Carbon cover-up: How tech giants are hiding a 662% emissions discrepancy

Phrases like ‘sustainability,’ ‘eco-friendly’, ‘net-zero emissions’, and ‘green energy’ have become some of the most talked-about buzzwords in corporate rhetoric. 

Companies proudly promote roadmaps to becoming ‘carbon neutral’, but how much of it is just for show?

Amazon recently made headlines when it was labeled as a “Prime Polluter” by Stand.Earth. The latest data shows how Amazon’s emissions have been skyrocketing over the past five years. 

Meanwhile, Shein has become a “climate villain” after an investigation by Grist showed how the fast fashion retailer’s carbon emissions nearly doubled during 2023. 

What about other big tech companies? 

Big tech’s carbon footprint

A recent analysis by The Guardian investigated Google, Microsoft, Meta, and Apple’s reported carbon emissions, and called their accuracy and transparency into question.   

The report suggests that the actual carbon footprint of some of the data centers owned by these tech giants could be significantly higher than they claim. 

Data examined from 2020 to 2022 show that the emissions from in-house data centers at Google, Microsoft, Meta, and Apple may be 662% higher than their official reports indicate.

Let’s look at it another way: This is like saying your daily commute uses only one tank of gas, while in reality, you fill it up every day, for seven days.

It’s a massive gap that makes us question how much we really understand about the true environmental impact of these tech giants. 

How does this cover-up happen? 

The Guardian explains that the use of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) lies at the heart of this discrepancy between actual data and reported figures. 

These certificates allow companies to claim they’re using renewable energy, even when the electricity powering their facilities comes from non-renewable sources. 

So on paper, they claim to be using green energy while still being connected to grids powered by fossil fuels. This is, essentially, a form of greenwashing. 

ALSO READ: Six greenwashing traps to avoid in logistics

Michael Liebreich, the founder of Bloomberg New Energy Finance, voiced skepticism about how companies use RECs to inflate their sustainability credentials. 

Meanwhile, Greenpeace argues that while RECs can be useful in the short term, companies should do more than simply purchase certificates and credits to offset their actual energy usage.

“We recommend corporations to prioritize green electricity trading, onsite generation, and equity investment, instead of unbundled Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), “Greenpeace said in its Invisible Emissions 2023 report. 

The carbon accounting debate

The tech industry is currently wrangled in a debate on how to address these accounting issues, and on how tech giants should report and offset their emissions. 

Google and Microsoft are pushing for more stringent standards. They want renewable energy production to match actual consumption. They call this ‘24/7 carbon-free energy.’

Instead of relying on RECs, they want the renewable energy they purchase to correspond with the energy consumption of their data centers in real-time, which are often not directly tied to actual energy use.

Amazon and Meta advocate for the continued use of RECs. This would allow them to claim they are using renewable energy even if they are drawing power from fossil fuel-powered grids.

These two tech giants argue that RECs are a practical solution that provides flexibility in how companies can achieve their sustainability goals.

NOW READ: Explainer: The business benefits of carbon accounting

About the author