com

Stanley Fields | April 23rd, 2007 at 8:47 pm

Our hat is off to the Yahoo! team for taking these bold and courageous steps to go carbon neutral. One thing I would encourage Yahoo! to be is mindful of offset quality and additonality. We applaud companies such as TerraPass in raising awareness on the subject of global warming solutions however we are concerned with the following issues:

Quality Standard. We hear over and over again that there is no standard for GHG offsets. But this is simply not true. The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) developed by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) under the Kyoto Protocol has established very strict baseline and monitoring methodologies that are consistently applied in certifying GHG offsets (called Certified Emission Reduction (CER) credits), that are traded in public markets in Europe. Climate Clean has developed an offset portfolio with Eco-Securities, the leading offset originator in the Kyoto markets, using the same quality standards established by the CDM. These are the highest quality offsets in the world. It is true that a number of NGO’s are promoting “new and different” qualification criteria. But we ask, why is the wheel being reinvented and do they include the same level of rigor embedded in the CDM offset framework?

There are six green house gases. The Climate Clean Offset Portfolio, prepared for Climate Clean by California Environmental Associates, and vetted by leading climate change scientists creates a “global forcing signature model” designed to address the earth’s imbalances of all six green house gases. The reason for this is that, while reducing carbon dioxide is beneficial to the planet, other GHG’s have a more dramatic and faster-acting affect on global warming. For this reason, Climate Clean has created a proprietary mix of all six GHGs. Because this approach is not CO2-centric, immediate benefits will be realized to help offset the current positive radiative imbalance of the planet. While this standard may seem somewhat esoteric, it is supported by sound scientific research, and we believe establishes the state-of-the-art in voluntary GHG offset quality.

The problem with RECs. As Tom Arnold writes in his blog, “33% of your TerraPass is Green-e certified renewable energy credits (RECs). While we believe that RECs have a role to play in promoting renewable energy projects, they are not interchangeable with high-quality GHG offsets, and here’s why. A REC represents the creation of 1 MWh of electricity from renewable energy sources. It is broadly adopted by all Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard agencies – i.e., government mandated programs. The Green-e standard does not provide criteria on additionality. In other words, a REC represents “business as usual” and actually has no effect on reducing global emission levels beyond business as usual settings. We are not sure why TerraPass insists on selling RECs, except that they tend to be inexpensive and readily available. However, buying REC’s does not effectively offset GHG emissions.

Additionality. One of the most difficult concepts to grasp in this area is “additonality.” The question to ask is whether the existence of the offset market and the value attributed to emission reductions is a primary motivation for pursuing a project that leads to GHG reductions. In other words, does the project represent an effort to go beyond “business as usual” in combating global warming? We are concerned that weak or non-existent additionality criteria (e.g., CCX, RECs) skew the market for everyone concerned. After all, if I am an energy producer and can sell a REC or emission reduction offset from projects that have already been operating for 5 years, or projects that I was going to undertake anyway, why wouldn’t I? The problem is these projects are not effective in lowering the planet’s GHG emissions from an additionality point of view. They are merely taking advantage of business as usual inertia. In our view, GHG offsets must champion new projects beyond what is already happening in the market by strategically focusing new capital assets into high value projects. It is interesting that, while Tom Arnold has a section of his blog with the title “Additionality,” he offers no assurance or guidance that TerraPass uses this as an important factor in determining which projects to support. The reason for this is that at least 33% of his portfolio (the RECs) have no additionality criteria applied. Climate Clean’s offset standard ensures that the CDM’s Additionality Tool is applied to all projects in its portfolio. Climate Clean will have no REC’s in our GHG offset portfolio.

Optimal Climate Strategy. Climate Clean believes that a GHG offset portfolio should mirror highly effective, contextual and forward thinking climate change mitigation strategy. Aggressively targeting non-CO2 forcing gases and chemicals provides immediate global warming, health, fuel security, and ecosystem services benefits. Given the inertia in the hydrocarbon-based global energy system, non-CO2 forcing reduction programs also provide greater flexibility and more time to realize CO2 reductions while still adhering to the goal of keeping total temperature rises to 2 degrees C. relative to pre-industrial time.

