Numerous forest-related carbon offset initiatives certified by Verra, the largest carbon registry globally, face potential risks from wildfires and other disturbances that may hinder effective carbon release from the atmosphere.
These forest-based carbon offset initiatives aim to conserve or restore forests to produce carbon credits, which can be sold to corporations or individuals to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. Such schemes are designed to maintain a “buffer pool” of unsold carbon credits as insurance against future carbon losses due to factors like wildfires, pests, or severe weather events. Nevertheless, assessments of these buffer pools indicate that current carbon offset strategies are likely not sufficiently secured.
“The figures don’t really rely on scientific evidence, as far as we know,” stated William Anderegg from the University of Utah. A spokesperson from Verra defended the organization’s methodology, asserting that the determination of buffer pool size is grounded in rigorous, science-based risk evaluations, stressing that replenishment should align with what buffer-immersed projects have collected.
Buffer pools pose a significant challenge, especially when forest-based carbon credits are sold to offset emissions from fossil fuels that may have been in the atmosphere for centuries. “If you’re attempting to sequester carbon into trees, you need to guarantee its stability over an extended period,” Anderegg remarked.
In principle, by safeguarding adequate carbon to counterbalance potential losses over decades, a large buffer pool would suffice. However, previous research by Anderegg and his team revealed that forest carbon projects certified by Verra typically secured only 2% of their credits for protection against natural risks.
To evaluate whether this is an adequate safeguard, Anderegg and his colleagues employed ecological models to calculate the necessary size of the buffer to effectively manage the risk posed by natural disturbances across various tropical forest types. They juxtaposed these findings with the buffer pools currently mandated for Verra certification.
The results indicated that Verra’s standards fall short of ensuring permanent carbon storage in nearly all scenarios. In certain instances, the required buffer could be 11 times smaller than necessary. “Given these natural hazards, [the buffer] should be at least doubled, if not more, to be fitting,” Anderegg noted.
A Verra representative mentioned that the majority of the 76 million carbon credits presently within the buffer pool are utilized. They added, “previous reversals suggest that the buffer is not overwhelmed.” “The ongoing maintenance of buffer pools over time clearly demonstrates their effectiveness despite the risk of reversals,” the spokesperson stated.
Buffer pools are not merely a concern for Verra. For instance, California’s regulated carbon offset program has faced wildfires in recent years. A significant portion of the buffer pool was designed to endure for a century.
This concern is anticipated to grow as forest carbon losses escalate. “To secure sustainability extending beyond 100 years, you must ensure that the buffer is sufficiently robust to confront multiple climate variations,” Anderegg concluded.
In 2021, Google established an ambitious target to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2030. Nevertheless, since that time, the company has taken a contrary path by investing in energy-demanding artificial intelligence. According to its latest sustainability report, Google’s carbon emissions surged by 51% between 2019 and 2024.
The intent behind the new research is to challenge even the vast statistics, contextualizing Google’s sustainability report and presenting a more somber outlook. A report from nonprofit advocacy group Kairos Fellowship revealed that, between 2019 and 2024, Google’s carbon emissions increased by 65%. Additionally, from the first year public data on Google’s emissions became available in 2010 to 2024, the total greenhouse gas emissions soared by 1,515%, according to Kairos. The report noted that when Google upped its emissions by 26% from 2023 to 2024, this was the largest increase within that timeframe.
“Google’s own data supports this assertion. Companies are accelerating climate crises, and key metrics—including emissions and water usage—are trending in a concerning direction for both us and our planet.”
The authors of the report found that they discerned Google’s energy consumption and the bulk of the figures used to calculate rising carbon emissions within the appendix of Google’s Sustainability Report. Many of these figures were not prominently featured in the main body of Google’s report, they claim.
Google did not respond promptly to inquiries regarding these figures.
The authors of the report, titled Eco Fail, attribute the discrepancies between the calculated figures and Google’s sustainability report to several factors. Google employs market-based emissions metrics, while researchers use location-based emissions. Location-based emissions represent the average energy consumed from the local electricity grid, while market-based emissions include the energy procured to offset total emissions.
“[Location-based emissions] Franz Ressel, lead researcher and co-author of the report, stated. Businesses may pollute in one area while trying to ‘settle’ those emissions by purchasing energy contracts from elsewhere.”
According to a Kairos survey, the energy demand from Google’s data centers has surged by 820% since 2010. Emissions from electricity purchases for data centers increased by 121% between 2019 and 2024, according to the report’s authors.
“This increase is equivalent to adding 6.8 TWh of energy consumption, comparable to the total energy used by the state of Alaska over a year,” Sugerman explained.
Based on the current trajectory, the Kairos Report authors assert that it appears unlikely Google will meet the 2030 deadline without considerable public pressure. Since 2019, Google has tracked three categories of greenhouse gas emissions, referred to as Scopes 1, 2, and 3, and has made significant reductions in Scope 1 emissions. According to the report, Scope 1 emissions, which include emissions from Google’s own facilities and vehicles, represent merely 0.31% of its total emissions. Scope 2 emissions primarily consist of indirect emissions associated with the electricity purchased to power its facilities, while Scope 3 encompasses indirect emissions from various other sources, including suppliers, the usage of Google’s consumer devices, and employee business travel.
“Continuing to expand at current rates is unsustainable,” Sugerman added.
Thirsty, power-hungry data centers
Amid the construction of resource-intensive data centers across the country, experts are scrutinizing Google’s water usage as well. Google’s sustainability report reveals a 27% increase in water withdrawal to 1.1 billion gallons between 2023 and 2024.
Kairos indicates that this volume is “sufficient to meet the drinking water needs of 2.5 million residents and 5,500 industrial users in Boston and its surrounding areas.”
Tech companies are facing both internal and external pressures to enhance the sustainability of their data centers with clean energy. Recently, Amazon employees proposed a series of shareholder proposals which compelled the company to disclose its overall carbon emissions and assess the impact of its data centers on the climate. This proposal was ultimately voted on. Multiple organizations, including Amazon’s Employees for Climate Justice, the Conservation Voters Federation, Public Citizens, and the Sierra Club, published an Open Letter in the San Francisco Chronicle and the Seattle Times, urging the CEOs of Google, Amazon, and Microsoft to “refrain from committing to new gas and delaying coal plants to power their data centers.”
“In just the last two years, your corporation has constructed data centers across the United States that could consume as much electricity as 4 million American households,” states the letter. “Within five years, these data centers alone will use enough electricity for more than 22 million households, comparable to the consumption of several medium-sized states.”
In its sustainability report, Google cautions that the company’s “future trajectory” may be influenced by the “evolving landscape” of the tech industry.
“We are at a significant inflection point due to the rapid growth of AI, which affects not just our company but the entire tech sector,” the report explains. “The unprecedented pace of development and potential nonlinear growth driven by the uncertain availability of clean energy and infrastructure needed to support this growth may affect our capacity to project future emissions and reduce them.”
The Kairos report criticized Google for its “heavy reliance on speculative technologies, especially nuclear power,” in pursuit of its 2030 zero carbon emissions goal.
“Google has concentrated on nuclear energy as a ‘clean energy solution’, despite the prevailing consensus among scientists and industry experts that achieving successful large-scale deployments will not happen in the near or medium term,” the report states.
Furthermore, the Kairos report contends that Google’s presentation of certain data can be misleading. For instance, in discussing data center emissions, Google claims a 50% improvement in energy efficiency over 13 years. The report’s authors argue that focusing on energy efficiency figures rather than sharing absolute emissions numbers obscures Google’s total emissions.
“Since 2010, the company’s overall energy consumption has increased by 1,282%,” the report concludes.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
