Connect with us

Published

2 years ago

on

Next month will mark four years since the Indian Point nuclear power plant north of New York City began to be shut down.

Indian Point 2 was closed on April 30, 2020. Indian Point 3’s closure followed a year later. The two units, rated at roughly 1,000 megawatts each, started operating in the mid-1970s. A half-century later, their reactor cores lie dismembered. Both units are irretrievably gone, for better or worse.

I believe the closures are for the worse — and not by a little. The loss of Indian Point’s 2,000 MW of virtually carbon-free power has set back New York’s decarbonization efforts by at least a decade.

I hinted at this in Drones With Hacksaws: Climate Consequences of Shutting Indian Point Can’t Be Brushed Aside, a May 2020 post in the NY-area outlet Gotham Gazette. Soon I grew more outspoken. In two posts for The Nation in April 2022 (here and here) I invoked Indian Point to urge Californians to revoke a parallel plan to close Pacific Gas & Electric’s two-unit Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, which I followed up with a plea to Gov. Gavin Newsom to scuttle the shutdown deal, co-signed by clean-air advocate Armond Cohen and whole-earth avatar Stewart Brand. Which the governor did, last year.

Once I had regarded nuclear plant closures as no big deal. Now I was telling all who would listen that junking high-performing thousand-megawatt reactors on either coast was a monstrous climate crime, the carbon equivalent to decapitating many hundreds of giant wind turbines — a metaphor I employed in my Gotham Gazette post. My turnaround rested on two clear but overlooked points.

One was that nearly all extant U.S. nukes had long ago morphed from chronic inconsistency into rock-solid generators of massive volumes of carbon-free kilowatt-hours, with “capacity factors” reliably hitting 90% or even higher. This positive change should have put to rest the antinuclear movement’s shopworn “aging and unsafe” narrative about our 90-odd operating reactors. It also elevated the plants’ economic and climate value, making politically forced closures far more costly than most of us had imagined.

The other new point is connected to carbon and climate: The effort to have “renewables” (wind, solar and occasionally hydro) fill the hole left from closing Indian Point or other nuclear plants isn’t just tendentious and difficult. Rather, the very construct that one set of zero-carbon generators (renewables) can “replace” another (nuclear) with no climate cost is simplistic if not downright false, as I explain further below.

These new ideas came to mind as I read a major story this week on the consequences of Indian Point’s closure in The Guardian by Oliver Milman, the paper’s longtime chief environment correspondent. To his credit, Milman delved pretty deeply into the impacts of reactor closures — more so than any prominent journalist has done to date. Nonetheless, it’s time for coverage of nuclear closures to go further. To assist, I’ve posted Milman’s story verbatim, with my responses alongside.

A nuclear plant’s closure was hailed as a green win. Then emissions went up.

By Oliver Milman, The Guardian, March 20, 2024

When New York’s deteriorating and unloved Indian Point nuclear plant finally shuttered in 2021, its demise was met with delight from environmentalists who had long demanded it be scrapped.

But there has been a sting in the tail – since the closure, New York’s greenhouse gas emissions have gone up.

Castigated for its impact upon the surrounding environment and feared for its potential to unleash disaster close to the heart of New York City, Indian Point nevertheless supplied a large chunk of the state’s carbon-free electricity.

Guardian graphic using eGRID data for NYCW subregion. The chart’s other half was excised to fit the available space.

Since the plant’s closure, it has been gas, rather then clean energy such as solar and wind, that has filled the void, leaving New York City in the embarrassing situation of seeing its planet-heating emissions jump in recent years to the point its power grid is now dirtier than Texas’s, as well as the US average.

“From a climate change point of view it’s been a real step backwards and made it harder for New York City to decarbonize its electricity supply than it could’ve been,” said Ben Furnas, a climate and energy policy expert at Cornell University. “This has been a cautionary tale that has left New York in a really challenging spot.”

The closure of Indian Point raises sticky questions for the green movement and states such as New York that are looking to slash carbon pollution. Should long-held concerns about nuclear be shelved due to the overriding challenge of the climate crisis? If so, what should be done about the US’s fleet of ageing nuclear plants?

For those who spent decades fighting Indian Point, the power plant had few redeeming qualities even in an era of escalating global heating. Perched on the banks of the Hudson River about 25 miles north of Manhattan, the hulking facility started operation in the 1960s and its three reactors at one point contributed about a quarter of New York City’s power.

It faced a constant barrage of criticism over safety concerns, however, particularly around the leaking of radioactive material into groundwater and for harm caused to fish when the river’s water was used for cooling. Pressure from Andrew Cuomo, New York’s then governor, and Bernie Sanders – the senator called Indian Point a “catastrophe waiting to happen” – led to a phased closure announced in 2017, with the two remaining reactors shutting in 2020 and 2021.

The closure was cause for jubilation in green circles, with Mark Ruffalo, the actor and environmentalist, calling the plant’s end “a BIG deal”. He added in a video: “Let’s get beyond Indian Point.” New York has two other nuclear stations, which have also faced opposition, that have licenses set to expire this decade.

But rather than immediately usher in a new dawn of clean energy, Indian Point’s departure spurred a jump in planet-heating emissions. New York upped its consumption of readily available gas to make up its shortfall in 2020 and again in 2021, as nuclear dropped to just a fifth of the state’s electricity generation, down from about a third before Indian Point’s closure.

This reversal will not itself wreck New York’s goal of making its grid emissions-free by 2040. Two major projects bringing Canadian hydropower and upstate solar and wind electricity will come online by 2027, while the state is pushing ahead with new offshore wind projects – New York’s first offshore turbines started whirring last week. Kathy Hochul, New York’s governor, has vowed the state will “build a cleaner, greener future for all New Yorkers.”

Even as renewable energy blossoms at a gathering pace in the US, though, it is gas that remains the most common fallback for utilities once they take nuclear offline, according to Furnas. This mirrors a situation faced by Germany after it looked to move away from nuclear in the wake of the Fukushima disaster in 2011, only to fall back on coal, the dirtiest of all fossil fuels, as a temporary replacement.

“As renewables are being built we still need energy for when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining and most often it’s gas that is doing that,” said Furnas. “It’s a harrowing dynamic. Taking away a big slice of clean energy coming from nuclear can be a self-inflicted wound from a climate change point of view.”

With the world barreling towards disastrous climate change impacts due to the dawdling pace of emissions cuts, some environmentalists have set aside reservations and accepted nuclear as an expedient power source. The US currently derives about a fifth of its electricity from nuclear power.

Bill McKibben, author, activist and founder of 350.org, said that the position “of the people I know and trust” is that “if you have an existing nuke, keep it open if you can. I think most people are agnostic on new nuclear, hoping that the next generation of reactors might pan out but fearing that they’ll be too expensive.

“The hard part for nuclear, aside from all the traditional and still applicable safety caveats, is that sun and wind and batteries just keep getting cheaper and cheaper, which means the nuclear industry increasingly depends on political gamesmanship to get public funding,” McKibben added.

Wariness over nuclear has long been a central tenet of the environmental movement, though, and opponents point to concerns over nuclear waste, localized pollution and the chance, albeit unlikely, of a major disaster. In California, a coalition of green groups recently filed a lawsuit to try to force the closure of the Diablo Canyon facility, which provides about 8% of the state’s electricity.

“Diablo Canyon has not received the safety upgrades and maintenance it needs and we are dubious that nuclear is safe in any regard, let alone without these upgrades – it’s a huge problem,” said Hallie Templeton, legal director of Friends of the Earth, which was founded in 1969 to, among other things, oppose Diablo Canyon.

Templeton said the groups were alarmed over Diablo Canyon’s discharge of waste water into the environment and the possibility an earthquake could trigger a disastrous leak of nuclear waste. A previous Friends of the Earth deal with the plant’s operator, PG&E, to shutter Diablo Canyon was clouded by state legislation allowing the facility to remain open for another five years, and potentially longer, which Templeton said was a “twist of the knife” to opponents.

“We are not stuck in the past – we are embracing renewable energy technology like solar and wind,” she said. “There was ample notice for everyone to get their houses in order and switch over to solar and wind and they didn’t do anything. The main beneficiary of all this is the corporation making money out of this plant remaining active for longer.”

Meanwhile, supporters of nuclear – some online fans have been called “nuclear bros” – claim the energy source has moved past the specter of Chernobyl and into a new era of small modular nuclear reactors. Amazon recently purchased a nuclear-powered data center, while Bill Gates has also plowed investment into the technology. Rising electricity bills, as well as the climate crisis, are causing people to reassess nuclear, advocates say.

“Things have changed drastically – five years ago I would get a very hostile response when talking about nuclear, now people are just so much more open about it,” said Grace Stanke, a nuclear fuels engineer and former Miss America who regularly gives talks on the benefits of nuclear.

“I find that young people really want to have a discussion about nuclear because of climate change, but people of all ages want reliable, accessible energy,” she said. “Nuclear can provide that.”

The forces that won Indian Point’s closure were blind to the climate cost. 

By Charles Komanoff, Carbon Tax Center, March 23, 2024

New Reality #1: Indian Point wasn’t “deteriorating” when it was closed.

“Deteriorating and unloved” is how Milman characterized Indian Point in his lede. “Unloved?” Sure, though probably no U.S. generating station has been fondly embraced since Woody Guthrie rhapsodized about the Grand Coulee Dam in the 1940s.

But “deteriorating”? How could a power plant on the verge of collapse run for two decades at greater than 90% of its maximum capacity?

Calculations by author from International Atomic Energy Agency data. Diablo Canyon has also averaged over 90% CF since 2000.

Had Indian Point been less productive, the jump in the metropolitan area’s carbon emission rate would have been far less than the apparent 60 percent increase in the Guardian graph at left. Though the “electrify everything” community is loath to discuss it, the emissions surge from closing Indian Point significantly diminishes the purported climate benefit from shifting vehicles, heating, cooking and industry from combustion to electricity .

The impetus for shutting Indian Point largely came through, not from then-Gov. Cuomo.

Milman pins the decision to close Indian Point on NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Vermont’s U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders. While Cuomo backed and brokered the deal (which Sanders had nothing to do with), the real push came from a coalition of NY-area environmental activists led by Riverkeeper, who, as he notes, “spent decades fighting Indian Point.” And it was relentless.

The wellsprings of their fight were many, from Cold War fears of anything nuclear to a fierce devotion to the Hudson River ecosystem, which Indian Point threatened not through occasional minor radioactive leaks but via larval striped bass entrainment on the plant’s intake screens. Their fight was of course supercharged by the 1979 Three Mile Island reactor meltdown in Pennsylvania and, later, by the 9/11 hijackers’ Hudson River flight path. But as I pointed out in Gotham Gazette, few shutdown proponents had carbon reduction in their organizational DNA. None had ever built anything, leaving many with a fantasyland conception of the work required to substitute green capacity for Indian Point.

And while the shutdown forces proclaimed their love for wind and solar, their understanding of electric grids and nukes was stuck in the past. To them, Indian Point was Three Mile Island (or Chernobyl) on the Hudson — never mind that by the mid-2010s U.S. nuclear power plants had multiplied their pre-TMI operating experience twenty-fold with nary a mishap.

No, in most anti-nukers’ minds, Indian Point would forever be a bumbling menace incapable of rising above its previous-century average 50% capacity factor (see graph above). Most either ignored the plant’s born-again 90% online mark or viewed it as proof of lax oversight by a co-opted Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Note too that the “hulking facility,” as Milman termed Indian Point, lay a very considerable 35 air miles from Columbus Circle, rather than “25 miles north of Manhattan,” a figure that references the borough’s uninhabited northern tip. NYC residents had more immediate concerns, leaving fear and loathing over the nukes to be concentrated among the plant’s Westchester neighbors (Cuomo’s backyard). Which raises the question of why in-city environmental justice groups failed to question the shutdown, which is now impeding closure of polluting “peaker” plants in their own Brooklyn, Queens and Bronx backyards.

Still, the shutdown campaigners’ most grievous lapse was their failure to grasp that the new climate imperative requires a radically different conceptual framework for gauging nuclear power.

New Reality #2: Wind and solar that are replacing Indian Point can’t also reduce fossil fuels.

It’s dispiriting to contemplate the effort required to create enough new carbon-free electricity to generate Indian Point’s lost carbon-free output. Think 500 giant offshore wind turbines, each rated at 8 megawatts. (Wind farms need twice the capacity of Indian Point, i.e., 4,000 MW vs. 2,000, to offset their lesser capacity factor.)

What about solar PV? Its capacity disadvantage vis-a-vis Indian Point’s 90% is five- or even six-fold, meaning 10,000 or more megawatts of new solar to replace Indian Point. I won’t even try to calculate how many solar buildings that would require. But this is where Indian Point’s 90% capacity factor is so daunting; had the plant stayed mired at 60%, the capacity ratios to replace it would be a third less steep.

But wait . . . it’s even worse. These massive infusions of wind or solar are supposed to be reducing fossil fuel use by helping the grid phase out gas (methane) fired electricity. Which they cannot do, if they first need to stand in for the carbon-free generation that Indian Point was providing before it was shut.

So when Riverkeeper pledged in 2015-2017, or Friends of the Earth’s legal director told the Guardian‘s Milman that “we are embracing renewable energy technology like solar and wind,” they’re misrepresenting renewables’ capacity to help nuclear-depleted grids cut down on carbon. Shutting a functioning nuclear power plant puts the grid into a deep carbon-reduction hole — one that new solar and wind must first fill, at great expense, before further barrages of turbines and panels can actually be said to be keeping fossil fuels in the ground.

I suspect that not one in a hundred shut-nukes-now campaigners grasps this frame of reference. I certainly didn’t, until one day in April 2020, mere weeks before Indian Point 2 would be turned off, when an activist with Nuclear NY phoned me out of the blue and hurled this new paradigm at me. Before then, I was stuck in the “grid sufficiency” framework that was limited to having enough megawatts to keep everyone’s A/C’s running on peak summer days. The idea that the next giant batch or two of renewables will only keep CO2 emissions running in place rather than reduce them was new and startling. And irrefutably true.

To be clear, I don’t criticize Milman for missing this new paradigm. He’s a journalist, not an analyst or analyst. It’s on us climate advocates to propagate it till it reaches reportorial critical mass.

I credit Milman for giving FoE’s legal director free rein about Diablo. “There was ample notice for everyone to get their houses in order and switch over to solar and wind and they didn’t do anything,” she told him.

Goodness. Everyone [who? California government? PG&E? green entrepreneurs?] didn’t do anything to switch over to solar and wind. Welcome to reality, Friends of the Earth!

I knew FoE’s legendary founder David Brower personally. I and legions of others were inspired in the 1960s and 1970s by his implacable refusal to accede to the world as it was and his monumental determination to build a better one. But reality has its own implacability. The difficulty of bringing actual wind and solar projects (and more energy-efficiency) to fruition has the sad corollary that shutting viable nuclear plants consigns long-sought big blocks of renewables to being mere restorers of the untenable climate status quo.

In closing: Contrary to Milman (and NY Gov. Kathy Hochul), Indian Point’s closure will wreck NY’s goal of an emissions-free grid by 2040.

“Two major projects bringing Canadian hydropower and upstate solar and wind electricity will come online by 2027,” Milman wrote, referencing the Champlain-Hudson Power Express transmission line and Clean Path NY. But their combined annual output will only match Indian Point’s lost carbon-free production. Considering that loss, the two ventures can’t be credited with actually pushing fossil fuels out of the grid. That will require massive new clean power ventures, few of which are on the horizon.

I’ve written about the travails of getting big, difference-making offshore wind farms up and running in New York. I’ve argued that robust carbon pricing could help neutralize the inflationary pressures, supply bottlenecks, higher interest rates and pervasive NIMBY-ism that have led some wind developers to deep-six big projects.

Though I’ve yet to fully “do the math,” my decades adjacent to the electricity industry (1970-1995) and indeed my long career in policy analysis tell me that New York’s grid won’t even reach 80% carbon-free by 2040 unless the state or, better, Washington legislates a palpable carbon price that incentivizes large-scale demand reductions along with faster uptake of new wind, solar and, perhaps, nuclear.
Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

Clean Energy Investment Hits Record $2.3T in 2025 Says BloombergNEF: What Leads the Surge?

Published

19 hours ago

on

January 30, 2026

By

Clean Energy Investment Hits Record $2.3T in 2025: EVs and Renewables Lead the Surge

Global investment in clean energy reached a new high of $2.3 trillion in 2025, according to a major industry report. This total was 8% higher than in 2024, showing that investment in low-carbon technologies continued to grow despite economic uncertainty. Researchers say this shows the global interest in cutting greenhouse gas emissions and creating cleaner energy systems.

The figures come from the BloombergNEF Energy Transition Investment Trends 2026 report. BloombergNEF is a leading research provider that tracks investments in clean energy technologies and infrastructure.

The clean energy transition includes technologies such as renewable power, electric vehicles (EVs), grid improvements, energy storage, and climate-related tech companies. Together, these areas attracted record funding.

Breakdown of the $2.3 Trillion Investment

The global total of $2.3 trillion in 2025 covered several key clean energy sectors:

  • Electric transport: The largest category, with $893 billion invested. This includes electric vehicles and charging infrastructure, which are expanding rapidly around the world.
  • Renewable energy: About $690 billion went into renewable power such as wind, solar, and other clean sources. This was slightly lower than the previous year due to changing regulations in China’s power markets.
  • Power grids: Investment in grid systems reached $483 billion in 2025. This spending supports the transmission and distribution of clean energy.
  • Emerging sectors: Hydrogen received $7.3 billion, and nuclear energy received $36 billion.

Bloomberg Energy Transition Investment Trends 2025

Although total investment grew, renewable energy funding itself was down nearly 9.5% compared with 2024. This decline was mainly due to new regulatory rules in China, the world’s largest clean energy market.

Overall, clean energy spending has outpaced fossil fuel investment for a second year in a row. Fossil fuel supply investment fell by $9 billion in 2025, mainly due to reduced spending on oil and gas production and fossil power plants.

Global-energy-transition-investment-by-sector-BNEF

Regional Power Plays: Who’s Investing Where

Investment levels differ greatly by region. This shows the impact of policy, industry structure, and economic growth.

In the Asia Pacific, investment accounted for nearly 47% of the global total in 2025. China stayed the top market, investing around $800 billion in clean tech. This was despite some drops in its renewable sector.

India saw investment grow by 15%, reaching around $68 billion in 2025. The increase was driven by renewables, grid upgrades, and electrification projects.

The European Union grew its investment by 18% to about $455 billion, making it a major contributor to the global increase.

In the United States, investment increased by 3.5% to about $378 billion. This rise happened even though some federal policies slowed support for certain clean energy programs.

Global energy transition investment, by economy or region
Source: BloombergNEF

These patterns show that all regions invest in clean energy. However, the pace and focus vary based on local strategies and market conditions.

Trends Driving Clean Energy Investment

  • Electrified Transport Leads

Investment in electric transport, like EVs and charging stations, is now a key player in clean energy spending. In 2025, this area alone attracted $893 billion, making it the top category of global investment.

Electric vehicles are growing fast as battery costs fall and more models become available. Many countries and companies have set targets to phase out fossil fuel vehicles, which boosts demand for EV infrastructure.

EV sales share by region 2030 IEA

  • Renewable Power and Grids

Even though renewable investment dipped slightly, it still remained a large portion of the total. The $690 billion invested in renewables in 2025 supports new solar, wind, and other clean power plants.

Investment in power grids also grew, reaching $483 billion. Upgrading grids is essential to connect more clean energy to the places that need it. These upgrades include transmission lines, smart grid technologies, and energy storage systems.

  • Clean Tech Supply Chains and Finance

Investment in factories and supply chains for clean tech also expanded. In 2025, spending on clean energy supply chains reached $127 billion, a 6% increase from 2024. These funds went to battery factories, solar equipment production, and mining for battery metals.

Equity funding in climate-tech companies also rebounded strongly, rising to $77.3 billion — a 53% increase from the previous year. This was the first year of growth in equity funding after several years of decline.

In addition, energy transition debt issuance, loans, and bonds to finance clean energy projects reached $1.2 trillion, up 17% from 2024. This reflects strong interest from both public and private financiers.

Historical Context and Recent Growth

Clean energy investment has been growing steadily over the past decade.

In 2024, global energy transition investment reached about $2.1 trillion, surpassing the $2 trillion mark for the first time. This total was driven by electrified transport, renewable power, and grid investment.

In 2023, investment in clean energy surged to around $1.77 trillion, reflecting rising spending despite geopolitical challenges and market pressures. Electrified transport and renewables both hit new highs that year.

The jump to $2.3 trillion in 2025 continues this long-term growth trend, even though the rate of growth has slowed compared with earlier years. The annual increase dropped from more than 20% several years ago to 8% in 2025 as markets matured and conditions shifted.

Looking Ahead: The Road to $2.9 Trillion

Analysts expect clean energy investment to keep rising in the near term, though uncertainties remain.

BloombergNEF’s base-case scenario shows that global energy transition investment might hit about $2.9 trillion annually over the next five years. This will be above 2025 levels. It shows ongoing interest from both governments and companies.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) offers a broader forecast for total energy investment in 2025. Overall energy investment could reach around $3.3 trillion. This includes spending on both clean and fossil fuels. Clean technologies are expected to get over $2.2 trillion of that total. This would mean clean energy investment continues to outpace fossil fuel spending.

global clean energy investment 2025 by IEA
Source: IEA

Experts see these future figures as good signs. However, they say annual investment must grow a lot to reach long-term climate goals, like those in the Paris Agreement. To meet net-zero by 2050, analysts say the world may need to invest over $5 trillion each year by the end of this decade.

What The Record Spend Means for the Energy Transition

The $2.3 trillion clean energy investment in 2025 shows that countries, companies, and investors around the world continue to fund the energy transition. These funds support low-carbon technologies that reduce emissions and improve energy security.

Investment in electric transport helps shift away from fossil fuel vehicles. Renewable energy funding builds new wind and solar capacity. Grid and storage investment enables that power to reach homes, businesses, and industries.

Regional investment patterns show strong gains in the Asia Pacific, Europe, India, and the United States. However, China saw a slight drop in renewable energy funding.

The clean energy transition remains robust, though overall growth rates have slowed compared with earlier years. The trend also shows that climate goals are now a key part of economic and infrastructure strategies. Forecasts indicate a continued expansion of clean energy investment soon. However, meeting long‑term climate targets will need even greater flows of capital across all regions.

The post Clean Energy Investment Hits Record $2.3T in 2025 Says BloombergNEF: What Leads the Surge? appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

Microsoft Q2 FY26 Earnings: $81B Revenue, AI Momentum, and a 150% Jump in Water Use by 2030

Published

20 hours ago

on

January 30, 2026

By

Microsoft Q2 FY26: $81B Revenue, AI Momentum, and a 150% Jump in Water Use by 2030

Microsoft’s Q2 FY26 earnings show a company growing fast while facing new sustainability pressures. Revenue surged on strong AI and cloud demand, carbon removal commitments doubled, and data centers expanded. At the same time, rising water use highlights the environmental costs of AI. Together, the results show how Microsoft is trying to balance financial growth, climate action, and resource management as its AI-driven business scales.

Big Numbers, Bigger Momentum: Microsoft’s Q2 FY26 Performance

Microsoft reported strong results for the second quarter of fiscal 2026, ending December 31, 2025. The company’s total revenue was $81.3 billion, up 17% from the $69.6 billion reported in the same period last year.

Net income, the profit after expenses, was $38.5 billion. This figure rose 60% from about $24.1 billion in the second quarter of fiscal 2025. Microsoft also reported a diluted earnings per share (EPS) of $5.16. This was up 60% from $3.23 per share in the prior year. Operating income also increased by 21% year over year to was $38.3 billion. 

The tech giant also reported large growth in its cloud and AI-related businesses. Revenue from Microsoft Cloud reached $51.5 billion in the quarter. This was an increase of 26% compared with the prior year.

Breaking this down:

  • Intelligent Cloud revenue was $32.9 billion, up 29%.
  • Productivity and Business Processes revenue was $34.1 billion, up 16%.
  • More Personal Computing revenue was $14.3 billion, down 3%.
microsoft fy26 income statement
Source: App Economy Insights

The company also reported its remaining performance obligations, future contracted revenue yet to be recognized, at $625 billion. This was up 110% compared with the same time last year.

Microsoft continued to return cash to shareholders. In the quarter, it returned about $12.7 billion through dividends and share buybacks — an increase of about 32% year over year.

These results show that Microsoft continued to grow across major business segments in Q2 FY 2026. Cloud services and AI-related products remained key drivers of revenue growth. At the same time, personal computing revenue, which includes Windows licensing, Surface devices, and search advertising, experienced a small decline.

Despite these robust results, Microsoft’s stock fell about 11% after the earnings. It dropped by $52.95 to close around $428.68 in late trading after hitting a low of $421.11. This is due to investors’ concerns about slow cloud growth and high spending on AI.

Microsoft MSFT stock price

Alongside its strong financial performance, Microsoft is also taking major strides in its environmental commitments.

Carbon Removal Leadership: Doubling Impact in 2025

Sustainability remains central to Microsoft’s strategy. In 2025, the company more than doubled its carbon removal agreements to 45 million metric tons of CO₂, up from 22 million tons in 2024.

microsoft carbon removal contracts 2023-2025

These purchases include a mix of nature-based solutions. They cover forestry and soil carbon projects, plus direct air capture technologies. The agreements span North America, Europe, and Africa, targeting high-quality, verified removal credits with long-term permanence.

Microsoft’s move reflects a broader trend among tech giants committing to net-zero and carbon-negative strategies. Other big buyers are Amazon, Google, and Stripe. They’re investing in carbon removal to offset emissions that can’t be cut yet.

By securing long-term offtake agreements, Microsoft ensures these projects receive funding to scale operations and deliver measurable climate impact. Analysts predict that global corporate carbon removal purchases might exceed 150 million metric tons each year by 2030. This shows a fast-growing market that mixes corporate sustainability goals with investment chances.

AI’s Hidden Cost: Data Centers and Water Demand

Microsoft also released projections on AI-driven data center water consumption. With AI workloads surging, water use in Microsoft’s global data centers is expected to rise 150% by 2030 compared with current levels. That’s equal to using about 18 billion liters over the said period. 

The increase is mainly due to liquid cooling systems used to maintain GPU and CPU performance in AI servers. Water is essential to prevent overheating and maintain efficiency. Microsoft’s water needs are spiking hardest in dry areas.

  • In Phoenix (hit by 20 years of drought), the company cut its 2030 estimate from 3.3 billion liters to 2 billion by running hotter data centers.
  • Near Jakarta, Indonesia (a sinking city with drained underground water), the forecast dropped from 1.9 billion to 664 million liters.
  • In Pune, India (where shortages caused protests and a “No Water, No Vote” push), it fell from 1.9 billion to just 237 million liters—Microsoft wouldn’t say why.

As AI adoption grows, data centers will consume more energy and water, especially in regions with concentrated cloud infrastructure.

global data center water use projection Bloomberg

In an interview, Priscilla Johnson, Microsoft’s former director of water strategy until 2020, stated:

“Water took a back seat. Energy was more the focus because it was more expensive. Water was too cheap to be prioritized.”

Microsoft is now exploring solutions such as:

  • Advanced cooling technologies to reduce water intensity per compute unit
  • Use of recycled water in data centers where feasible
  • AI-driven energy and resource optimization to manage electricity and water demand

The company emphasizes that AI deployment must be balanced with sustainability practices, ensuring growth does not lead to unsustainable water consumption or carbon emissions.

Where Growth Meets Responsibility

Microsoft’s Q2 results show that growth and sustainability are connected. Investments in AI, cloud, and enterprise services boost revenue while increasing resource demand. The company’s carbon removal goals and energy-efficient data center plans help reduce environmental impacts.

Key metrics illustrate this balance:

  • Revenue growth of 9% year-over-year
  • Cloud revenue of $30.5 billion, up 12%
  • Carbon removal agreements totaling 45 million metric tons
  • Projected AI data center water increase of 150% by 2030

These initiatives demonstrate that Microsoft is trying to align profitability with long-term climate goals. Investing in clean technology, energy efficiency, and carbon removal shows that big companies can grow responsibly. This approach also helps reduce environmental impacts.

What Comes Next for AI, Climate, and Capital

Microsoft expects AI adoption to boost demand for:

  • Data center capacity
  • Cloud computing
  • Specialized hardware like GPUs

Analysts predict the global AI data center market could double by 2030, creating both financial and sustainability challenges.

The carbon removal market is also expected to expand. With 45 million tons already contracted, Microsoft’s continued leadership signals corporate influence in scaling carbon removal projects.

Forecasts show that voluntary carbon removal deals might exceed $15 billion each year by 2030. This growth is mainly due to tech companies, industrial firms, and financial institutions.

Water management in data centers is another critical area. Companies need to invest in better cooling and recycled water solutions to help meet rising demand while protecting local water resources. Microsoft’s transparency around water use provides a model for responsible AI deployment globally.

Overall, Microsoft’s earnings report not only reflects strong financial performance but also highlights the company’s sustainability leadership. Growth, carbon removal, and AI infrastructure are linked. They provide insights for companies like Microsoft trying to balance profit with environmental responsibility.

The post Microsoft Q2 FY26 Earnings: $81B Revenue, AI Momentum, and a 150% Jump in Water Use by 2030 appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

Royal Caribbean’s (RCL) Record 2025 Profits Meet Carbon Challenges of the Cruise Industry

Published

21 hours ago

on

January 30, 2026

By

Royal Caribbean’s (RCL) Big Profits Meet Carbon Challenges of the Cruise Industry

Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (NYSE: RCL) kicked off 2026 with strong financial results for 2025. The company’s success reflects a broader recovery and growth in the global cruise industry. Alongside financial gains, the industry faces growing scrutiny over environmental impact. 

Cruise ships are highly carbon-intensive per passenger, prompting major lines—including Royal Caribbean, MSC, Carnival, and Norwegian Cruise Line—to invest in cleaner fuels, energy-efficient technologies, and shore power solutions. 

This article looks at the cruise sector’s financial health, passenger growth, and environmental issues. It also discusses how companies are working to balance profits with sustainability.

Smooth Sailing: 2025 Profits and 2026 Outlook

Royal Caribbean Cruises had solid financial results in 2025 and a positive outlook for 2026. The company made nearly $18 billion in revenue in 2025, up from about $16.48 billion in 2024.

Net income also grew to about $4.27 billion, compared with roughly $2.88 billion the year before. Adjusted earnings per share (EPS) rose to $15.64, showing improved profitability.

Royal Caribbean Cruise financial results 2025
Source: Royal Caribbean Cruises

The company also generated a strong operating cash flow of about $6.4–6.5 billion and returned around $2 billion to shareholders during the year. Record cruise bookings and higher ticket prices helped drive these results.

Royal Caribbean’s board expects double-digit revenue growth in 2026, along with higher capacity. Adjusted EPS is projected between $17.70 and $18.10. Around two-thirds of 2026 cruise capacity is already booked at strong pricing, supporting this forecast.

Jason Liberty, the company CEO, remarked:

“2025 was an outstanding year, and the momentum is further accelerating into 2026… and we continue to see strong and growing preference for our leading brands and differentiated vacation experiences. We expect another strong year of financial performance with both revenue and earnings growing double digits, and we remain on track to achieve our Perfecta goals by 2027.”

After the earnings call, the company’s stock climbed over 6%, mainly due to strong 2026 guidance. 

Royal Caribbean Cruises RCL stock price

These results show not only a recovery from pandemic lows but also sustained demand for cruises. Analysts expect this trend to continue as global travel and premium leisure spending grow.

Passenger Waves: Cruise Industry Expansion and Emissions 

The global cruise industry is growing fast. Projections show over 38 million passengers by 2026, up from around 37.7 million in 2025. This growth follows strong momentum from 2024 and reflects overall travel trends.

cruise passengers outlook
Source: Cruise Lines International Association

Higher demand is encouraging cruise lines to add ships and expand routes. Royal Caribbean, for example, has ordered new Discovery Class vessels and is growing its river cruise segment with more ships planned through 2031. This shows long-term confidence in the market.

Carbon Wake: Cruise Emissions vs Other Travel

Cruising, however, has a higher environmental impact than many other types of travel. Cruise ships are among the most carbon-intensive forms of travel per passenger per distance traveled. This is because they need fuel not just to move but also to run cabins, restaurants, pools, and entertainment.

Even large, efficient cruise ships by Royal Caribbean emit around 250 grams of CO₂ per passenger-kilometer. That is higher than most long-haul flights or hotel stays. Onboard services and hotel-style energy use make cruises even more carbon-heavy.

For perspective:

  • A five-night cruise of 1,200 miles produces about 1,100 pounds (≈500 kg) of CO₂ per passenger.
  • A flight covering the same distance plus a hotel stay produces roughly 264 kg of CO₂ per person.

This means a cruise can generate about 2x the greenhouse gas emissions of an equivalent flight-and-hotel trip.

Trains and electric cars have much lower emissions per passenger. For example, traveling by national rail produces about 35 g CO₂ per kilometer, and international trains like Eurostar are even lower at 4.5 g CO₂ per kilometer.

The Carbon Footprint of Cruise Ship vs Major Travel Methods
Data source: Voronoi App

Other comparison insights:

  • Emissions per passenger-kilometer: Large cruise ships emit 0.43–0.65 kg CO₂, depending on occupancy and efficiency. Economy-class flights emit 0.15–0.20 kg, while high-speed rail is around 0.04 kg. Cruises can be 2–10x more carbon-intensive per passenger.
  • Fuel and technology impact: Using LNG instead of heavy fuel oil reduces CO₂ by 20–25%, but methane slip and upstream emissions can reduce gains. Air lubrication and optimized routing can cut fuel use by 5–10% per voyage.

Ship engines burn huge amounts of fuel. Amenities like air conditioning, theaters, pools, and restaurants add to the energy demand. Cruises remain a luxurious experience, but travelers should know that they usually have a higher carbon footprint than flights, plus hotels or land-based travel. This shows that while cruises are luxurious and convenient, they have a much higher carbon footprint than most other ways of traveling.

Cruise ships also emit sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and fine particles, which can harm air quality in port cities and marine ecosystems. Many passengers also fly to and from cruise ports, adding more carbon emissions that are often not included in cruise footprint estimates.

How Cruise Lines Are Addressing Environmental Impact

Cruise companies, including Royal Caribbean, are working to reduce their environmental impact. Many aim to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or earlier.

Royal Caribbean’s Destination Net Zero strategy focuses on:

  • Alternative fuels: LNG-powered ships, biofuels, and fuel cell technology.
  • New ship technologies: Advanced hulls, air lubrication systems, and shore power connections.
  • Operational efficiency: Optimized routes and engine improvements to reduce fuel use per passenger.
Royal Caribbean Cruise emission reductions pathways
Source: Royal Caribbean Cruises

Other cruise lines are also taking action to tackle their environmental footprint: 

MSC Cruises used efficiency tools and smart itinerary planning to cut 50,000 tonnes of CO₂ in 2024. They are testing hybrid propulsion and shore power at multiple ports. Carnival Corporation is expanding LNG and biofuel use while increasing shore-side electrical connections. They are also researching carbon capture for ships.

Likewise, Norwegian Cruise Line (NCL) is adding LNG-powered ships, battery-assisted propulsion, and energy-efficient onboard systems. NCL is also expanding shore power at ports.

Disney Cruise Line uses hybrid exhaust gas cleaning, advanced wastewater treatment, and fuel-efficient hulls while eliminating single-use plastics onboard. Meanwhile, Princess Cruises applies energy-saving tech, waste reduction, and wastewater treatment, while testing LNG as a fuel alternative.

Overall, the cruise industry faces pressure to reduce carbon intensity. Cleaner fuels, new technologies, and operational efficiency are becoming standard. Environmental responsibility is now a key part of long-term business strategy.

Forecast Horizon: Growth, Finance, and Green Goals

Royal Caribbean and the cruise industry are financially strong. High bookings, growing revenue, and positive forecasts show that demand for cruises is rising. Investments in new ships and offerings aim to meet demand across different traveler groups.

Cruise forecasts show over 38 million passengers by 2026, highlighting ongoing interest. Electric and hybrid propulsion, shore power, biofuels, and fuel-saving technologies are slowly becoming standard.

Challenges remain. Reducing cruise carbon intensity to levels similar to other travel modes will require more alternative fuels, stricter rules, and continued innovation.

Still, many cruise lines have pledged net-zero targets, often aligned with global shipping goals. Passengers are also more aware of environmental impact, driving demand for greener cruises.

Balancing Growth and Emissions

Royal Caribbean’s strong earnings and positive outlook show a resilient and growing industry. Record bookings and strategic investments indicate financial health and long-term growth.

However, carbon emissions remain a major issue. Cruises generally produce more CO₂ per passenger than many other vacations. Cruising is also considered to emit the most emissions compared to other travel methods. Thus, the industry faces pressure to reduce this impact.

Understanding both the financial and environmental sides can help travelers make better choices. For cruise companies and policymakers, balancing growth with emissions reductions is key for the future of cruising.

The post Royal Caribbean’s (RCL) Record 2025 Profits Meet Carbon Challenges of the Cruise Industry appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com