The TerraPass (and other similar programs) may be an effective product in the consumer market because it is simple, fast and inexpensive. It may tend to “raise consciousness” on the issue – and we agree that is important. Climate Clean believes, however, that raising consciousness must also include raising the standard – and this means that early adopters should be seeding a market that is actually having a real, verifiable and additional impact on the global warming crisis.

Kshitish | April 25th, 2007 at 3:35 am

Thats really a nice work taking these kind of steps will inspire the guys around to take note and follow the footsteps in order to have a clean green world which can be a better place to live in.

Todd Bailey | April 26th, 2007 at 2:23 pm

Congratulations!! We commend you on your effort to remove your carbon footprint. While reading your article I noticed that you mentioned bicycle lockers in your effort to reduce your carbon footprint. I work for Hannan Specialties, Inc. and we provide metal bicycle lockers and we would be happy to help you (and anyone) in your effort to walk this earth without leaving a footprint.

If you would like anymore information please don’t hesitate to contact us.

Thank you and congratulations again!

-Todd

hannanspbailey@yahoo.com

Nicki Dugan | April 26th, 2007 at 9:58 pm

Ian: You’d asked about metrics… our going carbon neutral will be the equivalent to shutting off the electricity in all San Francisco homes for a month, or pulling nearly 25,000 cars off the road for a year… EVERY YEAR. That’s the impact of our annual offset investment.

Elizabet | April 27th, 2007 at 7:53 am

Yesssssss!!!
I wish more coporate citizens were as proactive.

Peggy | April 28th, 2007 at 3:38 am

Well..by the looks of some of the comments on here, there seem to be a few individuals that seem to be living not on earth but on the planet “denial”. We really are having climate changes happening to our planet and they coincide with the last 120 years approx. when industrialisiation has been peaking! Wake the hell up. If we are to leave this place to our future generations..we had better get our act together pretty soon!

Thanks for your commitment Yahoo for at least doing something which is unlike, those out there that are waiting for the change to happen from God or something else…Right here…right now!

cheers all …take care :)

Alexis Kauffmann | April 28th, 2007 at 1:11 pm

That’s really good news! Congrats to Yahoo and PicSearch - a company I didn’t know to this day and has earned my preference in image search.

But I understand the few criticisms above from your shareholders. Let me explain what it is, from a consumer (internet user) point-of-view.

There’s something I’ve been wondering about for a while because I am really fed up with Google’s increasing arrogance and mess-ups.

I’ve been studying, working with and teaching marketing for a while now - 21 years, to be precise. As so, I am always asking this “already old before I was born” question:

“Yahoo! Search is only #2. So, why go with us? We…”

(a) try harder?
(b) are a carbon neutral company?”

As for Internet - I use it since 1995 - I know why I first went with…

Altavista - “I spend less time searching there than browsing Yahoo’s directory listings”.

Google - “DEFINITELY gives me superior search results”.

Skype - “DEFINITELY superior for voice and video communications”.

Yahoo Messenger 8 - “Communicates with all those MSN messenger people without the inconveniences of every Microsoft product”.

Firefox - “Offers the most flexible internet experience to date”.

Opera (2nd browser) - “When aesthetics matters”.

Multiply - “The network with brains”.

Yahoo 360 (2nd network and blogging option) - “I meet many cool people there”.

PicSearch - “Offer as good (or bad) image search as Google’s, but it is specialized and probably will get better with and, as a bonus, is a carbon neutral image search engine”.

Since I spend lots of my time searching for image and text content, I’ve been using Yahoo Search as a “second opinion” search engine for about a year or so but… Why go with Yahoo Search?

I still haven’t found a straight answer. Although Google’s SERPs are getting increasingly spoiled by all those MFA websites, Yahoo Search SERPs are not yet DEFINITELY superior to Google’s. I still spend less time searching in Google than in Yahoo Search. This gap has not yet been bridged… So, why go with Yahoo!, if it’s only #2?

