Always Trust the Data? Google’s Questionable Climate Counts
As climate change and environmental destruction have become increasingly impossible to ignore, even billion-dollar companies like Google have begun to recognize their role in the climate crisis and have publicly committed to making their operations more sustainable. While Google’s push to be an outwardly sustainable company is not new, its figures may not offer a genuine insight into its current climate impact. In a recent report, the nonprofit advocacy group Kairos Fellowship published a report challenging Google’s reported claims that emissions rose by fifty-one percent from 2019 to 2024, and instead found that the company’s emissions had increased by over sixty-five percent during that time frame (Guardian). The same report also found that from 2023 to 2024, the company’s emissions increased by over 26 percent, resulting in approximately 15 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions. Within Google’s official report, many of these numbers are obscured by promises of greener solutions on the way or the measurement of “avoided emissions” to divert attention away from the overall increase in energy consumption (Google 20). Any admissions of failure are immediately offset by pages showering praise on the company’s “sustainability” missions and embrace of AI as a tool to combat the climate crisis (Google 3). These promises of a brighter future through Google’s innovation quickly turn sour when reports, such as those from the Kairos Foundation, show how the company systematically underreports its climate emissions by using a “market-based emissions measurement” (Guardian). Instead of analyzing the actual output from local power grids, the company’s more favorable market-based emissions allow Google to incorporate the carbon offsets and energy contracts it purchases into its emissions numbers, thereby lowering its overall carbon output (Guardian). Their own report shows evidence of this, as its grid regions in the United States seem to use at least over sixty percent of carbon-free emissions while dropping to only nine percent overseas (Google 32).
Examples like Google's systemic false reporting of their emissions numbers mirror some of Nancy Fraser’s writings in Climates of Capital, especially when examining Google’s role as a significant capital owner and its contradictory relationship to ecological issues. In Climates of Capital, Fraser frames capitalism as an inherent ecological contradiction, where nature is seen as both outside the economic world and increasingly vital for its future, thereby leading to environmental crises (Fraser 99). Google, unknowingly, views its own relationship to nature similarly, both as an external force that must be reckoned with in the form of climate change, and also as a resource to be extracted for use in data centers worldwide. This complicates their outwardly altruistic image, as the emissions-heavy resources Google claims to move away from are not only required to run their company, but are being used at even larger rates than in the past decade. Thus, Google’s solutions can rarely challenge the practices within the company. To borrow from Fraser, Google is committed to ensuring its climate solutions are “market-centered and capital-friendly.” Google’s extraction-focused approach does not offer equitable solutions; instead, it provides solutions that maintain the company’s market value while appearing outwardly beneficial. This corporate greenwashing emerges as communities surrounded by data centers, like the ones Google relies on, swallow up and pollute water sources, putting small, often rural communities at risk (BBC). Google’s false climate data offers a look into how large tech companies view their role in the climate crisis. While they outwardly promote innovations that promise a greener future, their carbon output appears to rise year after year. To prevent such rampant violations of public trust, larger, more international blocs must be formed to compel these companies to implement more substantial environmental protection measures. As Fraser writes, our social order must also change, and we should focus on dismantling the capital-first approaches that enable corporations to offer such dwindling solutions (Fraser 103). Without more substantial pushback against these tech corporations, newer forces like AI threaten to stop these companies’ moves towards sustainability for the foreseeable future.
Works Cited
“I Can’t Drink the Water” - Life next to a US Data Centre. BBC 10 July 2025, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy8gy7lv448o.
"Google Sustainability". Google 2025 Environmental Report. June 2025, https://www.gstatic.com/gumdrop/sustainability/google-2025-environmental-report.pdf.
"Google’s Eco-Failures." Kairos Fellowship. https://noclimateresultsfound.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Kairos_NCRFGoogleReport_FINAL.pdf. https://noclimateresultsfound.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Kairos_NCRFGoogleReport_FINAL.pdf.
Bhuiyan, Johana. “Google Undercounts Its Carbon Emissions, Report Finds.” The Guardian, 2 July 2025. Technology. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jul/02/google-carbon-emissions-report.