Israel’s bombardment of Gaza in response to Hamas’ October assault on Jewish civilians is prompting much soul-searching. One reappraisal that caught my eye was Who’s a ‘Colonizer’? How an Old Word Became a New Weapon, which ran earlier this month in The New York Times.
The piece, by veteran NY Times correspondent Roger Cohen, centers on two opposing ideas — clashes, if you will. One, particular to the current war, concerns the charge that Israel is an outpost of “settler colonialism” and the counterclaim that the Jewish state, “far from being colonialist,” in Cohen’s words, “is a diverse nation largely formed by a gathering-in of the persecuted.” The other is what Cohen calls “a fundamental reframing” of history away from an East-West conflict canonized in the American and French revolutions, toward a North-South struggle “focused on the millions of lives lost to the slave trade and the genocide of the native American peoples.”
The scene in San Francisco on Sept 10, 2018 as activists with the Climate Justice Alliance demonstrated outside California Gov. Jerry Brown’s Climate Action Summit.
Cohen’s grappling with colonialism and colonization took me back to 2018 and the image shown at left. Outside a “Climate Action Summit” convened in San Francisco by Jerry Brown toward the end of his fourth and final term as governor of California, activists from the Climate Justice Alliance hoisted a banner proclaiming “Carbon Pricing Is Colonialism.”
To me, the message was shocking but not surprising.
Shocking, in equating carbon pricing — an admittedly technocratic but singularly powerful policy tool for cutting carbon emissions and, thus, aiding vulnerable nations and communities considered most gravely threatened by climate chaos — with the centuries-long colonial project that subjugated and plundered the Global South to benefit the colonizing North, and whose psychological and financial toll endures.
Unsurprising, in light of the climate-justice movement’s embrace of intersectionality, and with it, conflation of carbon pricing with predatory capitalism that, over centuries, bestowed riches on Europeans and North Americans by stealing the lands of Indigenous people, the labor of people of African descent, and the mineral resources of the entire Global South.
What Is Colonialism?
Wikipedia usefully defines colonialism as “a practice by which one group of people, social construct, or nation state controls, directs, or imposes taxes or tribute on other people or areas, often by establishing colonies, generally for strategic and economic advancement of the colonizing group or construct.”
Notwithstanding Wiki’s disclaimer in the same paragraph that there’s “no clear definition” of colonialism, this one is distinct and, with its reference to taxes, pertinent.
How Carbon Taxing Actually Works
Suppose carbon emissions were taxed in every country. Would that entail colonizing of poor nations by the rich? It could, but only if the carbon-tax wealth — the revenue generated by the tax on carbon emissions — was siphoned off by the rich countries.
There is no carbon-taxing or pricing system under which that would take place.
Keep in mind that carbon taxing is a charge on carbon emissions. If Country A exports fossil fuels to Country B, the carbon tax arises when the fuels are burned, which takes place in Country B. The tax is imposed in and collected by Country B, and the revenues adhere to Country B.
What about Country A? Its carbon tax applies to fuels burned there — to power vehicles, to generate electricity, to run factories, to heat buildings, and, yes, to operate the machinery that extracts the fossil fuels from the ground and brings them to docks for export. Each of those combustion processes generates carbon emissions in Country A which will be taxed by Country A and whose revenues will stay in Country A.
There are genuine debates to be had as to how Country A, the exporter, will spend its revenues, just as there are or should be debates in Country B concerning disposition of its carbon revenues. Nevertheless, under no conceivable carbon-pricing regime will revenues from Country A’s carbon tax flow to Country B.
Where in this picture is colonialism?
Is it in the prospect that taxes on carbon emissions in Country B and other importing countries will cut demand for Country A’s fuel exports . . . which will lower demand for Country A’s fuels and depress its commerce in extracting and exporting fossil fuels? No. This lowering of demand is part of the intent of taxing carbon — “a feature, not a bug,” per the expression.
Shrinking global demand for carbon fuels and thereby reducing Country A’s carbon commerce isn’t colonialism. It’s not a coercive transfer of wealth or imposition of tribute. Rather, it’s part of how the world cuts emissions and protects the climate, accomplished entirely by and under the control of Country A.
The Colonial Adjacency of Carbon Offsets
Carbon offsets are accounting devices to enable “polluters,” who may be countries, companies or individuals such as air travelers, to avoid having to reduce their own emissions, by purchasing offsets or “carbon credits” that ostensibly cut emissions elsewhere, e.g., by planting trees or destroying greenhouse chemicals like Freon. Plagued from the start by the rap that they are little more than get-out-of-jail-free cards for the Global North, and further undercut by repeated evidence of fraud, carbon offsets have not only hindered effective climate action but have also ended up sullying the cause of carbon pricing.
