That’s not how non-profit profits work. 100% of the surplus might be invested in green causes but that’s after operating costs, salaries and a plethora of minor expense posts are handled using their profit/income.

It is a fact that the company is registered as a non-profit.

Being a non-profit means that the owners of the company can collect a salary but cannot collect profits(income in excess of operating expenses). The owners of the company cannot collect profit, it is a non-profit company.

All of the income, in excess of expenses (aka profit) is given to charitable causes. If it were a for-profit company, the all of the income in excess of expenses (aka profit) would be divided amongst the owners and shareholders.

Every non-profit company in every western country has operating expenses including salaries. Unless you’re trying to say that non-profits don’t exist, then this argument is also nonsense.

If legitimizing polluting technology by saying we’re doing such a great job at combating pollution isn’t green washing, perhaps I’ve misunderstood the term?

A private jet is polluting technology because it directly generates tons of carbon in order to operate. It is used in place of other transportation methods which would generate less carbon

How is AI polluting technology?

Just declaring it is polluting doesn’t make it true. A computer takes in electricity and emits heat and data.

This company generates twice as much renewable energy as they consume. They also plant trees (over 200 million) which capture carbon, reduce aridification and increase rainfall. The net result is that this non-profit adds, carbon free, electricity to the grid, increases carbon capture and storage and adds water to the hydrological cycle.

Sometimes the divide between worldviews is simply too big to try to bridge.

That’s often the case when you consume misinformation.