The Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHGP) is facing pressure from its stakeholders over the revised Scope 2 accounting standards, which aim to account for a company's indirect emissions from purchased electricity. The GHGP has accepted a $9.25 million grant from the Bezos Earth Fund and has announced plans to revise its standards, but the process has been marred by controversy.
The revisions were championed by tech giants Google and Microsoft, who have argued that their proposed hourly accounting method is more accurate and effective in reducing emissions. However, other companies, including Amazon and Meta, have advocated for an alternative approach known as "emissions first," which involves swapping renewable energy certificates (RECs) to maximize annual emission cuts.
The GHGP's working group on Scope 2 revisions has been criticized for its lack of ideological balance, with no representation from Meta, Amazon, or Salesforce. The Emissions First Partnership, a coalition of companies including Heineken and Amazon, had to lobby the GHGP for late inclusion of a representative in the working group.
The process has been complicated by funding issues, with sources claiming that the $9.25 million grant from the Bezos Earth Fund has run dry. Raising new funds is also challenging, as companies are increasingly scrutinized by the Trump administration for climate-related work.
Despite the challenges, the GHGP remains committed to revising its standards and has announced plans to advance both the hourly accounting method and the emissions-first approach to public comment. However, some stakeholders have expressed concerns that the revised standards may not be sufficient to address the issue of carbon emissions in data centers.
The controversy highlights the complexity and politicization of climate policy, particularly when it comes to big tech companies with significant influence over the GHGP's standards. As the debate continues, one thing is clear: the fate of the GHGP and its revised Scope 2 accounting standards will have a significant impact on the way companies account for their carbon emissions in the years to come.
The GHGP's decision to revise its standards has also led to concerns about the organization's funding situation. With regulatory regimes in the European Union and California codifying the GHGP's standards into law, the organization is under pressure to demonstrate its financial stability. However, sources claim that the GHGP is facing significant financial challenges, including a drying-up of philanthropic and corporate funding.
In response to these concerns, the GHGP has announced plans to forge a new partnership with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) to harmonize its standards with those of other organizations. The move aims to increase the organization's credibility and influence in the climate policy space, but it also raises questions about the potential implications for the GHGP's revised standards.
Overall, the controversy surrounding the GHGP's revised Scope 2 accounting standards highlights the complexities and challenges of climate policy, particularly when it comes to big tech companies with significant influence over the organization. As the debate continues, one thing is clear: the fate of the GHGP will have a significant impact on the way companies account for their carbon emissions in the years to come.
The revisions were championed by tech giants Google and Microsoft, who have argued that their proposed hourly accounting method is more accurate and effective in reducing emissions. However, other companies, including Amazon and Meta, have advocated for an alternative approach known as "emissions first," which involves swapping renewable energy certificates (RECs) to maximize annual emission cuts.
The GHGP's working group on Scope 2 revisions has been criticized for its lack of ideological balance, with no representation from Meta, Amazon, or Salesforce. The Emissions First Partnership, a coalition of companies including Heineken and Amazon, had to lobby the GHGP for late inclusion of a representative in the working group.
The process has been complicated by funding issues, with sources claiming that the $9.25 million grant from the Bezos Earth Fund has run dry. Raising new funds is also challenging, as companies are increasingly scrutinized by the Trump administration for climate-related work.
Despite the challenges, the GHGP remains committed to revising its standards and has announced plans to advance both the hourly accounting method and the emissions-first approach to public comment. However, some stakeholders have expressed concerns that the revised standards may not be sufficient to address the issue of carbon emissions in data centers.
The controversy highlights the complexity and politicization of climate policy, particularly when it comes to big tech companies with significant influence over the GHGP's standards. As the debate continues, one thing is clear: the fate of the GHGP and its revised Scope 2 accounting standards will have a significant impact on the way companies account for their carbon emissions in the years to come.
The GHGP's decision to revise its standards has also led to concerns about the organization's funding situation. With regulatory regimes in the European Union and California codifying the GHGP's standards into law, the organization is under pressure to demonstrate its financial stability. However, sources claim that the GHGP is facing significant financial challenges, including a drying-up of philanthropic and corporate funding.
