Tesla has established itself as a leader in the fight against climate change. It often emphasizes its role in cutting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by promoting electric vehicles (EVs).
In 2023, the company claimed its fleet helped avoid 20 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions. A recent study by Greenly, a firm specializing in carbon footprint measurement and management, however, questions this figure. They estimate the real avoided emissions at 10.2 to 14.4 million metric tons, which is 28-49% lower than Tesla’s claims.
What’s the basis for Greenly’s claim? Let’s find out, and how this may impact Tesla’s position and the entire industry.
Breaking Down Tesla’s Avoided Emissions Calculations
Tesla calculates avoided emissions by comparing its EV fleet to a similar fleet of ICE (internal combustion engine) vehicles. The process follows these steps:
- Fleet Size Calculation. Using sales data, Tesla estimates the number of active vehicles in its fleet. By the end of 2023, Greenly estimated this number to be around 5.35 million Teslas worldwide.
- ICE Emissions Comparison. Tesla assumes that ICE vehicles emit an average of 445 grams of CO2e per mile in the U.S. and 459 grams in Europe, based on data from Consumer Reports.
- EV Emissions Calculation. Tesla estimates U.S. emissions from electricity generation at 116 gCO2e/mile. But Greenly, using IEA data, finds a much higher figure of 206 gCO2e/mile.
- Manufacturing Emissions. Tesla estimates that making an ICE vehicle releases 10 metric tons of CO2e. In contrast, an EV generates 20 metric tons, mainly because of battery production.
Tesla found that in 2023, swapping ICE vehicles for its EVs cut emissions by 20 million metric tons. Now, let’s uncover Greenly’s calculations.
Greenly’s Findings and Discrepancies: A Reality Check for Tesla?
Greenly reanalyzed Tesla’s approach using independent emissions factors and found significant discrepancies. These include the following analysis findings:
Overestimation of ICE Vehicle Emissions. Tesla’s emissions factor for ICE vehicles is 445-459 gCO2e/mile. This is much higher than the UK standard for large diesel cars, which is 415 gCO2e/mile. This difference suggests that Tesla might have overstated the emissions avoided.
Underestimation of Grid Emissions. Tesla uses a lower emissions factor for electricity at 116 gCO2e/mile. In contrast, the IEA calculates it at 206 gCO2e/mile. This suggests Tesla might have underestimated the emissions from charging its EVs.
Mileage Assumptions: Tesla assumes its EVs travel 200,000 miles over 17 years. If this assumption were lowered to 150,000 miles, Greenly found that avoided emissions would drop significantly to 6.9 million metric tons.
- After adjustments, Greenly estimated Tesla’s real avoided emissions at 10.2-14.4 million metric tons. This is much lower than Tesla’s reported 20 million metric tons.
What This Means for the EV Industry’s Climate Goals
EVs are widely recognized as key to reducing transportation-related GHG emissions. In 2023, the sector was the world’s second-largest source of GHG emissions with 8.24 GtCO₂. Road vehicles are the top polluters.
By 2023, the growing use of EVs helped cut CO₂ emissions from new vehicles by 11%, bringing the average down to 319 grams per mile—the lowest ever recorded. The chart below shows the difference in GHG emissions for an EV and gas-powered car.
However, accurate carbon emissions accounting is crucial. It helps maintain credibility and shows the industry’s real environmental impact.
Tesla’s potentially inflated claims could have several consequences for the broader EV market.
Regulatory Scrutiny:
Exaggerating avoided emissions may result in more regulatory scrutiny of EV makers’ climate claims. If Tesla’s reports are misleading, policymakers might require stricter checks on EV carbon reduction claims.
Investor and Consumer Trust:
The EV industry has gained from high public and investor trust. This confidence comes from the promise of major emission cuts. Greenly’s findings might hurt this trust. This could make investors wary of supporting EV companies. It can also lead consumers to doubt the environmental benefits of leaving ICE vehicles behind.
