NVIDIA’s latest earnings report shows the scale of the AI boom. The chipmaker reported record revenue and became the fourth U.S. tech company to exceed $100 billion in annual profit. Alongside financial growth, Nvidia continues to push renewable energy use and efficiency gains. The results highlight the growing link between AI expansion and sustainability challenges.
NVIDIA reported record revenue of $68.1 billion for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2026, ending January 25, 2026. This figure was up 73% from a year earlier and up 20% from the prior quarter. Data center sales, which fuel artificial intelligence (AI) growth, were $62.3 billion, or about 91% of total revenue in the quarter.
For the full fiscal year, NVIDIA posted $215.9 billion in revenue, a jump of 65% from the prior year. Net income reached tens of billions, $120,067 million for the full year and $42,960 for the 4th quarter. Earnings per share also grew significantly.
These results exceeded most analysts’ expectations and underscored NVIDIA’s continued leadership in AI compute hardware. The company also forecast strong revenue for the first quarter of fiscal 2027.
NVIDIA’s Sustainability Commitments at a Glance
NVIDIA has increasingly highlighted its environmental and sustainability goals in recent years. For the fiscal year 2025, the company achieved 100% renewable energy use for all offices and data centers it directly controls.
The renewable supply came from a mix of:
- On-site generation
- Purchased renewable electricity
- Energy attribute certificates (EACs)
- Power purchase agreements (PPAs)
This milestone eliminates the company’s market-based Scope 2 emissions tied to electricity use in those facilities.
While operational emissions from electricity have been addressed, total emissions figures remain complex. NVIDIA reported that its total greenhouse gas emissions increased. This includes Scope 3 emissions linked to its supply chain and purchased goods. Scope 3 emissions accounted for the bulk of its emissions inventory, and they rose significantly year-over-year.
NVIDIA has also incorporated science-based targets and reduction plans into its public disclosures. The company aims to cut direct (Scope 1) and electricity-related (Scope 2) emissions by about 50% by 2030. This is based on its baseline figures. These science-based targets are consistent with internationally recognized climate frameworks.
Beyond energy use, NVIDIA has implemented other environmental actions. Closed-loop liquid cooling systems in data centers help cut water use. Also, there are significant increases in recycling electronic waste each year.
AI Performance Per Watt: NVIDIA’s Efficiency Edge
NVIDIA’s technology can influence emissions well beyond its own operations. The company’s GPUs and systems power AI infrastructure around the world. Many of these systems are designed to be energy efficient.
For example, NVIDIA-based systems dominate rankings of the most energy-efficient supercomputers globally. The Green500 list ranks systems based on energy efficiency.
Many top entries use NVIDIA GPUs, especially the advanced Grace Hopper architecture. These systems deliver high computing performance per watt of power, helping labs and data centers run complex workloads with less energy.
Record Profits, Cautious Market Reaction
Despite the strong financial performance, NVIDIA’s share price movement highlights market nuances. Some reports noted that after an initial uptick in after-hours trading, the stock’s gains flattened or reversed. This response came even as NVIDIA beat revenue and profit expectations.
Analysts point to broader concerns about the valuation of high-growth AI stocks. Investors are cautious despite strong earnings. They worry about how fast AI demand will grow and whether valuations show future risks.
In early 2026, NVIDIA’s stock had also seen uneven performance year-to-date. Some analysts believe the trading pattern after earnings shows sector sentiment more than the company’s actual results.
NVIDIA’s profit scale also stands out compared with other major U.S. tech firms. For fiscal year 2026, the tech giant reported $120 billion in net income. This made it the fourth U.S. tech company ever to exceed $100 billion in annual profit, joining Alphabet, Apple, and Microsoft.
- NVIDIA’s result trails only Alphabet’s $132 billion profit in 2025, which remains the largest annual profit ever recorded by a U.S. company.
The speed of NVIDIA’s rise is also notable. Just three years ago, the company’s annual net income was $4.4 billion. In its most recent quarter, the chipmaker generated that amount in less than 10 days.
By comparison, Apple took 18 years to grow from $5 billion in annual profit to $112 billion, beginning around the launch of the iPhone in 2007. Microsoft took 27 years to move from $5 billion to more than $100 billion in annual profit. Alphabet first crossed the $100 billion mark in 2024. NVIDIA hit this milestone in under three years. CEO Jensen Huang pointed out the company’s AI gains in May 2023.
Efficiency Gains vs. Expanding Energy Footprint
NVIDIA’s external ESG ratings are similar to those of other tech companies for environmental and governance metrics. However, the scores vary in social and supply chain areas. These ratings consider things like how well companies disclose information, their plans for cutting emissions, and their governance. They also look at challenges related to wider supply chain emissions.
