Carbon Neutral?

Dell is now claiming that its operations are "carbon neutral." It is impressive that fully 20% of the company's operations are powered by renewable energy. The fact that it had to purchase RECs (renewable energy credits) for the remaining 80% apparently came about because sufficient "green power" is not available beyond that first 20%.

But is this "carbon neutral"?

First of all, the operations of renewable energy plants are not carbon neutral: There is a net emission of carbon from PV and wind power, not to mention all the emissions that come from production of the hardware to deliver this power (PV cells are made in semiconductor cleanrooms, for instance, using high-powered HVAC systems, lots of harmful chemicals, and some precious metals/minerals).

And in addition, there is inconsistent boundary-drawing going on. Let's call it carbon gerrymandering. Companies universally do not count "their share" of the carbon emissions from their suppliers. They pay the money for the goods, and the suppliers' operations are their own problem - the emissions belong to the suppliers. This is a very reasonable way to do it!

BUT... if that's true, then why is Dell counting the benefit of the RECs on its own carbon balance sheet? All they did was pay the money for the RECs. Seems to me that those benefits accrue to the REC company.

It's the same old game: I take credit for the good stuff, and disavow the bad stuff as not my fault. When all the players in the industry do this, we'll have a "carbon neutral" economy that still spews GHGs into the atmosphere.