Connect with us

Published

on

history of uranium market and impact on energy transition

Many fail to realize this is not the first energy transition.

Although the media have made it appear as if it’s the first energy transition, it’s not.

For example, the nuclear energy industry development which started in WW2 was a major energy transition. In today’s dollars, half a trillion dollars went into the research and development of nuclear reactors along with uranium mines and fabrication plants that would feed the operating nuclear reactors.

In fact, one of the most fascinating stories of collusion, corruption and cartels happened as America was developing its first energy transition. Amazingly, it almost “destroyed” the nuclear industry.

So, before you think the current Energy Transition has failed (which it is not over and will happen) let’s explain the drama that almost took down the first major Energy Transition in America.

Have you ever heard of the Yellow Cartel?

The Yellow Cartel

Everyone knows about the oil cartel called OPEC. But did you know that in the 1970s, a uranium cartel was conspired by one of the largest mining companies in the world and the Canadian government?

From 1955 through 1970 hundreds of billions of dollars were being committed by the US, France, Sweden, Japan and West Germany to build nuclear power plants. The Yellow Cartel started in 1971 with the London based mining giant, Rio Tinto approaching the Canadian government concerning the formation of a cartel for controlling uranium market pricing.

The first official meeting occurred in February 1972, in Paris, and the International Uranium Cartel was created.

Eventually, 29 producing companies would become members of the International Uranium Cartel, which was nicknamed the ‘Yellow Cartel” for the color of yellowcake that the cartel was colluding to price fix.

Rio Tinto, Uranerz (the large German uranium producer in the 70s), the Canadian Government and ultimately a total 29 uranium producers made up the Uranium Cartel.

The Uranium Cartel was successful in increasing the price of uranium almost 10-fold in a few short years by deploying illegal tactics such as price fixing schemes.

Later, the Canadian government would form two uranium entities which would lead to the creation of Cameco, a top 5 uranium producer worldwide.

There were two real catalysts that caused the formation of the International Uranium Cartel. But why did Rio Tinto pitch this plan that almost would turn the energy world upside down and risk America’s energy security and the first major energy transition?

The first catalyst was the move by the US government to place an embargo on all foreign uranium in 1964 to protect its own uranium mines.

At that time, the United States consumed about 70% of the global uranium production (for both its military and energy needs) and with that demand for uranium now gone outside the USA, the price of uranium crashed to $5 per pound in 1970.

But because the price of uranium was so high during the 1950s and first half of the 1960s, significant amounts of risk capital was spent on exploration for new uranium deposits globally. As a result of all this new uranium exploration was major uranium discoveries were made in places like Niger and Australia.

By the late 1960s significant uranium deposits would be discovered in Australia such as Jabiluka 1 & 2.

Eventually the massive discovery of Olympic Dam which would become one of the largest polymetallic mines (including uranium) in the world. Olympic Dam would soon replace the depleting uranium from the Rum Jungle Mine in Australia which was producing uranium since 1954 and was shut down for good in 1971.

Because of and other events such as those mentioned above, by 1971, there was over 220 Million pounds of global uranium production and only 55 Million pounds of uranium global demand. The uranium market was oversupplied by 400%.

Because of both the US embargo on foreign supplies of uranium and an oversupply of uranium production to demand by 400%, the price of uranium was hovering around $5/pound in 1971.

But because of the price fixing tactics of the Uranium Cartel, the price of uranium surged to $40/pound.

a line graph showing the price of carbon credits and the united states uranium price

The move in uranium prices brought down the world’s largest nuclear reactor builder in the world, Westinghouse Electric Corp. on September 8, 1975.

Westinghouse was able to become the world’s largest developer and installer of nuclear reactors because it had the best track record, nuclear technology and most importantly it promised a long-term supply of uranium feed to power the Westinghouse PWR reactors. A dream trifecta for large utilities and government entities alike.

To put things in perspective, half of the world’s current operating nuclear power plants are using the basis of Westinghouse’s PWR reactor technology. Between 1960 and 1970, Westinghouse was able to secure US government backed utility contracts (and same in Sweeden) worth tens of billions of dollars because Westinghouse committed to supply 65 million pounds to the American and Swedish nuclear reactors with a fixed price contract.

But things quickly turned very bad for Westinghouse. The utilities, citizens and the American Government. Because the price of uranium increased 10X (1000%) from when Westinghouse signed those fixed price utility contracts, on September 8th, 1975 Westinghouse announced that it would not honor the 65 million pounds of uranium it committed to the American and Swedish utilities.

It was revealed in legal documents that the American consumer ended up paying billions of dollars in additional electricity costs due to the Uranium Cartels actions. In fact, New York state alone paid over $1Billion in electricity prices shortly after the Yellow Cartel activities.

On October 15, 1976, Westinghouse took matters into its own hands. It filed for conspiracy, in violation of United States anti-trust laws against the 29 producing uranium companies that made up the International Uranium Cartel estimating damages between $4-6 Billion.

Uranium continued to soar after 1976, surpassing $100 per pound throughout the late seventies.

Around that time, people called for the end of the energy transition citing the negative impact caused by the Uranium Cartel. This was just one of many attacks survived by the uranium industry. In fact, the nuclear sector not only survived the Uranium Cartel fiasco, but Chernobyl, Fukushima and countless other project and sector setbacks over the years.

Right now, we are in the greatest energy transition in human history. Tens of trillions of dollars will be spent worldwide on energy transition and decarbonization. Nuclear is a big part of the solution.

In fact, without uranium, there is no clean, long term base load nuclear power. Which is why we are currently in one of the greatest uranium bull markets of all time.

There are three uranium giants in global uranium production. The largest global producer came out of the fall of the Soviet Union, Kazatomprom. The third largest global uranium producer, as described above, was the result of the Canadian Government merging two state owned enterprises and created Cameco.

But do you know who the second largest producer of uranium globally is?

And the major moves this company is making after almost blowing itself up?

In an upcoming feature article, we will bring to the forefront the under the radar moves that the second largest producer of uranium is doing and how investors can benefit.

The post Has the Energy Transition Failed and is it Over? appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

Industries with the biggest nature footprints and what their decarbonisation looks like

Published

on

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.

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

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com