The Large Energy Users Pledge was announced on March 12 at the CERAWeek energy conference in Houston, Texas. Big companies like Google, Amazon, and Meta have joined a pledge to triple nuclear energy use by 2050.
These tech giants have teamed up with Dow, Allseas, OSGE, and Occidental to push for more nuclear power. This is the first time major businesses outside the nuclear sector have publicly supported such a big nuclear expansion.
The pledge started in September 2023 and already has support from 31 countries, 14 major global banks, and 140 nuclear industry companies.
Nuclear Energy: A Reliable and Scalable Solution
Sama Bilbao y León, Director General of the World Nuclear Association (WNA), said,
“The unprecedented support announced today by some of the world’s most influential companies to at least triple global nuclear capacity by 2050 sends a clear signal to accelerate policy, finance and regulatory changes that enable the rapid expansion of nuclear power. The global shift towards more nuclear highlights this is the only way we’ll deliver the abundant firm clean energy required to power growth and innovation in technology, a host of other industries and the entire economy.”
The pledge highlights nuclear energy’s benefits like:
- Offering stable and reliable power 24/7.
- Not affected by weather conditions like wind or solar.
- Helps industries reduce costs and offers a steady supply of heat for factories and chemical plants.
Other notable companies who have also joined the nuclear pledge are Allseas, Bureau Veritas, Carbon3Energy, Clean Energy Buyers Alliance, Core Power, Dow, Fly Green Alliance, Lloyd’s Register, Occidental, OSGE, and Siemens Energy.
The WNA expects even more businesses to sign the pledge soon. Industries like maritime, aviation, chemicals, and hydrocarbons are showing more interest in nuclear energy.
Dow Energy & Climate Business Vice President Edward Stones said,
“Energy is the lifeblood of global manufacturing and therefore investing and expanding access to clean, reliable, cost-competitive nuclear energy is critical to industrial progress. Dow considers nuclear energy, especially the promising technology of advanced small modular nuclear, to be a long-term competitive source of safe, firm and clean energy.”
The Large Energy Users Pledge
The pledge highlights nuclear power’s role in energy security and economic growth. It calls for a stronger, more reliable energy system with nuclear alongside other clean energy sources.
Here’s a snapshot of the pledge.
Big energy users want to triple nuclear power by 2050 to meet rising energy needs and help economies grow. Their strategy also includes new reactors, including small modular reactors (SMRs) and advanced designs.
How Is Nuclear Power Shaping Global Energy Consumption?
Nuclear energy has been a critical part of the world’s power supply for decades. Today, it provides about 10% of global electricity, with over 400 reactors operating in more than 30 countries.
Some countries, such as France, depend on nuclear power for over 70% of their electricity. The United States and China are also increasing their nuclear capacity. They want to rely less on fossil fuels.
Compared to fossil fuel plants, nuclear power plants operate at a higher capacity factor. This means they produce electricity more efficiently and consistently.
While coal and natural gas plants may run at about 50–60% capacity, nuclear plants often reach 90% or higher. This makes nuclear energy one of the most reliable sources of electricity in the world.
However, some countries are rethinking their nuclear investments. Germany, for example, closed its last nuclear plants in 2023. But now, rising energy costs and supply worries have sparked talks about restarting nuclear programs.
Why Tech Giants Want to Invest in Nuclear?
In 2023, nuclear power plants worldwide generated around 2,600 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity. As electricity demand continues to rise, countries are prioritizing nuclear energy as a reliable solution.
Countries such as the USA and China are leading nuclear expansion efforts, with multiple reactors under construction. It’s for the same reason that big companies like Google, Meta, Microsoft, Amazon, and Oracle are making this shift toward nuclear to reach their net-zero goals.
Explaining further, the growth of artificial intelligence (AI) is driving up energy use in data centers. Right now, they make up about 2% to 3% of total U.S. power consumption. This number could reach 9% by 2030. This rise is putting pressure on current power systems. As a result, tech giants are looking for new energy sources to meet their increasing demands.
To tackle these challenges, they are looking at nuclear energy, especially small modular reactors. The SMRs can be placed near data centers, ensuring a steady energy supply and reducing environmental impact.
More significantly, one of the biggest advantages of nuclear power is that it is a low-carbon energy source. Unlike coal and natural gas, nuclear reactors do not produce greenhouse gas emissions during operation.
- According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), nuclear energy prevents over 2 billion metric tons of CO2 emissions annually. This makes nuclear power an essential tool in the fight against climate change.