Competitive Pressures:
Tesla’s competitors, including BYD, Rivian, and traditional automakers like Ford and BMW, are also marketing their EVs as low-emission alternatives. If a big player is caught exaggerating claims, it could push all EV makers to get third-party checks on their environmental impact.
The Billion-Dollar Carbon Credit Question
One of Tesla’s key revenue streams has been the sale of carbon credits to other automakers that do not meet emissions standards. Since Tesla produces only electric vehicles, it accumulates large amounts of regulatory credits.
The EV maker then sells these credits to companies still producing gasoline-powered cars. Tesla’s carbon credit sales have earned billions, with over $10.4 billion since 2017. Last year’s revenue was record high. This profit helps keep the company strong, especially in years with lower vehicle margins.
If Tesla’s avoided emissions claims are found to be inflated, it could undermine the credibility of its carbon credit sales. Regulatory bodies may set stricter rules for issuing and verifying carbon credits. This change could make it tougher for Tesla to profit from this market.
Also, automakers buying these credits might want more transparency. This helps them confirm they meet rules without depending on possibly inflated numbers. Any disruptions in this market could significantly impact Tesla’s bottom line.
Tesla’s Reputation at Stake: Environmental Claims Under Fire
Greenly’s findings come at a bad time for Tesla. The company already faces reputational issues because of CEO Elon Musk’s political activities. Plus, its stock price has dropped sharply. Musk’s controversial comments and changing political views have turned off some customers and investors. This has hurt Tesla’s brand image.
Moreover, Tesla’s stock has struggled in recent months, with share prices down over 25% year-to-date. The combination of financial struggles, leadership controversies, and now questions about its environmental impact could further erode confidence in Tesla’s long-term growth potential.
Moreover, governments worldwide are increasing scrutiny of corporate sustainability claims. If Tesla overstated its emissions reductions, it might face legal issues. This could include fines or losing access to incentive programs.
The Need for Transparency in Carbon Accounting
Tesla’s differences in avoided emissions estimates show a bigger problem: the EV industry needs independent and standardized carbon accounting. Without clear, verifiable methods for calculating avoided emissions, companies could mislead stakeholders about their true climate impact.
Greenly’s report says manufacturers should use 3rd-party audits for emissions claims. This is like how financial audits work to help keep their credibility. More rigorous carbon accounting would help:
- Ensure that avoided emissions are not exaggerated to attract investment or government incentives.
- Provide policymakers with reliable data to shape EV-related regulations.
- Prevent backlash similar to the Dieselgate scandal, where automakers manipulated emissions data.
Tesla plays a big role in boosting EV adoption and cutting emissions. However, it’s important to check how accurate its environmental claims are. The Greenly report raises concerns about transparency in EV industry reporting.
As governments and consumers push for more rigorous climate accountability, automakers must ensure their emissions calculations are accurate and independently verified.
The post Tesla’s Avoided Emissions Are Up to 49% Overstated, A Study Claims appeared first on Carbon Credits.
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.
The earnings calls that quietly reframed climate from sustainability question to operating risk.
Three earnings calls in the last 18 months tell the story without any help from a press release.
Hershey, May 2024: cocoa price exposure compresses margin, and the company attributes part of the cost shock to West African weather. Olam, July 2024: coffee climate exposure quantified in the annual report. JBS, January 2025: supply chain climate disclosures expanded materially in response to investor pressure and regulatory expectation. None of these companies issued the announcement as climate news. They issued it as financial news. The climate-linked supply chain risk did not arrive with a sustainability framing; it arrived as a P&L line.
You are probably reading this article because you suspect the same thing is happening to your business. This piece walks through what is showing up on which earnings calls, how procurement and finance leaders are quantifying the exposure, and what serious corporates are doing about it before the regulator asks.
Where climate risk has already appeared in earnings
The pattern is consistent across resource-intensive sectors. A weather event compresses supply, the price spikes, the cost flows through the income statement, and the analyst on the call asks whether the event is anomalous or structural. Increasingly, the honest answer is the second one.
Cocoa is the cleanest example. The 2023 to 2024 West African harvest fell sharply on the back of erratic rainfall and disease. Cocoa futures more than tripled. Companies with concentrated West African sourcing absorbed the cost; companies with diversified sourcing absorbed less. The exposure was not climate as ESG topic. It was climate as cost of goods.
