
Thank you to everyone who joined us last month for the launch of 

, Greenpixie’s latest flagship product. It was a joy to have so many of you there to learn from one another and be inspired by the power of innovation. Did you miss it? Not to worry – here’s a quick recap of what we got up to.

We kicked off with some great tunes from resident DJ Chris Ingram (part-time Head of Engineering) as our guests arrived in London FIelds for an evening of learning, networking, and to sample some of London’s most exciting sustainable drinks.

Taking our seats, we were given the lowdown by John, Greenpixie’s CEO and Co-Founder, who shared the company’s journey so far and the significance of this event for us. We then went onto Polly moderating the event.

We heard talks from three powerhouses of the sustainable tech world. 

, Global Director, Policy Engagement & Public External Affairs at CDP, opened the floor for us, offering a fascinating account of the role of authority bodies in the climate tech space. 

 so it was great to hear about the work they’ve been doing. Starling are ahead of the curve on their Net Zero commitments, and it was particularly good to hear about the emphasis they are placing on Scope 3 emissions, which are often overlooked.

, the Head of Environmental Sustainability at 

. He rounded out the talks with a speech all about the importance of Net Zero within the tech space. Ben’s work with the 

 initiative, where we first crossed paths, is a real inspiration to us all.

And then on to the most exciting part of the evening – learning a bit more about Cloud NetZero! We heard from CTO Will all about cloud computing, digital carbon, and what Greenpixie are doing about it. After months of hard work from the whole team, it was amazing to see our solution to the 

huge, underrepresented issue of cloud carbon 

come together in such a joyful and exciting event. 

And what sort of party would it be without pizza and drinks? We rounded out the evening with cocktails and wine from our friends at 

, lots of nibbles, and some amazing conversation.

Thanks again to everyone who’s helped Greenpixie get to this point: we couldn’t have done it without you, and can’t wait to see where Cloud NetZero goes next. Onwards and upwards!

Cloud NetZero Soft Launch

How does Greenpixie work out your cloud emissions based on usage within AWS? Find out here

Greenpixie's AWS Cloud Emission Methodology

Currently, most cloud providers do not disclose energy or carbon emissions from cloud usage to their customers with any kind of credible accuracy or useful granularity (at an aggregate or individual level), which can be a challenge for organizations who want to baseline and reduce their carbon footprint. This application is a starting point to enable organizations to have greater visibility into their emissions within AWS.

There are currently no guidelines for reporting Scope 3 emissions as part of the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol, which cloud provider usage would fall under. However, we hope more and more organizations report on both location-based and market-based emissions from cloud usage. To that end, this application’s focus is on providing a location-based cloud emissions estimate, and we welcome contributions that could aid with market-based reporting to include energy attributes such as RECs or power purchasing agreements.

This application pulls usage data (compute, storage, networking, etc.) from major cloud providers and calculates estimated energy (Watt-Hours) and greenhouse gas emissions expressed as carbon dioxide equivalents (metric tons CO2e). 

We calculate our CO2e estimates with this formula:

 = (Cloud provider service usage) x (Cloud energy conversion factors [kWh]) x (Cloud provider Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE)) x (grid emissions factors [metric tons CO2e])

 (cloud energy conversion factors) for estimating CO2e emissions for cloud compute and storage services, with the addition of networking and memory usage. We similarly use point estimates without confidence intervals due to the experimental nature of the project, which are not meant as a replacement for data from cloud providers, and we cannot guarantee their accuracy.

We encourage and welcome any improvements and extensions to both the methodology and software. We aim to keep this approach up to date, including using the most recent publicly available data.

We query the AWS Cost and Usage Reports with Amazon Athena cloud to provide a holistic understanding of your emissions.

This pulls usage and cost data from all linked accounts in your AWS organization. This approach provides us with a more holistic estimation of your cloud energy and carbon consumption, but may be less accurate as we use an average constant (rather than measured) CPU Utilization.

