“There is a cost to this strategy, and that cost is that we can’t claim that we’re carbon neutral,” Douglas writes. “Right now that’s a cost we’re willing to live with.”
Then Douglas asks if a company can be double carbon neutral? “If it is good to offset your emissions, is it even better to offset your emissions twice?” Douglas asks.
It’s an interesting question. As company’s continue to raise the green PR stakes, we could see moves like this down the road.I think it's a little early in the game to try and claim "double carbon neutrality" when good old singular carbon neutrality isn't universally defined. However, I like the concept. It thrills me to the bone that corporate commitments to the environment are firmly ingrained in a competitive business strategy. Some of the old guard may say that it's ruining the purity of the environmental movement, but on average, one behemoth corporate commitment to renewable energy has the same benefit as, on average, powering several hundred thousand homes. If we're in a race against global warming, I'd rather have the behemoths taking action. What does the old guard want, larger emissions reductions or indie cred?