Enabled emissions are the additional greenhouse gas emissions that occur when advanced technologies—like AI, IoT, and cloud computing—make fossil fuel extraction and production economically or technically feasible.

These emissions don’t appear in tech companies’ carbon footprints—but they’re real, and potentially massive.

No! The biggest climate risk from AI isn’t its energy use—it’s how it’s used. While AI-driven demand is pushing data center electricity consumption higher (about 1.5% of global electricity in 2024, projected to reach nearly 3% by 2030), the emissions impact is still relatively small compared to fossil fuels, which drive over 90% of global CO₂ emissions. The real concern is when AI is used to expand fossil fuel production, locking in long-term emissions.

AI is often promoted as a climate solution, with promises of optimizing clean energy and managing power grids—but most of these benefits remain speculative or limited in scale. Meanwhile, the downsides are concrete and accelerating: soaring emissions from energy-intensive AI datacenters, increased fossil fuel extraction, and rebound effects that offset efficiency gains. As the IEA puts it, emissions reductions from digital technologies “are not on track to materialise without regulatory and other interventions.”

Enabled emissions aren’t currently captured in corporate climate reports. Tech companies aren’t accountable for how their tools are used, and current Scope 3 rules don’t cover the downstream impacts of technology.

Only with guardrails. Jevons Paradox shows that improving efficiency can lead to increased overall resource use. Without regulation, tech-driven efficiency in oil and gas often leads to more drilling, not less.

Currently, none. No national or international policy currently regulates the use of AI, cloud, or IoT in high-carbon sectors like oil and gas.

Policy wins are essential: for example, the EU AI Act could be expanded to classify fossil-fuel-enabling AI as “high risk.”

This isn’t about stepping back—it’s about stepping up. Tech companies can lead by accelerating the clean energy transition, not locking in fossil fuel dependence. Using “competition” to justify harmful partnerships is short-sighted; real leadership means choosing a livable future over short-term gain.

Yes, but most are vague or misleading. Without enforceable standards or interim targets, they’re “virtually meaningless” (Carbon Tracker, 2023). The IIGCC standard is promising—but voluntary.

The latest data of cloud market share by fossil fuel digitalization contracts shows: Microsoft (~57%) Amazon Web Services, (~17%) Google Cloud (~13%) Others (~13%).