Save StorySave this storySave StorySave this story
Last week’s request for public comment from the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHGP) doesn’t look like a major win for a tech giant to the naked eye. In fact, it seems almost clerical. But for Google and Microsoft, the announcement constitutes a considerable win in their years-long battle against their competitors over how to account for the carbon emissions of data centers and, by extension, AI.
The announcement shows that the GHGP is one step closer to implementing a mandatory hourly accounting method for electricity emissions—a carbon-accounting system Google and Microsoft have advocated for since 2020 and 2021, respectively.
“We support the proposed Scope 2 updates, which would increase the accuracy and the decarbonization impact of carbon inventories,” says Google spokesperson Mara Harris. Microsoft declined to comment.
As Google celebrates the GHGP’s move, other actors in the emissions space, even those traditionally aligned with Google’s preferred carbon-accounting methodology, note that the fight to get here wasn’t all pretty.
“There’s an intensive lobbying effort going on here, one that these major corporations have each staked considerable reputation and money into, and they are getting a bit ugly,” says Jesse Jenkins, an associate professor at Princeton University and the leader of the Google-funded ZERO (Zero-Carbon Energy Systems Research and Optimization) Laboratory.
Out of Scope
Scope 2 is a subcategory used by the GHGP to account for a company’s indirect emissions from purchased electricity, steam, heat, or cooling. For tech giants, Scope 2 emissions have surged as AI has driven massive growth in data center energy use. As these loads have grown, so too has the pressure to find a new way to account for them.
The GHGP announced its intentions to revise its Scope 2 accounting standards at the end of 2022, eventually accepting a $9.25 million grant from the Bezos Earth Fund. Suddenly, the battle between tech giants had spilled out of the white papers and into the real world, with a GHGP-sponsored “working group” set to hammer out the details of what the new standards should be.
Some, though, believed it was never a fair fight.
“Our understanding was that we would have an arena for ideas to go back and forth. It seemed like [from the beginning] it was pretty well-baked where it was going to go,” says a working group member and supporter of an alternative form of Scope 2 accounting, known as “emissions first,” who was granted anonymity to speak candidly.
The emissions-first camp is broad. It encompasses the Emissions First Partnership, a group founded by Amazon, Meta, and Salesforce, which argues that companies can maximize annual emission cuts by swapping renewable energy certificates (RECs), even if clean power is purchased far from where it’s used. It also includes a related approach known as “emissionality,” or the “marginal emissions” method, which aims to add stricter rules, ranking RECs by their marginal emissions benefit to ensure they support what is hopefully new, impactful clean energy. (Emissions First declined to comment; Salesforce did not reply to a request for comment.)
The emissions-first approach stands in stark contrast to the hourly accounting method championed by Google and, to a lesser extent, Microsoft. Their standard, utilized by Google under its 24/7 Carbon Free Energy by 2030 goal and Microsoft under its similar 100/100/0 by 2030 vision, aims to match every hour of electricity use from a company facility (mainly data centers) with new, carbon-free power that is theoretically produced locally, ultimately aiming for around-the-clock clean energy.
A War of White Papers
Amazon, Google, Meta, and Microsoft have poured considerable resources into advancing their respective accounting methods. According to a report published today by the climate nonprofit InfluenceMap, over 25 major studies on emissions accounting have been released since October 2017. Since the GHGP Scope 2 revision process opened in November 2022, there have been at least 13 related pieces of corporate-sponsored research. Of those, Google has sponsored seven, Meta has sponsored three, Amazon has sponsored two, and Meta and Microsoft have cosponsored one.
Despite the relatively even match seen in the academic publishing space, critics argue that there was no ideological balance on the working group the GHGP created to revise the Scope 2 accounting standards.
Of the 45 members, there is no representation from Meta, Amazon, and Salesforce. In fact, the Emissions First Partnership had to lobby the GHGP for the late inclusion of a representative from Heineken (who joined in March 2025), an Emissions First Partnership member, in an attempt to balance the working group’s representation.
“Following the close of our rolling application window in early 2025, we conducted a gap assessment to address any perceived gaps raised by the Independent Standards Board and stakeholders. Based on this review, the Independent Standards Board appointed additional members across all five Technical Working Groups in February and March 2025,” David Burns, GHGP’s director of governance, tells WIRED. “While we will always consider stakeholder views sent via our formal communications channels, no company or coalition has any role in our decisionmaking, including appointments to technical working groups.”
Meanwhile, Google and Microsoft have direct representatives in the group, as do organizations such as Energy Tag, a nonprofit that has received grant funding from Google. (Energy Tag did not respond to requests for comment.)
Google, for its part, stated through spokesperson Mara Harris that it supports “the continued development of credible metrics to estimate and credit the avoided emissions from carbon-free electricity procurement outside of a company’s carbon inventory,” which theoretically could include the marginal impact method.
