327
California to require big firms to reveal carbon emissions in first law of its kind
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2023
327 points (98.5% liked)
News
23296 readers
5038 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I work at a big company in California and I do the calculations for a big chunk of emissions. Ima tell you now, the request that california is giving is unreasonable and will most likely force companies to adopt life cycle assessments(LCA) information from dubious sources(most likely based on spend). These companies will fight tooth and nail to show that they are green and will accept any sources to purport that. They will then shuffle information when audits happen to obfuscate and conceal the true numbers because they have to maintain that identity (think BMW and volkswagen scandal). This will make it more challenging down the line.
I think if a government body wants these numbers, they should just do their own audit NOW and do their own zero waste LCA analyses. There are a bunch of different tools right now as it is not regulated so they give different results. The data used in these software might use the GHG protocol info or it might be completely different. They would need to hire contractors to get a specific baseline for all parties before the companies start figuring out how to game the system by mucking up their numbers.
Im not saying every company can do it do to size, but Framework posted their LCA last month and thry are a california based company. Companies only 3 years old.
Yeah i just took a quick glance at their numbers that I believe they got from Sphera. I would automatically assume this publication is bullshit given that their scope 3 emissions are 2.5x less than scope 2. What this is suggesting is that the electricity they consume produces more GHGs than all the emissions from their logistics and materials used. Getting raw materials shipped inbound, shipping out in combinations on freight, the materials then go to landfill and decompose.... they are saying that their electricity use is 2x more pollutant than that.
Then again, maybe they dont buy and sell physical products that much or their products are extremely energy intensive to make. I am not familiar with them.
They are a company whose trying to change the laptop industry by offering a repairable laptop that can be upgraded. By not soldering in components and not locking or changing the shape of components, their goal is to make laptops easy to repair and upgrade. All cpu/mobo upgrades have the same pcb dimensions, screens are easy to replace due to the ease of opening the bezels. They outright say theirselves that they are not ecologically sustainable (meaning other lapop producing companies are far worse)
If they are selling pieces or components individually, then i would assume they would have an even higher transportation impact. This makes me even more skeptical of their numbers.
As i was saying earlier, if companies like these are allowed to fluff numbers without regulation then later on it will be more difficult to prove the contrary.
Tou can buy parts individually, but its not often that someone buys parts individually unless something breaks. The poont is it minimizes skus (two case designs (13", 15" built around repairability) designs dont go to waste if one thing breaks. They also open their own marketplace for users to resell their used parts as parts can freely be used in other builds.
They dont have much to hide, the point is that they claim theirselves who is pro repair, minimal sku and choose your own ports is not sustainable, then any laptop manufacturer who designs laptops that are going to be desposed if a single part breaks is going to have it worse, over several different Skus with different case/mobo/layout and part selections. As they would heavily fail in the 2nd R (reuse) category.