Connect with us

Published

on

If a business wants to make a positive impact on the world, addressing its environmental footprint operationally might not be enough. Even with the best intentions, running a business inevitably means consuming some resources that can’t simply be avoided.

For example, a coffee company might engage in regenerative farming to sequester more carbon than it emits and support healthy local ecosystems. But even with careful practices, it can’t avoid certain realities, like the shipping emissions from transporting beans to their customers.

Fortunately, there are several voluntary, market-based solutions that enable businesses to address residual environmental issues that can’t simply be cut. c

The most well-known mechanism is likely carbon credits. Also called carbon offsets, carbon credits direct financing toward environmental projects that avoid, reduce, or remove emissions, thereby helping a buyer balance its carbon footprint. And with high-quality credits, the funding typically supports projects that wouldn’t otherwise be possible without this extra revenue.

But carbon credits are just one of several types of environmental credits that direct financing toward projects that support the environment.

For one, carbon credits are often grouped under the umbrella term environmental attribute certificate (EAC), which includes other types of financing mechanisms, like energy-related certificates. By purchasing an EAC, the buyer generally gains the right to claim the environmental benefits associated with that certificate, like an emission reduction associated with funding renewable electricity.

Still, the same concept can apply to non-emissions areas. Buying plastic credits can fund the recovery or prevention of plastic waste, which a company might then claim helps balance the impact of the virgin plastic used in its products.

Depending on your operations and sustainability goals, different types of credits or certificates could be worth investing in.

Here, we’ll take a closer look at some of the most popular types of environmental credits.

Types of Environmental Credits

Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) Environmental attributes of 1 MWh of renewable electricity Claim renewable electricity use and support clean energy generation
Water Restoration Certificates (WRCs) 1,000 gallons of freshwater restored or improved Address water footprint by contributing to water restoration
Plastic Credits ~1 metric ton of plastic collected or recycled (varies) Counter plastic pollution when elimination isn’t yet possible
Biodiversity Credits Conservation of ecosystems (units vary by issuer) Protect biodiversity/conserve natural ecosystems
Sustainable Aviation Fuel certificates (SAFc) Environmental attributes of 1 metric ton of sustainable aviation fuel Claim low-carbon fuel and support sustainable fuel production
Renewable Thermal Certificates (RTCs) Environmental attributes of 1 dekatherm of renewable thermal energy Reduce emissions from hard-to-electrify fuels, e.g., replacing fossil fuel natural gas with renewable natural gas

Carbon Credits

What they represent: One metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions avoided, reduced, or removed from the atmosphere.

Why they matter: Even when companies set ambitious emission reduction goals, they generally can’t cut to zero overnight. Carbon credits can help serve as a bridge to global net-zero, and they can continue to be used to offset residual emissions that are essentially impossible to avoid.

Carbon credits also tend to have a variety of co-benefits beyond emissions, like protecting valuable ecosystems or supporting health and economic opportunities in the local communities where these projects operate.

How they’re generated: Carbon credits can come from many different types of projects that have independent third-party verified emissions impact, such as reforestation, methane capture from landfills, and soil carbon sequestration, to name just a few.

Calculate your carbon footprint to get a better sense of the emissions you want to balance.

Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs)

What they represent: The environmental attributes associated with one megawatt-hour (MWh) of renewable electricity.

Why they matter: Buying a REC is essentially the same as buying renewable electricity. Power gets mixed from different sources within a grid, so it’s not always possible to know exactly who’s consuming what. But since that renewable electricity is definitively added into the mix, that means someone is now using renewable energy.

The REC simply gives you permission to claim that benefit for yourself, while generally avoiding the risk of double-counting. Meanwhile, by buying RECs, you’re supporting the financial viability of more clean energy projects.

How they’re generated: RECs can be generated when a renewable source of electricity gets verifiably added to a power grid. RECs can either be sold bundled or unbundled. With bundled RECs, the energy and environmental attributes are sold together, like if a solar farm directly sells its energy to a company and agrees not to sell the claim to those environmental attributes elsewhere. Unbundled RECs separate the environmental claims and the energy, making it possible to claim the use of renewable electricity while continuing to purchase from your local utility.

You can easily and affordably purchase Green-e certified RECs through Terrapass online.