Before estimating the energy and carbon emission, we validate whether a given usage is Compute, Storage, Networking, Memory or Unknown. 

The process by which we classified the usage types is:

Consider the AWS pricing if it is hours or seconds, it is likely to be a Compute usage type. If it is byte-seconds or GigaByte-Months, it is likely to be Storage, and if it is bytes of Gigabytes it is likely to be networking. Most other units are ignored.


We then further validate whether a line item is Compute, Storage, Networking or Memory by looking at the more detailed usage type.



The way we determine total vCPU Hours for the compute estimation varies for each cloud provider. For AWS we multiply the usage amount by the product vCPUs, because our understanding is that the usage amount doesn’t include the vCPU count for a given usage row. 

For AWS Savings Plans, we only include the line item type SavingsPlanCoveredUsage because our understanding is that the other Savings Plans line item types refer to fees or discounts in the form of refunds.

When calculating total kilowatt-hours for AWS Lambda service using Billing Data (Holistic), we are assuming that MemorySetInMB will be 1792, and since we will then divide this by the constant 1792, we just don't include it in the calculation.

In order to estimate energy used by cloud providers we are leveraging the methodology that Etsy created called “

” to determine energy coefficients (kWh) for cloud service compute and storage usage. In addition, we’ve added energy estimation for networking and memory usage. 

We look at the servers used by cloud providers on their website and reference their energy usage from both the 

For Compute estimation, we follow the same formula as Cloud Jewels, which can be broken down into 2 steps.

First, we calculate Average Watts which is the average compute energy at a moment in time. When a server is idle, it still takes some power to run it (Minimum Watts). As the server utilization increases the amount of power consumed increases too. The total energy used is the min watts plus the watts from additional server usage (average per hour).

Average Watts = Min Watts + Avg vCPU Utilization * (Max Watts - Min Watts)

Second, we then translate this into total Watt Hours based on the amount of time servers are being used, or virtual CPU hours.

Compute Watt-Hours = Average Watts * vCPU Hours

Here are the input data sources for the variables in the formula, and context on where we have sourced them:

 (constant) - This is dependent on the CPU processor used by the Cloud provider to host the virtual machines. Based on publicly available information about which CPUs cloud providers use, we looked up the 

 database to determine this constant per processor micro-architecture.

 (variable or constant) - This is either pulled from the cloud provider APIs (see above) or falls back to 50% (see below).

 (variable) - This is pulled from the cloud usage APIs or billing data .

When the actual Avg vCPU Utilization for a given time period isn’t available from a cloud provider's API, we fall back to a projected estimate for the average server utilization of servers in hyperscale data centers in 2020 of 50%, from the 

2016 U.S. Data Center Energy Usage Report

. For example, this may occur for AWS EC2 instances that are terminated over 2 weeks ago from when the application first queries an AWS Account.

When we know what underlying processor micro-architecture or group of micro-architectures are used for a given cloud provider virtual machine, we use the min and max watts for that micro-architecture or the average of a group of micro-architectures. When a group of micro-architectures includes either Ivy Bridge or Sandy Bridge, we use the median of that group. This is because we treat those micro-architectures as outliers due to their comparatively high min/max watts in order to not overestimate. See Appendix II for this list of processors and micro-architectures with the min and max watts.

When we don’t know the underlying processor micro-architecture, we use the average or median of all micro-architectures used by that cloud provider. Here are those averages for 

All the major cloud providers have instances or machines that include GPUs. Unfortunately, the SPECPower Database doesn’t include energy data for the min and max watts of GPUs, so we have determined a different approach.

When it comes to GPUs, we are able to leverage the same compute estimation formula, but because the cloud providers provision entire physical GPUs to customers, instead of using virtual CPU Hours, we use GPU Hours.

When it comes to determining the min and max watts for physical GPUs, we have leveraged a 

 that includes the watts at 0% utilization and 100% utilization for various GPU machine types, which is based on data provided by 

. Teads measured the CPU Utilization at 0% and 100% utilization of AWS bare metal instances (CPUs), and applied the same ratio to GPU. 