We tweeted this after seeing the activists tweet their banner on Sept 10, 2018.
The Carbon Tax Center’s website section on carbon offsets recounts their history and controversy. Suffice it to say that offsets’ ties to various carbon cap-and-trade programs such as the European Union’s Emissions Trading System and California’s AB-32 carbon cap-and-trade program have led climate-justice campaigners to condemn not just offsets or carbon cap-and-trade but any proposed or actual form of carbon pricing — even straight-up carbon taxing with no offsets whatsoever.
What the Colonial Powers Owe Their Former Colonies
Let’s be clear that the developed countries owe an immense debt to the Global South for exhausting most of our planet’s carbon budget: trillions for climate adaptation; massive financing for clean-energy infrastructure; and large-scale technology transfer. Sweeping debt forgiveness would help as well. These obligations are, or should be, compulsory. But they have nothing to do with carbon pricing. They certainly won’t be exacerbated by taxing carbon emissions whether in the Global South or North. Rather, the emission reductions that carbon pricing will spark will buy time for former colonies to manage, adjust and thrive as the payments, financing and technology ramp up.
Carbon Pricing is Anti-Colonial
We conclude this with its headline. Carbon pricing is utterly and intrinsically anti-colonial. Nations levy their own carbon price and collect the revenues, which they allocate or invest as they see fit.
It’s not perfect. No policy is. And it’s not a silver bullet. When it comes to protecting and restoring climate, there’s no such thing.
But carbon taxing promises huge reductions in carbon emissions — 30 percent or better within ten years if ramped up steadily, in the case of the United States. And it’s complementary with virtually every other carbon-cutting action, be it regulatory, investment, or even clean-energy subsidization, to go far beyond that 30 percent mark. Moreover, pathways abound for allocating, or, our favorite approach, dividending the revenues to keep whole the vast majority of the most-vulnerable households
Carbon pricing is a policy path any nation can undertake on its own and manage as it chooses. If that’s not the essence of political autonomy, what is?
Environmental justice misgivings about carbon pricing, and antidotes to same, are discussed at length on our Carbon Pricing and Environmental Justice page.
Carbon Footprint
Industries with the biggest nature footprints and what their decarbonisation looks like
A corporate carbon footprint is never just an accounting figure. It maps onto real ecosystems. Before a product leaves the factory gate, something on the ground has already paid the cost. A forest has been converted. A river has been depleted. A patch of savannah that was once home to dozens of species now grows a single crop in every direction.
More than 60 global companies, including Apple, Amazon, BYD, Salesforce, Mars, and Schneider Electric, are pushing back against proposed changes to global emissions reporting rules. The group is calling for more flexibility under the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol), the most widely used framework for measuring corporate carbon footprints.
The companies submitted a joint statement asking that new requirements, especially those affecting Scope 2 emissions, remain optional rather than mandatory. Their letter stated:
“To drive critical climate progress, it’s imperative that we get this revision right. We strongly urge the GHGP to improve upon the existing guidance, but not stymie critical electricity decarbonization investments by mandating a change that fundamentally threatens participation in this voluntary market, which acts as the linchpin in decarbonization across nearly all sectors of the economy. The revised guidance must encourage more clean energy procurement and enable more impactful corporate action, not unintentionally discourage it.”
The debate comes at a critical time. Corporate climate disclosures now influence trillions of dollars in capital flows, while stricter reporting rules are being introduced across major economies.
The Rulebook for Carbon: What the GHG Protocol Is and Why It’s Being Updated
The Greenhouse Gas Protocol is the world’s most widely used system for measuring corporate emissions. It is used by over 90% of companies that report greenhouse gas data globally, making it the foundation of most climate disclosures.
It divides emissions into three categories:
- Scope 1: Direct emissions from operations
- Scope 2: Emissions from purchased electricity
- Scope 3: Emissions across the value chain
The current Scope 2 rules were introduced in 2015, but energy markets have changed since then. Renewable energy has expanded, and companies now play a major role in funding clean power.
Corporate buyers have already supported more than 100 gigawatts (GW) of renewable energy capacity globally through voluntary purchases. This shows how influential the current system has been.
The GHG Protocol is now updating its rules to improve accuracy and transparency. The revision process includes input from more than 45 experts across industry, government, and academia, reflecting its global importance.
