A review of emissions reports from Google, Microsoft, Meta and Apple by The Guardian found that actual emissions could be up to 662% higher than the companies' official claims, The Guardian reported on September 15.
According to The Guardian, the discrepancy is largely attributed 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 the energy demands of big tech companies.
The Guardian reviewed emissions reports from 2020 to 2022.
Renewable energy certificates provide credit for indirect energy purchases
In the renewable energy certification system, organizations purchase electricity generated by renewable sources to offset their energy consumption expenses in other areas.
Critics of the system say that including credits, or “market-based” emissions, in emissions calculations obscures “location-based emissions” – pollution created directly by company-owned infrastructure. Companies subtract from their emissions reports the amount of sustainably produced electricity they buy, even if that electricity is never used at the company’s facilities, The Guardian reports.
The Guardian combined location-based emissions with market-reported emissions and concluded that actual emissions could be 662% higher, or a difference of 7.62 times, compared to official reports.
Amid the discussion is a behind-the-scenes lobbying battle over the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, developed by a watchdog that allows market-based emissions to be factored into official calculations. Since these rules form the basis of how companies report their emissions, the inclusion or exclusion of market-based calculations can be controversial.
Meta also performs its calculations according to GRI standards, an independent metric. Google and Microsoft are leading the way in separating credit-based metrics from their climate reporting, as seen in Microsoft’s 2024 sustainability report. Their respective 24/7 (Google) and 100/100/0 (Microsoft) goals remove carbon energy purchases from the equation.
Amazon, which also claims to be carbon neutral, was too large and complex for the Guardian to accurately assess how its reported emissions might differ from the actual emissions it generates. Amazon’s data centres do not account for the majority of its Scope 2 emissions (electricity purchased internally). Instead, e-commerce and warehouses have a large impact on its Scope 2 emissions.
Asked for comment, a Meta spokesperson highlighted the tech giant’s track record of building power grids in the same locations as its data centers. The spokesperson also highlighted the company’s Sustainability Report, which lists both location-based emissions and market-based emissions, as well as its strategy of using long-term purchase agreements to support the development of sustainable electricity projects, along with its promotion of green tariffs.
WATCH: Tech giants are aware of the climate damage caused by AI, but they aren't slowing down.
Recommendations for CISOs and CTOs
Emissions reporting is a reminder that organizations must consider 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 to make 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 man-made climate change.
The use of generative AI, in particular, can increase emissions. A Forrester report from September 2024 recommended that companies consider using smaller, more efficient AI models; employ AI only when truly necessary; and leverage AI to correlate sustainability practices with financial performance.
TechRepublic has reached out to Google, Microsoft, Meta and Apple for comment.
