Why should Yahoo! go carbon neutral?

Question

Yahoo! has announced it's going carbon neutral in 2007. We all want to do our part to combat climate change. But the question is why should we go carbon neutral when the effects of global warming (GW) are so uncertain and speculative?***. I want your ideas on how we can reach our goal of debating whether humankind should do anything to stop GW. In what innovative or creative projects do you think we should invest in lieu of GW? See the works by Bjorn Lomborg--every dollar spent on GW is one dollar less spent on stopping world hunger, poverty, and so forth.

*** http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=global+warming+effects+uncertain&btnG=Search

Answer 1

It's funny how you are considered a troll when proposing a question to debate the efficiency of using present dollars for carbon reduction versus other issues.

There is no way to quantify the pay-back, if any, of spending money to reduce CO2.  If CO2 is not the prime forcing agent in GW, then every last dollar spent on CO2 reduction/sequestering has been wasted.  On the other hand, if you give money to any reputable charity or relief agency, 80-90% of that money will be used to help feed, shelter and clothe people that are going to die this year otherwise.

So, if it makes you feel good to live in your comfortable home and spend $10-15,000 to add solar panels to partially reduce your "carbon footprint" while children in America and around the world go to bed hungry tonight, then by all means do it.  We live in a free country and you have the right to do just that.

ADDED:  Dear DW (below) - I didn't see the question as sneaky.  Perhaps it depends on what your opinion is concerning GW as to whether this question seems trollish or not.  He simply brings up Yahoo as an example of someone (or some company) spending resources on something with unknown benefits versus spending it where benefits are more measurable and visible.  

And, I didn't ask the question, "Do you think this question is written by a troll?"  So, I am confused why you chose to respond to my answer but never answered the original question.  If you didn't like the question, that's fine.  Find something else to answer.  If you think I need education, I provide an e-mail link just for that purpose.  That is how I would have normally responded to you, but you have chosen not to receive e-mail from other users.

Answer 2

I recently went to the Griffith Obervatory in Los Angeles...some of the information presented made me very upset that everyone is worried about global warming.  It is out of our hands.  And when you look at how vast the universe is and how things can change so suddenly...things that we have no control over.  A million different things could be causing the global warming.  Or maybe it could just be that we are coming out of a Ice Age...so it is all natural.  We as humans on one tiny planet have no control over anything.  So all efforts to stop global warming are pointless.  We should focus on things we do have control over.  So we can make this short stay on Earth as pleasant as possible.

I've always considered myself to be a tree-hugger...so don't get me wrong and please recycle, but global warming?  Seriously...

I had a boss that was so caught up in global warming...she wanted to get the special paper and the special lightbulbs...the whole thing.  When it came down to reality, I was doing more for the environment than her.  She had a 40 mile commute each day.  I walked to work.  She had these lamps on her desk...when I worked from the sunlight.    The biggest thing is people that are concerned about global warming need to make actual changes that will make a difference, such as becoming Omish so that you live off the earth...instead of poluting it...

I hate hipocracy...

Answer 3

Don't bother answering this troll...

Answer 4

The "troll" accusation refers, I believe, to the sneaky way this question was asked.  He could have asked a straightforward question like "Is global warming a real problem" or a directed question like "Why spend money to reduce carbon output when global warming is ...".  Instead he asked a neutral question about Yahoo's plans, then redirected the topic to the alleged uncertainty about global warming, then redirected again to whether resources used to prevent climate change would be better used elsewhere.  The questioner's true question is, apparently, the last one.

Answer 5

They ought to be worried about retaining their share of the market before Google sends them the way of buggy whips.