I also fundamentally disagree with the criticism leveled at companies like Dell who don’t include their supply chains. Firstly, the scope of work required to do this would probably be 10 times the amount than measuring, reducing and offsetting their own emissions, and quite frankly, why should Dell be required to take responsibility for someone elses emissions. The model should be market driven, with Dell committed to supplier partnerships with other carbon neutral companies. That way the onus is on the supply chain to actually undertake a project which is of environmental benefit.

The WSJ didn’t “slam” Dell – I read the article and it was fairly balanced. Today, you can work hard to reduce emissions, but anyone claiming neutrality is buying credits or finding ways to offset. I’m not “slamming,” I’m just telling the truth.

Dell worked hard and spent $ to reach their claim of carbon neutrality. The WSJ pointed out what that really means and shed some light on the appropriate skeptisim that comes with carbon neutrality claims.

We are all in this boat together so let’s figure out what’s next. I think you’ll see claims of carbon negative before you see claims of double carbon neutrality.