We understand there are a number of assumptions underpinning this approach, and very much welcome improvements based on ore accurate data sets.

the UK’s Green Claims Code (GCC) was introduced at the end of 2021. Let’s take a closer look at what it all means for businesses.

What does the new Greenwashing Regulation mean for UK Tech?

The reality is most companies are greenwashing to some extent, whether intentionally or inadvertently. In fact, a 

 found that 40% of green claims made online were misleading.

The temptation to greenwash is not surprising - consumers are increasingly willing to pay extra for sustainability. A 

 of the same year reported that 57% of UK consumers would be willing to pay more for more sustainable products, rising to 69% for younger consumers.

And, with certain aspects of carbon accounting as tricky as they are (such as digital carbon- a major problem for tech companies) it’s also understandable that many companies greenwash by mistake.

To address these misleading environmental claims and hold businesses to account, the UK’s 

 (GCC) was introduced at the end of 2021. Let’s take a closer look at what it all means for businesses.

Since January 2022, the code has been enforceable to companies that meet just one of the following criteria:

We’re going to take a look at 7 key principles here which are particularly relevant for Tech companies:


1. Claims must be truthful and accurate 

They must not deceive consumers, even if the claim is correct.


In the digital context, claims of ‘green hosting’ must be backed by evidence that all data is routed through a service provider that has a direct PPA with a renewable energy provider. A ‘green tariff’ agreement could easily not qualify as an evidenced claim under the new guidelines.

They should be worded in a transparent and easily understandable manner, including for Net Zero or sustainability plans.


In the digital context, companies will no longer be able to make statements such as “we’re intent on reducing our amount of digital waste” without a clear, evidenced and accessible plan.

3. Claims must not omit or hide important information

They should disclose all environmental impact information for consumers to make an informed choice, displayed accessibly.


In the digital context, companies touting the environmental benefits of operating entirely remotely will have to disclose the footprint that exists despite their limited physical presence.

4. Claims must only make fair and meaningful comparisons

They should be made with evidence that comparisons are accurate at the time of publication.


Companies will be able to make claims against the efficiency of a competitor’s software, hardware or digital operations as long as it is made with relevant evidence.

5. Claims must consider the full life cycle of the product

They should be made with consideration of the product or service’s entire duration of existence.


In the digital context, making claims about ‘eco’ or ‘green’ hosting may take into account the full life cycle of the data centre itself and the footprint of its construction as well as purchased energy.

They must be made with the most credible evidence, based on accepted science or methodologies.


Tech companies must keep on top of digital sustainability research and trends and making vague claims such as ‘the most sustainable tech company in the UK’ will need evidence. Publishing Cloud Carbon Footprints will require evidence of the calculation.

7. Product features that are legal requirements aren’t claimed as benefits

if an element of a product is essential for its legal right to be sold, it cannot be marketed as offering additional environmental benefits to consumers or suppliers.


Tech companies will need to offer environmental benefits that go above and beyond legal standards in order to make justified green claims.


So what are the consequences of breaking this code?

There are a number of consequences businesses can face if found to be in break of GCC regulations. To understand this, it’s important to realise that this is not brand new legislation and is actually drawing from the powers granted to the CMA by previous regulations:

Business Protection from Misleading Marketing

Something which will immediately make businesses sit up and take notice is the fact that breaching the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading legislation can result in criminal liability for Directors and Company Officers.

Moreover, the CMA has investigative powers to require companies to disclose any evidence, or lack of, related to their claims.

There is also a direct civil right of redress for consumers against companies that make misleading claims, and companies can be required to financially compensate claims.

This means that, in theory, tech companies making sustainability claims may be taken to court by either the CMA, a member of the public or legal charities.

The new codes and guidelines appearing all over Europe from different authoritative bodies are just the tip of the iceberg in the worldwide push for accuracy in claims, practice and measurement.

