Ecological Sustainability in Metaverse: A Blockchain-Based Carbon Management and Regulatory Proposals for Policy Makers

Ecological Sustainability in Metaverse: A Blockchain-Based Carbon Management and Regulatory Proposals for Policy Makers | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Ecological Sustainability in Metaverse: A Blockchain-Based Carbon Management and Regulatory Proposals for Policy Makers Emin Gitmez This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9206807/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract The rapid evolution of the metaverse -a digital frontier characterized by the convergence of blockchain technology, artificial intelligence (AI) and extended reality (XR)- presents a profound normative dilemma regarding its ecological legitimacy. While virtualization offers significant opportunities to decouple economic growth from physical resource consumption, the intensive energy demands of decentralized infrastructures and high-bandwidth data processing pose systemic environmental risks. This study addresses the “accountability gap” inherent in decentralized ecosystems, where the fragmented identity of the polluter complicates the enforcement of the “polluter pays” principle and the state's constitutional obligation to protect the environment. To mitigate these challenges, this study proposes an original net emission balance model (E_{net} $ ) as a conceptual and regulatory tool to quantify the net climate impact of metaverse operations. The framework integrates blockchain-based “ green oracles ” and smart contracts to facilitate real-time, tamper-proof carbon tracking and automated offsetting. By synthesizing contemporary research and life cycle assessments (LCAs), this study evaluates the transition from energy-intensive proof-of-work (PoW) protocols to sustainable alternatives, such as proof-of-stake (PoS). Central to these policy solutions is the legal recognition of tokenized carbon credits as “digital assets” subject to property law, ensuring that environmental compliance is harmonized with digital tenure security. Furthermore, this study advocates for a shift toward “hard law” requirements through mandatory emission licensing, targeted fiscal instruments, such as deterrent taxes on energy-intensive PoW protocols and legally guaranteed cross-platform interoperability to prevent digital lock-in and regulatory arbitrage. metaverse blockchain carbon management smart contracts ecological sustainability 1 Introduction The rapid emergence of the metaverse has raised urgent questions regarding its ecological legitimacy. While the metaverse offers transformative opportunities to decouple economic activity from physical resource consumption through virtualization, it simultaneously presents a profound normative dilemma. The core of this dilemma resides in the tension between the state’s constitutional obligation to protect the environment and nascent digital property rights within decentralized ecosystems (Alzoubi & Mishra, 2023 ; De Giovanni, 2023 ; Hernández et al., 2023 ; Mulligan et al., 2023 ; Rathnayake et al., 2025 ). A critical concern within this discourse is the environmental footprint of blockchain protocols, particularly those utilizing energy-intensive PoW consensus mechanisms. Such architectures pose a direct threat to ecological sustainability; for instance, a single Non-fungible Token (NFT) transaction can generate up to 150 kg of $ C O2 emissions, while the annual energy consumption of the Bitcoin network rivals that of mid-sized nation-states (De Giovanni, 2023 ; Hernández et al., 2023 ; Sadawi et al., 2021 ). However, the recent paradigmatic shift toward PoS protocols has demonstrated a potential reduction in energy expenditure by over 99%. This evolution positions blockchain as a central pillar for carbon management solutions, enabling transparent tracking, decentralized carbon markets and automated regulatory compliance. High-fidelity simulations and optimization models increasingly validate the efficacy of blockchain frameworks in enhancing carbon policy (Lanteri et al., 2025 ; Yang et al., 2023 ; Zhou et al., 2023 ). From a legal perspective, this high-energy demand creates an accountability gap: in a decentralized environment, the traditional “polluter” identity becomes fragmented between platform operators, smart contract developers and users (avatars). Without a clear definition of the legal subject of environmental liability, the “polluter pays” principle remains unenforceable in virtual spaces. The inherent characteristics of blockchain -decentralization, transparency, and immutability- facilitate the construction of robust systems for carbon credit trading, emission monitoring and supply chain accountability (Jimenez-Castillo et al., 2023 ). Peer-to-peer (P2P) trading frameworks further empower “prosumers” to engage directly in energy and carbon allowance exchanges through transparent, incentive-based pricing models (Wu et al., 2025 ). Smart contracts are central to this operational efficiency, as they automate the verification and enforcement of emission thresholds and offsetting protocols (Vladucu et al., 2024 ). Current scholarship emphasizes that the integration of blockchain-based carbon management into metaverse architecture offers both substantial risks and transformative potential. Secure data management and real-time monitoring capabilities form the foundation of carbon accounting systems that align with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and global climate mandates (De Giovanni, 2023 ; Sadawi et al., 2021 ). However, the literature underscores that addressing digital equity, environmental justice and cross-border regulatory compliance requires a multi-stakeholder governance approach involving policymakers, technologists and civil society (Mulligan et al., 2023 ). As the metaverse transitions from a conceptual framework to a pervasive reality, the establishment of a comprehensive blockchain-based carbon management and regulatory framework is imperative to ensure that digital growth does not exacerbate existing environmental crises. This review synthesizes contemporary research on these frameworks, evaluating their effectiveness for policymakers while highlighting the persistent challenges of “rebound effects” such as e-waste and social inequality (Chai et al., 2025 ). Ultimately, the efficacy of these digital tools remains contingent upon strategic protocol selection (PoS over PoW), integration with renewable energy infrastructures and the standardization of reporting practices across jurisdictions. Realizing this potential necessitates informed policy interventions, including explicit legal recognition of digital assets, enforceable transparency standards and the promotion of platform interoperability (Karim et al., 2023 ; Wang et al., 2023 ). This article proposes an original net emission balance model as a normative basis for this framework, ensuring that the metaverse evolves as a sustainable ecosystem grounded in constitutional and international legal principles. 2 The Ecological Responsibility of Digitalization: Constitutional and International Legal Bases 2.1 Constitutional Basis The environmental right to live in a healthy environment, as enshrined in many constitutions, imposes a state duty to protect the environment that can extend to digital platform operators through an “environmental duty of care. This concept necessitates integrating an “ecological responsibility” dimension into the information technology law framework to ensure sustainable digital ecosystem governance. The state’s duty of care mandates that digital platforms, pivotal actors in modern information dissemination and economic activity, adhere to environmental norms that prevent ecological harm and promote green innovation. This is consistent with broader regulatory trends aimed at enhancing platform accountability, transparency and social responsibility, as illustrated by the European Union's Digital Services Act (DSA), which increases platform obligations regarding content moderation and transparency (Kaushal et al., 2024 ; Quintais et al., 2023 ). Specifically, environmental regulations spur corporate environmental responsibility, which in turn fosters green technology innovation and sustainability practices within enterprises, emphasizing how regulatory frameworks can leverage platform responsibilities to create positive ecological outcomes (Wang et al., 2021 ). Incorporating an ecological responsibility layer into information technology law aligns with governance strategies that harmonize technology development with environmental sustainability, requiring mechanisms for environmental impact monitoring, transparency and accountability, similar to those in emerging digital regulatory frameworks globally (Turillazzi et al., 2023 ).Such ecological duties could manifest as mandatory platform disclosures on energy consumption, supply chain environmental impacts, or obligations to adopt green technologies, harmonizing with cross-sector regulatory architectures that support scalable compliance in multi-industry contexts, including digital services (Cadet et al., 2024 ). This responds to the constitutional and societal imperatives of environmental protection by embedding sustainability within the operational and legal responsibilities of digital platform operators. Thus, to actualize this “environmental duty of care,” information technology law acquis must evolve beyond current norms focused primarily on data privacy and content regulation to embrace binding ecological responsibilities. This would support constitutional rights to a healthy environment, ensuring that digital platforms contribute positively to environmental stewardship while aligning with ethical, legal and professional standards of care prevalent in other regulated sectors (Dowie, 2017 ; Wang et al., 2021 ). 