One sustainability ranking highlighted a “paradox” in NVIDIA’s performance. It noted that NVIDIA’s chips are among the most energy-efficient in the world, which boosts its sustainability profile. The quick rise in total energy use for AI infrastructure is increasing overall environmental impacts. This happens even as per-unit efficiency improves.
NVIDIA’s renewable energy goals and efficiency gains have positioned it as a leader. It combines strong finances with sustainable growth. For instance, in a 2026 list of top firms for sustainable growth, NVIDIA stood out. It achieved 100% renewable energy for its offices and data centers. Plus, its GPU platforms are energy efficient.
Can AI Hypergrowth Align With Climate Targets?
NVIDIA’s sustainability strategy focuses on three key areas:
- Reducing direct and indirect emissions.
- Improving energy use.
- Enhancing reporting transparency.
The company has achieved important goals. It now uses renewable energy for its facilities. It has also improved chip efficiency. These steps show progress toward environmental goals.
Still, rising Scope 3 emissions and the booming demand for AI compute make tackling environmental impacts more complex. NVIDIA’s sustainability reports highlight that energy use in data centers is a major barrier. This limits both digital infrastructure growth and climate progress.
Energy-intensive “AI factories” — large data centers running training and inference workloads — require large power supplies, often on par with traditional industrial factories. This growth in demand puts pressure on energy systems to shift toward low-carbon sources.
NVIDIA’s efforts to work with suppliers on emissions targets and its investments in energy efficiency aim to address parts of this challenge. But the company has not yet announced a full net-zero emissions target with a fixed date.
So, What Comes Next for NVIDIA?
In the near term, NVIDIA will likely continue to be a focal point for both earnings performance and ESG debate. Future earnings releases and sustainability reports will show whether the company’s actions keep pace with its growth.
Investors and stakeholders will watch how NVIDIA manages AI demand, emissions challenges, and energy efficiency together.
On the sustainability side, developing and reporting progress on Scope 3 emissions, supplier engagement, and potential net-zero pathways will shape ESG evaluations. As AI energy use rises worldwide, companies like NVIDIA will face more scrutiny over how they balance growth with their emissions and climate impact.
Overall, NVIDIA’s record earnings and sustainability efforts highlight its role in tech innovation and environmental change. The company balances rapid AI growth with a commitment to lowering its environmental impact.
The post NVIDIA Hits Almost $216 Billion Revenue as AI Boom Tests Its Climate Strategy appeared first on Carbon Credits.
What auditors actually test, where projects actually fail, and the contract clauses that protect you before signature.
The meeting happens about fourteen months after the contract was signed. Your assurance provider has reached the nature-based investment line in your Scope 3 file, and the partner across the table has exactly two questions. How do you know the reductions happened? And how do you know they would not have happened anyway?
The first question is MRV: measurement, reporting, and verification. The second is additionality. Between them, they decide whether your nature-based investment counts, in your inventory, in your disclosure, and in front of your board. Everything else in the project documentation is supporting material for these two answers.
This article walks through what each question actually tests, where projects most commonly fail, what digital MRV has changed (and what it has not), and the contract clauses that protect you. The goal is to give you the diligence framework before you sign, because after the credit issues is the wrong time to discover the answers were weak.
What MRV actually verifies
MRV is the machinery that turns a field intervention into a defensible number. Measurement covers the data: biomass surveys, soil sampling, remote sensing, activity records from participating farms. Reporting covers the translation of that data into claimed reductions under a recognised methodology. Verification covers the independent check: an accredited third party tests the reporting against the methodology and the evidence.
The methodologies live in registries. Verra’s Verified Carbon Standard and the Gold Standard are the two largest for nature-based projects, and each publishes the methodology documents, monitoring requirements, and verification protocols that a project must follow. The ICVCM Assessment Framework now sits above the registries, assessing whole methodologies against the Core Carbon Principles and granting the CCP label to those that pass.
For a buyer, the practical questions are concrete. What is the monitoring frequency, and is it specified in the project design document or left vague? Who is the verifier, how were they selected, and how often do they rotate? What raw data do you, the buyer, get access to, and in what format? A project that answers these in writing is a different procurement than one that answers them in a sales call.
What additionality actually proves
Additionality asks whether the intervention caused the reduction, or whether the reduction would have happened anyway. The test is a counterfactual: what would this landscape, this farm, this forest have done without the project’s money?
Three forms matter in practice. Financial additionality asks whether the project needed the carbon revenue to proceed. Regulatory additionality asks whether the activity was already required by law. Common-practice additionality asks whether the activity is already standard in the region, in which case paying for it buys you nothing the world was not getting for free.
The reason additionality dominates audit conversations is recent history. Research published in 2023, including the Science paper examined at length in our piece on conventional offsets and boardroom credibility, found that a large share of REDD+ credits failed the counterfactual test because baselines were inflated. The market response was a wave of methodology revisions at Verra and the arrival of independent ratings agencies whose entire business is re-testing additionality claims. The Carbon Credit Quality Initiative publishes transparent scoring of methodologies on exactly this dimension, and it is free to consult before you sign anything.