PrairieWinds ND1 (PWND1) Emissions Reduction Project

Water Restoration Certificates (WRCs)

What they represent: One WRC corresponds to 1,000 gallons of natural freshwater improved or restored.

Why they matter: Many parts of the world are under significant water stress, which often stems from issues like commercial overuse and climate change. Buying WRCs can help counter this trend by supporting the health and volume of freshwater systems.

A business operating in water-stressed regions in the Western U.S., for example, may need to inevitably use some freshwater to produce its products. In that case, it can ideally fund WRC projects in that same water resource region, like ones that secure water rights to keep more water within rivers, aquifers, etc.

How they’re generated: While similar water-related credits may exist elsewhere, BEF WRCs™ are specifically issued by the Bonneville Environmental Foundation (BEF). BEF WRC™ projects can involve restoring flows through securing legal rights, restoring natural systems through physical interventions like removing dams, or improving water use efficiency. All projects are third-party verified, typically by Watercourse Engineering or the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and all are tracked on S&P Global’s Markit registry.

Support freshwater systems and their associated recreational and ecological benefits by buying WRCs through Terrapass today.

Water Restoration Certificates (WRCs)

Plastic Credits

What they represent:  Plastic credits aren’t quite as formalized as some of these other market-based instruments, so the details can vary by credit issuer. But one example is Verra’s Plastic Waste Reduction Program, where one plastic credit represents one metric ton of plastic that’s been collected or recycled.

Why they matter: Each year, approximately 19-23 million tons of plastic leak from land-based sources into water systems, according to the UN Environment Programme. Plastic pollution then poses many threats, such as to the health of marine animals, as well as overall human health.

Businesses can buy plastic credits to help counter plastic pollution, especially because plastic has become so ubiquitous that it’s not always possible to immediately remove plastic from your packaging or other parts of your supply chain.

How they’re generated: Generating these credits depends on the issuer. Some businesses, particularly consumer-facing ones, work with third-party organizations to make plastic-neutral claims. For one, ice pop company GoodPop launched a limited edition flavor that’s certified plastic neutral by 4Ocean. For this certification, 4Ocean removes plastic from water systems and coastlines equivalent to each pound of plastic used to produce that product or for the brand as a whole.

For Verra’s plastic credits, projects must meet the specific guidelines of its Plastic Waste Reduction Standard and accounting methodologies that help ensure each credit represents one metric ton of plastic collected or recycled. These projects are also third-party audited, as well as tracked on the Verra Registry, similar to carbon credits.

Plastic Credits

Biodiversity Credits

What they represent: Biodiversity credits are one of the least developed types of environmental credits, so there’s not a general consensus on what they represent. Different credit issuers have different standards.

For example, one of the pioneers in this space, Savimbo, sells biodiversity credits that represent one month of conservation for one hectare in a biodiversity hotspot. In contrast, another leader in this space, Terrasos, sells biodiversity credits that represent 10 m² (0.001 hectares) of protected ecosystems for 30 years.

Why they matter: Climate change and related issues like land use change are causing significant biodiversity loss. From 1970 to 2020, wildlife populations fell by 73%, according to WWF.

At a simple level, interfering with natural cycles of plant and animal life leads to species loss, which then creates more risks for humans, like faster temperature rise due to the loss of natural carbon sinks. There’s also many nuanced arguments for supporting biodiversity, such as the economic and health value of stable plant and animal life.

How they’re generated: Because these are less established, there’s not a standard way to generate biodiversity credits. But in general, these work like carbon credits, in the sense that an issuer works with project developers to ensure a given area of land is conserved in a way that protects biodiversity.

One voluntary group, the Biodiversity Credit Alliance (BCA), backed by organizations such as the UN Development Programme, is working on developing a framework for biodiversity credits that could help this market more closely resemble the voluntary carbon credit market.

Biodiversity Credits

Sustainable Aviation Fuel Certificates (SAFc)

What they represent: The environmental attributes associated with one metric ton of unblended sustainable aviation fuel (SAF).

Why they matter: Flying is a carbon-intensive activity, yet these can be some of the hardest emissions to avoid. A growing business, for example, may be able to address its direct energy use, but total emissions could still rise if employees fly to meet with customers and suppliers. Finding efficiencies like batching travel into longer trips or using online meetings when possible can help, but the reality is that many still value flying.

