The Greenhouse Gas Protocol just handed Google and Microsoft a major victory in their years-long battle over how to measure AI data center emissions. Last week's public comment announcement moves the industry closer to mandatory hourly carbon accounting - exactly what Google and Microsoft have pushed for since 2020. But the win comes at a cost: rivals like Amazon and Meta are reportedly eyeing the exit as the protocol faces a funding crisis and threats of corporate exodus.
The carbon accounting wars just got ugly, and Google is winning. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol's announcement last week might look bureaucratic, but it represents a massive shift in how tech giants will measure their AI-driven emissions - and not everyone's happy about it. The protocol is moving toward mandatory hourly carbon accounting, the exact system Google and Microsoft have championed since launching their 24/7 clean energy goals. For Google, it's vindication of a strategy they've poured millions into defending through white papers, lobbying, and working group representation. "We support the proposed Scope 2 updates, which would increase the accuracy and the decarbonization impact of carbon inventories," Google spokesperson Mara Harris tells reporters. Translation: we're about to make our competitors follow our rules. But this victory didn't come cleanly. Jesse Jenkins, who leads the Google-funded ZERO Laboratory at Princeton, admits the lobbying has turned nasty. "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," he says. The battle lines couldn't be clearer. On one side sits Google and Microsoft, pushing for granular hourly matching of electricity use with local clean power generation. Their approach demands that every hour of data center operation gets matched with carbon-free energy produced in the same region at the same time. On the other side stands the Emissions First Partnership - Amazon, Meta, and Salesforce - arguing companies should maximize annual emission cuts by trading renewable energy certificates globally, regardless of timing or location. The academic warfare tells the whole story. Since the protocol's revision process began in November 2022, tech giants have sponsored at least 13 major research studies. Google funded seven of them, while Meta sponsored three and backed two. It's intellectual ammunition for a regulatory fight worth billions in compliance costs. The real controversy isn't just about methodology - it's about representation. The 45-member working group tasked with rewriting emissions standards includes direct representatives from and , plus organizations like Energy Tag that receive Google funding. Meanwhile, , , and Salesforce got zero seats at the table. The Emissions First Partnership had to lobby hard just to get Heineken - one of their members - added to the group in March 2025. "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," one anonymous working group member tells reporters. The fix, it seems, was always in. Things got messy in July when the protocol's International Standards Board shot down the emissions-first approach, saying it needed "further foundational development" despite majority support from the working group. But by October's public comment launch, the board mysteriously reversed course, advancing both methodologies - though the emissions-first approach got demoted to a lesser working group that had gone four months without meetings due to funding issues. Nearly a dozen working group members from both camps signed a private letter in August demanding the board reconsider its July decision. When that internal pressure didn't work, formal complaints started flooding in. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol won't say whether this pressure influenced their reversal, with spokesperson Alison Cinnamond insisting "the ISB also did not override any previous decision." The timing couldn't be worse for the protocol's credibility. Multiple sources report hearing rumors of major companies - both tech and traditional - considering abandoning the protocol entirely. The day after the emissions announcement, a rival carbon-accounting coalition called Carbon Measures launched with backing from Exxon Mobil and Air Liquide. While Carbon Measures claims the timing is coincidental, the message is clear: there are alternatives to the Greenhouse Gas Protocol's increasingly contested standards. The financial pressure is mounting too. Sources familiar with the protocol's funding say the $9.25 million Bezos Earth Fund grant that kickstarted this revision process has run dry. Companies are demanding more return on investment in climate initiatives as the Trump administration brings new scrutiny to private sector environmental work. "The Greenhouse Gas Protocol is definitely in a bit of a financial bind," one source explains. "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." This internal chaos comes as the protocol reaches peak influence. The European Union and California are codifying its standards into law, while a new partnership with the International Organization for Standardization promises to harmonize global carbon accounting rules. The stakes have never been higher, and the protocol's neutrality has never looked more compromised.