Scope 2 Shake-Up: The Battle Over Real-Time Carbon Tracking
The proposed update would shift how companies report electricity emissions. Instead of using flexible systems like renewable energy certificates (RECs), companies would need to match their electricity use with clean energy that is:
- Generated at the same time, and
- Located in the same grid region.
This is known as “24/7” or hourly or real-time matching. It aims to reflect the actual impact of electricity use on the grid. Companies, including Apple and Amazon, say this shift could create challenges.
According to industry feedback, stricter rules could raise energy costs and limit access to renewable energy in some regions. It can also slow corporate investment in new clean energy projects.
The concern is that many markets do not yet have enough renewable supply for real-time matching. Infrastructure for tracking hourly emissions is also still developing.
This creates a key tension. The new rules could improve accuracy and reduce greenwashing. But they may also make it harder for companies to scale clean energy quickly.
The outcome will shape how companies measure emissions, invest in renewables, and meet net-zero targets in the years ahead.
Why More Than 60 Companies Oppose the Changes
The companies argue that stricter rules could slow climate progress rather than accelerate it. Their main concern is cost and feasibility. Many regions still lack enough renewable energy to support real-time matching. For global companies, aligning energy use across different grids is complex.
In their joint statement, the group warned that mandatory changes could:
- Increase electricity prices,
- Reduce participation in voluntary clean energy markets, and
- Slow investment in renewable energy projects.
They argue that current market-based systems, such as RECs, have helped scale clean energy quickly over the past decade. Removing flexibility could weaken that momentum.
This reflects a broader tension between accuracy and scalability in climate reporting.
Big Tech Pushback: Apple and Amazon’s Climate Progress
Despite their push for flexibility, both companies have made measurable progress on emissions reduction.
Apple reports that it has reduced its total greenhouse gas emissions by more than 60% compared to 2015 levels, even as revenue grew significantly. The company is targeting carbon neutrality across its entire value chain by 2030. It also reported that supplier renewable energy use helped avoid over 26 million metric tons of CO₂ emissions in 2025 alone.
In addition, about 30% of materials used in Apple products in 2025 were recycled, showing a shift toward circular manufacturing.
Amazon has also set a net-zero target for 2040 under its Climate Pledge. The company is one of the world’s largest corporate buyers of renewable energy and continues to invest heavily in clean power, logistics electrification, and low-carbon infrastructure.
Both companies argue that flexible accounting frameworks have supported these investments at scale.
The Bigger Challenge: Scope 3 and Digital Emissions
The debate over Scope 2 reporting is only part of a larger issue. For most large companies, Scope 3 emissions account for more than 70% of total emissions. These include supply chains, product use, and outsourced services.
In the technology sector, emissions are rising due to:
- Data centers,
- Cloud computing, and
- Artificial intelligence workloads.
Global data centers already consume about 415–460 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity per year, equal to roughly 1.5%–2% of global power demand. This figure is expected to increase sharply. The International Energy Agency estimates that data center electricity demand could double by 2030, driven largely by AI.
This creates a major reporting challenge. Even with cleaner electricity, total emissions can rise as digital demand grows.
Climate Reporting Rules Are Tightening Globally
The pushback comes as climate disclosure requirements are expanding and becoming more standardized across major economies. What was once voluntary ESG reporting is steadily shifting toward mandatory, audit-ready climate transparency.
In the European Union, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) is now active. It requires large companies and, later, listed SMEs, to share detailed sustainability data. This data must match the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS). This includes granular reporting on emissions across Scope 1, 2, and increasingly Scope 3 value chains.
In the United States, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) aims for mandatory climate-related disclosures for public companies. This includes governance, risk exposure, and emissions reporting. However, some parts of the rule face legal and political scrutiny.
The United Kingdom has included climate disclosure through TCFD requirements. Now, it is moving toward ISSB-based global standards to make comparisons easier. Similarly, Canada is progressing with ISSB-aligned mandatory reporting frameworks for large public issuers.
In Asia, momentum is also accelerating. Japan is introducing the Sustainability Standards Board of Japan (SSBJ) rules that match ISSB standards. Meanwhile, China is tightening ESG disclosure rules for listed companies through updates from its securities regulators. Singapore has also mandated climate reporting for listed companies, with phased Scope 3 expansion.
A clear trend is forming across jurisdictions: climate disclosure is aligning with ISSB global standards. There’s a growing focus on assurance, comparability, and transparency in value-chain emissions.