Where projects most commonly fail the test
Five failure modes account for most of the wreckage.
- Inflated baselines. The counterfactual assumes more deforestation, more degradation, or lower yields than the evidence supports. The claimed reduction is the gap between reality and the baseline, so an inflated baseline manufactures reductions from nothing.
- Unaccounted leakage. The project protects one forest and the logging moves to the next valley. The methodology is supposed to net this out; weak projects estimate it optimistically.
- Thin permanence protection. Nature-based carbon can reverse: fire, pest, drought, or a change of landowner. Buffer pools and insurance mechanisms exist for this, but their adequacy varies enormously between projects.
- Attribution and double counting. In supply chain settings, the same reduction can be claimed by the supplier, the buyer, and a credit purchaser unless contracts prevent it. Our Insetting vs Offsetting piece covers the inventory rules; the point here is that the auditor will ask who else is counting this tonne.
- Stale monitoring. Data collected at validation and never refreshed. The IPCC AR6 Working Group III land-sector chapter documents how quickly carbon stocks respond to disturbance; a three-year-old measurement is a historical artifact, not a current claim.
What digital MRV changes, and what it does not
Digital MRV is the genuine improvement in the field. Satellite remote sensing, including the free archives at NASA Earthdata, allows biomass and land-cover change to be monitored continuously rather than at multi-year verification intervals. Soil carbon models calibrated with physical sampling reduce the cost of agricultural measurement. The practical effect is more frequent data at lower cost, which compresses the window in which a problem can hide.
What digital MRV does not change is judgment. Baselines are still human decisions about counterfactuals. Additionality is still an argument, not a measurement. Research groups such as the Oxford Smith School have been clear on this point: better sensors improve the M in MRV, but the integrity questions live in the assumptions, and assumptions need governance, not gadgets.
For a buyer, the test is simple. Ask the provider what is measured by instrument, what is estimated by model, and what is assumed by methodology. A provider who can answer that question crisply understands their own evidence chain. A provider who cannot is selling you their confidence rather than their data.
What to require in your contract
The diligence above converts into five contract clauses.
- Monitoring cadence and buyer data access, specified by dataset and frequency.
- Verifier independence, named accreditation, and rotation terms.
- Baseline revision triggers, so the counterfactual updates when the methodology or the evidence changes.
- Reversal liability and buffer adequacy, with the mechanism named and sized.
- Documentation handover in audit-ready form, so the evidence file your assurance provider needs already exists.
None of these clauses is exotic. All of them are absent from weak contracts, and their absence is the most reliable early signal that the MRV and additionality answers will be weak too.
If you are evaluating a nature-based investment and want the MRV and additionality stress-tested before signature rather than after, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can run that review against any project on your shortlist, and design nature-based supply chain investments where the evidence chain is built audit-first. Schedule a consultation.
Sources and further reading
- ICVCM: Core Carbon Principles Assessment Framework
- Verra: Verified Carbon Standard
- Gold Standard for the Global Goals
- Carbon Credit Quality Initiative: Methodology quality scores
- University of Oxford Smith School: Sustainable finance research
- IPCC AR6 Working Group III, Chapter 7: AFOLU
- NASA Earthdata satellite remote sensing archive
EU Directive: Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (ECGT)
The EU Directive, Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (ECGT), takes effect on September 27, 2026.(1) The goal of ECGT is to protect consumers by ensuring that environmental claims are fair, understandable, and reliable. This regulation does create a new compliance requirement for businesses, but it also provides sustainability and marketing teams with important guidance that helps create consistency in sustainability communications.
Key takeaways
- ECGT takes effect September 27, 2026, and prohibits claims that a product or service has a neutral, reduced, or positive environmental impact based on offsetting alone.
- Named example phrases the regulation prohibits include climate neutral, CO2 neutral certified, carbon positive, climate net zero, climate compensated, reduced climate impact, and limited CO2 footprint.
- ECGT does not want to deter investment in carbon credits. It wants companies to communicate the real benefits of the projects they support instead.
- SBTi’s guidance recommends framing carbon credits as taking responsibility for ongoing emissions, not as making a product or company neutral.
- Voluntary carbon projects deliver real climate progress: reducing super-pollutants, protecting and restoring ecosystems, and supporting communities.
Regarding carbon credits specifically, voluntary carbon projects deliver important climate progress and environmental benefits that provide many talking points for companies. They reduce climate super-pollutants by removing industrial emissions like methane, N2O, HFCs and others. They protect and restore valuable ecosystems and carbon sinks like forests, mangroves and grasslands. They help communities by reducing local pollution, creating employment opportunities, improving access to healthcare, and more.
The Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi), a global leader in business climate action, concludes that alongside aggressive decarbonization, we should also use high quality carbon credits to take responsibility for our ongoing emissions. SBTi recognizes that carbon credits are important “to help limit temperature overshoot, mitigate transition risks, and support climate solutions.”(2)
ECGT language on carbon offsetting says that they do not want to deter investment in carbon credits. They just want companies to focus on communicating the benefits of the projects they support and avoid claims beyond the scope of carbon credits, which is good for everyone, companies and consumers alike.
The regulation reinforces that carbon credits do not change the sustainability of your products, so carbon credit buyers should not suggest that their products are more sustainable because of carbon credits. Instead, companies need to promote their climate contributions as a way to compensate or take responsibility for their carbon emissions by supporting projects that do great things like reducing global carbon emissions, reducing pollution, preventing deforestation, restoring forests, and more.
ECGT language related to carbon offsetting
The regulation is particularly focused on prohibiting claims, based on offsetting greenhouse gas emissions, that a product or service has a neutral, reduced, or positive impact on the environment in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. These claims are prohibited in all circumstances because they mislead consumers into believing the claim relates to the product itself, or to how it was made and supplied, or into thinking that using the product carries no environmental impact at all.
Named examples of prohibited claims include:
- climate neutral
- CO2 neutral certified
- carbon positive
- climate net zero
- climate compensated
- reduced climate impact
- limited CO2 footprint
These claims are only allowed when they rest on a product’s actual lifecycle impact, not on offsetting emissions outside that product’s value chain, since the two are not equivalent. This prohibition does not stop companies from advertising their investments in environmental initiatives, including carbon credit projects, as long as they present that information in a way that is not misleading and that meets the other requirements of Union law.(1)
SBTi also provides guidance on climate contribution language in its Corporate Net Zero Standard Version 2.0 Draft for Second Public Consultation, November 2025. While the SBTi language is fairly technical, it has a good framework for crafting a climate contribution message.
SBTi Language for Carbon Credits(3)
- Take responsibility for ongoing emissions by delivering mitigation impact contributions
- Carbon credits certify the mitigation outcomes of projects that reduce, avoid, or remove carbon emissions
- Activities that reduce emissions from emission sources not located within the company’s value chain
- Activities that conserve, protect, and enhance natural carbon sinks
- Activities that capture and store carbon in storage pools
SBTi’s draft standard also walks through sample claim language for this kind of contribution. In general, the samples move from a simple percentage statement, to naming a specific verified tonnage tied to that percentage, to a fuller statement that breaks the tonnage into reductions versus removals. Across all three, the framing stays consistent: a company took responsibility for a defined share of its ongoing emissions over a set period, by funding a specific, verified amount of mitigation, achieved through emission reductions or removals.(3)
FAQ: ECGT and Carbon Credit Claims
When does the ECGT directive take effect?
The rules apply across the EU from September 27, 2026, after member states transposed the directive into national law by March 27, 2026.
Does ECGT ban carbon offsetting?
No. It bans specific marketing claims that a product or service is environmentally neutral, reduced impact, or positive based on offsetting. Advertising investment in carbon credit projects themselves is still allowed if it is not misleading.
What phrases does ECGT specifically prohibit?
Named examples include climate neutral, CO2 neutral certified, carbon positive, climate net zero, climate compensated, reduced climate impact, and limited CO2 footprint, when those claims are based on offsetting rather than a product’s actual lifecycle impact.
How should a company describe its carbon credit purchases instead?
SBTi’s guidance recommends stating the specific verified tonnage of emissions reductions or removals funded and describing that as taking responsibility for a defined share of ongoing emissions, rather than claiming the company or product is neutral.
Does this rule apply to company level sustainability claims too?
ECGT is focused on claims about specific products and services in consumer marketing. Broader company level sustainability communication is a separate matter still governed by other existing rules.
While ECGT does add a new compliance burden for businesses, it helps create consistency in sustainability messaging that is important to building confidence in voluntary carbon projects and scaling the industry to help us achieve progress on global carbon emissions.
Disclaimer: Terrapass does not provide legal or regulatory advice. Any interpretation of regulation must be approved by your legal representative.
References:
(1) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/825/oj
(2) https://files.sciencebasedtargets.org/production/files/Corporate-Net-Zero-Standard-version-2.pdf
(3) https://files.sciencebasedtargets.org/production/files/CNZS-V2-Second-Consultation-Draft.pdf
The post The EU’s New Green Claims Rules and Carbon Credits appeared first on Terrapass.
Most businesses that decide to act on their net-zero targets reach the same point of friction. Buying carbon credits has meant tracking down brokers, sitting through sales calls, and requesting a quote just to learn a price, sometimes with limited proof of what you are buying.
-
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 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
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Renewable Energy11 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
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