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.
Insetting program design starts with your supplier map. The carbon claim comes much later.
Consider a coffee procurement team that funds a farm intervention before checking its sourcing data. The supplier aggregates coffee lots from several regions. The buyer lacks farm-level traceability. Another purchaser expects to report the same outcome. A more attractive project brochure solves none of these problems.
If the distinction between a value-chain intervention and a purchased credit is still open, read CCC’s Insetting vs Offsetting guide before you set the brief.
Insetting program design begins with the purchasing relationship and works outward. You need to decide 1) where an intervention belongs, 2) what business problem it addresses, 3) who pays for it, 4) how results will be measured, and 5) what the evidence will let you say about them. This five-step playbook turns that sequence into a procurement plan.
Step 1: Insetting program design starts with supplier mapping
Start with the commodities that matter most to your Scope 3 inventory and sourcing continuity. Ask finance for spend by supplier, sustainability for the emissions baseline, and category managers for origin and volume records. Then identify which suppliers can trace material to a jurisdiction, sourcing region, producer group, or individual land-management unit.
The level of traceability affects what you can account for. Under the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, the spatial boundary for purchased land-based products depends on the traceability associated with each volume. Farm-specific factors or removals require physical traceability through an acceptable chain-of-custody model. A contract with a tier-one trader, by itself, does not establish a link to the farms behind its deliveries.[1]
Build a first-pass table with five columns: commodity and annual volume; supplier and origin; current traceability level; land-use and production risks; and the business owner who can change the purchasing terms. Mark missing data plainly. A blank cell is cheaper to fix before a program starts than after a claim is drafted.
If your company sets an SBTi Forest, Land and Agriculture target (FLAG), keep its land-related target boundary separate from energy and industry emissions. The current FLAG guidance also requires relevant companies to assess primary deforestation-linked commodities in their value chains.[2]
Step 2: Choose a commodity and jurisdiction for a pilot
Select one supply corridor where the sourcing connection can be established and procurement has a reason to stay. A useful pilot has repeat purchases, suppliers willing to share records, an intervention matched to a diagnosed problem, and a defined plan to measure the result. Carbon potential alone is a poor selection rule if the supplier cannot deliver the crop your business needs.
Compare candidate regions on land-use risk, supplier concentration, local rights and tenure, the availability of baseline data, and exposure to drought, erosion, or forest conversion. Check the relevant legal requirements separately. A nature project does not satisfy a due-diligence obligation merely because it has a carbon method attached.
Consider a coffee buyer sourcing from two districts. In the first, producer-group records identify the farms, while recent dry seasons have increased rejected green coffee lots. In the second, deliveries pass through several intermediaries and farm origins are unknown. Pilot shade management in the first district, with local agronomic advice and quality checks built into the plan. The buyer can trace purchases there and test the intervention against a defined sourcing problem.
Use a short decision memo to record why the selected corridor beats the alternatives, what remains uncertain, and what would stop the pilot. That memo is the first control against a project drifting toward whatever happens to photograph well.
Step 3: Design the supplier engagement and commercial model
The intervention needs an owner on each side of the contract. Decide who supplies planting material or training, who maintains the practice, who bears the cost if a harvest disappoints, and how long the buyer expects to purchase from participating suppliers. Where smallholders participate, budget cash flow and technical support for practices that offer a later return.
Put these terms in a supplier agreement or pilot addendum. It should cover eligible farms and volumes, consent to data collection, access for monitoring, any land or carbon rights that matter, benefit sharing, and what happens if the purchasing relationship ends. Ask local counsel and producer representatives to review the arrangement. The Accountability Framework is a useful reference for supply-chain work involving forests, ecosystems, and human rights.[3]
Avoid assigning an automatic carbon benefit to the buyer. The contract should say which party has the right to report each outcome, how overlapping claims will be checked, and how any issued credits will be handled. A reduction reported in a buyer’s inventory cannot simply be sold for someone else’s offset claim without an accounting review. SBTi FLAG guidance excludes purchased credits used as offsets from near-term FLAG target achievement.[2]
Set commercial measures beside environmental ones: delivered volume, rejection rate, supplier retention, and procurement cost. They tell you whether the program works as a supply-chain investment, even if carbon accounting takes longer to resolve.
Step 4: Build monitoring, reporting, and verification before rollout
Agree on the baseline and data flow before paying for a full rollout. Identify the land units or sourcing regions in scope, the practices that change, the records suppliers already keep, and the additional measurements the program requires. Decide which data can come from field visits, transaction records, or remote sensing, and who checks each source.
For carbon, separate three questions. Did the practice happen? Did emissions or removals change under an applicable method? Can the buyer attribute a defensible share to its purchased goods without double counting? The GHG Protocol’s 2026 guidance includes dedicated chapters on spatial boundaries, data and methods, evaluating actions, credited outcomes, and assurance.[1] These are distinct jobs. A photograph of a planted tree answers only part of the first.
