Microsoft announces new plans to become carbon negative by 2030, which means removing more carbon than it emits.
By 2050, Microsoft plans to remove all of the carbon they emitted since the company’s founding in 1975, Microsoft’s CEO said, last Thursday.
The company plans to take responsibility, “not just across our direct emissions but across our supply chain, too,” Satya Nadella, Microsoft CEO, said.
By July 2020, Microsoft will start putting an internal carbon tax on emissions emitted by divisions of their business. The funds raised by this tax will pay for sustainability projects.
By 2025, the company intends to convert to 100 percent of renewable energy for its data centers, buildings and campuses. By 2030, their global campus operations vehicles will be electric.
Moves like this for Microsoft can be beneficial not just for the environment but also for them building a positive brand reputation with their customers.
Virginia Gatta, a communications professor, calls this brand equity.
“When you talk about a loved brand, you are not really going to get someone criticizing Microsoft for doing something good like this. It might make people feel a little more positive about the brand and what they are doing,” Gatta said.
After all, Microsoft ranked #4 out of 100 companies for the best valued global brand in 2019 according to a report by Interbrand.
Microsoft may not just be trying to build a positive reputation with its customer base but also appeal to prospective shareholders.
“More shareholders are looking to invest in companies that are taking responsibility for environmental sustainability,” Gatta said. This could also be a good reason for Microsoft to move in this direction.
To jump-start Microsoft’s new plan, the company proposed a one billion climate innovation fund. The fund aims to propel the development and advancements of carbon reduction and removal technologies. However, most of these technologies, such as direct air capture, are still in their infancy and currently used on a small scale.
“If they are going to invest in research and development, I think that’s great. I think we should be exploring all possible avenues of removing carbon in the atmosphere,” Dr. Caroline Nielsen, biology and environmental professor, said. “But I think it’s important for people to realize that’s not just something they can just flip a switch and start doing right now. We are not up to that point yet.”
When discussing carbon footprint or net-zero, carbon dioxide is not the only element to consider, Dr. Alexander Davis, chemistry professor, said. Davis researches biofuel combustion and atmospheric combustion of hydrocarbons.
“There are other chemicals that are far worse than carbon dioxide,” Davis said.
These chemicals were mainly used for cooling, such as air conditioners, refrigerators and freezers.
Over the years some of the chemicals were replaced with other chemicals but are still deemed to be a concern.
We currently use Hydrofluorocarbons, FCS. Because of their stable chemical makeup they can stay in the atmosphere long enough to find their way to the ozone layer and break it down. Consequently, even chemicals used prior that have since been replaced – chlorofluorocarbons, CFCs, and hydrochlorofluorocarbons, HCFCs – are still existing in our atmosphere today.
“FCS could be up to 20,000 times worse per molecule compared to CO2. Every ton of FCS released is equivalent to releasing 20,000 tons of carbon dioxide,” Davis said.
Davis said if Microsoft is looking to become carbon negative it’s not just about removing carbon dioxide from the air. It’s about removing these other consequential compounds as well.
Many companies have proposed working towards a more sustainable earth and being carbon neutral. But not many companies strive to be carbon negative.
In addition to Microsoft’s pledge, Intuit, an online-based financial solution company, also has plans to be carbon negative by 2030.
While Nielsen thinks that it is great that Microsoft and other companies are holding themselves accountable she also believes that government plays a huge role in climate change.
“In many countries, the governments are holding companies accountable for their contribution to climate change,” Nielsen said. “That is not as true in the United States…I think that the government has an important role to play in making sure that our economy as a whole moves in the direction of more carbon neutral and maybe eventually carbon negative.”
While the Paris Agreement called upon nations to respond to the threat of climate change, the US withdrew from the agreement in 2017.