So, sustainable aviation fuel certificates (SAFc) provide buyers with a way to claim the use of this low-carbon fuel, rather than accounting for the normal emissions associated with traditional jet fuel. If you’re flying on a commercial airline, you don’t have direct control over their fuel usage, but by buying SAFc, you’re supporting the transition to lower-emission fuel sources.

How they’re generated: Unlike traditional jet fuel made from petroleum, SAF comes from alternative feedstocks like used cooking oils or agricultural waste. SAF then gets blended with traditional jet fuel, with commercial planes currently able to accommodate about 10-50% of the total volume from SAF, though testing of higher limits is underway.

Because of this blending, you can’t exactly say that your flight from New York to LA runs on SAF while a flight from New York to San Francisco runs on traditional jet fuel. But like with RECs, SAF certificates give you the ability to claim the environmental attributes of SAF. If you purchase enough certificates that correspond with your flight’s fuel usage, you could claim your portion of the flight fully used SAF from an emissions accounting perspective.

Buyers often use the book-and-claim approach for SAF certificates and other low-carbon fuel purchases. That means instead of taking physical possession of this fuel, you’re buying the certificates that represent a certain amount, and you then claim the corresponding environmental attributes.

Renewable Thermal Certificates (RTCs)

What they represent: The environmental attributes of 1 dekatherm (Dth) of renewable thermal energy, such as renewable natural gas or green hydrogen.

Why they matter: Not everything can be electrified to then run on renewable electricity, at least in the short term. Businesses often still have large scope 1 footprints from burning natural gas or using similar fuel sources.

So, using renewable thermal certificates (RTCs) provides buyers with a way to claim the environmental benefits of renewable thermal energy, like using renewable natural gas (RNG) to generate heat from a furnace, or using green hydrogen to power an industrial boiler. Like with RECs, RTCs enable buyers to make these claims without having to always physically procure the renewable energy, especially in cases where renewable and non-renewable fuels get mixed.

How they’re generated: RTCs are generated from projects that produce renewable thermal energy, like municipal waste facilities that capture methane from landfills and convert it into RNG. This works essentially the same as it does with RECs, where the RTCs can be either bundled with the underlying energy or sold unbundled on a book-and-claim basis.

Finding the Right Environmental Credits

Environmental issues are often deeply interconnected. Rising greenhouse gas emissions, for example, can increase global temperatures, which then can increase droughts and trigger biodiversity loss. So, while carbon credits are generally the most established option, purchasing a broader mix of environmental credits can help organizations reach sustainability goals faster and drive more meaningful impact.

Still, not all environmental credits are created equally. Quality can vary significantly, so make sure you’re buying credits from a reputable source. Consider factors such as third-party verification, registry tracking to avoid double-counting, and additionality, where the money from purchasing credits supports environmental action that wouldn’t otherwise take place.

Environmental product providers like Terrapass make it easy for buyers to fund a mix of high-quality carbon credit projects, as well as other types of credits like RECs and WRCs.

Businesses can also build a custom portfolio of environmental credits through Terrapass to align with your environmental footprint and corporate sustainability goals. Reach out today to see how you can make a more positive impact by funding different environmental projects.

frameworks, and support transparent, defensible climate claims as part of a long-term sustainability strategy.

The post Beyond Carbon Credits: A Guide to the Expanding World of Environmental Credits appeared first on Terrapass.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

Apple, Amazon Lead 60+ Firms to Ease Global Carbon Reporting Rules

Published

on

Apple, Amazon Lead 60+ Firms to Ease Global Carbon Reporting Rules

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
scope emissions sources overview
Source: GHG Protocol

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.

GHG accounting from the sale and purchase of electricity
Source: GHG Protocol

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.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

Mastercard Beats 2025 Emissions Targets as Revenue Rises 16%, Breaking the Growth vs Carbon Trade-Off

Published

on

Mastercard Beats 2025 Emissions Targets as Revenue Rises 16% and Net-Zero Plan Gains Momentum Toward 2040

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.