Companies are increasingly required to prioritise environmental considerations. Not only are they legally compelled to publish statements about their environmental impact, but steps like this will require them to ensure these statements are highly accurate.

So much of the way we conduct our work is centred around cloud computing, as more and more businesses move from on-premises hosting (or ‘on-prem’) to increasingly cloud-based infrastructures.

For businesses, the cloud seems to be everywhere

 say their cloud usage is moderate to heavy, and 

, 3.6 billion people were accessing a range of cloud-related services. That’s up from only 2.4 billion just five years earlier.

For many, cloud setups offer a vast array of benefits: it’s scalable, cheaper upfront, and can be accessed anywhere with an internet connection. On top of all this, you move your power-hungry servers off-site, which reduces not just your energy bills, but also your carbon footprint, right?

Wrong. While the carbon impact might feel out-of-sight and out-of-mind, cloud computing really 

Your business’ data is still hosted somewhere – just off-prem, in a data centre somewhere around the world. This data centre uses energy just the way your on-prem servers would have – to power the servers, to keep them cool, and to maintain all the necessary infrastructure.

This takes a vast amount of energy: estimates vary on exactly how much, but the footprint of ICT in general is likely to be 

 of global electricity consumption, with much of this attributed to the cloud. This issue is only set to grow: 

, 49% of the world’s stored data will be in the public cloud.

Moving from on-prem to off-prem can result in a reduced environmental footprint

 as it’s consolidated into a few larger servers.

You might also be able to choose where in the world your data is 

, so you can choose a region that powers their data centres more renewably.

But nevertheless, it’s also crucial that we recognise that the cloud isn’t zero carbon: it has an impact and it has a footprint.

With the energy use from online activities tucked away in a remote data centre halfway across the world, many businesses aren’t taking responsibility for its measurement or reduction.

This is made possible in part by regulations surrounding carbon footprint measurement.

Moving servers off-prem means they shift from Scope 1 or 2 emissions (direct emissions from a company’s activities) to being technically Scope 3 (emissions from a company’s supply chain). Scope 3 is often hard to account for, and, up to recently, hasn’t been as regulated, so even businesses that take their carbon measurement really seriously can often miss them out.

Scope 3 emissions can form an overwhelmingly large proportion of a business’ carbon emissions - even 

That’s why regulations are increasingly moving towards a place where Scope 3 emissions are essential to carbon reporting from businesses.

Over the last year at Greenpixie, we’ve developed Cloud Net Zero, which helps businesses to measure their cloud emissions, as well as make steps towards understanding and ultimately reducing them.

The move from on-prem to off-prem computing services has meant significant emissions have been forgotten - it’s time we remember them.

The black hole of carbon emissions: the hidden impact of cloud computing

We've measured the digital carbon emissions of over 1000 sustainability-focused website homepages and want to share the results with you!

The emergence of sustainability-centric companies, initiatives and authorities are essential in order to successfully combat the issue of climate change. However, the increasing global online presence means that even sustainability-driven businesses have a digital carbon footprint. Digital carbon is an underreported aspect of global greenhouse emissions, despite accounting for as much as 4%.

In light of this, we’ve used our website carbon calculator (check out how it works 

) to measure and rank the websites of more than 1000 of the world’s sustainability-focused websites by their digital carbon emissions in our biggest study to date! The problem of digital carbon is often not taken into account by businesses when measuring their sustainability, so we want to raise awareness of the fact that their digital activities have an impact too.

Below we have showcased the 25 lowest carbon websites we measured. They’re using green servers, minimalist design, and tight coding practices to achieve the top marks in our research.

Each website listed below in our top 25 is eligible for the Greenpixie low carbon award to put on your site!

To see the full PDF with all 1300 sustainability-focused websites we tested in our research, sign up below! 

Get the full list of the 1300 websites we tested:

We've measured the digital carbon emissions of 1000 sustainability-focused website homepages and want to share the results with you!

