I like yahoo since 2000. Its services are tremendous. I want to appreciate Yahoo! team for its dedicated services.

Please keep going green.

Help change the atmospheric levels of CO2 every time you visit!

That’s a great accomplishment and makes me think of what my next steps are to do my part.

Great job!

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

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

Well done!!

Sincerely,
Carla

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?

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/)

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

I really appreciate and give my votes to yahoo!

CONGRATULATIONS :)

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!

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

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

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?

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 :)

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

Thank you and congratulations again!

-Todd

hannanspbailey@yahoo.com

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.