Mastercard 2024 GHG emissions
Source: Mastercard

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.

mastercard emissions vs growth

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 payments revenue 2028 mckinsey
Source: McKinsey & Company

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.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

China’s $8.4B Orbital Data Center Push Sets Up Space-Based AI Showdown With SpaceX

Published

on

China’s $8.4B Orbital Data Center Push Sets Up Space-Based AI Showdown With SpaceX

China is backing a Beijing-based startup called Orbital Chenguang with about 57.7 billion yuan ($8.4 billion) in credit lines to build space-based data centers, according to media reports. The funding comes from major state-linked banks and signals one of the largest known investments in orbital computing infrastructure.

The move highlights a growing global race to build computing systems in space. It also puts China in direct competition with companies like SpaceX, which is exploring space-based data infrastructure, too.

Orbital Chenguang Builds State-Backed Space Computing System

Orbital Chenguang is a startup in Beijing supported by the Beijing Astro-future Institute of Space Technology. This institute works with the city’s science and technology authorities.

The company has received credit line support from major Chinese financial institutions, including:

  • Bank of China,
  • Agricultural Bank of China,
  • Bank of Communications,
  • Shanghai Pudong Development Bank, and
  • CITIC Bank.

These are credit lines, not fully deployed cash. But the scale shows strong institutional backing.

The project is part of a wider national strategy focused on commercial space, AI infrastructure, and advanced computing systems.

China’s state space contractor, CASC (China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation), has shared plans under its 15th Five-Year Plan. These include ideas for large-scale space computing systems, aiming for gigawatt power.

Space Data Center Plan Targets 2035 Gigawatt Capacity

According to Chinese media reports, Orbital Chenguang plans to build a constellation in a dawn-dusk sun-synchronous orbit at 700–800 km altitude. The long-term target is a gigawatt-scale space data center by 2035.

The development plan is divided into phases:

  • 2025–2027: Launch early computing satellites and solve technical barriers.
  • 2028–2030: Link space-based systems with Earth-based data centers.
  • 2030–2035: Scale toward large orbital computing infrastructure.

The design relies on continuous solar energy and natural cooling in space. These features could reduce reliance on land-based power grids and cooling systems.

China has proposed two satellite constellations to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). These plans include a total of 96,714 satellites. This shows China’s long-term goals for space infrastructure and spectrum control.

The AI Energy Crunch Pushing Computing Into Orbit

The push into orbital data centers is closely linked to rising AI demand. Global data centers consumed about 415–460 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity in 2024, equal to roughly 1.5%–2% of global power use. This figure is rising quickly due to AI workloads.

Some industry projections show demand could exceed 1,000 TWh by 2026, nearly equal to Japan’s total electricity consumption.

data center power demand AI 2030 Goldman

AI systems require massive computing power, which increases energy use and cooling needs. In many regions, electricity supply—not hardware—is now the main constraint on AI expansion.

China’s strategy aims to address this by moving part of the computing load into space, where solar energy is more stable and continuous.

Carbon Impact: Earth vs Space Computing Trade-Off

Data centers already create a large carbon footprint. In 2024, they emitted about 182 million tonnes of CO₂, based on global electricity use of roughly 460 TWh and an average carbon intensity of 396 grams of CO₂ per kWh. This is according to the International Energy Agency report, as shown in the chart below.

global data centers emissions 2035 IEA
Source: IEA

Future projections show even faster growth. The sector could generate up to 2.5 billion tonnes of CO₂ emissions by 2030, driven by AI expansion. This is where orbital systems come in. They aim to reduce emissions during operation by using:

  • Continuous solar energy,
  • Passive cooling in vacuum conditions, and
  • Reduced dependence on fossil-fuel grids.

However, space systems also introduce new emissions. Rocket launches used about 63,000 tonnes of propellant in 2022, producing CO₂ and atmospheric pollutants. Lifecycle studies suggest that over 70% of emissions from space systems typically come from manufacturing and launch activities.

In addition, hardware in orbit often has a lifespan of only 5–6 years, which increases replacement cycles and launch frequency. This creates a key trade-off:

  • Lower operational emissions in space, and
  • Higher lifecycle emissions from launches and manufacturing.