Greenpixie's Top 25 low carbon sustainability-focused websites 

The splintered approach of major cloud providers towards digital carbon is threatening to undermine accurate ESG reporting for multi-cloud setups. What can we do?

There is an increasing ethical and legislative demand for organisations to report on their digital emissions. Digital carbon now accounts for 4% of total carbon emissions around the world and, shocking as this is, this realisation has coincided with a change in computing habits which makes understanding that figure a tricky task.

Modern businesses have been adopting cloud computing en masse.

The traditional model of privately owning physical servers, or renting a permanent portion of a data centre, is now expensive, outdated and unnecessary. Cloud computing offers a flexible and far less expensive alternative to this, retaining the benefits of the private server approach, while almost all of the heavy lifting is carried out by the cloud provider - usually trusted and industry-leading brands, like Microsoft, Google or Amazon.

Advantages of cloud computing, besides lower maintenance and setup costs, include improved general performance, a near-limitless capacity for storage, and a global reach that enables data to be stored in different locations around the world, closer to the end-users.

Best of all, as the cloud provider creates a virtual machine on the physical server where your data is stored, you won’t notice any difference between the cloud computing experience and running your own server.

That’s why, for many, the move to cloud computing has been a no-brainer. Indeed most modern companies are unlikely to have ever operated another way.

Data is hard to find and calculations don’t match up

Unfortunately, in a time when businesses need to take responsibility for the greenhouse emissions caused by their digital activity, cloud computing has actually made this harder than in past models.

If the digital sustainability revolution had begun twenty years ago, companies could have easily incorporated the electricity used to run their onsite servers into their ESG reporting. But now, this information is nearly impossible to access. Usage data is hidden amongst the opaque processes of AWS, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud and, even when accessed and organised, usage data is not easily transformed into emissions data.

What are cloud providers doing about this? In short, not enough.

AWS, Google Cloud and Microsoft do have tools that aim to give an estimate of a user's digital carbon footprint, but these have been considered incomplete and overly general by many users. (https://thestack.technology/aws-carbon-footprint-tool/)

Moreover, their calculations and methodology are all quite different, with little to no transparency on how they reach their results.

To make matters worse, many organisations are now moving towards multi-cloud setups, meaning their applications are split across a number of different cloud providers.

This approach has natural benefits, allowing developers to play to the different strengths of the providers across applications, and is also the natural result of a split market, with different teams and individuals gaining familiarity with certain providers, leading to different parts of the same company splintering between them.

But this convenience does not extend to understanding cloud emissions. In fact, multi-cloud computing is even more of a headache to report and manage.

As the three major cloud providers drag their heels over cloud emissions while travelling in different directions regarding calculations and methodology, any data customers can get their hands on will prove tricky to reconcile into a coherent dataset. Not to mention multi-cloud setups involving the many other emerging cloud providers, which may further complicate the picture.

Without easily accessible, coherent data from all cloud providers, digital reporting is suffering - and this affects the ability of organisations to truly achieve their Net Zero pledges.

Untangling the emissions of multi-cloud setups with Cloud NetZero

We’re making it our business to build a software tool that can easily access and organise usage data from all cloud providers at once, before using our academically researched carbon algorithm to uniformly produce cloud emissions data that can be presented simply in one easy-to-understand dashboard.

As cloud computing continues to develop, there are certainly more and more possibilities opening up for users. However, with the climate crisis and necessary legislation looming, the puzzle of cloud emissions data is one that we’ll benefit from solving sooner, rather than later.

The growing trend of multi-cloud computing setups (and what this means for Net Zero)

An article by our partners over at Keep Cool about this importance of digital carbon

"If you cannot measure it, you cannot improve it." - Lord Kelvin


Two newsletters in a row feature this quote. This email is about Greenpixie, a company whose mission is to lead the world to digital sustainability.

, is the one who actually put me on to the quote above, as it’s become a bit of a Greenpixie motto.