CCC’s MRV and Additionality article explains the separate evidence questions a project reviewer will ask.
Create an evidence file for every reporting period: dated supplier and farm records, purchase volumes, methods and emission factors, uncertainty, quality checks, and changes from the baseline. Specify who can challenge the data and how corrections are recorded. If a project also seeks credit certification, keep project accounting and corporate inventory accounting separate. The GHG Protocol says its land standard focuses on entity-level inventories and does not set the rules for credit certification.[4]
Start with the minimum viable measurement design that can survive review. Add complexity when the pilot tells you which data actually changes a decision.
Step 5: Decide what can be reported and claimed
Insetting program design needs reporting rules before the marketing copy. Procurement, sustainability, finance, and legal should agree on four distinct outputs: operational performance; observed land or nature outcomes; inventory effects, if the accounting criteria are met; and any separately issued credits. One dashboard can display them, but they should not share a single unqualified headline.
SBTi FLAG guidance allows certain land-based removals within a company’s operations or supply chain to contribute to FLAG pathways, subject to criteria including permanence, traceability, data quality, and allocation. It does not allow purchased offsets to meet near-term FLAG targets.[2] Eligibility therefore depends on evidence and the applicable target rules, not on calling an activity “insetting.”
Draft a claims register. For each proposed sentence, record the period, boundary, data owner, calculation method, reviewer, and whether the result is measured, estimated, or still a goal. If the evidence supports only “we funded a pilot with 200 farms,” say that. Do not turn a funding fact into a verified emissions reduction.
What good looks like by year three
Treat year three as a review point, not a promised payback date. A mature pilot should have mapped participating supply volumes, a stable supplier agreement, a repeatable data collection process, and a comparison of commercial and environmental results against the baseline. It should also have a documented answer for outcomes that cannot be included in the buyer’s inventory.
Scale only where the pilot improves a sourcing decision and the evidence can follow the product. If neither condition holds, redesign the intervention or change the corridor. A disciplined program can conclude that a site is unsuitable. That is useful procurement intelligence.
Discuss your insetting program with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital designs nature-based supply chain investments around sourcing needs and measurable sustainability outcomes. Schedule a consultation with our carbon and sustainability experts to map your tier-one supplier network, FLAG exposure, and first pilot decision.
Sources
[1] GHG Protocol, Land Sector and Removals Standard, version 1.1, and companion Guidance, June 2026: https://ghgprotocol.org/land-sector-and-removals-standard ; https://ghgprotocol.org/land-sector-and-removals-guidance
[2] Science Based Targets initiative, Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, especially pp. 16–17, 37, and 41: https://sciencebasedtargets.org/resources/files/SBTiFLAGGuidance.pdf
[3] Accountability Framework initiative, Accountability Framework and guidance for companies: https://accountability-framework.org/
[4] GHG Protocol, Frequently Asked Questions: Land Sector and Removals Standard, questions 10 and 18: https://ghgprotocol.org/blog/frequently-asked-questions-land-sector-and-removals-lsr-standard
Nature-based carbon investments deserve consideration when they address a specific business dependency and produce outcomes you can measure. Imagine Moonbucks, a global coffee roaster planning next season’s espresso blend. It is considering natural Grade 4 coffee from Jimma, in southwestern Oromia, Ethiopia. Its sourcing decisions affect the roasting schedule and the cash tied up in coffee purchases. Moonbucks needs to understand which measures could protect that supply, what they would cost and how it would judge the results.
1. Define the sourcing problem before choosing a project
Moonbucks needs a dependable component for its espresso blend. Its procurement team wants continuity of volume and an agreed cup profile. Replacing a shipment at short notice could require new sample approval and changes to the blend, and given the schedules for cultivation, processing, and freight delivery, is practically impossible. Moonbucks needs to get this right, and its initial concern is inconsistent deliveries. It commissions an assessment of the supplying farms and post-harvest chain. The questions cover land condition, harvest availability and whether drying or storage problems are affecting saleable lots.
This distinction changes the investment brief. A tree-planting proposal cannot be assumed to fix drying problems. Better storage cannot restore eroded land. The team must establish which problem exists before selecting the response.
CCC’s guide to finding nature-based solutions in your supply chain explains where to look. Here, the next task is to turn a broad concern into a testable proposal.
2. Develop nature-based carbon investments around the actual supply chain
The assessment would trace Moonbucks’ purchases back through the exporter and supplying producer groups. Which farms supply the contracted lots? Who controls land-management decisions? How long does the buyer expect to maintain the purchasing relationship?
Furthermore, Jimma natural Grade 4 cannot be treated as interchangeable with every Ethiopian coffee. Moonbucks would need to test any substitute against its own blend and quality requirements.