Google’s SMR Investments
Google is looking at nuclear energy to help meet its 2030 net-zero emissions goal, says CEO Sundar Pichai. The company is investing in clean energy, including solar and small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs).
In 2023, Google’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reached 14.3 million tCO2e. This was a 13% increase from the previous year and a 48% jump from 2019. Emissions have been rising since 2020.
Thus, Google made a deal with Kairos Power in October 2025. They plan to build several SMRs to power AI data centers. The first reactor could be running this decade, depending on approvals. More reactors are expected by 2035. This move helps Google lower its carbon footprint while meeting the energy needs of its growing AI operations
Meta Bets on Nuclear for Reliable Clean Energy
Meta has been using 100% renewable energy for its global operations since 2020. Now, the company is exploring nuclear power to meet rising energy demands and support its AI and environmental goals.
Meta’s Urvi Parekh, Head of Global Energy, noted,
“As global economies expand, the need for a reliable, clean, and resilient energy supply is paramount. Nuclear energy, with its ability to provide continuous power, can help meet this rising demand. We’re excited to join alongside this multi-organisational effort with the Tripling Nuclear Pledge to reiterate our commitment to nuclear energy.”
On December 3, Meta announced plans to work with nuclear power developers. The company believes that nuclear energy provides a steady power supply unlike solar and wind energy, making it crucial for grid stability and AI workloads.
Since 2021, Meta has cut emissions by 16.4 million metric tons of CO2e through renewable energy. In 2023, its net emissions were 7.4 million metric tons.
In 2023 alone, the company’s renewable energy initiatives helped cut operational emissions by 5.1 MMTCO2e, while value chain emissions were reduced by 1.4 MMTCO2e. Thus, Meta is optimistic about hitting its net-zero target by adding nuclear energy to its clean energy portfolio.
Amazon’s SMR Strategy
Amazon is adding nuclear power to supply carbon-free energy to AWS data centers and is investing over $52 billion across three U.S. states as part of its massive data center expansion.
The company has signed three key deals to explore and build small modular reactors (SMRs). AWS CEO Matt Garman believes SMRs can provide scalable and reliable power for growing data needs.
In 2023, Amazon’s carbon footprint was nearly 69 million metric tons of CO2—lower than its 2021 peak but still significant.
AWS is working to reduce emissions, betting on SMRs. They hope nuclear could be a game changer, offering a sustainable energy source for the future.
Amazon Web Services’ Brandon Oyer, Head of Americas Energy and Water, said,
“Accelerating nuclear energy development will be critical to strengthening our nation’s security, meeting future energy demands, and addressing climate change. Amazon supports the World Nuclear Association’s pledge, and is proud to have invested more than USD1 billion over the last year in nuclear energy projects and technologies, which is part of our broader Climate Pledge commitment to be net-zero carbon by 2040.”
Global Investment in Nuclear Energy: 2050 Forecast
Notably, global investment in nuclear energy is set to rise. Right now, it’s about $65 billion each year. As per IEA, by 2030, it could hit $70 billion with current policies. Nuclear capacity is expected to grow by over 50% to nearly 650 GW by 2050.
Amazon, Meta, Google, and other companies that have joined the pledge are aware that even with better energy use, industries will still need a lot more power. However, nuclear projects require high upfront costs, long development times, and strict regulations. Despite these challenges, their long lifespan and low carbon emissions make them a strong choice for long-term energy planning.
The post Meta, Google, and Amazon Join Global Pledge to Triple Nuclear Energy by 2050 appeared first on Carbon Credits.
The accounting differences that decide whether your nature investment shows up in inventory, in BVCM, or nowhere at all.
The question reaches a procurement team about three weeks before the next sustainability committee meeting. Someone has read about insetting. Someone else has just signed off on an offset purchase. The CSO wants to know if the two are interchangeable. The answer is no, and the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard is the reason why.
This article walks through what each term means at audit-grade specificity, what the standards actually say about how each gets counted, and how to decide which tool fits which target. The insetting vs offsetting question is one of the most-searched in corporate climate strategy, and one of the most poorly answered. By the end of this piece, you should be able to brief a committee on the difference without notes.
The two definitions, in plain English
Offsetting means buying carbon credits generated outside your value chain and retiring them against your residual emissions. The reduction happens somewhere else, financed by you, and the credit is the receipt.
Insetting means investing in emission reductions or removals inside your own value chain, typically with suppliers, where the reduction is directly linked to the products and services you buy. The reduction happens inside the boundary of your Scope 3 inventory, and the accounting treatment is fundamentally different.