In Tuesday’s email, we discussed the SEC’s new proposed reporting requirements, which would require all public companies in the U.S. to report Scope 1 and 2 emissions and presumably that would encourage many companies to report their Scope 3 emissions as well.

Scope 3 emissions are those that aren’t directly related to producing or using electricity or heat. E.g., moving goods across the world if you’re Amazon.

What’s another big component of companies’ Scope 3 emissions that doesn’t always meet the eye the same way Amazon delivery trucks in your neighbourhood might? It’s the electricity required to operate (and cool) the massive data centres that make it possible for me to write a draft of this email in a document that auto-saves every 4 minutes so I don’t lose my progress.

For tech companies, emissions from their data centre operations are likely a considerable contributor to their overall emissions number. Even globally, emissions from digital operations (data usage, electricity, cloud computing, websites and internet systems), which Greenpixie refers to as ‘digital carbon’, are hard to ignore.

Smog and smokestacks over Singapore (more on Singapore later)

By some estimates, digital carbon emissions amount to 

3-4% of all global greenhouse gas emissions

 - comparable to emissions from the aviation industry. Two trends are set to potentially inflate those numbers. For one, in case you’ve somehow missed all the conversation and hype surrounding the ‘metaverse’ in the past year… then a) congrats, you’re pretty unplugged and b) companies like Facebook Meta are betting the house that we’re all going to spend even more time online in the future (somehow?).

Secondly, as John and I discussed in the podcast we recorded (also live today (

, which has held relatively strong since 1965 when it was postulated, is about to flatten out. Moore’s Law essentially stipulates that the computational power of computer chips doubles every 2 years and that they get cheaper at the same time.

This has allowed computing capacity to skyrocket while also cutting the required energy for a baseline level of computation. It’s the reason the computers that used to take up an entire room now fit in your pocket.

, then we start losing the benefit of crazy efficiency gains as we try to keep up with demand for more and more computation. Which would also mean more energy usage to power whatever metaverse we’re all hanging out in 5 years down the line.

Even if quantum computing comes to the rescue and renders this specific concern mute, John sees digital carbon emissions headed for 10, even 15% of global emissions in the coming decade. Time to start figuring out a plan to tackle that!


Today’s email and podcast release also have fortuitous timing. Greenpixie announced their new product Cloud NetZero this week. It concentrates on making it seamless for companies to understand their emissions footprint from their cloud operations, starting with the three largest cloud providers. In their own words:

"Our tool demystifies the environmental impact of cloud computing."

Interested in checking out their MVP for your business? Greenpixie is accepting a limited number of beta users to test Cloud NetZero. Word on the street is beta users will receive future discounts and priority access to new features too - 

The concept of the ‘cloud’ was admittedly still murky to me a month ago. And this is a bit of intentional sleight of hand, the ‘cloud’ abstraction draws our attention away from the massive data centres required to make what looks like magic to those of us who aren’t computer engineers happen.

To be sure, data centres are hungrily eating up real estate globally. So much so that countries like 

 to stop all new data centre development, in part because of how much of the grid’s capacity they absorb.

Especially in light of regulatory tailwinds, like the SEC’s planned requirement for companies to report on Scope 3 emissions, companies are going to need solutions like Greenpixie’s to understand their digital emissions before they can think about ways to reduce them.

Greenpixie can help companies regardless of which of the three major cloud providers they work with, be it AWS, Google Cloud, or Microsoft Azure. Under the hood, their calcs involve a combination of academic research, understanding local grid mixes where data centres operate, and significant technical facility with the data centres’ entire value chains.


To learn more about exactly how their software it works, you can:

Listen to our recent podcast recording with CEO John Ridd (

Enjoy a 90 second run-down by CTO Will Tinney (

Medium-term, Greenpixie is also considering how to become an engine for decarbonization, not just for assessing and reporting on digital carbon emissions. This’ll be an interesting question I'm keen to track with them over the coming months.