2.2 International Acquis Mandatory reporting of the carbon costs of digital services is gaining attention within the framework of several major international and European climate and sustainability policies and agreements. The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), rooted in the European Green Deal’s climate action objectives, mandates large and listed companies to disclose information on social and environmental risks, opportunities and impacts, which logically extends to carbon emissions related to digital services (Poulle et al., 2024 ). This directive aims to enhance transparency and integrate environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors into corporate strategies as a strategic imperative, fostering stakeholder trust and aligning companies with sustainable operations goals (Fornasari and Traversi, 2024 ). The CSRD’s gradual applicability through 2024 to 2029 signals a growing regulatory requirement for comprehensive environmental reporting, possibly including digital carbon footprints. Internationally, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement frame global climate governance around mitigating greenhouse gas emissions with a system based on nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and a ‘ pledge and review’ mechanism (Falkner, 2016 ; Kuyper et al., 2018 ). While these agreements focus on broad country-level commitments, the Paris Agreement’s architecture also supports efforts to integrate sectoral emissions, such as those from digital services, into mitigation policies by increasing transparency and accountability. The UNFCCC’s evolving frameworks and learning mechanisms encourage countries and actors to adopt low-carbon economic transitions, which implicitly cover digital economy sectors (Rietig, 2019 ). The European Climate Agreement and the Green Deal set ambitious European Union (EU)-wide environmental and climate goals, aiming for climate neutrality by 2050. These frameworks support regulations such as the DSA, which governs digital service providers and could evolve to include sustainability and carbon cost transparency requirements, merging digital policy with environmental objectives. Moreover, the high-level commission on carbon prices reflects an economic approach to incentivize climate action through pricing mechanisms that could influence accounting for carbon costs in digital services and encourage efficient and sustainable practices (Stern and Stiglitz, 2017 ). Collectively, these policies and agreements drive the momentum toward mandatory reporting of carbon costs in digital services by enhancing regulatory demands for environmental impact disclosure, fostering international cooperation and benchmarking and incentivizing the reduction of carbon footprint in the digital sector. This aligns with the broader ambition of decarbonizing economies and integrating sustainability into all business operations, including the growing digital infrastructure and services domain. 2.3 Legal Gap and Conflict of Rights The current regulatory landscape concerning digital technologies primarily emphasizes data privacy and cybersecurity protections, creating a significant legal gap regarding the physical carbon costs of technology production, deployment and use. This gap exists because existing laws and regulations predominantly address intangible digital rights, such as data ownership, confidentiality and protection against cyber threats, rather than environmental externalities, such as carbon emissions tied to digital services and infrastructure (Zubaedah et al., 2024 ; Watini et al., 2024 ). The principle of proportionality plays a pivotal role in reconciling conflicts between individual digital property rights, such as the right of users to access and control personal data and the collective right to a healthy and sustainable environment. In this context, proportionality mandates that digital rights should be exercised within limits that do not disproportionately harm environmental interests, ensuring that personal or corporate digital freedoms do not undermine public health or climate goals. Hence, balancing these rights involves evaluating the extent of users or providers digital entitlements against the environmental harm caused by the carbon footprint of digital services and technology infrastructure. However, this balance is complicated by the absence of explicit legal provisions addressing the environmental footprint within data privacy or cybersecurity laws. While multiple jurisdictions have robust legal frameworks to protect privacy, secure data and manage cyber risks, these typically do not incorporate environmental accountability for the carbon costs of digital activities (Zubaedah et al., 2024 ; Prastyanti and Sharma, 2024 ). This legal vacuum highlights the need for adaptive legal approaches that integrate environmental considerations into digital governance. Such frameworks would require expanding existing digital rights laws or climate regulations to encompass mandatory reporting and mitigation of the carbon impact of digital services and infrastructure. Moreover, legal scholars have advocated for reforms that bridge cybersecurity, privacy and environmental law through interdisciplinary mechanisms that respect digital individual rights while safeguarding collective ecological well-being (Qian, 2024 ). In summary, the principle of proportionality emerges as a critical legal doctrine that mediates the tension between users’ digital property rights and society’s environmental rights, suggesting that future regulatory developments must incorporate carbon accountability into the digital rights paradigm to effectively address this substantive legal gap. 3 Conceptual Framework and Technical Background 3.1 Digital Carbon Footprint in Metaverse Operations The digital carbon footprint refers to the aggregate greenhouse gas emissions generated by all the computational processes required to execute a digital activity, such as a virtual meeting within the metaverse. Metaverse platforms exhibit a multi-layered emission architecture encompassing hardware utilization, network traffic, and server-side processing. Specifically, hardware components, including virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) devices and user terminals, account for significant energy consumption. Furthermore, network traffic associated with high-bandwidth data transmission further escalates energy demands. Cloud and data center operations represent a substantial contribution to total emissions (Jerosha et al., 2025 ; Kadry, 2022 ). Life cycle assessments (LCA) emphasize that accurate carbon accounting must incorporate both direct emissions, such as those from devices and servers, and indirect emissions inherent in the supply chain (Jerosha et al., 2025 ; Baklaga, 2024 ). 3.2 Blockchain & Green Oracles: Immortal Evidence System A blockchain provides an immutable ledger for recording environmental data. Internet of Things (IoT) sensors or smart meters feed real-time energy/emission data into a blockchain. These tools can be conceptualized as “green oracles” within a blockchain-based carbon governance framework (Chai et al., 2025 ; Ojadi et al., 2025 ). This creates an " immortal evidence system," sealing environmental declarations against tampering or fraud. Such systems are being piloted in supply chains, construction material certification, energy markets, and urban infrastructure (Ojadi et al., 2025 ). Green oracles can improve data reliability by automatically aggregating and transmitting real-time environmental metrics. Systems that connect IoT meters, carbon trackers, and other sensors to a blockchain significantly reduce manual entry and associated errors and increase the granularity of carbon data. One enterprise study reported a 25% improvement in carbon reporting accuracy when IoT meters streamed data into a blockchain-based system (Zhang, 2025 ). Oil-sector simulations using IoT and blockchain showed traceability accuracy rising from 65/100 to 96/100 (Almher et al., 2025 ). The immutability of a blockchain means that once oracle-fed data are recorded, they cannot be altered without detection, addressing manipulation, corruption, and opaque adjustments common in traditional carbon accounting. Consensus and multi-party validation of incoming records further enhance data “veracity” compared with centralized systems (Rodrigo et al., 2020 ). Green oracle-based systems enable tracing emissions across supply chains and product lifecycles, improving the completeness and consistency of footprints (Rathnayake et al., 2025 ). However, the full assurance of accuracy depends on the quality and calibration of the sensors and measurement devices supplying data to the green oracle, the correctness of the emission factors applied, the reliability of the off-chain models used, and the robustness of the oracle design in preventing incorrect data inputs and their irreversible storage on the blockchain (Guo et al., 2025 ; Ojadi et al., 2025 ). In conclusion, blockchain oracles enhance the practical accuracy, reliability, and auditability of carbon footprint data by automating trusted data flows and preventing post-hoc manipulation; however, they must be complemented by high-quality measurement systems and robust verification mechanisms at the oracle boundary. 3.3 Smart Contracts for Real-Time Carbon Credit Offsetting Smart contracts function as the primary administrative and enforcement layer of the proposed model by automating critical regulatory processes. Utilizing code structures that operate in real-time, these contracts calculate energy-related emissions based on immutable data provided by green oracles. This technical framework ensures that carbon footprints are instantaneously matched with tokenized carbon credits, which are then automatically retired or offset through embedded smart contract logic. To bridge the gap between “code” and “law” this framework ensures that digital obligations are legally enforceable and brought into compliance with existing regulatory oversight (Cruz et al., 2020 ; Sadawi et al., 2021 ). Smart contracts automate the core components of blockchain-based carbon governance systems. Through emission calculation modules, coded algorithms process real-time data supplied by green oracles to determine the precise carbon footprint of a given activity. These calculated emissions are then programmatically matched with tokenized carbon credits, which can be automatically retired or offset through predefined smart contract logic, ensuring immediate and verifiable compliance. In more advanced regulatory models, smart contract architectures are designed to incorporate legal principles, such as concepts derived from debt law, to strengthen the enforceability of carbon-related obligations, thereby bridging technical automation with legally binding accountability (Cruz et al., 2020 ; Patro et al., 2025 ). The reviewed literature strongly supports the proposed conceptual framework. It demonstrates that digital carbon footprints in metaverse-like