Big Tech On The Path To Net Zero — 2026 Edition

From THE MANHATTAN CONTRARIAN

Francis Menton

Back in July 2024, I had a post titled “Big Tech On The Path To Net Zero.” Here was the introductory paragraph:

Among the adherents to the cult of climate change, nobody can claim a higher level of sanctimony than the Big Tech behemoths — the likes of Google, Microsoft and Meta. These new economic titans fancy themselves to be totally unlike the dirty and grubby industrial companies of the past, like the steel, automobile or oil producers with their belching smokestacks. Each of these new tech powerhouses loudly proclaims its sacred and unwavering commitment to “net zero” emissions by some early date, typically 2030.

At the time of that post, all three of those Big Tech behemoths, besides maintaining their own supposed paths to “net zero,” were also engaged to one degree or another in censoring and/or de-monetizing and/or downgrading anybody who dared to deviate from the so-called “climate consensus” — whatever that may be.

And as they censored and de-monetized anyone who deviated from the climate religion, each of those tech giants published their own annual “environment” or “sustainability” reports proclaiming their own strict adherence to the official orthodoxy. My 2024 post linked to the 2024 Reports of Google and Microsoft, and the then-most-recent 2023 Report of Meta. Those Google and Meta Reports can be found here and here; the Microsoft 2024 Report seems to have mysteriously disappeared from the internet.

In 2024, the AI craze and the accelerated build-out of infrastructure by the tech giants was just getting going. Today, all of them are engaged in a mad race to build the most and the fastest. In this light, the bloviation of the 2023 and 2024 “sustainability” reports makes truly entertaining reading today. Here are a few excerpts from the intro to the Google 2024 Report:

Since our earliest days, we’ve been on an ambitious journey to help build a more sustainable future. . . . To help minimize our environmental footprint, we’ve built world-leading efficient infrastructure for the AI era. . . . We strive to build the world’s most energy-efficient computing infrastructure. . . . In 2017, Google became the first major company to match 100% of our annual electricity consumption on a global basis with renewable energy, which we’ve achieved every year since [what does that mean?]. . . . Building on our first two decades of progress, in 2020 we launched our third decade of climate action—our most ambitious yet. . . . We have a bold goal to reach net-zero emissions across all of our operations and value chain by 2030. . . .

And from the Meta 2023 “Sustainability” Report:

We are now reaching toward the goals of net zero emissions across our value chain and becoming water positive throughout our operations, aiming to achieve both of these milestones in 2030. Meta’s net zero in 2030 goal focuses on embedding sustainability into everything we do, whether designing products, commuting, selecting construction materials or working with suppliers to set their own net zero targets. For example, through our Net Zero program, we work closely with suppliers to determine their Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions, set reduction targets and promote strategic action. . . . We are committed to protecting what is truly important: The well-being of people and our planet. . . . [We] take bold climate action by minimizing our footprint, championing renewable energy, restoring water resources, engaging our suppliers and supporting climate justice.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Well, fast forward to July 2026 — with the AI and data center build-out in full swing — and Google is just out with the 2026 version of its Report. Here is a link to the Google 2026 Report — 116 pages long. You would think that they would just give up and walk away from this nonsense, but instead they try to keep up the brave talk. The Executive Summary is all about mis-direction:

At Google, we’re deeply committed to responsibly managing the environmental footprint of our operations and unlocking the power of AI for the planet. . . . The AI revolution has made the last five years especially transformative, and we’re proud of the progress we’ve achieved. In 2025 alone, we signed agreements for over 12 GW of net-new clean energy. By combining this record-breaking procurement with our industry-leading infrastructure, we’re working to ensure that every megawatt is used as efficiently as possible. . . . It was with this same bold spirit that, at the beginning of the decade, we set net zero and 24/7 carbon-free energy2 (CFE) moonshots that were intentionally aspirational and designed to push the frontiers of what’s possible in energy systems and data center operations. . . . Our moonshots pushed us to meet this moment, and the scale of our impact has similarly undergone a step-change. In 2025, we contracted for eight times more clean energy than we did in 2019. Furthermore, the emissions we successfully avoided in 2025 represent seven times the size of our 2019 ambition-based carbon footprint. . . .

More blah-di-blah-di-blah. Guys, your promise was not to procure more “clean energy” or to “make every megawatt as efficient as possible.” It was “net zero” by 2030. Any progress on that?

To get the answer you’ll need to make it all the way to page 69, to a section titled “Progress update/carbon footprint”:

In 2025, our total ambition-based emissions were approximately 14.5 million tCO2e. . . . Our total ambition-based emissions increased 18% compared to 2024—primarily driven by increases in supply chain activities that supported the rapid expansion of our business. We recognize that our climate impact has been growing alongside the unprecedented growth of AI, and we’re actively working to minimize this impact.