If the grid mixes where data centres operate were composed of 100% low-carbon solutions, digital carbon wouldn’t be a thing. Since that’s a long way off in most places, there are concrete things data centres and the clients that use them can do to reduce emissions. For one, data centres are starting to enter into long-term Power Purchase agreements with independent renewable energy providers, often specifically because their clients are vocal about their desire to see data centres’ operations 

On the most advanced end of the spectrum, there are also companies like 

, who are building out data centre colocation models with renewable energy operations like wind farms or stranded energy assets, like flaring on oil & gas sites, that can be valorized. In these instances data centres aren’t just powered by renewable energy, they actually help renewable energy developers expand capacity by acting as a ‘demand of last resort’, e.g. in valleys where demand from the grid itself for their energy is low.

What's next for Greenpixie? Well... rolling out their MVP. & then a broader go-to-market push. If you're curious about me, then make sure to check out the pod. We go much deeper into what they hope the next 5 years will look like in it.

Sign up to the Keep Cool newsletter for regular articles straight to your inbox:

DIGITAL CARBON - TIME TO PAY ATTENTION

Digital Carbon - Time to pay attention

Discover how our journey has led us from website carbon emissions to the comprehensive cloud computing focus we have today.

From Websites to Cloud: The widening scope of Greenpixie

Greenpixie are bringing sustainability to the digital world through innovative software which helps organisations measure and reduce their digital carbon emissions. The current focus of our research and development is cloud computing (an umbrella within which so much modern digital activity falls) and this coming week will see the exciting launch of our first cloud emissions solution. However, as those who have heard us speak, worked with us, or followed our journey will know, it hasn’t always been this way.

An evolving journey, exploring digital sustainability

In October 2021, our CTO Will Tinney, ran the first URL through our digital carbon calculator tool at greenpixie.com. Needless to say, it wasn’t the last.

Since then we have estimated the homepages of over 16,000 websites, gathering data on a number of industries and reaching out to thousands of organisations, sharing our results. Understandably shocked, many of these organisations have instructed us to then carry out our full digital carbon report on their website, fully auditing their emissions and accounting for all webpages, as well as traffic.

It’s been quite a journey. Our work has got us noticed around the world and we’ve even been lucky enough to share our story at conferences in London and Paris, where we’ve spoken about the importance of measuring website carbon and how to reduce it.

But, despite this positive impact, we’ve always known we can’t stop there.

“If you can’t measure it, you can’t reduce it.” So goes the mantra of our founder and CEO, John, which is why we have worked so hard to provide detailed website reports for organisations to understand their site’s environmental impact. However, digital carbon is not limited to websites alone - far from it.

Email, video calls, gaming, applications, blockchain activity,

 the list really does go on and on, and emissions linked to the cloud are simply ever increasing. So, we thought, for the world to take steps towards true NetZero, all of these sources of digital carbon will need accounting for.

Revealing a comprehensive digital carbon picture and working towards true NetZero

Greenpixie are bringing sustainability to the digital world through innovative software which helps organisations measure and reduce their digital carbon emissions

Our blog, our thoughts

Cloud NetZero Soft Launch

Greenpixie's AWS Cloud Emission Methodology

What does the new Greenwashing Regulation mean for UK Tech?

The black hole of carbon emissions: the hidden impact of cloud computing

Greenpixie's Top 25 low carbon sustainability-focused websites

The growing trend of multi-cloud computing setups (and what this means for Net Zero)

Digital Carbon - Time to pay attention

From Websites to Cloud: The widening scope of Greenpixie

Greenpixie's top 20 low carbon VC websites

Greenpixie's top 20 low carbon websites in fintech

5 unique and sustainable fintech companies

5 sustainability initiatives in fintech

What is digital carbon?

How does the Greenpixie carbon calculator work?

The climate conversation no one’s having

5 fashion brands who aren’t greenwashing

How to be more sustainable this summer - 5 easy switches you can make

Find us at

Contact