environments, although technically complex, are measurable and quantifiable when supported by adequate instrumentation and lifecycle-based accounting methods (Hong & Xiao, 2024 ; Jerosha et al., 2025 ). Blockchain technology contributes to the trustworthiness of environmental reporting through its immutability, while so-called green oracles function as critical bridges between physical emission measurements and digital ledgers, thereby reducing the risks of greenwashing and double-counting (Stokkink & Pouwelse, 2023 ). Furthermore, smart contracts facilitate automated carbon offsetting by directly linking verified emission data to tokenized carbon credits, streamlining regulatory compliance, and lowering administrative burdens. Nevertheless, significant challenges persist, including interoperability between platforms, privacy concerns associated with granular data tracking, blockchain scalability–particularly in energy-intensive PoW systems–regulatory harmonization across jurisdictions, and the fundamental requirement that oracle-supplied data be independently verifiable and reliable (Cruz et al., 2020 ; Stokkink & Pouwelse, 2023 ). In conclusion, the technical framework that combines digital carbon footprint modeling for metaverse transactions, blockchain-based green oracles, and smart contract-driven automated offsetting is strongly supported by current research as a promising solution for transparent and unmanipulable environmental accountability. The conceptual framework you describe is well supported by recent research as a technically viable approach to transparent digital carbon footprint management using blockchain-based green oracles and smart contracts; however, full-scale implementation is still an area of active development. 4 Methodology The nexus of metaverse operations, blockchain technology, and smart contracts is rapidly redefining the trajectory of digital carbon footprint governance. Virtual ecosystems -characterized by a sophisticated emission profile emerging from hardware utilization, high-intensity network traffic, and server-side rendering- require a transition from static reporting to dynamic oversight. Blockchain technology provides a tamper-proof infrastructure for monitoring and validating these emissions, particularly when integrated with green oracles that facilitate real-time data ingestion. Central to this framework are smart contracts, which operationalize environmental accountability by automating the offset of tokenized carbon credits based on instantaneous emission metrics. This mechanism replaces fragmented and non-transparent accounting systems with a verifiable and efficient ledger of ecological responsibility. Consequently, a comparative analysis between traditional carbon-tracking methodologies and blockchain-based systems in virtual environments reveals a structural shift toward decentralized, autonomous, and transparent regulatory compliance. 4.1 Comparative analysis focus Virtual ecosystems, specifically the metaverse, exhibit a structural dichotomy regarding ecological governance that mirrors the tensions inherent in physical supply chains. While traditional carbon-tracking methodologies are characterized by centralized architectures, manual data entry, and procedural latency, blockchain technology offers a paradigmatic shift toward decentralized, tamper-proof, and autonomous carbon tracking. By replacing fragmented and non-transparent reporting systems with a real-time, verifiable ledger, blockchain facilitates a more rigorous alignment between digital economic activities and global sustainability imperatives. 4.2 Key Weaknesses of Traditional Carbon Tracking Across diverse industrial sectors, conventional monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems are characterized by manual or semi-manual data entry into centralized databases, supported by periodic third-party audits. This traditional architecture suffers from several systemic vulnerabilities that undermine the integrity of ecological governance. Fragmentation and Information Asymmetry The centralization of data often results in inconsistent reporting formats and the emergence of data silos, fostering significant information asymmetry between emitters, regulatory bodies and verifiers (Almher et al., 2025 ; Schletz et al., 2020 ). Temporal Latency and Audit Costs Audit-driven, ex-post verification processes generate substantial reporting lags, exemplified by delays of approximately 7.5 days in simulated supply chain environments, while imposing high administrative and audit costs (Almher et al., 2025 ). Integrity and Manipulation Risks Manual entry protocols and centralized data storage are inherently susceptible to human error and deliberate manipulation, which fundamentally erodes stakeholder trust in ESG and carbon disclosure reports (Almher et al., 2025 ; Ojadi et al., 2025 ). L ack of high-frequency granularity : Traditional MRV frameworks in built environments and carbon markets rarely provide continuous, high-frequency data streams that are requisite for dynamic optimization or the complex requirements of virtual worlds (Ojadi et al., 2025 ). 4.3 Advantages of blockchain-based tracking in virtual environments Blockchain-integrated systems fundamentally transform environmental governance by replacing periodic manual reporting with decentralized, immutable ledgers that leverage IoT and software agents for source-level data capture. This transition addresses the systemic failures of traditional frameworks through the following technical and operational advancements: Data Integrity and Immutability The recording of emissions and activity data on-chain ensures that records cannot be retroactively altered, thereby significantly mitigating fraud and the risk of “double-counting” within carbon accounting and credit systems (Almher et al., 2025 ; Ojadi et al., 2025 ). End-to-End Traceability and Audit Efficiency The integration of smart contracts and distributed nodes facilitates near-real-time tracing of emissions across supply chains. Comparative simulations indicate that these systems can enhance traceability scores by 36% and audit effectiveness by 91% relative to conventional methodologies (Almher et al., 2025 ). Optimization of Transactional and Audit Costs Blockchain architectures can reduce verification costs by as much as 70% in specific industrial simulations by eliminating intermediaries through automation and shared ledgers (Almher et al., 2025 ). Furthermore, this infrastructure lowers the administrative and registry overheads associated with carbon trading (Ojadi et al., 2025 ). High-Frequency Granular Visibility The convergence of blockchain with IoT and digital twins enables continuous data streams to be securely logged on-chain. This granularity supports precise carbon accounting and allows for the dynamic optimization of operational energy efficiency (Ojadi et al., 2025 ). Fortified Stakeholder Trust The provision of a single, verifiable record accessible to regulators, enterprises, and users enhances the credibility of ESG reporting and fosters robust market mechanisms for carbon credit registries (Boumaiza, 2024 ; Kim & Huh, 2020 ). In a metaverse context, this architecture maps naturally to virtual assets, avatars, and transactions with smart contracts that manage carbon rules and offsets for digital activities. 4.4 Trade-offs and limitations Despite the demonstrable advantages of decentralized architectures, blockchain technology is not universally superior and presents significant systemic challenges. A primary concern involves energy consumption and scalability; certain consensus mechanisms, specifically PoW, are inherently energy-intensive and may paradoxically undermine the net climate benefits sought through digital transformation. Furthermore, the inherent trade-offs between decentralization and throughput often lead to scalability and latency bottlenecks in high-frequency transaction scenarios (Rani et al., 2024 ; Rodrigo et al., 2020 ). Beyond technical limitations, the implementation and maintenance of blockchain infrastructures require substantial capital expenditures and technical expertise, particularly when integrating decentralized ledgers with physical sensors or legacy enterprise systems (Alotaibi et al., 2024 ). Finally, the absence of unified global reporting standards and the prevalence of inconsistent regulatory frameworks across jurisdictions further complicate the large-scale adoption of blockchain technology within carbon markets and global supply chains (Kirui et al., 2024 ). In summary, empirical research indicates that blockchain-integrated architectures significantly outperform conventional carbon-tracking systems in terms of transparency, traceability, and cost efficiency. However, to ensure environmental sustainability and operational scalability within virtual ecosystems, these systems necessitate rigorous design parameters, including the adoption of energy-efficient consensus mechanisms, the establishment of unified reporting standards, and the implementation of robust governance frameworks. The ecological legitimacy of the metaverse ecosystem should be evaluated not through a reductive approach focusing solely on high energy consumption, but through the technology’s potential to substitute physical activities. This study presents an original “ net emission balance model ($E_{net}$)” that analyzes the environmental cost savings of digitalization on the same plane. (E_{net} = E_{saved} - (E_{device} + E_{network} + E_{server})) The equation provides a structured framework for evaluating the net carbon impact of metaverse technologies. Here, (E_{saved}) represents emissions avoided by substituting physical activities (such as travel or manufacturing) with virtual alternatives, whereas (E_{device}), (E_{network}), and (E_{server}) capture the operational emissions from end-user devices, data transmission, and server infrastructure, respectively. Recent research highlights both the significant potential for emissions reductions —especially in sectors such as transportation, construction, and enterprise collaboration—and the substantial risks of increased energy demand if digital infrastructure is not decarbonized or efficiently managed (Larbi et al., 2025 ; Liu et al., 2023 ; Zhao & You, 2023 ). The balance between these terms is context-dependent: industrial and enterprise applications often show net savings, whereas consumer metaverse use (e.g., gaming or leisure) may