In response to these concerns, the GHGP has announced plans to forge a new partnership with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) to harmonize its standards with those of other organizations. The move aims to increase the organization's credibility and influence in the climate policy space, but it also raises questions about the potential implications for the GHGP's revised standards.
Overall, the controversy surrounding the GHGP's revised Scope 2 accounting standards highlights the complexities and challenges of climate policy, particularly when it comes to big tech companies with significant influence over the organization. As the debate continues, one thing is clear: the fate of the GHGP will have a significant impact on the way companies account for their carbon emissions in the years to come.
. It's like they're trying to create a new language just for themselves, and now other companies are having to deal with the fallout. And what really gets me is that Meta, Amazon, and Salesforce aren't even at the table when it comes to shaping these standards? That's not balance, that's just a bunch of big players playing their own game 
.
. I mean, what happens when that money runs out? Are they just going to fold up shop and leave everyone else to deal with the mess? 
. It's time for them to take responsibility for their own financing, or at least be transparent about where the money is coming from 
.
. But one thing is for sure – the GHGP needs to stay ahead of the curve if they want to make a real difference 
.
I mean, can't we just agree on something already?! It's like, big tech companies are fighting over their own accounting standards and it's getting old. The GHGP is trying to make a change for the better but it's being held back by all these politics and funding issues 
And then you got these companies like Meta and Amazon who are just, like, "We don't want to do anything unless we can get our way" 
We need more than just funding from billionaires to make a difference. We need collective action and commitment from all of us.
It sounds good on paper but what does it really mean? Are they just trying to cover their own tracks or is this actually going to lead to better climate policies? 
I don't know, man. The whole thing just feels so messy and complicated right now 
. Like, Google and Microsoft are championing some hourly accounting method, but Amazon and Meta are all about swapping RECs to maximize emissions cuts... it's like they can't even agree on a simple approach 
. And don't even get me started on the lack of ideological balance in the working group - no representation from Meta or Amazon? That's just weird 
. But what's even crazier is how this controversy is highlighting the politicization of climate policy 
but seriously, it's crazy that some big tech companies are putting their weight behind different approaches and it's getting super complicated. I mean, I get why Google and Microsoft want to go with the hourly accounting method #innovationforacarbonfreefuture, but what about Amazon and Meta who think the emissions-first approach is the way to go? 
also, I'm low-key worried about the GHGP's funding situation... $9.25 million just isn't gonna cut it for a global climate policy standard #fundingfailures don't have all the answers but one thing is for sure: we need to get our act together and prioritize reducing our carbon footprint ASAP! 
. And with funding running low, it's hard to see how the GHGP can move forward without some kind of major overhaul.
.
. I get that there are different ways to approach Scope 2 accounting, but can't we just agree on something already? 
Meanwhile, these big tech companies are like kids in a candy store, pulling strings behind the scenes and expecting everyone else to follow their lead 
... unless you count the Bezos Earth Fund grant, which has conveniently run dry 
. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how this all plays out 
... probably after a few more years of delays and backroom deals 
I mean, Google and Microsoft's proposed hourly accounting method sounds like it could be more accurate, but then again, some of the other companies have valid points about the emissions-first approach. 
And what about the whole funding situation? The GHGP is facing financial challenges, which could undermine its credibility... or maybe it's a blessing in disguise to shake things up? 
... And now the GHGP is stuck in this funding limbo 
... What a mess! 
... Can't we all just agree on something already? 
... Talk about double standards 
... Climate policy should be about people and the planet, not about big tech companies making a profit 
...
.
anyway back to climate policy stuff...i feel like these big tech companies should be more transparent about their carbon emissions and investments in renewables...like why did google and microsoft start this whole hourly accounting thing? 
It feels like we're playing whack-a-mole with climate policy, where one controversy pops up and another takes its place. Is that really sustainable? 
and they're like "oh, let's just team up with ISO"