John | May 1st, 2007 at 7:17 am

It is true that we are an upswing in the natural cycles of the earth’s warming but what the naysaysers don’t seem to understand about these cycles is the scale. These cycles (even the smallest one of the milankovicth cycles) is on the order of 22000 years (and i believe there is a smaller 10000 year cycle but its not fully recognized yet), not 50-100 years.

anyway bravo Yahoo for making this step. Although not the leader at least we are all starting to do a bit more towards reducing our impact.

cheers

john
http://www.ethicalhost.ca

John Humphrey | May 3rd, 2007 at 3:27 pm

This a great step, Yahoo.

In my book your best approach would be as follows:

1: Energy Efficiency
This is the low hanging fruit and the most cost effective way to reduce your emissions footprint and save money.

2: Clean Energy Technologies
Wind, Solar, Small Hydro, even Cogeneration etc.
I think that cogeneration and polygeneration systems for your datacenters might be the ideal solution, and would love to explore that option with you.

3: Offsets to bring you up to Carbon Harmony.
Offsets should be the LAST STEP. Offsetting is not enough in itself, but should be part of your strategy. And when you do, offset MORE than your impact. We need to decrease the GHG levels from what they already are, so try to offset 150% of your footprint.

This will help you create Carbon Harmony.

John Humphrey - Energy Consultant

“Taking the fight against global warming up to 11″

http://CarbonHarmony.com

http://SustainableEnergyPartners.com

Gordon Burns | May 18th, 2007 at 8:12 pm

Why do so many people feel the need to bring god into the equation? God (assuming he exists, which of course is complete nonsense) promised nothing! Only man, claiming to have been spoken to by god claims such things as the world will not suffer another deluge. Now were I to proclaim that I had been spoken to by god, if I was convincing enough, about 0.001% of mankind would believe me (these are the mentally defective or religiously fanatical amongst us)… the rest of mankind would instantly dismiss me as a heretic, or at least, a cretin. So tell me, why believe something written in a book, claimed to have been written millennia ago by so-called ‘profits’? Sorry, I don’t buy that one!

Now for Yahoo going ‘green’! Another falacy! Which 25,000 cars do we pull from the road for a year? And are these cars typical US gas guzzlers? If so, probably 10,000 cars from elsewhere in the world might do the trick!

Let’s start talking real facts here, and not Yahoo fantasy! The cash cow is god, and who in their right mind is going to shoot themselves in the foot? Yahoo certainly won’t!

By the way, I wouldn’t use Yahoo directory listings if they were the only thing available on the whole planet - sorry, boys… it sucks!… like everything Yahoo… it all sucks!

Lovely shariq | May 23rd, 2007 at 2:51 am

It’s really surprising to see such a nice steps being taken by YAHOO.

I really appreciate and give my votes to yahoo!

CONGRATULATIONS :)

Rohan McAlpine | May 24th, 2007 at 12:07 am

Isn’t it great to see companies taking a lead on global issues, rather than waiting for a political push?

The Sigma Global Company uses Yahoo for its webhosting and email needs. Yahoo provides great and sustainable services.

Sigma Global provides services anywhere on the carbon chain, especially high grade emission reductions under the Clean Development Mechanism. If Yahoo or anyone else needs assistance in this area please find us at http://www.sigmaglobalcompany.com

Aaron Baranoff | May 25th, 2007 at 2:48 pm

According to one of the online carbon offset organizations my car uses the following…

Vehicle: 2000 Subaru Legacy Wagon AWD automatic transmission
Emissions: 9,586 lbs CO2 per year

Therefore I should pay $50/yr to offset my car (actually they .say that amount will offset 12,000 lbs CO2 per year).

They say my home is about 27171 lbs of CO2 per year and I should pay $140/yr (28,000 CO2 offset) to offset my home.

The same site says that that each incandescent bulb you replace with a CFL saves 120 lbs of CO2 per year.

Given that math to offset my home and car I need to offset 36757 lbs of CO2. This would be 307 CFLs so instead of spending $190 per year I could give away 307 CFLs to others. At $0.50 per bulb that I bought them for that is only $153.