increase overall emissions owing to high device and server energy consumption (Kshetri & Dwivedi, 2023 ; Nleya & Velempini, 2024 ). This review synthesizes current evidence on each term in the equation and discusses when metaverse adoption is likely to yield positive or negative climate outcomes. Table 1 The meaning of each term Term Meaning in formula Evidence & typical drivers E_{saved} Physical activities avoided (flights, hotels, commuting, events, prototyping, factory trials) Industrial and enterprise metaverse use (digital twins, remote meetings, virtual events) can cut travel and physical operations; examples include energy savings in factories and buildings, and reduced travel emissions (De Giovanni, 2023 ; Nleya & Velempini, 2024 E_{device} End-user hardware energy (VR headsets, PCs, mobiles) VR headsets ≈ 10–20 W per user; high-end gamers/VR users can reach ~ 0.91 tCO₂/year in intensive scenarios (Al-Kfairy, 2025 ; Kshetri & Dwivedi, 2023 ) E_{network} Telecom and data transmission 5G/edge networks and cloud gaming/VR streaming are highly energy intensive; cloud/VR traffic is a major share of ICT energy and CO₂ (Viola et al., 2025 ) E_{server} Data center + rendering + blockchain Data centers and cloud rendering dominate backend energy; metaverse blockchain/economy layer may grow > 8× 2022–2030 and become a major share of energy use (De Giovanni, 2023 ; Nleya & Velempini, 2024 ; Viola et al., 2025 ) Question Based on the formula, how different might the carbon emissions be if a three-day in-person meeting, which is planned to include air travel, were held in the metaverse area? Emissions: in-person vs. metaverse-style meeting For an in-person, 3-night meeting, travel, accommodation, and city transport dominate emissions: Conference studies find that travel accounts for approximately 55%-95% of the total carbon footprint, while accommodation accounts for another 10%-13%, and local spending and catering account for the remainder (Bousema et al., 2020 ; Chuter et al., 2025 ; Jäckle, 2019 ; Kitamura et al., 2020 ; Mannheim & Avató, 2025 ; Zanella et al., 2025 ).  Example  A large in-person scientific conference emitted 1.3–1.8 t CO₂e per attendee, almost all from flights (Van Ewijk & Hoekman, 2020); another found 1.4 t CO₂e per attendee, with hotel+venue < 5% (Chuter et al., 2025 ). In contrast, virtual/online conferences (similar to a “metaverse” meeting) have a far smaller footprint: A natural language comments LCA shows that virtual conferencing reduces carbon footprint by ~ 94% and energy use by 90% relative to in-person events (including food, accommodation, ICT, and transport) (Tao et al., 2021 ). An Indian 3-day national virtual conference emitted 6.4 t CO₂e, compared with a modelled 356 t CO₂e (≈ 55× higher in-person) (Periyasamy et al., 2022 ). Scenario analysis for 3D/6G videoconferencing finds that virtual meetings cause only 0.2%-0.9% of the emissions of a “mean-distance” physical business trip (Seidel et al., 2021 ). A VR/metaverse meeting case study for EU research projects estimates 7–19× lower emissions for VR vs. physical meetings after including VR hardware and information and communication technology life-cycle impacts (Van Thienen et al., 2024 ). What the metaverse adds Metaverse/VR meetings add: Device manufacturing and e-waste, as well as data center and network energy use (Esposito et al., 2025 ; Kshetri & Dwivedi, 2023 ). However, current evidence suggests that when replacing flights and hotels, these digital emissions remain small compared with avoided travel, especially for international or multi-day meetings (Seidel et al., 2021 ; Tao et al., 2021 ). Renewable-powered infrastructure further improves this balance (Esposito et al., 2025 ; Nleya & Velempini, 2024 ). Replacing a 3-night, travel-intensive meeting with a metaverse/VR meeting of similar duration and participation would, based on current studies, likely cut per-person emissions by roughly 90–99%, as it removes flights, hotel stays, and most local transport while adding only modest ICT-related emissions. The reviewed literature supports the utility of your equation as a conceptual tool: the net climate benefit from metaverse adoption hinges on maximizing (Esaved) while minimizing device/network/server emissions through efficiency improvements and clean energy sourcing (Larbi et al., 2025 ; Liu et al., 2023 ). Industrial applications, where large-scale travel or resource-intensive processes are replaced, show strong evidence for a positive net impact (Nleya & Velempini, 2024 ). However, consumer-facing uses risk negative outcomes unless paired with decarbonized infrastructure and responsible device management (Kshetri & Dwivedi, 2023 ). Rebound effects remain a concern. Increased accessibility may drive new forms of consumption that erode initial gains unless carefully regulated or incentivized toward true substitution rather than supplementation (Pellegrino et al., 2023 ). Lifecycle assessments tailored to specific use cases are urgently needed. In summary, this methodology provides a robust framework for quantifying the ecological impact of the metaverse using blockchain-based carbon management. By implementing the $ E_{net} $ formula within a transparent digital ledger system and validating it with real-world data center experiments, this approach enables detailed monitoring and policy-compliant reporting of environmental performance in digital ecosystems. 5. Policy Implications and Solutions Policymakers are deepening their work on advanced legal and financial instruments to encourage the adoption of sustainable protocols in metaverse and blockchain ecosystems (Sadawi et al., 2021 ). This includes exploring strategic interventions, such as deterrent tax regulations for high-carbon-intensity blockchain operations and the imposition of progressive administrative fines and access restrictions on platforms exceeding emission thresholds. The integration of blockchain technology into existing emissions trading systems (ETS) is critical for standardizing carbon accounting practices across different jurisdictions and ensuring alignment with global climate goals, such as the SDGs (Lanteri et al., 2025 ). Regulatory frameworks developed through this process include the recognition of tokenized carbon credits as "digital assets" subject to property law and affirmative action mechanisms, such as tax incentives for platforms that automatically offset carbon through smart contracts. The integration of blockchain-based oracle systems into energy network enet formulations offers a transformative approach to carbon footprint management, enabling real-time, tamper-proof, and transparent emissions data. This technological advancement supports the development of robust policy frameworks that can drive carbon neutrality, enhance market integrity, and incentivize sustainable practices. The following review synthesizes current research to assess the viability of four key policy recommendations: (1) emission licensing and transparency, (2) legal status of carbon credits, (3) incentive and sanction regimes, and (4) interoperability of carbon credits. Evidence from recent studies highlights the role of fintech and blockchain in promoting green finance, improving environmental reporting accuracy, and supporting regulatory innovation (Addy et al., 2024 ; Agrawal et al., 2023 ; Babar & Wu, 2025 ; Muganyi et al., 2021 ). These findings provide a strong foundation for policy solutions that leverage digital verification to achieve climate goals. 5.1 Emission Licensing, Real-Time Transparency Ensuring environmental sustainability within the metaverse ecosystem necessitates the establishment of a concrete and auditable foundation for the physical world impacts of digital activities. In this context, evidence indicates that mandatory and detailed greenhouse gas emission disclosures, alongside benchmarking initiatives, play a critical role in reducing emissions and enhancing corporate accountability. Blockchain-based measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems have the potential to significantly reduce administrative costs, particularly within structures such as emission trading systems (ETS). By leveraging the immutable nature of the technology, these systems enhance traceability and minimize the risks of fraud in carbon accounting (Traub et al., 2025 ; Vilkov & Tian, 2023 ). The utilization of verified data through "Green Oracles," which lie at the heart of this architecture, enables platform operators to substantiate their environmental impacts instantaneously. Requiring operators to document their (near) real-time neutrality through this method is in alignment with the “duty of care” principle in information technology law and supports global calls for more rigorous, standardized, and transparent reporting frameworks (Liu et al., 2022 ; Mulligan et al., 2023 ). The proposed regulatory framework strikes a fair balance between digital property rights and collective environmental rights, thereby securing the ecological legitimacy of the metaverse. 