Google and Greystoke Misstate Carbon Emissions of Proposed UK AI Datacentres

Planning submissions for Google’s Thurrock (52 ha) and North Weald datacentres, and Greystoke’s Elsham Tech Park, calculate emissions by comparing a single year of projected output with the UK’s five-year carbon budget. Foxglove’s analysis shows this method understates each project’s share by roughly fivefold. The miscalculation occurs amid a broader policy split: two government departments responsible for the AI strategy and the decarbonisation roadmap have produced energy-use forecasts that differ by a factor of ten. The underestimation could affect the assessment of the projects against the UK’s carbon budgets.

The Guardian

• Google – developer of the Thurrock and North Weald AI datacentres.

The Guardian

• Greystoke – developer of Elsham Tech Park.

The Guardian

• Foxglove – tech-justice nonprofit; Tim Squirrell, head of strategy, identified the miscalculations.

The Guardian

• Steven Heather – local councillor for North Weald.

The Guardian

• Local planning authorities – responsible for reviewing revised emission data.

The Guardian

Corrected emissions are 0.165 % (Thurrock, 2028-2032), 0.215 % (North Weald, 2033-2037) and 0.5215 % (Elsham Tech Park, 2033), each about five times the reported values. Together they exceed 1 % of the 2033 UK carbon budget, comparable to a city such as Bristol.

The Guardian

Although classified as “minor adverse,” the corrected emissions represent over 1 % of the 2033 carbon budget—equivalent to a mid-sized city—potentially misleading councils and undermining confidence in the UK’s decarbonisation roadmap. The scale raises concerns about meeting the UK’s climate goals outlined in the decarbonisation roadmap.

The Guardian

Google declined comment. Greystoke, in a Guardian response, acknowledged the error and will submit revised figures to the planning authority. The planning department said it will review the corrected data before granting permission.

The Guardian

Foxglove’s Tim Squirrell warned the methodology “makes the environmental impact look five times smaller than it really is” and demanded accountability. Councillor Steven Heather said any gross error would be caught during the submissions stage.

The Guardian

Foxglove cites a fivefold understatement, while planning documents list the lower reported percentages; Google’s internal calculations remain undisclosed.

The Guardian

• “Google has serious questions to answer about its dubious datacentre pollution figures,” — Tim Squirrell, Head of Strategy, Foxglove

The Guardian

• “By comparing one year of datacentre emissions with five years of UK emissions, they’re making the environmental impact look five times smaller than it really is.” — Tim Squirrell, Foxglove

The Guardian

• “If there is a gross error, they’ll obviously pick up on it. When it goes to the submissions stage, the developers will have to come back with the proper figure.” — Steven Heather, Local Councillor

The Guardian

• “We expect to submit revised figures to the local planning authority as part of the planning process.” — Greystoke spokesperson

The Guardian

The planning authorities will assess the revised submissions in the next approval round and may require extra mitigation to meet the UK’s climate goals.

The Guardian