What a joke.

Over at Meta, they continue to be a year behind in the reporting. But the basic story is no different. Here is a link to their (most recent) “2025 Sustainability Report.” Here’s the same sort of mis-direction in the introduction:

We are taking a multifaceted approach to implementing emissions reduction strategies that includes procuring clean and renewable energy and exploring innovative technologies like energy storage and geothermal energy. As a result of our clean and renewable energy procurement, we have reduced our emissions by 23.8 million metric tons (M MT) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) since 2021.

I’ve gone all the way through this Report and I can’t find any actual comparison of 2025 emissions versus 2023. Maybe I missed it. On page 70 there is a link labeled “environmental metrics.” It doesn’t even say what is there, but if you go there you will find a chart headed “Total GHG Emissions.” Those are reported to have been 7,443,182 MTCO2e in 2023, and 8,150,595 in 2024 (most recent year reported). That’s an increase of about 9.5% in that one year.

And here’s the latest about Meta, not from Meta itself, but from Yahoo Finance on July 24:

Meta quits clean energy pledge amid gas-powered data center push. Meta has abandoned a global pledge by leading companies to source all of their electricity from renewable sources, the social media giant confirmed Friday. Meta joined the pledge in 2016 according to a Wayback Machine archive of RE100’s website. The departure comes amid a frenzied data center buildout by leading tech companies. Meta has struck deals paying utilities to bring new natural gas power plants online, including 10 to power its Hyperion data center in Louisiana alone.

I understand that a little hypocrisy is inevitable in this world. But after the level of sanctimony that these guys have engaged in, let alone censorship of others, nobody should forget that it was all a scam from the outset.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
4.9 17 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
32 Comments
gyan1
July 31, 2026 11:11 am

“nobody should forget that it was all a scam from the outset.”

A majority still think climate is a serious problem. The fact that it was fraudulent from the outset needs to make it to mainstream headlines before progress can be made with the brainwashed.

Reply to  gyan1
July 31, 2026 1:19 pm

Agreed. There needs to be a very public “come to the light” moment to expose the unsoundness of it all from the start. Maybe such a public airing can be part of the effort to update the National Climate Assessment. Would it “make it to the mainstream headlines” though? We’ll see.

In the meantime, there are many otherwise reliable skeptics of climate alarm who still hold to the core concession that emissions of CO2 can be expected to result in *some* *modest* *benign* and even *beneficial* warming. It’s true that warming itself has been beneficial, but there is no sound physical basis for attributing any of it to incremental CO2, or for expecting a perceptible influence to emerge as emissions continue.

Reply to  David Dibbell
July 31, 2026 1:50 pm

DD, a quibble. You said (paraphrasing) ‘no sound basis for CO2 attribution’.

There is a basis. Tyndall showed in 1859 that CO2 was a GHG (capable of radiative IR transfer impedance). But that was in his dry lab atmosphere.

Whether it is also a ‘sound basis’ depends mainly on the role of specific humidity—averaging about 2% globally. Unlike methane (where the GHG effect is fully cancelled by two broader spectrum and much higher amplitude water vapor emission bands) there are CO2 emission band ‘shoulders’ that do not overlap water vapor at all. So there could be some. Observational EBM ECS is about 1.7C, and the ‘best’ CMIP6 model (INM CM5–best because no artificial modeled tropical troposphere hotspot) says 1.8C. Even WE’s simple new Constructal Law model suggests maybe 1.1C.

So there is perhaps also a sound basis—but NOT a sound basis for any climate alarm.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 31, 2026 2:13 pm

Thanks for your reply, Rud. In the context of dynamic energy conversion within the general circulation, I hold that the radiative “warming” tendency (of incremental CO2) is not capable of operating as a “forcing” for reliable attribution.

I realize that the work you refer to is itself sensible on its own, but it relies on the unverifiable core assumption that the radiative properties must suppress the final full-spectrum longwave emission to space.

You have probably seen this before, but the ERA5 demonstration of the importance of the fundamentals of compressible flow, in my view, cannot be ignored.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1PDJP3F3rteoP99lR53YKp2fzuaza7Niz?usp=drive_link

All the best to you.