Suppose Moonbucks’ assessment identifies an opportunity to maintain shade trees and restore vegetation along exposed streambanks. The IPCC describes agroforestry as a way to store carbon in vegetation and soil, with potential benefits for erosion control and water quality.1 Moonbucks would need local advice on species, growing conditions and maintenance before deciding how these measures fit its sourcing plan.
The proposal now has a defined sourcing connection and a candidate intervention. The next steps are to test its effect on production, assess carbon eligibility and build the financial case.
3. Compare the proposal with other ways to protect supply
WBCSD’s Nature-based Solutions Blueprint recommends comparing nature-based options with other responses across their benefits and costs.2 For Moonbucks, that means evaluating the landscape proposal alongside drying improvements, storage controls and alternative sourcing arrangements.
The product’s natural-process designation matters. Moonbucks should examine the drying and dry-milling chain alongside land conditions. Its team would check storage practices, contamination risks and incoming-lot quality to see whether problems arise before or after the coffee leaves the farms.
The revised proposal might combine land stewardship with separate post-harvest controls. Each component needs its own purpose and budget. A sustainability label should not obscure which activity is expected to solve which problem.
The project develops as the evidence improves. Its scope should follow the diagnosis rather than preserve the first idea unchanged.
4. Establish what the carbon outcome could count toward
Moonbucks’ sustainability team now tests the proposed carbon case separately from the sourcing case. Is the objective a measurable change in Moonbucks’ value-chain emissions, verified credits for separate voluntary use, or distinct outcomes under carefully defined arrangements?
Scope 3 covers value-chain emissions. A purchasing relationship alone does not prove that a farm intervention can be included in Moonbucks’ inventory. The team needs an applicable accounting method, defensible boundaries and evidence supporting attribution.
SBTi’s FLAG Guidance (forest, land and agriculture), version 1.2, says purchased credits used as offsets cannot meet near-term FLAG or energy and industry targets. Eligible land-based removals are subject to accounting requirements.3 Moonbucks needs to test its proposal against those rules before including an outcome in its targets.
For Moonbucks’ Jimma proposal, maintaining existing trees and establishing new vegetation could involve different carbon questions. Specialists must examine the baseline and additionality, meaning what changes because the project proceeds. They must also assess measurement and the risk that stored carbon is lost. CCC’s MRV and additionality article introduces those tests.
Until that work is complete, Moonbucks should not budget an assumed Scope 3 reduction or credit-sale receipt. Direct emissions reductions remain the priority.
5. Build a financial case that survives weaker assumptions
Moonbucks’ finance team would now build a multi-year budget. UNEP’s State of Finance for Nature 2023 compares current finance with the investment needed to meet climate, biodiversity and land-restoration goals.4 The company would cost its proposed activities, farmer participation and ongoing monitoring. Verification, where required, is a separate expense. Maintenance and responsibility for replacing failed plantings must remain visible after the initial establishment budget ends.
Operational benefits need equally careful treatment. If fewer rejected lots reduce emergency purchasing, count that saving once. Do not add “supply resilience” as another financial benefit when it represents the same avoided cost.
Moonbucks should compare a base case with slower benefits, higher implementation costs and no carbon revenue. It should also distinguish production outcomes from quality and shipment outcomes. A single good harvest would not prove that the landscape intervention caused better delivery performance.
A project can remain worth funding even when its carbon case needs more work. That decision must rest on the operational evidence and the company’s objectives, without unsupported environmental claims.
6. Fund a pilot with a clear expansion decision
Moonbucks’ first approval would fund a bounded pilot, rather than commit the entire sourcing program. Before spending, Moonbucks would agree on participating farms, responsibilities and the evidence needed at review.
Its scorecard could track farmer participation, implementation costs and plant survival, alongside accepted coffee volumes and lot-quality results. Carbon measurements would follow the selected method. Farm-level traceability must connect the intervention to the actual sourcing relationship.
Suppose Moonbucks’ review later finds that storage changes explain most quality improvements, while the land measures need longer observation. Those findings would shape the next decision: expand the proven component, adjust the landscape work or pause further spending. They would not justify crediting all improvements to tree planting.
This gives nature-based carbon investments a practical place in a multi-year strategy. Funding increases as the evidence supports it, and the project can change direction before a larger commitment.
Discuss a sourcing opportunity with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital’s nature-based supply-chain investment service uses its Dual-Value Model to examine supply-chain economics alongside potential sustainability outcomes.
Schedule a consultation to discuss your sourcing exposure and the questions to resolve before allocating capital.
Sources
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, Chapter 7, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses, section 7.4.3.3 (Agroforestry).
- World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Nature-based Solutions Blueprint, 5 June 2024.
- Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, section 3.1.4, pp. 37–38.
- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), State of Finance for Nature 2023, 2023.
A plastic credit funds the collection of plastic waste in places where no formal system exists to collect it. Each credit represents a measured, independently audited quantity of plastic taken out of the environment or returned to use, tracked on a public registry.