This regulatory tightening raises the bar significantly for corporations. The challenge is clear. Companies must:
- Align with multiple evolving disclosure regimes,
- Ensure emissions data is verifiable and auditable, and
- Expand reporting across complex global supply chains.
Balancing operational growth with compliance is becoming increasingly complex as climate regulation converges and intensifies worldwide.
A Turning Point for Global Carbon Accounting
The outcome of this debate could shape global carbon accounting standards for years.
If stricter rules are adopted, emissions reporting will become more precise. This could improve transparency and reduce greenwashing risks. However, it may also increase compliance costs and limit flexibility.
If the proposed changes remain optional, companies may continue using current accounting methods. This could support faster clean energy investment, but may leave gaps in reporting accuracy.
The new rules could take effect as early as next year, making this a near-term decision for global companies.
The push by Apple, Amazon, and other companies highlights a key tension in climate strategy. On one side is the need for accurate, real-time emissions reporting. On the other is the need for flexible systems that support large-scale clean energy investment.
As digital infrastructure expands and energy demand rises, how emissions are measured will matter as much as how they are reduced. The next phase of climate action will depend not just on targets—but on the systems used to track them.
The post Apple, Amazon Lead 60+ Firms to Ease Global Carbon Reporting Rules appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
Mastercard Beats 2025 Emissions Targets as Revenue Rises 16%, Breaking the Growth vs Carbon Trade-Off
Mastercard says it has exceeded its 2025 emissions reduction targets while continuing to grow its global business. The company reduced emissions across its operations even as revenue increased strongly in 2025.
The update comes from Mastercard’s official sustainability and technology disclosure published in 2026. It confirms progress toward its long-term goal of net-zero emissions by 2040, covering its full value chain.
The results are important for the financial technology sector. Digital payments depend heavily on data centers and cloud systems, which are energy-intensive and linked to rising global emissions.
Breaking the Pattern: Emissions Fall While Revenue Rises
In 2025, Mastercard surpassed its interim climate targets compared with a 2016 baseline. The company reported a 44% reduction in Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions, beating its target of 38%. It also achieved a 46% reduction in Scope 3 emissions, far exceeding its 20% target.
At the same time, Mastercard recorded 16% revenue growth in 2025. This shows that emissions reductions continued even as the business expanded. Mastercard Chief Sustainability Officer Ellen Jackowski and Senior Vice President of Data and Governance Adam Tenzer wrote:
“These results reflect a comprehensive approach built on renewable energy investment and procurement, supply chain engagement, and embedding environmental sustainability into everyday business decisions.”
The company also reported a 1% year-on-year decline in total emissions, marking the third consecutive year of emissions reduction. This is important because digital payment networks usually grow with higher computing demand.
Mastercard says this trend reflects improved efficiency across its operations, better infrastructure use, and increased reliance on cleaner energy sources.
The Hidden Footprint: Why Data Centers Drive Mastercard’s Emissions
A large share of Mastercard’s emissions comes from its digital infrastructure. According to the company’s sustainability report, data centers account for about 60% of Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions. Technology-related goods and services make up roughly one-third of Scope 3 emissions.
This reflects how modern financial systems operate. Digital payments, fraud detection, and AI-based analytics require a large-scale computing infrastructure.
Global data centers already consume about 415–460 TWh of electricity per year, equal to roughly 1.5%–2% of global electricity demand. This number is expected to rise as AI usage expands.
Mastercard’s challenge is similar to that of other digital companies. Higher transaction volume usually leads to greater computing needs. This can raise emissions unless we improve efficiency.
To manage this, the company is focusing on renewable energy procurement, hardware consolidation, and more efficient software systems.
Carbon-Aware Technology Becomes Core to Operations
Mastercard is integrating sustainability directly into its technology systems rather than treating it as a separate reporting function. Since 2023, the company has developed a patent-pending system that assigns a Sustainability Score to its technology infrastructure. This system measures environmental impact in real time.
It tracks factors such as:
- Energy use in kilowatt-hours,
- Regional carbon intensity of electricity,
- Server utilization rates,
- Hardware lifecycle efficiency, and
- Data processing location.
This allows engineers to design systems with lower carbon impact.
The company also uses carbon-aware software design. This means computing workloads can be adjusted to reduce energy use when carbon intensity is high in certain regions.
This approach reflects a wider trend in the technology and financial sectors. More companies are now including carbon tracking in their main infrastructure choices. They no longer see it just as a reporting task.
