Google deletes net-zero pledge from sustainability website

Tradeoff Between AI Growth and Climate Goals

• Many see dropping the net‑zero language as prioritizing AI profits over planetary survival; “they could still achieve net zero, they’ve just chosen not to.”
• Others argue AI is existential to Google’s business (search + ads), so they feel forced to compete even if it raises emissions.
• Several note fiduciary duty is being misused: it doesn’t legally require pursuing AI at any cost or abandoning net‑zero.

What Actually Changed in Google’s Pledge

• Earlier text: “net‑zero across operations and value chain by 2030” plus 50% emissions cut and offsets.
• New report: still aims for 24/7 carbon‑free energy on every grid and 50% emissions reduction, with offsets to “neutralize remaining emissions,” but:
  • The language is less prominent, more hedged (“moonshot”).
  • Scope arguably narrowed: “every grid where we operate” vs whole “value chain” (e.g., fuel‑using activities like Street View may be implicitly out of scope).
• Some conclude this is more cosmetic/PR repositioning than a total reversal; others see it as clear backsliding.

Skepticism About Net‑Zero, ESG, and Offsets

• Many view corporate climate pledges as marketing/ESG theater: rescinded WFH, hidden offset scams, and reliance on forests or projects that might never materialize.
• Carbon offsets are heavily debated:
  • Critics say both buyers and sellers are incentivized to fake climate benefit; “both sides of the scam.”
  • Defenders say cap‑and‑trade and verified offsets can work, though time lags and fraud are real issues.
  • Distinction stressed between “matching 100% with renewables” and truly “24/7 carbon‑free,” which requires storage or firm clean power.

Capitalism, Rent‑Seeking, and Political Capture

• Long thread questions capitalism’s “efficient allocation” narrative, pointing to rent‑seeking (especially landlords and finance) as pure drag.
• Counter‑arguments: alternatives (communism, central planning) have major historical failures or require wartime‑level cohesion.
• Several argue corporations will not protect the climate without being forced via law and pricing externalities, but politics is captured by the same corporate interests.

Energy, Solar, and Geopolitics

• Contrast drawn between China’s massive solar buildout and US tariffs that slow cheap deployment and protect fossil fuels.
• Debate over whether tariffs are strategic (domestic industry, energy security) or a “self‑own” blocking cheaper, cleaner power.
• Technical back‑and‑forth on solar + batteries vs fossil costs, grid reliability, HVDC losses, and large‑scale desert solar; consensus that 24/7 decarbonization is hard but increasingly economical in many cases.