Coffee follows the same pattern. Brazilian and Vietnamese harvests have moved on weather more sharply across the last several seasons. Roasters with long-tenor supplier relationships and origin diversification have managed the volatility; roasters with spot-market exposure have not. Wheat, sugar, palm oil, beef: the same dynamic in different commodities, a pattern the IPCC AR6 Working Group II report projects will intensify across agricultural systems through mid-century.
What this means: climate risk is no longer a footnote in the 10-K. It is a line item the CFO has to explain on the call.
The three commodity exposures that hit margin first
For most companies with material Scope 3 exposure, three exposures dominate the near-term P&L risk.
- Concentrated single-origin sourcing in a climate-vulnerable region. If your tier-one supply for any material commodity sits in one geography, you have a concentration risk that climate amplifies. Diversification across origins is the obvious hedge, but it takes years to build and requires relationships you cannot acquire by tender.
- Supplier financial fragility under climate stress. Smallholder farmers, who supply a large share of the global cocoa, coffee, and palm oil market, do not carry the balance sheets to absorb yield shocks. When yields collapse, they exit. When they exit, your supply base shrinks, and the surviving suppliers raise prices. The risk is structural, not cyclical.
- Logistics and storage exposure to extreme weather. Hurricane disruptions to Gulf shipping, drought-driven Panama Canal restrictions, flooding in European inland waterways: each of these has moved input costs in the last three years, a pattern documented in Munich Re’s natural catastrophe data. The exposure shows up as a one-quarter event in the financial press but accumulates over time on the cost line.
TCFD and ISSB disclosure changes
The disclosure architecture has now caught up with the risk. The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, whose recommendations are now embedded in the ISSB’s IFRS S2 climate standard, requires companies to disclose climate-related risks across physical and transition categories, with quantification where possible.
For physical risk specifically (the climate-linked supply chain risk you are reading about), the disclosure must address both acute exposures (extreme weather events) and chronic exposures (gradual changes in temperature, precipitation, and growing seasons). The disclosure must address the time horizon over which the risk is material, the parts of the value chain exposed, and the financial impact under different scenarios.
The CSRD imposes similar requirements under European law, with double materiality (both financial and impact materiality) embedded in the assessment. The practical effect: your auditors and your investor relations team now need a defensible answer to the climate-linked supply chain risk question, and the answer needs to be quantified.
What procurement and finance can do now
Three actions matter near-term.
Map your exposure. Most companies do not have a clear view of which tier-one and tier-two suppliers sit in which climate-vulnerable geographies. Without the map, you cannot quantify the risk, and without the quantification, you cannot disclose it credibly. The map is the foundation, and World Resources Institute climate risk research provides useful public tooling to start.
Diversify and deepen, in that order. Diversification across origins reduces concentration risk, but the deeper move is to invest in the resilience of the suppliers you already have. Regenerative practices, agroforestry, soil health interventions: these reduce yield volatility under climate stress and protect your input cost trajectory.
Embed the climate spend inside procurement, not outside it. Treating climate risk as a sustainability cost line subordinates it to the ESG budget. Treating it as a procurement and resilience investment puts it in the budget that matters, which is the cost-of-goods budget that the CFO defends quarterly.
Nature-based supply chain investments are the asset class designed for exactly this purpose. They sit inside the value chain, they reduce climate-linked supply risk, they generate verifiable Scope 3 reductions, and they produce the documentation an auditor and a regulator can both test.
If you are quantifying climate-linked supply chain risk in advance of the next earnings cycle or the next disclosure period, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you map your exposure and structure a Dual-Value Model response that addresses reduction, resilience, and disclosure-readiness in a single program. Schedule a consultation.
More and more small and medium-sized businesses are hearing the same question from their larger customers: What is your carbon footprint? That question now travels down entire supply chains, and it arrives next to tender requirements, certification criteria, and rising customer expectations.
-
Climate Change1 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”
-
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