Research suggests that, in some scenarios, orbital computing could produce up to 10 times higher total carbon emissions than terrestrial systems when full lifecycle impacts are included.

Orbital data center infographic. Environmental impact of orbital and terrestrial data centers

China’s Expanding Space-Tech Ecosystem

Orbital Chenguang is not operating alone. Several Chinese companies are working on similar in-orbit computing systems, including ADA Space, Zhejiang Lab, Shanghai Bailing Aerospace, and Zhongke Tiansuan.

These firms are developing satellite-based computing and AI processing systems. This shows that orbital computing is not a single project. It is part of a broader national push across government, industry, and research institutions.

China’s space strategy combines commercial space growth with national technology planning. It aims to build integrated systems that connect satellites, cloud computing, and terrestrial networks.

The Space-AI Arms Race: China vs SpaceX vs Google

China is not alone in exploring space-based computing. Companies in the United States are also developing orbital data infrastructure concepts. These include early-stage research and private sector projects by firms such as SpaceX and Google.

SpaceX is building one of the largest satellite networks through its Starlink constellation, with thousands of satellites already in orbit. While its main goal is global internet coverage, the network also creates a foundation for future edge computing in space. The company’s reusable rockets, including Starship, are designed to lower launch costs, which is a key barrier to scaling orbital data infrastructure.

Google, through its cloud division, has been investing in space data and satellite analytics. It partners with Earth observation firms to process large volumes of data using cloud-based AI tools. This work could extend to hybrid systems where data is processed closer to where it is generated, including in orbit.

Other players are also entering the field. Amazon is developing Project Kuiper, a satellite internet network that could support future space-based computing layers. Microsoft has launched Azure Space, which connects satellites directly to cloud computing services and supports real-time data processing.

Government agencies are also involved. NASA and the U.S. Department of Defense are funding research into orbital computing, edge processing, and secure data transmission in space. These efforts aim to reduce latency, improve data security, and enable faster decision-making for both civilian and defense applications.

Together, these developments show that space-based computing is moving beyond theory. While still early-stage, both public and private sector efforts are building the foundation for future data centers and processing systems in orbit.

However, these systems face major challenges:

  • High launch costs,
  • Heat and thermal control issues,
  • Limited data transmission bandwidth, and
  • Hardware durability in space.

Despite these challenges, interest is growing because AI demand is rising faster than Earth-based infrastructure can scale. The competition is now moving toward who can solve energy and computing limits first—on Earth or in space.

Market Outlook: AI, Energy, and Space Infrastructure Converge

The global data center industry is entering a period of rapid expansion. Electricity demand from data centers could double by 2030, driven mainly by AI workloads and cloud computing growth. Power supply is becoming a limiting factor in many regions.

At the same time, the global space economy is expanding into a multi-hundred-billion-dollar industry, supported by satellites, communications, and emerging technologies like orbital computing.

  • Orbital data centers sit at the intersection of three major trends: rapid AI growth, rising energy constraints, and expansion of space infrastructure. 

China’s $8.4 billion credit-backed push through Orbital Chenguang signals confidence in this convergence. However, key barriers remain, such as high cost of launches, engineering complexity, short satellite lifespans (5-6 years), and regulatory uncertainty in orbital systems.

Because of these limits, orbital data centers are unlikely to replace Earth-based systems in the near term. Instead, they may form a hybrid system where some workloads move to space while most remain on Earth.

Space Is Becoming the Next Data Center Frontier

China’s investment in Orbital Chenguang marks one of the most significant moves yet in the emerging field of space-based computing. Backed by major Chinese banks, municipal science institutions, and national space contractors like CASC, the project shows how seriously China is treating orbital infrastructure.

The strategy connects AI growth, energy demand, and climate pressures into a single long-term vision. But the trade-offs are complex. Orbital data centers may reduce operational emissions, but they also introduce high lifecycle carbon costs and major technical challenges.

The global race is now underway. With companies like SpaceX, Google, and Chinese tech firms exploring similar ideas, space is becoming a new frontier for digital infrastructure. The outcome will depend on whether orbital systems can scale efficiently—and whether their carbon benefits can outweigh the emissions cost of building them.

The post China’s $8.4B Orbital Data Center Push Sets Up Space-Based AI Showdown With SpaceX appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com