A review of emissions reports from Google, Microsoft, Meta and Apple by The Guardian showed that actual emissions could be as much as 662% higher than the companies’ official statements. The Guardian Announced on 15 September.
According to The Guardian, this discrepancy is mainly due to the difference between direct, “location-based” emissions at company facilities and the purchase of renewable energy credits. Meanwhile, the growing use of generative AI is further increasing energy demands from big tech companies.
The Guardian reviewed emissions reports from 2020 to 2022.
Renewable energy certificates provide credits for indirect power purchases
In a renewable energy certification system, organisations purchase electricity generated from renewable energy sources to offset their costs on energy consumption elsewhere.
Critics of this system say that including credits or “market-based” emissions in emissions calculations obscures “place-based emissions,” which are pollution directly created by company-owned infrastructure. The Guardian alleges that companies subtract the amount of electricity produced sustainably from their emissions reports — even if that electricity is never used at company facilities.
The Guardian combined location-based emissions with market-based emissions to conclude that actual emissions may be as much as 662% higher, or 7.62 times higher, than official reports.
Amid the discussion are behind-the-scenes lobbying battles over the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, developed by an oversight body that allows market-based emissions to be included in official calculations. Since these standards form the basis for how companies report their emissions, the inclusion or exclusion of market-based calculations can be controversial.
Meta also makes its calculations according to GRI standards, which is an independent metric. Google and Microsoft are at the forefront of separating credit-based metrics from their climate reporting, as seen here Microsoft’s 2024 Sustainability ReportTheir 24/7 (Google) and 100/100/0 (Microsoft) targets, respectively, remove carbon energy purchases from the equation.
Amazon, which also claims carbon neutrality, was too large and complex for The Guardian to accurately assess how its reported emissions might differ from its actual emissions. Amazon’s data centres do not make up the bulk of its Scope 2 (home-purchased electricity) emissions. Instead, e-commerce and warehouses overwhelmingly impact its Scope 2 emissions.
When contacted for comment, a Meta spokesperson pointed to the tech giant’s record in power grid construction in 2014. Same place The company spokesperson also highlighted the company’s sustainability report, which lists both location-based emissions and market-based emissions, as well as its strategy to use long-term purchase agreements to support the development of sustainability power projects, as well as its strategy to promote green tariffs.
See: Tech giants are aware of AI’s climate damage — but they’re not slowing down.
Recommendations for CISOs and CTOs
The emissions report is a reminder that organizations must take into account the financial and environmental costs of resource-depleting technologies.
CISOs and CTOs should stay informed about the standards used to calculate emissions and their own company’s guidelines for making technology decisions that take into account both energy use and environmental sustainability. An environmental policy can reassure customers that using your product or service does not worsen human-caused climate change.
The use of generative AI in particular could lead to increased emissions. Forrester’s September 2024 report advised companies to consider using smaller, more efficient AI models; employ AI only when it is truly needed; and leverage AI to correlate sustainability practices and financial performance.
TechRepublic has reached out to Google, Microsoft, Meta and Apple for comment.
#emissions #credits #affect #sustainability #reporting