Powering Payments: Mastercard’s Net-Zero Playbook
Mastercard has committed to reaching net-zero emissions by 2040, covering Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 emissions across its value chain. The target is aligned with science-based climate pathways and includes operations, suppliers, and technology infrastructure.
To achieve this, the company is focusing on four main areas.
-
Increasing renewable energy use in operations
Mastercard already powers its global operations with 100% renewable electricity. This covers offices and data centers in multiple regions.
The company has also achieved a 46% reduction in total Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions compared to its 2016 baseline. It continues to use renewable energy purchasing to maintain this progress.
In 2024, Mastercard procured over 112,000 MWh of renewable electricity, supporting lower emissions from its global operations.
-
Improving energy efficiency in data centers
Data centers account for about 60% of Mastercard’s Scope 1 and 2 emissions. To reduce this, Mastercard is upgrading servers, cutting unused computing capacity, and improving workload efficiency. It also uses real-time monitoring to reduce energy waste.
These improvements helped keep operational emissions stable in 2024, even as computing demand increased. Efficiency gains combined with renewable energy use supported this outcome.
-
Working with suppliers to reduce emissions
Around 75%–76% of Mastercard’s total emissions come from its value chain. This includes cloud providers, technology partners, and hardware suppliers.
To address this, Mastercard works with suppliers to set emissions targets and improve reporting. More than 70% of its suppliers now have their own climate reduction goals.
-
Upgrading and consolidating hardware systems
Mastercard is reducing emissions by improving its hardware systems. It decommissions unused servers, consolidates infrastructure, and shifts to more efficient cloud platforms.
Technology goods and services account for about one-third of Scope 3 emissions. By reducing unnecessary hardware and extending equipment life, Mastercard lowers both energy use and manufacturing-related emissions while maintaining system performance.
Renewable energy procurement is central to its strategy. It’s crucial for powering data centers, as they account for most of their operational emissions.
Mastercard works with suppliers because a large part of emissions comes from the value chain. This includes technology manufacturing and cloud services. By 2025, the company exceeded several short-term climate goals. This shows early progress on its long-term net-zero path.
ESG Pressure Hits Fintech: The New Rules of Digital Finance
Mastercard’s results come during a period of rising ESG pressure across the financial sector. Banks, payment networks, and fintech companies must now disclose emissions. This is especially true for Scope 3 emissions, which cover supply chain and digital infrastructure impacts.
Several global trends are shaping the industry:
- Growing regulatory focus on climate disclosure,
- Rising investor demand for ESG transparency,
- Expansion of digital payments and cloud computing, and
- Increased energy use from AI and data processing.
Data centers are becoming a major focus area because they link financial services to energy consumption. In Mastercard’s case, they are the largest source of operational emissions.
At the same time, financial institutions are expected to align with net-zero targets between 2040 and 2050. This depends on regional regulations and climate frameworks. Mastercard’s early progress places it ahead of many peers in meeting short-term emissions goals.
Decoupling Growth From Emissions
One of the most important signals from Mastercard’s 2025 results is the separation of business growth from emissions.
The company achieved 16% revenue growth while reducing total emissions by 1% year-on-year. This marks a continued pattern of emissions decline alongside business expansion.
Mastercard attributes this to improved system efficiency, renewable energy use, and better infrastructure management. In simple terms, the company is processing more transactions without a matching rise in emissions.
This trend is important because digital payment systems normally scale with computing demand. Without efficiency gains, emissions would typically rise with business growth.
Looking ahead, demand will continue to grow. Global payments revenue is projected to reach around $3.1 trillion by 2028, according to McKinsey & Company, growing at close to 10% annually.
Global data center electricity demand might double by 2030. This rise is mainly due to AI workloads, says the International Energy Agency. Mastercard’s results show that tech upgrades can lower the carbon impact of digital finance. This is true even as global usage rises.
The Takeaway: Fintech’s Proof That Growth and Emissions Can Split
Mastercard’s 2025 sustainability performance shows measurable progress toward its net-zero goal. At the same time, major challenges remain. Data centers continue to be the largest emissions source, and global digital activity is still expanding rapidly due to AI and cloud computing.
Mastercard’s approach shows how financial technology companies are adapting. Sustainability is no longer a separate goal. It is becoming part of how digital systems are designed and operated.
The next test will be whether these efficiency gains can continue to outpace the rapid growth of global digital payments and AI-driven financial systems.
The post Mastercard Beats 2025 Emissions Targets as Revenue Rises 16%, Breaking the Growth vs Carbon Trade-Off appeared first on Carbon Credits.
-
Climate Change9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Renewable Energy6 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测