Phillip Chalmers
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 31, 2026 2:54 pm

There remains no basis at all for attributing the capability of current CO2 levels to make the slightest difference to the energy flux in and out of the planet.
All the reasoning and all the calculation singling out the specific spectrum of the gas utterly neglects the thermodynamics.
So-called re-radiating is not a zero sum game, it is a thermodynamic process understood as doing work and therefore an entropy increasing activity.
It is clear, CO2 is a dependent variable responding to temperature change in many ways but the significant one is that it enters and leaves the oceans AFTER they cool or warm.

bobclose
Reply to  Phillip Chalmers
August 1, 2026 5:01 am

Well said sir! Ocean temperatures control CO2 levels-end of story.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
August 1, 2026 9:57 am

Tyndall showed in 1859 that CO2 was a GHG (capable of radiative IR transfer impedance).”

But that was assuming ceteris paribus for the entire terrestrial climate.

A very bad assumption.

Maybe GHG emissions will cause some warming. Maybe they won’t. But the answer will involve much more than specific humidity.

As David noted, there’s presently zero physics available to provide a cause for the current warming and nothing known is sufficient to support a warming effect.

gyan1
Reply to  David Dibbell
July 31, 2026 4:07 pm

I think it’s most important to get the major lies about climate into the public’s awareness rather than quibble about how negligible CO2’s forcing might be. It’s blatant fraud to present model output as if it is conclusive data. The uncertainty bands in models are 10-100x greater than the tiny effect they are trying to isolate. That and the fact that most of modern warming was from fewer clouds not CO2 needs to be mainstream knowledge for people to begin to understand how they were conned into believing preposterous nonsense.

Reply to  gyan1
July 31, 2026 4:28 pm

Thanks for your reply. I support your active work against the “blatant fraud” aspect of the climate movement. I have been emphasizing and demonstrating that there is no need to concede even the core claim. To me, it’s not a quibble. It’s a re-framing back to fundamentals.
Be well.

gyan1
Reply to  David Dibbell
July 31, 2026 5:20 pm

Thanks for your work on re-framing back to fundamentals!

“but there is no sound physical basis for attributing any of it to incremental CO2”

The arguments surrounding that are WAY beyond the comprehension of the general public. That’s why I advocate for exposing the obvious lies. There are enough of those to shame climate alarm into submission. The first step in restoring sanity to the subject…

bobclose
Reply to  gyan1
August 1, 2026 4:52 am

That’s the issue in a nutshell. All the rest is sanctimonious tosh!

July 31, 2026 11:12 am

Google and Meta are both based in Silicon Valley. Microsoft is based in Seattle. Both places are hotbeds of green sanctimony. San Fransisco spawned Kamala Harris and Gavin Newsom. Seattle spawned its new DSA mayor. So these tech company’s climate hypocrisy was to be expected given geography.

claysanborn
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 31, 2026 11:50 am

America is a Constitutional Republic. Since Woodrow Wilson, there has been a democrat-led movement to tear down our Republic, and replace it with the Administrative State, comprised mostly of unelected bureaucrats. In a very real way, we (America) are in reality an Administrative State in which bureaucrats, e.g. the EPA, impose dictaks upon We The People so that we Americans will no longer be self-determined. In the Administrative State is where The Deep State silently, perniciously acts.
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) – now euphemistically changed to “Global Warming” because temps did not rise for 18 years while CO2 rose significantly, is part of the above continuous evil plan to wrest Liberty/Freedom from Americans (and the free world; America falls, so does the rest of the free world).
Above is the reason the “left” pounds us with their fear-mongering claims of a climate crisis. It is all about the destruction of the Constitution and the Republic “for which we stand”. Fear (e.g. Fauci-fear) is a powerful weapon. Believe in God of the Bible, and fear not.

tjwaeghe
Reply to  claysanborn
August 1, 2026 8:46 am

Awesome comment!

Dave Burton
July 31, 2026 12:19 pm

Google, Microsoft, Apple & Amazon are great at virtue-signaling, but the stench of hypocrisy & greed is overwhelming. They put recycling bins all over their campuses & donate to environmental (or pseudo-environmental) causes. But they simultaneously desupport tens of millions of perfectly good computers, tablets & phones, and generate mountains of e-waste, to boost replacement sales. Some new Chromebooks are desupported within just 2-3 years of their sale.

Google is worst of all. They skew their search algorithms to hide inconvenient information, and they ruthlessly censor youtube comments, to promote the climate scare.

They’ve trained their censorship bots to recognize even circuitous mentions of climate realism, and either delete or shadowban them. Forthright statements like this get instantly deleted:

comment image

I used to really admire Google. Once upon a time, under different leadership, they had a unique corporate slogan: “Don’t be evil.”

That seems like a long time ago. Under the current leadership, they’ve apparently economized by dropping the first word. Right, Sundar?