I have given away 40 of my 307 so far. My offset has the benefit of helping those around me and the environment faster. They save money and the environment benefits.

Let me know what you think and check my math. My intention is not to say these groups are not doing well just that we can do better by starting in our own homes and helping those around us first.

Aaron (http://baranoff.typepad.com/cheaper_electric/)

Gordon | May 26th, 2007 at 5:44 pm

According to the extremely spurious and suspect ‘calculators’, my carbon footprint is around 5 metric tonnes per year, which equates to less than £100 ($200), or 4 oak trees.

So do I pay £100 so that some shark can claim to plant 4 oak trees on my behalf, or do I take 4 oak tree saplings and plant them on open ground? If I pay £100 to some organisation, what guarantee do I have that I am not being ripped off, just to appease my conscience? On the other hand, if I plant 4 oak saplings (obviously more finincially sensible) on open ground, what guarantee do I have that they will remain to grow into mature trees?

The answer… absolutely no guarantee at all!

Do I simply plant 4 oak trees in open ground, abrogate my responsibility, and blame those who rip them out or trample them for my failure to offset my carbon footprint?

So why bother?

The online ‘calculators’ take no account of the fact that I live alone in a very energy-efficient house, use very low central heating settings, use only low-power lighting, and already recycle almost all of my waste, or that my vehicle returns well over 40 MPG (one typically stupid American calculator reckons my Volvo 1.8 Mitsubishi lean-burn engined car, which returns 45 MPG average, is good for only 23 MPG average - why?)

So how can I believe these online ‘calculators’? You guessed it… I can’t! I can’t believe them, ergo I won’t believe them!

Global warming is a falacy! Science has shown that the planet warms up, now and again, then cools off again!

According to statistics, my home is ‘officially’ at risk of flooding if sea levels rise by just 10 cm. Personally, I fail to see this, as the local flood banks are at least 3 metres above spring high tide levels… at the estimated annual average sea-level increases, it will take about 200 years before I need to worry… and at 55, I have the feeling that I won’t be around when it happens, and even if I were still around at thye grand old age of 250, the weather patterns would have probably changed by then, taking out of the danger zone!

Please, mankind, remember that the planet has a long history, and that temperatures and sea levels have varied throughout history, and will continue to do so into the future.

For instance, where I live was once well under several metres of water, but now it isn’t… one day it may well be under water again, then several hundred years later it won’t!

That’s how the world turns!

Exciting, isn’t it?

Carla Hawkins Richards | June 20th, 2007 at 1:08 pm

David,
I think that it is a great initiative on your part to try to make a posive impact on the environment. Hopefully Yahoo will lead by example and more companies will follow in your footsteps. This will ensure that future generations will have the same upbrining that we enjoyed.

Sincerely,
Carla

Red | July 25th, 2007 at 4:05 pm

Great stuff always important to do the best by the environment, and to see Yahoo committed to it!

Well done!!

Robert Studer | September 7th, 2007 at 1:16 pm

Hi:

This carbon footprint garbage is getting old fast. We all know the trees take CO2 and produce O2 from it. This is just a ploy of all Governments to put another tax in the intrest of the environment. Another this is that the Sun is at a solar peek and Volcanoes are erupting around the planet. Anyone else see that we are not the only cause for this so called global warming. PS: if you think of it if we have warmer winters as a result of global warming the less fossil fules we will use to warm our homes in winter.

Robert Studer
Canada

David Wealleans | November 13th, 2007 at 8:09 am

It’s nonsense. If you burn fossil fuels at all you are exhausting un-replaceable carbon resources. Just asking somebody else to burn a bit less does not make you neutral. By all means try to reduce your imapct and this is highly laudable, but pretending that this idea of offsetting and reduction elsewhere is getting us out of our long term environmental problems is delusion.

The quicker we de-bunk the whole idea of carbon neutrality and just talk about what we can do to reduce what we use, the better we’ll all be.

David Wealleans