Hot and Cold
Despite the perceived bias of the working group, it did manage to move forward with a “Goldilocks” strategy that embraced both mandatory hourly matching and an emissionality method. The group voted on this Goldilocks method in June, ultimately deciding to advance both methods to public comment.
Controversially, the latter half of the proposal—the emissions-first element, called the “marginal impact method,” or MIM—was essentially shot down by the GHGP’s International Standards Board, which stated that despite its majority support from the working group, the marginal impact method needed “further foundational development” before it could move to public comment. That decision was made at the end of July.
However, by the time public consultation was launched in October, the board seemed to have walked back on its decision, sending the hourly accounting proposal to formal public comment and the marginal emissions proposal to an intermediate public comment step that is meant to inform further refining work.
The reasoning behind the reversal remains unclear. There was internal pressure from the Scope 2 working group itself. Nearly a dozen members of varying ideological backgrounds signed a private letter in August, reviewed by WIRED, addressed to the International Standards Board, asking for it to reconsider putting the emissions-first approach on hold and put it out for comment with the hourly matching provision.
“We recommend meeting in early September to ensure we have the appropriate time to respond to feedback,” the letter read.
One signatory divulged that no such meeting took place, though the GHGP did receive a great deal of pushback through formal complaint channels about putting the emissions-first approach on hold. When WIRED asked the GHGP if the letter or outside pushback influenced its decision to reverse the International Standards Board’s decision, the GHGP did not give a response. Rather, a spokesperson for the GHGP, Alison Cinnamond, stated that, “We did not move the full MIM proposal to public consultation. We did advance questions on consequential accounting that are relevant to MIM. The ISB also did not override any previous decision.”
An Unstable Truce?
It’s tempting to say that both the hourly accounting advocates and the emissions-first camp have gotten what they want: Both methodologies advanced to a form of public comment. However, emissions-first advocates argue that the marginal emissions proposal that has been sent to public comment is a “watered down” version of what was proposed for the Scope 2 working group.
Additionally, the marginal emissions approach has been demoted from the Scope 2 working group, with any further work to be done on the topic now going through the Actions and Market Instruments working group. This group had a four-month lapse in meetings between May and September of this year due to the loss of two key employees as well as funding issues. According to a source familiar with the situation, the marginal impact method advocates from the Scope 2 working group were not included in either the September meeting, where the marginal impact method was discussed, or the October meeting.
“The process followed was exactly as outlined in GHG Protocol’s published workplans,” says spokesperson Alison Cinnamond, noting that the marginal impact method wasn’t covered at all at the October meeting. The Scope 2 working group will have the opportunity to engage with the work of the Actions and Market Instruments group in the future, Cinnamond says, but notes that “specific next steps for that engagement are still being determined.”
As such, for many emissions-first-oriented players, even if the marginal impact method manages to get developed within the Actions and Market Instruments working group, it won’t be enough.
The mere reality that some actors will have a mandatory hourly matching requirement has been enough to drive some actors to drastic action. Multiple sources have reported that they have heard rumors of disgruntled companies, tech and non-tech alike, looking to leave the GHGP.
One day after the announcement of the Scope 2 public comment, a rival carbon-accounting coalition made of major Fortune 500 companies (including Exxon Mobil and Air Liquide) was announced: Carbon Measures. Of the corporate members listed on their its, none seem to be members of the Emissions First Partnership. According to Shea Agnew, a spokesperson for Carbon Measures, the launch of the platform has been in the works for months and has no relation to the goings-on at the GHGP.
When asked if their companies were among those considering such a maneuver, both Amazon and Meta declined to comment; according to a source familiar with the two companies’ strategies, they have no immediate plans to leave the GHGP.
Marching Forward
Beyond rumors of members leaving, which has threatened the GHGP’s status as a near-universal standard setter in the carbon-accounting market, the GHGP is facing another existential threat: funding issues. A source with knowledge of the GHGP’s funding situation claims that the aforementioned $9.25 million from the Bezos Earth Fund has run dry, though the nonprofit is listed on the GHGP’s website as a current funder. The Bezos Earth Fund did not reply to a request for comment.
And raising new funds isn’t easy. Companies are looking for more return on investment in the GHGP as climate-related work in the private sector comes under greater scrutiny by the Trump administration.
“The Greenhouse Gas Protocol is definitely in a bit of a financial bind. No one wants to support them because they can’t have their name associated with it, but they depend on philanthropic and corporate money to run. And they’re going in a direction that a lot of companies don’t like the outcome of,” says a source with intimate knowledge of the GHGP’s funding situation.
Instability in the GHGP’s financial position, as well as within its ranks, has come at an inopportune time for the organization. Not only are regulatory regimes in the European Union and California codifying the GHGP’s standards into law, but the GHGP is forging a new partnership with the International Organization for Standardization to further “harmonize” the two organizations’ various carbon-accounting standards.
