Google wins carbon accounting battle as tech giants clash over AI emissions

The Greenhouse Gas Protocol is moving closer to implementing mandatory hourly accounting for electricity emissions—a carbon-accounting method championed by Google and Microsoft since 2020. This development represents a significant victory in a years-long battle between tech giants over how to measure AI data center emissions, with the outcome potentially reshaping how companies report their carbon footprint as AI drives massive growth in energy consumption.

What you should know: The fight centers on two competing approaches to measuring Scope 2 emissions—indirect emissions from purchased electricity that have surged with AI-driven data center growth.

• Google and Microsoft advocate for “hourly accounting,” which matches every hour of electricity use with new, locally-produced carbon-free power.
• Amazon, Meta, and Salesforce support “emissions first” accounting, which allows companies to maximize annual emission cuts by swapping renewable energy certificates (RECs) even when clean power is purchased far from where it’s used.
• The GHGP, a widely-used carbon accounting standard setter, received a $9.25 million grant from the Bezos Earth Fund in 2022 to revise its Scope 2 accounting standards.

The lobbying war: Tech giants have poured considerable resources into advancing their preferred accounting methods through academic research and working group influence.

• According to InfluenceMap, a climate nonprofit, over 25 major studies on emissions accounting have been released since October 2017, with at least 13 corporate-sponsored pieces published since the GHGP revision process began.
• Google has sponsored seven studies, Meta three, Amazon two, and Meta and Microsoft co-sponsored one.
• Critics argue the 45-member GHGP working group lacked ideological balance, with no direct representation from Meta, Amazon, or Salesforce.

What they’re saying: The intensity of corporate lobbying has surprised even traditional allies of Google’s methodology.

• “There’s an intensive lobbying effort going on here, one that these major corporations have each staked considerable reputation and money into, and they are getting a bit ugly,” says Jesse Jenkins, an associate professor at Princeton University and leader of the Google-funded ZERO Laboratory.
• A working group member supporting emissions-first accounting noted: “Our understanding was that we would have an arena for ideas to go back and forth. It seemed like [from the beginning] it was pretty well-baked where it was going to go.”

The compromise that wasn’t: The working group initially voted for a “Goldilocks” strategy embracing both methods, but the GHGP’s International Standards Board essentially shot down the emissions-first element.

• The board stated that the “marginal impact method” needed “further foundational development” before moving to public comment.
• Nearly a dozen working group members signed a private letter in August asking the board to reconsider, leading to a partial reversal.
• The emissions-first approach was eventually sent to an intermediate public comment step rather than formal consultation.

Why this matters: The decision threatens the GHGP’s status as the near-universal standard setter in carbon accounting, with potential regulatory and competitive implications.

• EU and California regulatory regimes are codifying GHGP standards into law.
• Multiple sources report rumors of disgruntled companies considering leaving the GHGP.
• A rival carbon-accounting coalition called Carbon Measures, including Exxon Mobil and Air Liquide, was announced one day after the GHGP’s public comment announcement.

Financial pressures: The GHGP faces funding challenges as climate work comes under scrutiny from the Trump administration.

• Sources claim the $9.25 million Bezos Earth Fund grant has run dry, though the fund is still listed as a current supporter.
• “No one wants to support them because they can’t have their name associated with it, but they depend on philanthropic and corporate money to run,” says a source familiar with the GHGP’s funding situation.
• Companies are demanding more return on investment as climate-related corporate work faces increased political pressure.