It should sound good—unbelievably good. This is why the global comparison makes sense: it implies wework is already using at least 0.1% of the world’s C02 production. Which seems absurd for 1/4000000th of the world population.

Maybe they were just letting cows rot in their pantry, I dunno.

> One company with one decision making an 0.1% reduction on global CO2 annually sounds pretty darn good to me.

The point is that WeWork is being either credulous, fraudulent, or incompetent, because it isn't possible for this 2,000 person company to account for 0.1% of global CO2.

I read mkempe's comment as agreeing that it sounds pretty darned good... in fact too good to be credible.