The shorthand from the University of Oxford’s Nature-based Insetting Initiative is useful: insetting is what you do with the supply chain you have; offsetting is what you do with the supply chain you do not have.
What the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard actually says
The GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, finalised in 2024 after a multi-year pilot, sets the rules for how land-based emission reductions and removals enter corporate inventories. The Standard distinguishes between inventory accounting (Scope 1, 2, and 3) and project or intervention accounting (a separate methodology for crediting).
For insetting, the practical implication is that supplier-level interventions, when properly measured and attributed, can reduce your Scope 3 category 1 (purchased goods and services) emissions in your inventory. The reduction is not a credit retired against the inventory; it is a lower inventory number, period.
For offsetting, the credit is retired separately. It can be reported as a contribution toward a net-zero claim under the SBTi Beyond Value Chain Mitigation framework or as part of a VCMI Carbon Integrity claim, but it does not lower the inventory number.
A practical consequence: if your Science Based Target requires a 50% absolute reduction in Scope 3 emissions by 2030, insetting moves you toward the target. Offsetting does not. This single point of difference reshapes the procurement decision.
When insetting counts toward Scope 3 (and when it does not)
Insetting counts toward Scope 3 only when several conditions are met:
- The intervention must occur with an entity in your value chain.
- The emissions reduction or removal must be measured against a defensible baseline.
- The reduction must be attributed to your share of that supplier’s output, not double-counted with other buyers.
- It must follow the inventory accounting rules in the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard, not the project accounting rules used to generate credits.
The most common failure mode is double counting. If your supplier sells the same reduction as a credit on the voluntary market and also reports it to you as a Scope 3 reduction, the math breaks. The Standard requires you to address this risk, typically by purchasing and retiring the supplier-issued credit as part of your inventory or by contractual provisions that prevent the supplier from selling the reduction twice.
When insetting does not count toward Scope 3: when the intervention sits with a supplier you do not buy from, when the baseline is not defensible, when the attribution is unclear, or when the documentation does not survive audit. Those cases default to Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, which is still useful but operates on a different ledger.
The procurement and supplier engagement question
Insetting is harder than offsetting. That is the unfashionable truth most buyers eventually confront. Offsetting is a transaction; insetting is a relationship.
To run an insetting program, you need supplier mapping precise enough to know which farms or facilities sit at which Scope 3 boundary. You need an engagement model that gets suppliers to participate, which usually requires multi-year commitments and shared economics. You need an MRV architecture that measures the right things and produces audit-ready documentation. And you need a contractual structure that prevents double counting and protects both sides.
The trade-off you receive in return is significant. Reductions count against your inventory rather than your residual. Supplier relationships deepen, which protects sourcing continuity. Yield and quality improvements often follow regenerative interventions, which reduces your input cost over time. And the regulatory file, under CSRD, CSDDD, EUDR, and the SBTi FLAG Guidance, is materially stronger.
Choosing the right tool for the right target
A practical decision rule. If your target is a science-based Scope 3 reduction and you operate in a FLAG sector or source FLAG commodities, insetting is the structurally correct tool. If your target is a net-zero claim that includes neutralising hard-to-abate residual emissions outside your value chain, BVCM via high-integrity offsets is the structurally correct tool. Most companies with material Scope 3 exposure need both, in different proportions, sequenced over time.
The sequencing matters. Insetting takes longer to stand up but produces a permanent reduction in the inventory. Offsetting can be transacted faster but does not change the inventory and now sits under tighter claim restrictions. Treat them as complementary tools with different jobs, not as substitutes. The Accountability Framework Initiative and the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions both provide useful guardrails for the insetting side, with biodiversity, human rights, and benefit-sharing requirements that go beyond carbon math.
If you are mapping a Scope 3 reduction roadmap and need to scope which interventions count toward your inventory versus which sit in Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you structure a nature-based supply chain investment program that fits your FLAG exposure, your target architecture, and your audit horizon. Schedule a consultation.
Net zero is often described as a balancing act: cut what you can, account for the rest, and reach zero on the ledger. That framing is useful, but it leaves something out. It treats every tonne of carbon as interchangeable and every route to zero as equally sound, while the science tells a more specific story.
Malawi has lost a striking share of its forests over the past three decades. Woodlands that once covered well over a third of the country now cover less than a quarter, and the pressure on what remains is increasing. Behind those figures sit two practical questions: what is driving the loss, and what reverses it?
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year 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
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits