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

Industries with the biggest nature footprints and what their decarbonisation looks like

Published

2 weeks ago

on

May 5, 2026

By

A corporate carbon footprint is never just an accounting figure. It maps onto real ecosystems. Before a product leaves the factory gate, something on the ground has already paid the cost. A forest has been converted. A river has been depleted. A patch of savannah that was once home to dozens of species now grows a single crop in every direction.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

Apple, Amazon Lead 60+ Firms to Ease Global Carbon Reporting Rules

Published

3 weeks ago

on

April 28, 2026

By

Apple, Amazon Lead 60+ Firms to Ease Global Carbon Reporting Rules

More than 60 global companies, including Apple, Amazon, BYD, Salesforce, Mars, and Schneider Electric, are pushing back against proposed changes to global emissions reporting rules. The group is calling for more flexibility under the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol), the most widely used framework for measuring corporate carbon footprints.

The companies submitted a joint statement asking that new requirements, especially those affecting Scope 2 emissions, remain optional rather than mandatory. Their letter stated:

“To drive critical climate progress, it’s imperative that we get this revision right. We strongly urge the GHGP to improve upon the existing guidance, but not stymie critical electricity decarbonization investments by mandating a change that fundamentally threatens participation in this voluntary market, which acts as the linchpin in decarbonization across nearly all sectors of the economy. The revised guidance must encourage more clean energy procurement and enable more impactful corporate action, not unintentionally discourage it.”

The debate comes at a critical time. Corporate climate disclosures now influence trillions of dollars in capital flows, while stricter reporting rules are being introduced across major economies.

The Rulebook for Carbon: What the GHG Protocol Is and Why It’s Being Updated

The Greenhouse Gas Protocol is the world’s most widely used system for measuring corporate emissions. It is used by over 90% of companies that report greenhouse gas data globally, making it the foundation of most climate disclosures.

It divides emissions into three categories:

  • Scope 1: Direct emissions from operations
  • Scope 2: Emissions from purchased electricity
  • Scope 3: Emissions across the value chain
scope emissions sources overview
Source: GHG Protocol

The current Scope 2 rules were introduced in 2015, but energy markets have changed since then. Renewable energy has expanded, and companies now play a major role in funding clean power.

Corporate buyers have already supported more than 100 gigawatts (GW) of renewable energy capacity globally through voluntary purchases. This shows how influential the current system has been.

The GHG Protocol is now updating its rules to improve accuracy and transparency. The revision process includes input from more than 45 experts across industry, government, and academia, reflecting its global importance.

Scope 2 Shake-Up: The Battle Over Real-Time Carbon Tracking

The proposed update would shift how companies report electricity emissions. Instead of using flexible systems like renewable energy certificates (RECs), companies would need to match their electricity use with clean energy that is:

  • Generated at the same time, and
  • Located in the same grid region.

This is known as “24/7” or hourly or real-time matching. It aims to reflect the actual impact of electricity use on the grid. Companies, including Apple and Amazon, say this shift could create challenges.

GHG accounting from the sale and purchase of electricity
Source: GHG Protocol

According to industry feedback, stricter rules could raise energy costs and limit access to renewable energy in some regions. It can also slow corporate investment in new clean energy projects.

The concern is that many markets do not yet have enough renewable supply for real-time matching. Infrastructure for tracking hourly emissions is also still developing.

This creates a key tension. The new rules could improve accuracy and reduce greenwashing. But they may also make it harder for companies to scale clean energy quickly.

The outcome will shape how companies measure emissions, invest in renewables, and meet net-zero targets in the years ahead.

Why More Than 60 Companies Oppose the Changes

The companies argue that stricter rules could slow climate progress rather than accelerate it. Their main concern is cost and feasibility. Many regions still lack enough renewable energy to support real-time matching. For global companies, aligning energy use across different grids is complex.

In their joint statement, the group warned that mandatory changes could:

  • Increase electricity prices,
  • Reduce participation in voluntary clean energy markets, and
  • Slow investment in renewable energy projects.

They argue that current market-based systems, such as RECs, have helped scale clean energy quickly over the past decade. Removing flexibility could weaken that momentum.

This reflects a broader tension between accuracy and scalability in climate reporting.

Big Tech Pushback: Apple and Amazon’s Climate Progress

Despite their push for flexibility, both companies have made measurable progress on emissions reduction.

Apple reports that it has reduced its total greenhouse gas emissions by more than 60% compared to 2015 levels, even as revenue grew significantly. The company is targeting carbon neutrality across its entire value chain by 2030. It also reported that supplier renewable energy use helped avoid over 26 million metric tons of CO₂ emissions in 2025 alone.

In addition, about 30% of materials used in Apple products in 2025 were recycled, showing a shift toward circular manufacturing.

Amazon has also set a net-zero target for 2040 under its Climate Pledge. The company is one of the world’s largest corporate buyers of renewable energy and continues to invest heavily in clean power, logistics electrification, and low-carbon infrastructure.

Both companies argue that flexible accounting frameworks have supported these investments at scale.

The Bigger Challenge: Scope 3 and Digital Emissions

The debate over Scope 2 reporting is only part of a larger issue. For most large companies, Scope 3 emissions account for more than 70% of total emissions. These include supply chains, product use, and outsourced services.

In the technology sector, emissions are rising due to:

  • Data centers,
  • Cloud computing, and
  • Artificial intelligence workloads.

Global data centers already consume about 415–460 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity per year, equal to roughly 1.5%–2% of global power demand. This figure is expected to increase sharply. The International Energy Agency estimates that data center electricity demand could double by 2030, driven largely by AI.

This creates a major reporting challenge. Even with cleaner electricity, total emissions can rise as digital demand grows.

Climate Reporting Rules Are Tightening Globally

The pushback comes as climate disclosure requirements are expanding and becoming more standardized across major economies. What was once voluntary ESG reporting is steadily shifting toward mandatory, audit-ready climate transparency.

In the European Union, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) is now active. It requires large companies and, later, listed SMEs, to share detailed sustainability data. This data must match the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS). This includes granular reporting on emissions across Scope 1, 2, and increasingly Scope 3 value chains.

In the United States, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) aims for mandatory climate-related disclosures for public companies. This includes governance, risk exposure, and emissions reporting. However, some parts of the rule face legal and political scrutiny.

The United Kingdom has included climate disclosure through TCFD requirements. Now, it is moving toward ISSB-based global standards to make comparisons easier. Similarly, Canada is progressing with ISSB-aligned mandatory reporting frameworks for large public issuers.

In Asia, momentum is also accelerating. Japan is introducing the Sustainability Standards Board of Japan (SSBJ) rules that match ISSB standards. Meanwhile, China is tightening ESG disclosure rules for listed companies through updates from its securities regulators. Singapore has also mandated climate reporting for listed companies, with phased Scope 3 expansion.

A clear trend is forming across jurisdictions: climate disclosure is aligning with ISSB global standards. There’s a growing focus on assurance, comparability, and transparency in value-chain emissions.

This regulatory tightening raises the bar significantly for corporations. The challenge is clear. Companies must:

  • Align with multiple evolving disclosure regimes,
  • Ensure emissions data is verifiable and auditable, and
  • Expand reporting across complex global supply chains.

Balancing operational growth with compliance is becoming increasingly complex as climate regulation converges and intensifies worldwide.

A Turning Point for Global Carbon Accounting 

The outcome of this debate could shape global carbon accounting standards for years.

If stricter rules are adopted, emissions reporting will become more precise. This could improve transparency and reduce greenwashing risks. However, it may also increase compliance costs and limit flexibility.

If the proposed changes remain optional, companies may continue using current accounting methods. This could support faster clean energy investment, but may leave gaps in reporting accuracy.

The new rules could take effect as early as next year, making this a near-term decision for global companies.

The push by Apple, Amazon, and other companies highlights a key tension in climate strategy. On one side is the need for accurate, real-time emissions reporting. On the other is the need for flexible systems that support large-scale clean energy investment.

As digital infrastructure expands and energy demand rises, how emissions are measured will matter as much as how they are reduced. The next phase of climate action will depend not just on targets—but on the systems used to track them.

The post Apple, Amazon Lead 60+ Firms to Ease Global Carbon Reporting Rules appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

Mastercard Beats 2025 Emissions Targets as Revenue Rises 16%, Breaking the Growth vs Carbon Trade-Off

Published

3 weeks ago

on

April 28, 2026

By

Mastercard Beats 2025 Emissions Targets as Revenue Rises 16% and Net-Zero Plan Gains Momentum Toward 2040

Mastercard says it has exceeded its 2025 emissions reduction targets while continuing to grow its global business. The company reduced emissions across its operations even as revenue increased strongly in 2025.

The update comes from Mastercard’s official sustainability and technology disclosure published in 2026. It confirms progress toward its long-term goal of net-zero emissions by 2040, covering its full value chain.

The results are important for the financial technology sector. Digital payments depend heavily on data centers and cloud systems, which are energy-intensive and linked to rising global emissions.

Breaking the Pattern: Emissions Fall While Revenue Rises

In 2025, Mastercard surpassed its interim climate targets compared with a 2016 baseline. The company reported a 44% reduction in Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions, beating its target of 38%. It also achieved a 46% reduction in Scope 3 emissions, far exceeding its 20% target.

At the same time, Mastercard recorded 16% revenue growth in 2025. This shows that emissions reductions continued even as the business expanded. Mastercard Chief Sustainability Officer Ellen Jackowski and Senior Vice President of Data and Governance Adam Tenzer wrote:

“These results reflect a comprehensive approach built on renewable energy investment and procurement, supply chain engagement, and embedding environmental sustainability into everyday business decisions.”

The company also reported a 1% year-on-year decline in total emissions, marking the third consecutive year of emissions reduction. This is important because digital payment networks usually grow with higher computing demand.

Mastercard says this trend reflects improved efficiency across its operations, better infrastructure use, and increased reliance on cleaner energy sources.

Mastercard 2024 GHG emissions
Source: Mastercard

The Hidden Footprint: Why Data Centers Drive Mastercard’s Emissions

A large share of Mastercard’s emissions comes from its digital infrastructure. According to the company’s sustainability report, data centers account for about 60% of Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions. Technology-related goods and services make up roughly one-third of Scope 3 emissions.

This reflects how modern financial systems operate. Digital payments, fraud detection, and AI-based analytics require a large-scale computing infrastructure.

Global data centers already consume about 415–460 TWh of electricity per year, equal to roughly 1.5%–2% of global electricity demand. This number is expected to rise as AI usage expands.

Mastercard’s challenge is similar to that of other digital companies. Higher transaction volume usually leads to greater computing needs. This can raise emissions unless we improve efficiency.

To manage this, the company is focusing on renewable energy procurement, hardware consolidation, and more efficient software systems.

Carbon-Aware Technology Becomes Core to Operations

Mastercard is integrating sustainability directly into its technology systems rather than treating it as a separate reporting function. Since 2023, the company has developed a patent-pending system that assigns a Sustainability Score to its technology infrastructure. This system measures environmental impact in real time.

It tracks factors such as:

  • Energy use in kilowatt-hours,
  • Regional carbon intensity of electricity,
  • Server utilization rates,
  • Hardware lifecycle efficiency, and
  • Data processing location.

This allows engineers to design systems with lower carbon impact.

The company also uses carbon-aware software design. This means computing workloads can be adjusted to reduce energy use when carbon intensity is high in certain regions.

This approach reflects a wider trend in the technology and financial sectors. More companies are now including carbon tracking in their main infrastructure choices. They no longer see it just as a reporting task.

Powering Payments: Mastercard’s Net-Zero Playbook

Mastercard has committed to reaching net-zero emissions by 2040, covering Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 emissions across its value chain. The target is aligned with science-based climate pathways and includes operations, suppliers, and technology infrastructure.

To achieve this, the company is focusing on four main areas.

  • Increasing renewable energy use in operations

Mastercard already powers its global operations with 100% renewable electricity. This covers offices and data centers in multiple regions.

The company has also achieved a 46% reduction in total Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions compared to its 2016 baseline. It continues to use renewable energy purchasing to maintain this progress.

In 2024, Mastercard procured over 112,000 MWh of renewable electricity, supporting lower emissions from its global operations.

  • Improving energy efficiency in data centers

Data centers account for about 60% of Mastercard’s Scope 1 and 2 emissions. To reduce this, Mastercard is upgrading servers, cutting unused computing capacity, and improving workload efficiency. It also uses real-time monitoring to reduce energy waste.

These improvements helped keep operational emissions stable in 2024, even as computing demand increased. Efficiency gains combined with renewable energy use supported this outcome.

  • Working with suppliers to reduce emissions

Around 75%–76% of Mastercard’s total emissions come from its value chain. This includes cloud providers, technology partners, and hardware suppliers.

To address this, Mastercard works with suppliers to set emissions targets and improve reporting. More than 70% of its suppliers now have their own climate reduction goals.

  • Upgrading and consolidating hardware systems

Mastercard is reducing emissions by improving its hardware systems. It decommissions unused servers, consolidates infrastructure, and shifts to more efficient cloud platforms.

Technology goods and services account for about one-third of Scope 3 emissions. By reducing unnecessary hardware and extending equipment life, Mastercard lowers both energy use and manufacturing-related emissions while maintaining system performance.

Renewable energy procurement is central to its strategy. It’s crucial for powering data centers, as they account for most of their operational emissions.

Mastercard works with suppliers because a large part of emissions comes from the value chain. This includes technology manufacturing and cloud services. By 2025, the company exceeded several short-term climate goals. This shows early progress on its long-term net-zero path.

mastercard emissions vs growth

ESG Pressure Hits Fintech: The New Rules of Digital Finance

Mastercard’s results come during a period of rising ESG pressure across the financial sector. Banks, payment networks, and fintech companies must now disclose emissions. This is especially true for Scope 3 emissions, which cover supply chain and digital infrastructure impacts.

Several global trends are shaping the industry:

  • Growing regulatory focus on climate disclosure,
  • Rising investor demand for ESG transparency,
  • Expansion of digital payments and cloud computing, and
  • Increased energy use from AI and data processing.

Data centers are becoming a major focus area because they link financial services to energy consumption. In Mastercard’s case, they are the largest source of operational emissions.

At the same time, financial institutions are expected to align with net-zero targets between 2040 and 2050. This depends on regional regulations and climate frameworks. Mastercard’s early progress places it ahead of many peers in meeting short-term emissions goals.

Decoupling Growth From Emissions

One of the most important signals from Mastercard’s 2025 results is the separation of business growth from emissions.

The company achieved 16% revenue growth while reducing total emissions by 1% year-on-year. This marks a continued pattern of emissions decline alongside business expansion.

Mastercard attributes this to improved system efficiency, renewable energy use, and better infrastructure management. In simple terms, the company is processing more transactions without a matching rise in emissions.

This trend is important because digital payment systems normally scale with computing demand. Without efficiency gains, emissions would typically rise with business growth.

Looking ahead, demand will continue to grow. Global payments revenue is projected to reach around $3.1 trillion by 2028, according to McKinsey & Company, growing at close to 10% annually.

global payments revenue 2028 mckinsey
Source: McKinsey & Company

Global data center electricity demand might double by 2030. This rise is mainly due to AI workloads, says the International Energy Agency. Mastercard’s results show that tech upgrades can lower the carbon impact of digital finance. This is true even as global usage rises.

The Takeaway: Fintech’s Proof That Growth and Emissions Can Split

Mastercard’s 2025 sustainability performance shows measurable progress toward its net-zero goal. At the same time, major challenges remain. Data centers continue to be the largest emissions source, and global digital activity is still expanding rapidly due to AI and cloud computing.

Mastercard’s approach shows how financial technology companies are adapting. Sustainability is no longer a separate goal. It is becoming part of how digital systems are designed and operated.

The next test will be whether these efficiency gains can continue to outpace the rapid growth of global digital payments and AI-driven financial systems.

The post Mastercard Beats 2025 Emissions Targets as Revenue Rises 16%, Breaking the Growth vs Carbon Trade-Off appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com