Reply to  Dave Burton
July 31, 2026 12:38 pm

My son worked at Google for the summer between 1st and 2nd year HBS. He got an offer but said he would never work there. You correctly surmised why. ‘Don ‘t be evil’ was as hypocritical then as their ‘Net Zero’ is now.

SxyxS
Reply to  Dave Burton
July 31, 2026 1:18 pm

Someone who says ” Don’t be Evil”
is like the guy who always reminds you that he is your best friend
or the girl that says she is faithful.

It’s an Orwellian admission.

Bruce Cobb
July 31, 2026 12:52 pm

Net zero for thee, not for me.

SxyxS
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
July 31, 2026 1:21 pm

It’s quite hard to be Net Zero when your Yacht has the size of 2 football fields and needs 2 tons of fuel per day just to operate in Stand By Mode.

Reply to  SxyxS
July 31, 2026 1:57 pm

The British Navy has apparently solved their Net Zero problem by not having any functional seaworthy ships. Of course, that raises the UK question, “Navy”?

SxyxS
Reply to  Rud Istvan
August 1, 2026 5:40 am

The British Navy does have functional ships.
That’s just the way how Net Zero Ships work.

Renewables at work – combined with a DEI crew your ships move at the speed of sea level rise.

July 31, 2026 1:16 pm

To their credit, Microsoft is at least paying billions to restart the remaining ‘good’ reactor at Three Mile Island to power their new PA data center for about 20 years. Whether that is wise (safe), I dunno.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 31, 2026 1:30 pm

One of the tech titans should step forward and fund a restart of the Indian Point #2 and #3 reactors. Lots of work, no doubt, to re-commission, but worth pushing for.

Reply to  David Dibbell
July 31, 2026 2:09 pm

My understanding is that Holtec Intl has already begun the active complete decommissioning (destruction) of Indian Point at NY insistence, at a projected cost of $2.3 billion. So unlike only ‘mothballed’ Three Mile Island, there is probably already nothing left to re-commission.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 31, 2026 3:19 pm

Definitely a long shot.

Beta Blocker
Reply to  Rud Istvan
August 1, 2026 6:18 am

The New York downstaters in the NYC area would never allow an Indian Point restart, even if it were technically possible to do that, which it now isn’t.

Governor Hochul wants 5 GW of new-build nuclear for upstate New York.

If at some point Governor Hochul becomes truly serious about it, the downstaters will be doing all they can to torpedo any nuclear projects she authorizes.

David Wojick
July 31, 2026 2:09 pm

Hilarious! Mind you “net zero by 2030” and “minimize our impact” sound the same to people who do not read. Bring on the impact! Let it roll.

Reply to  David Wojick
July 31, 2026 8:32 pm

Yessss, beach weather – if ECS is actually something other than zero in our planet’s atmosphere. I live near beaches.

Edward Katz
July 31, 2026 2:25 pm

Like the majority of the big companies and organizations that have pledged to take climate action, the ones mentioned above are following the same publicity path. They announce ambitious goals of emissions reductions by adopting clean energies; then when the former don’t result because the latter aren’t up to the task to begin with, they invent a multitude of excuses for the failures and promise to do better next time. Meanwhile these goals get shoved to the backburner, and soon the initial targets are abandoned completely. And guess what? Few, if any, of their customers care as long as their prices and services remain competitive.

July 31, 2026 6:03 pm

Story Tip.. ?

German electricity grid in disarray….. Looks like they are heading for “NO TECH” !!

Germany’s Industrial Suicide… Grid Agency Prepares Secret Power Rationing Plans Amid Electric Power Bottlenecks

Under these plans, the agency could order industrial plants consuming over 10 GWh per year to limit or completely shut off electricity usage with just 24 hours’ notice—and crucially, without any financial compensation.

August 1, 2026 1:20 am

How do I know I am right?
I am censored.

MSN Edge blocks my posts and denies my appeals.
YouTube (Google) told me my account was terminated for my Covid & climate posts.
USA Today & Disqus ban my email.
I suspect AOL tags my email as spam meaning the recipients never see it.

Is this what they fear???

Earth is cooler with the atmosphere/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer.
Ubiquitous GHE balance graphics don’t and violate GAAP & LoT.
Kinetic heat transfer processes of contiguous atmospheric molecules render
a BB surface impossible aas well as the associated “extra” energy.
GHE is bogus and CAGW is a scam.

Looks like I can’t attach TFK_bams09 as usual

Beta Blocker
August 1, 2026 6:11 am

The tech giants can hire Barack Obama to write a new book: ‘The Audacity of Trope’.