5.2 Legal Status Of Tokenized Carbon Credits The burgeoning literature on carbon markets emphasizes that the transition to a digitalized climate economy necessitates a precise legal definition of property rights regarding carbon units, alongside a robust regulatory framework for smart contract operations and liability. Legal scholarship on tokenized and digital assets increasingly advocates for treating tokens as legally enforceable rights or “digital property,” provided that the nexus between the underlying asset and the digital representation is clearly codified in statute (Lavayssière, 2025 ; Lee, 2024 ; Yang et al., 2025 ). In the absence of such statutory clarity, the “code is law” paradigm risks conflicting with established public law oversight and constitutional protections. Current reviews identify interoperability and market fragmentation as the primary obstacles to large-scale adoption. To mitigate these barriers, scholars have recommended the harmonization of standards and the cross-jurisdictional legal enforcement of carbon-credit property rights. This includes formalizing registry links across diverse digital ecosystems to prevent double-counting and information asymmetry. In this context, legally guaranteeing the portability of oracle-verified carbon credits between metaverse platforms aligns with the global call for standardized, tokenized credits hosted on linked registries. Such portability is essential to resolve the “ ownership paradox,” where the potential termination of an energy-intensive platform might otherwise result in the unlawful deprivation of a user's digital property (Lavayssière, 2025 ; Lee, 2024 ; Vilkov & Tian, 2023 ). By establishing these credits as “digital assets” subject to property law, the proposed framework ensures that environmental compliance does not compromise the security of digital tenure 5.3 Incentives, Sanctions, and Net-Zero The prevailing literature on carbon markets emphasizes a multidimensional approach to ecological governance, primarily grounded in the “ polluter pays ” principle. Recent studies have advocated for a combination of carbon pricing and targeted fiscal instruments, such as differentiated energy taxation and specific levies on high-carbon blockchain operations, to catalyze a shift toward energy-efficient consensus mechanisms and verifiable emission reductions (Li et al., 2020 ; Truby et al., 2022 ). Furthermore, the integration of ESG-linked incentives and mandatory high-quality disclosure frameworks has been proven to significantly enhance corporate climate performance and stakeholder accountability. By transforming “soft law” ESG commitments into “hard law” regulatory requirements, legal frameworks can compel metaverse platforms to internalize their ecological externalities (Bui et al., 2020 ; Traub et al., 2025 ). Under this normative framework, the following policy interventions are proposed, which are consistent with international sustainability imperatives (Li et al., 2020 ; Traub et al., 2025 ; Wang et al., 2025 ; Truby et al., 2022 ): Fiscal Incentives : Granting tax breaks or enhanced ESG credits for platforms that demonstrate verified net-zero status through the $ E_{net} $ model. Administrative Sanctions : Implementing escalating financial penalties or temporary access restrictions for platforms that persistently exceed established emission thresholds. Differentiated Obligations : Imposing higher regulatory compliance standards for platforms utilizing PoW or other energy-intensive architectures. By leveraging these fiscal and legal tools, regulators can ensure that the metaverse evolves not as an unregulated digital frontier, but as a sustainable ecosystem that aligns with the constitutional duty to protect the environment. 5.4 Interoperability and Portability of Credits Extensive literature reviews identify systemic fragmentation and a lack of interoperability as the primary barriers to the maturation of decentralized carbon markets. To overcome these obstacles, scholars have advocated for the establishment of harmonized technical standards and the rigorous legal enforcement of property rights associated with carbon credits. This necessitates the creation of secure registry links that transcend individual platform architectures and national jurisdictions, ensuring that carbon units maintain their legal and economic integrity as they traverse different ecosystems. In this context, providing a legal guarantee for the portability of oracle-verified carbon credits between metaverse platforms is essential. Such a mandate aligns with emerging calls for standardized, tokenized credits hosted on interoperable or linked registries (Li et al., 2020 ; Traub et al., 2025 ; Wang et al., 2025 ; Truby et al., 2022 ; Garcia-Teruel & Simón-Moreno, 2021 ). By codifying portability into law, regulators can prevent "digital lock-in" and ensure that environmental obligations—specifically those governed by the $ E_{net} $ model—are fulfilled through a unified, cross-platform ledger of ecological accountability. 6 Discussion Empirical research demonstrates that blockchain architectures can significantly enhance transparency and institutional trust within carbon markets by providing immutable ledgers and automated verification protocols (Lanteri et al., 2025 ; Zhou et al., 2023 ). This decentralized framework facilitates the emergence of peer-to-peer (P2P) trading systems, which empower "prosumers"—individuals who both consume and produce energy—to participate directly in carbon credit markets. By utilizing dynamic pricing mechanisms and tokenized reward systems, these platforms incentivize sustainable behavioral shifts (Karim et al., 2023 ). However, the net environmental utility of these systems is critically contingent upon the underlying consensus protocols. Although decentralized ledgers offer governance benefits, energy-intensive mechanisms, such as PoW, remain fundamentally unsustainable. Consequently, a transition toward proof-of-stake (PoS) or other low-energy alternatives is a technical prerequisite for ecological legitimacy (De Giovanni, 2023 ; Hernández et al., 2023 ). To align digital innovation with global planetary health goals, proactive policy interventions are essential. This study recommends implementing the following best practices (Chai et al., 2025 ; Sadawi et al., 2021 ). Fiscal Instruments : Targeted taxes on high-emission mining operations and energy-intensive digital activities. Regulatory Mandates : Legal requirements for data centers and metaverse platforms to operate exclusively on renewable energy sources. Standardization of D-EIA : Development of standardized digital environmental impact assessments (D-EIA), analogous to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) or International Organization for Standardization (ISO) frameworks, specifically for virtual projects. Cross-border Jurisdictional Cooperation : Harmonizing digital governance to prevent “regulatory arbitrage” in decentralized carbon markets Despite these advancements, several structural limitations persist that must be addressed in future legislative frameworks. The lack of universal standards for emissions accounting across divergent jurisdictions creates significant reporting gaps. Furthermore, the insufficient integration between physical and virtual regulatory regimes often leads to the "decoupling" of digital activities from their real-world ecological costs. Without robust third-party audits and "Green Oracle" verification, the risk of “ greenwashing ” remains high. Finally, persistent socioeconomic inequities regarding access to green infrastructure and unresolved scalability bottlenecks continue to challenge the universal adoption of decentralized sustainability models. 7 Conclusions The rapid expansion of the metaverse ecosystem presents a dualistic challenge to global climate governance, oscillating between the potential for significant decarbonization through virtualization and the risk of escalated energy demands from decentralized infrastructure. This study has demonstrated that the ecological legitimacy of the metaverse cannot be achieved through technical optimization alone; it requires a robust, blockchain-based regulatory framework that bridges the gap between digital innovation and constitutional environmental mandates. The proposed net emission balance model ( $ E_{net} $ ) provides a normative foundation for evaluating this legitimacy by accounting for both the physical emissions saved through substitution ( $ E_{saved} $ ) and the operational costs of digital architectures ( $ E_{device} + E_{network} + E_{server} $ ). An empirical synthesis indicates that while industrial applications often yield a positive net impact, consumer-facing virtual environments require stringent oversight to mitigate "rebound effects" and systemic inefficiencies. Central to this governance model is the integration of "Green Oracles" and smart contracts, which transform the “environmental duty of care” from an abstract legal principle into an enforceable, real-time administrative reality. By utilizing immutable ledgers, platform operators can substantiate their ecological neutrality, thereby aligning with the SDGs and the CSRD framework. However, the transition to a sustainable digital frontier necessitates specific policy interventions. This study concludes that policymakers must prioritize the following: Explicit legal recognition of tokenized carbon credits as digital property to ensure jurisdictional certainty and prevent the “ownership paradox.” Implementation of fiscal incentives for net-zero platforms and administrative sanctions for energy-intensive PoW protocols. Establishing interoperability standards to facilitate the seamless portability of verified carbon assets across fragmented jurisdictions. In summary, as the metaverse evolves into a pervasive socioeconomic reality, its sustainability remains contingent upon a techno-legal synthesis. By codifying ecological responsibility into the “code” of virtual interactions, the proposed framework ensures that digital progress remains consistent with the collective right to a healthy environment and the long-term health of the planet. Declarations Competing interests The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article. Funding The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. Author Contribution The author confirms sole responsibility for the following: study conception and design , data collection and synthesis of the literature , development of the $ E_{net} model and methodology , legal and policy analysis , and preparation of the manuscript. References Addy, W., Ofodile, O., Adeoye, O., Oyewole, A., Okoye, C., Odeyemi, O., & Ololade, Y. (2024). Data-driven sustainability: how fıntech ınnovations are supporting green finance. Engineering Science & Technology Journal . https://doi.org/10.51594/estj.v5i3.871 Agrawal, R., Agrawal, S., Samadhiya, A., Luthra, K. A., S., & Jain, V. (2023). Adoption of Green Finance and Green Innovation for achieving circularity: An exploratory review and future directions. Geoscience Frontiers . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2023.101669 Al-Kfairy, M. (2025). Greening the Virtual: An Interdisciplinary Narrative Review on the Environmental Sustainability of the Metaverse Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17167269 Almher, M., Thiruchelvam, S., Isa, A., & Tawfeeq, O. (2025). Blockchain-enabled carbon tracking in the oil industry: A simulation-based study supporting ESG integration. Periodicals of Engineering and Natural Sciences (PEN). https://doi.org/10.21533/pen.v13.i3.574 Alotaibi, E., Khallaf, A., Abdallah, A., Zoubi, T., & Alnesafi, A. (2024). Blockchain-driven carbon accountability in supply chains. Sustainability . https://doi.org/10.3390/su162410872 Alzoubi, Y., & Mishra, A. (2023). Green blockchain: A move towards sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139541 Babar, Z., & Wu, W. (2025). Advancing green finance through FinTech innovations: A conceptual insight into opportunities and challenges. Journal of Excellence in Management Sciences . https://doi.org/10.69565/jems.v4i1.404 Baklaga, L. (2024). Synergizing AI and Blockchain: Innovations in decentralized carbon markets for emission reduction through intelligent carbon credit trading. Journal of Computer Science and Technology Studies . https://doi.org/10.32996/jcsts.2024.6.2.13 Boumaiza, A. (2024). Carbon and energy trading integration within a Blockchain-powered peer-to-peer framework. Energies . https://doi.org/10.3390/en17112473 Bousema, T., Selvaraj, P., Djimde, A., Yakar, D., Hagedorn, B., Pratt, A., Barret, D., Whitfield, K., & Cohen, J. (2020). Reducing the carbon footprint of academic conferences: The example of the American society of tropical medicine and hygiene. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene , 103, 1758–1761. https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.20-1013 Bui, B., Houqe, M., & Zaman, M. (2020). Climate governance effects on carbon disclosure and performance. British Accounting Review , 52 , 100880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2019.100880 Cadet, E., Babatunde, L., Ajayi, J., Erigh, E., Obuse, E., Essien, I., & Ayanbode, N. (2024). Developing scalable compliance architectures for cross-industry regulatory alignment. International Journal of Scientific Research in Humanities and Social Sciences , 1 (2), 494–524. https://doi.org/10.32628/ijsrssh242556 Chai, S., Yuan, D., & Li, Q. (2025). Blockchain-enabled carbon emission trading data quality regulation: A tripartite evolutionary game analysis. Journal of Environmental Management , 388 , 126069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.126069 Chuter, R., Brewster, F., & Tanderup, K. (2025). Estimating the carbon footprint of an international radiation oncology conference and modelling reduction strategies. Radiotherapy and Oncology . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2025.110956 Cruz, A., Santos, F., Mendes, P., & Cruz, E. (2020). Blockchain-based traceability of carbon footprint: A solidity smart contract for Ethereum. 258–268. https://doi.org/10.5220/0009412602580268 De Giovanni, P. (2023). Sustainability of the Metaverse: A transition to Industry 5.0. Sustainability . https://doi.org/10.3390/su15076079 Dowie, I. (2017). Legal, ethical and professional aspects of duty of care for nurses. Nursing Standard , 32 (16–19), 47–52. https://doi.org/10.7748/ns.2017.e10959 Esposito, M., Halkias, D., Diaz, J., & Tse, T. (2025). Environmental and climate impacts of the Metaverse. Thunderbird International Business Review . https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.70025 Falkner, R. (2016). The Paris Agreement and the new logic of international climate politics. International Affairs , 92 (5), 1107–1125. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12708 Fornasari, T., & Traversi, M. (2024). The Impact of the CSRD and the ESRS on non-financial disclosure. Symphonya Emerging Issues in Management , 1 , 117–133. https://doi.org/10.4468/2024.1.07fornasari.traversi Garcia-Teruel, R., & Simón-Moreno, H. (2021). The digital tokenization of property rights. A comparative perspective. Comput Law Secur Rev , 41 , 105543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2021.105543 Guo, Y., Qian, X., & Credit, K. (2025). &, J. Group reasoning emission estimation networks. ArXiv, abs/2502.06874. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2502.06874 Hernández, M., Sentosa, I., Gaudreault, F., Davison, I., & Sharin, F. (2023). The emergence of the Metaverse in the Digital Blockchain Economy: Applying The ESG framework for a sustainable future. 2023 3rd International Conference on Advance Computing and Innovative Technologies in Engineering (ICACITE), 1324–1329. https://doi.org/10.1109/icacite57410.2023.10182839 Hong, Z., & Xiao, K. (2024). Digital economy structuring for sustainable development: the role of blockchain and artificial intelligence in improving supply chain and reducing negative environmental impacts. Scientific Reports , 14 . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-53760-3 Jäckle, S. (2019). WE have to change! The carbon footprint of ECPR general conferences and ways to reduce it. European Political Science , 18, 630–650. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-019-00220-6 Jerosha, K., Annapurna, J. K., Rani, T., Balassem, B., Z., Naik, P. Building a sustainable business model through the integration of Blockchain and, & Trends (2025). in Computing (ICMCTC), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/icmctc62214.2025.11196142 Jimenez-Castillo, L., Sarkis, J., Saberi, S., & Yao, T. (2023). Blockchain-based governance implications for ecologically sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Enterprise Information Management , 37 , 76–99. https://doi.org/10.1108/jeim-02-2022-0055 Kadry, H. (2022). Carbon footprint management using Blockchain. Day 2 Tue, November 01, 2022. https://doi.org/10.2118/210930-ms Karim, S., Naeem, M., Tiwari, A., & Ashraf, S. (2023). Examining the avenues of sustainability in resources and digital blockchains backed currencies: evidence from energy metals and cryptocurrencies. Annals of Operations Research , 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-023-05365-8 Kaushal, R., Van De Kerkhof, J., Goanta, C., Spanakis, G., & Iamnitchi, A. (2024). Automated transparency: A legal and empirical analysis of the Digital Services Act Transparency Database. 10, 1121–1132. https://doi.org/10.1145/3630106.3658960 Kim, S., & Huh, J. (2020). Blockchain of carbon trading for UN Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability . https://doi.org/10.3390/su12104021 Kirui, T., Cheptonui, F., Opetsi, G., Matheka, J., & Gbadrive, S. (2024). Blockchain and digital technologies for Supply Chain Carbon Transparency: A systematic review and future research directions. International Journal of Scientific Research and Modern Technology . https://doi.org/10.38124/ijsrmt.v3i6.956 Kitamura, Y., Karkour, S., Ichisugi, Y., & Itsubo, N. (2020). Carbon footprint evaluation of the business event sector in Japan. Sustainability . https://doi.org/10.3390/su12125001 Kshetri, N., & Dwivedi, Y. (2023). Pollution-reducing and pollution-generating effects of the metaverse. International Journal of Information Management , 69 , 102620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102620 Kuyper, J., Schroeder, H., & Linnér, B. O. (2018). The Evolution of the UNFCCC. Annual Review of Environment and Resources , 43 (1), 343–368. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102017-030119 Lanteri, A., Esposito, M., & Cappuccio, M. (2025). Maximizing the economic, environmental, and social impact of the Metaverse. Thunderbird International Business Review . https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.70027 Larbi, S., Bello, A., Boakye, K., Assumang, D., Akubilla, J., & Mohammed, U. (2025). Quantifying environmental impact reductions through metaverse technologies in transportation: Metrics, Methodologies and Sustainability Outcomes. Magna Scientia Advanced Research and Reviews . https://doi.org/10.30574/msarr.2025.13.2.0041 Lavayssière, X. (2025). Legal structures of tokenised assets. European Journal of Risk Regulation . https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2024.88 Lee, L. (2024). Examining the legal status of digital assets as property: A comparative analysis of jurisdictional approaches. ArXiv, abs/2406.15391. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4807135 Li, W., Wang, L., & Li, Y. (2020). A blockchain-based emissions trading system for the road transport sector: policy design and evaluation. Climate Policy , 21 , 337–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1851641 Liu, F., Pei, Q., Chen, S., Yuan, Y., Wang, L., & Muhlhauser, M. (2023). When the Metaverse meets carbon neutrality: Ongoing efforts and directions. ArXiv . https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2301.10235 . abs/2301.10235. Liu, Z., Sun, T., Yu, Y., Ke, P., Deng, Z., Lu, C., Huo, D., & Ding, X. (2022). Real-time carbon emission accounting technology toward carbon neutrality. Engineering . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2021.12.019 Mannheim, V., & Avató, J. (2025). Examining the carbon footprint of conferences with an emphasis on energy consumption and catering. Energies . https://doi.org/10.3390/en18020321 Muganyi, T., Yan, L., & Sun, H. (2021). Green finance, fintech and environmental protection: Evidence from China. Environmental Science and Ecotechnology . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ese.2021.100107 . 7. Mulligan, C., Morsfield, S., & Cheikosman, E. (2023). Blockchain for sustainability: A systematic literature review for policy impact. Telecommunications Policy . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2023.102676 Nleya, S., & Velempini, M. (2024). Industrial Metaverse: A Comprehensive Review, Environmental Impact, and Challenges. Applied Sciences . https://doi.org/10.3390/app14135736 Ojadi, J., Owulade, O., Odionu, C., & Onukwulu, E. (2025). Blockchain and IoT for Transparent Carbon Tracking and Emission Reduction in Global Supply Chains. International Journal of Scientific Research in Science , Engineering and Technology. https://doi.org/10.32628/ijsrset25122110 Patro, P., Jayaraman, R., Acquaye, A., Salah, K., & Musamih, A. (2025). Blockchain-based solution to enhance carbon footprint traceability, accounting, and offsetting in the passenger aviation industry. International Journal of Production Research , 63 , 8235–8268. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2024.2441450 Pellegrino, A., Wang, R., & Stasi, A. (2023). Exploring the intersection of sustainable consumption and the Metaverse: A review of current literature and future research directions. Heliyon , 9 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e19190 Periyasamy, A., Singh, A., & Ravindra, K. (2022). Carbon emissions from virtual and physical modes of conference and prospects for carbon neutrality: An analysis from India. Air, Soil and Water Research , 15. https://doi.org/10.1177/11786221221093298 Poulle, J. B., Kannan, A., Spitz, N., Kahn, S., & Sotiropoulou, A. (2024). Corporate sustainability reporting directive. Edward Elgar , 648–653. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781035301959.00096 Prastyanti, R. A., & Sharma, R. (2024). Establishing consumer trust through Data Protection Law as a competitive advantage in Indonesia and India. Journal of Human Rights Culture and Legal System , 4 (2), 354–390. https://doi.org/10.53955/jhcls.v4i2.202 Qian, X. (2024). Redefining International Law paradigms: Charting cybersecurity, trade, and investment trajectories within global legal boundaries. The Journal of World Investment & Trade , 25 (3), 295–333. https://doi.org/10.1163/22119000-12340327 Quintais, J. P., De Gregorio, G., & Magalhães, J. C. (2023). How platforms govern users’ copyright-protected content: Exploring the power of private ordering and its implications. Computer Law & Security Review , 48 , 105792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105792 Rani, P., Sharma, P., & Gupta, I. (2024). Toward a greener future: A survey on sustainable blockchain applications and impact. Journal of Environmental Management , 354 , 120273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120273 Rathnayake, B., Gunathilake, L., Edirisinghe, R., & Perera, S. (2025). EcoConstruct: a blockchain-based system for carbon trading in construction projects. Construction Innovation . https://doi.org/10.1108/ci-08-2024-0224 Rietig, K. (2019). Leveraging the power of learning to overcome negotiation deadlocks in global climate governance and low carbon transitions. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning , 21 (3), 228–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908x.2019.1632698 Rodrigo, M., Perera, S., Senaratne, S., & Jin, X. (2020). Potential application of Blockchain technology for embodied carbon estimating in Construction supply chains. Buildings . https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10080140 Sadawi, A., Madani, B., Saboor, S., Ndiaye, M., & Abu-Lebdeh, G. (2021). A comprehensive hierarchical blockchain system for carbon emission trading utilizing blockchain of things and smart contract. Technological Forecasting and Social Change . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121124 Schletz, M., Franke, L., & Salomo, S. (2020). Blockchain Application for the Paris Agreement Carbon Market Mechanism—A decision framework and architecture. Sustainability . https://doi.org/10.3390/su12125069 Seidel, A., May, N., Guenther, E., & Ellinger, F. (2021). Scenario-based analysis of the carbon mitigation potential of 6G-enabled 3D videoconferencing in 2030. Telematics and Informatics , 64 , 101686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2021.101686 Stern, N., & Stiglitz, J. (2017). Report of the high-level commission on carbon prices. 1–61. https://doi.org/10.7916/d8-w2nc-4103 Stokkink, Q., & Pouwelse, J. (2023). A local-first approach for green smart contracts. Distributed Ledger Technology: Research and Practise , 3 , 13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3607196 Tao, Y., Steckel, D., Klemeš, J., & You, F. (2021). Trend towards virtual and hybrid conferences may be an effective climate change mitigation strategy. Nature Communications , 12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27251-2 Traub, J., Morillas, C., Gil, R., Álvarez, S., & Martínez, S. (2025). Evaluating corporate carbon emissions reporting: assessing transparency and completeness with the Carbon Integrity Index. Sustainability . https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177628 Truby, J., Brown, R., Dahdal, A., & Ibrahim, I. (2022). Blockchain, climate damage, and death: Policy interventions to reduce the carbon emissions, mortality, and net-zero implications of non-fungible tokens and Bitcoin. Energy Research & Social Science . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102499 Turillazzi, A., Taddeo, M., Floridi, L., & Casolari, F. (2023). The digital services act: an analysis of its ethical, legal, and social implications. Law Innovation and Technology , 15 (1), 83–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2023.2184136 Van Thienen, P., Tsiami, L., Torello, M., & Savić, D. (2024). The potential of virtual reality meetings in international research projects for greenhouse gas emission mitigation. Technological Sustainability . https://doi.org/10.1108/techs-05-2024-0051 Vilkov, A., & Tian, G. (2023). Blockchain’s scope and purpose in carbon markets: A systematic literature review. Sustainability . https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118495 Viola, R., Irazola, M., Ju'arez, J., Nguyen, M., Zoubarev, A., Futasz, A., Bassbouss, L., Abdelnabi, A., & Hidalgo, J. (2025). Energy consumption assessment of a Virtual Reality Remote Rendering application over 5G networks. ArXiv, abs/2510.25357. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2510.25357 Vladucu, M., Wu, H., Medina, J., Salehin, K., Dong, Z., & Rojas-Cessa, R. (2024). Blockchain on sustainable environmental measures: A review. Blockchains . https://doi.org/10.3390/blockchains2030016 Wang, R., Wang, J., Hao, Y., Hu, L., Alqahtani, S., & Chen, M. (2023). C3Meta: A context-aware cloud-edge-end collaboration framework toward green Metaverse. IEEE Wireless Communications , 30 , 144–150. https://doi.org/10.1109/mwc.013.2300082 Wang, Y., Feng, L., Wang, L., & Yu, W. (2025). A blockchain model connecting electricity market and carbon trading market. Alexandria Engineering Journal . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2025.01.108 Wang, Y., Yang, Y., Fu, C., Fan, Z., & Zhou, X. (2021). Environmental regulation, environmental responsibility, and green technology innovation: Empirical research from China. PloS One , 16 (9), e0257670. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257670 Watini, S., Davies, G., & Andersen, N. (2024). Cybersecurity in learning systems: Data protection and privacy in educational information systems and digital learning environments. International Transactions on Education Technology (ITEE) , 3 (1), 26–35. https://doi.org/10.33050/itee.v3i1.665 Wu, J., Yan, Y., Wang, S., & Zhen, L. (2025). Optimizing Blockchain-enabled sustainable supply chains. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management , 72 , 426–445. https://doi.org/10.1109/tem.2024.3525105 Yang, Z., Li, X., Zhu, Y., & Li, X. (2025). Blockchain-driven innovations of carbon emission management in cement supply chain: Evidence from China. Journal of Environmental Management , 392 , 126795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.126795 Yang, Z., Zhu, C., Zhu, Y., & Li, X. (2023). Blockchain technology in building environmental sustainability: A systematic literature review and future perspectives. Building and Environment . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.110970 Zanella, M., Ashraf, N., & Mahmood, Z. (2025). Carbon accounting for sustainability management: case study of MICE events. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change . https://doi.org/10.1108/jaoc-08-2024-0259 Zhang, X. (2025). Design and implementation of energy efficiency audit, carbon footprint tracking and sustainable development path planning system for green economy enterprises based on blockchain technology. 2025 3rd Cognitive Models and Artificial Intelligence Conference (AICCONF) , 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/aicconf64766.2025.11064234 Zhao, N., & You, F. (2023). Growing Metaverse Sector Can Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 10 Gt CO 2 e in the United States by 2050. Energy & Environmental Science . https://doi.org/10.1039/d3ee00081h Zhou, C., Chen, H., Wang, S., Sun, X., Saddik, A., & Cai, W. (2023). Harnessing Web3 on Carbon Offset Market for Sustainability: Framework and A Case Study. IEEE Wireless Communications , 30 , 104–111. https://doi.org/10.1109/mwc.010.2300082 Zubaedah, P. A., Harliyanto, R., Situmeang, S. M. T., Siagian, D. S., & Septaria, E. (2024). Cybersecurity Regulations, and AI Ethics in a Digital Society. The Journal of Academic Science , 1 (2). https://doi.org/10.59613/29qypw51 . The Legal Implications of Data Privacy Laws,. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9206807","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":611092657,"identity":"60c6ad2d-15af-498f-95fc-8ea2cca96972","order_by":0,"name":"Emin Gitmez","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Inonu University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Emin","middleName":"","lastName":"Gitmez","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-03-24 05:08:18","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9206807/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9206807/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":106041559,"identity":"ad733dee-84b6-4d59-8405-e8694eea1cb6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-02 17:55:15","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1180840,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9206807/v1/2fdbd6da-9ac5-4e3a-a584-c907375b3b8f.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Ecological Sustainability in Metaverse: A Blockchain-Based Carbon Management and Regulatory Proposals for Policy Makers","fulltext":[{"header":"1 Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe rapid emergence of the metaverse has raised urgent questions regarding its ecological legitimacy. While the metaverse offers transformative opportunities to decouple economic activity from physical resource consumption through virtualization, it simultaneously presents a profound normative dilemma. The core of this dilemma resides in the tension between the state\u0026rsquo;s constitutional obligation to protect the environment and nascent digital property rights within decentralized ecosystems (Alzoubi \u0026amp; Mishra, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; De Giovanni, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Hern\u0026aacute;ndez et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Mulligan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Rathnayake et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA critical concern within this discourse is the environmental footprint of blockchain protocols, particularly those utilizing energy-intensive PoW consensus mechanisms. Such architectures pose a direct threat to ecological sustainability; for instance, a single Non-fungible Token (NFT) transaction can generate up to 150 kg of \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003eC\u003csub\u003eO2\u003c/sub\u003e emissions, while the annual energy consumption of the Bitcoin network rivals that of mid-sized nation-states (De Giovanni, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Hern\u0026aacute;ndez et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Sadawi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). However, the recent paradigmatic shift toward PoS protocols has demonstrated a potential reduction in energy expenditure by over 99%. This evolution positions blockchain as a central pillar for carbon management solutions, enabling transparent tracking, decentralized carbon markets and automated regulatory compliance. High-fidelity simulations and optimization models increasingly validate the efficacy of blockchain frameworks in enhancing carbon policy (Lanteri et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Yang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Zhou et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). From a legal perspective, this high-energy demand creates an accountability gap: in a decentralized environment, the traditional \u0026ldquo;polluter\u0026rdquo; identity becomes fragmented between platform operators, smart contract developers and users (avatars). Without a clear definition of the legal subject of environmental liability, the \u0026ldquo;polluter pays\u0026rdquo; principle remains unenforceable in virtual spaces.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe inherent characteristics of blockchain -decentralization, transparency, and immutability- facilitate the construction of robust systems for carbon credit trading, emission monitoring and supply chain accountability (Jimenez-Castillo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Peer-to-peer (P2P) trading frameworks further empower \u0026ldquo;prosumers\u0026rdquo; to engage directly in energy and carbon allowance exchanges through transparent, incentive-based pricing models (Wu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Smart contracts are central to this operational efficiency, as they automate the verification and enforcement of emission thresholds and offsetting protocols (Vladucu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCurrent scholarship emphasizes that the integration of blockchain-based carbon management into metaverse architecture offers both substantial risks and transformative potential. Secure data management and real-time monitoring capabilities form the foundation of carbon accounting systems that align with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and global climate mandates (De Giovanni, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Sadawi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). However, the literature underscores that addressing digital equity, environmental justice and cross-border regulatory compliance requires a multi-stakeholder governance approach involving policymakers, technologists and civil society (Mulligan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs the metaverse transitions from a conceptual framework to a pervasive reality, the establishment of a comprehensive blockchain-based carbon management and regulatory framework is imperative to ensure that digital growth does not exacerbate existing environmental crises. This review synthesizes contemporary research on these frameworks, evaluating their effectiveness for policymakers while highlighting the persistent challenges of \u0026ldquo;rebound effects\u0026rdquo; such as e-waste and social inequality (Chai et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Ultimately, the efficacy of these digital tools remains contingent upon strategic protocol selection (PoS over PoW), integration with renewable energy infrastructures and the standardization of reporting practices across jurisdictions. Realizing this potential necessitates informed policy interventions, including explicit legal recognition of digital assets, enforceable transparency standards and the promotion of platform interoperability (Karim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Wang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). This article proposes an original net emission balance model as a normative basis for this framework, ensuring that the metaverse evolves as a sustainable ecosystem grounded in constitutional and international legal principles.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2 The Ecological Responsibility of Digitalization: Constitutional and International Legal Bases","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1 Constitutional Basis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe environmental right to live in a healthy environment, as enshrined in many constitutions, imposes a state duty to protect the environment that can extend to digital platform operators through an \u0026ldquo;environmental duty of care. This concept necessitates integrating an \u0026ldquo;ecological responsibility\u0026rdquo; dimension into the information technology law framework to ensure sustainable digital ecosystem governance. The state\u0026rsquo;s duty of care mandates that digital platforms, pivotal actors in modern information dissemination and economic activity, adhere to environmental norms that prevent ecological harm and promote green innovation. This is consistent with broader regulatory trends aimed at enhancing platform accountability, transparency and social responsibility, as illustrated by the European Union's Digital Services Act (DSA), which increases platform obligations regarding content moderation and transparency (Kaushal et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Quintais et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpecifically, environmental regulations spur corporate environmental responsibility, which in turn fosters green technology innovation and sustainability practices within enterprises, emphasizing how regulatory frameworks can leverage platform responsibilities to create positive ecological outcomes (Wang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Incorporating an ecological responsibility layer into information technology law aligns with governance strategies that harmonize technology development with environmental sustainability, requiring mechanisms for environmental impact monitoring, transparency and accountability, similar to those in emerging digital regulatory frameworks globally (Turillazzi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).Such ecological duties could manifest as mandatory platform disclosures on energy consumption, supply chain environmental impacts, or obligations to adopt green technologies, harmonizing with cross-sector regulatory architectures that support scalable compliance in multi-industry contexts, including digital services (Cadet et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). This responds to the constitutional and societal imperatives of environmental protection by embedding sustainability within the operational and legal responsibilities of digital platform operators.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThus, to actualize this \u0026ldquo;environmental duty of care,\u0026rdquo; information technology law acquis must evolve beyond current norms focused primarily on data privacy and content regulation to embrace binding ecological responsibilities. This would support constitutional rights to a healthy environment, ensuring that digital platforms contribute positively to environmental stewardship while aligning with ethical, legal and professional standards of care prevalent in other regulated sectors (Dowie, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Wang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2 International Acquis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMandatory reporting of the carbon costs of digital services is gaining attention within the framework of several major international and European climate and sustainability policies and agreements. The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), rooted in the European Green Deal\u0026rsquo;s climate action objectives, mandates large and listed companies to disclose information on social and environmental risks, opportunities and impacts, which logically extends to carbon emissions related to digital services (Poulle et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). This directive aims to enhance transparency and integrate environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors into corporate strategies as a strategic imperative, fostering stakeholder trust and aligning companies with sustainable operations goals (Fornasari and Traversi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). The CSRD\u0026rsquo;s gradual applicability through 2024 to 2029 signals a growing regulatory requirement for comprehensive environmental reporting, possibly including digital carbon footprints.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInternationally, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement frame global climate governance around mitigating greenhouse gas emissions with a system based on nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and a \u0026lsquo;\u003cem\u003epledge and review\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e mechanism (Falkner, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Kuyper et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). While these agreements focus on broad country-level commitments, the Paris Agreement\u0026rsquo;s architecture also supports efforts to integrate sectoral emissions, such as those from digital services, into mitigation policies by increasing transparency and accountability. The UNFCCC\u0026rsquo;s evolving frameworks and learning mechanisms encourage countries and actors to adopt low-carbon economic transitions, which implicitly cover digital economy sectors (Rietig, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). The European Climate Agreement and the Green Deal set ambitious European Union (EU)-wide environmental and climate goals, aiming for climate neutrality by 2050. These frameworks support regulations such as the DSA, which governs digital service providers and could evolve to include sustainability and carbon cost transparency requirements, merging digital policy with environmental objectives. Moreover, the high-level commission on carbon prices reflects an economic approach to incentivize climate action through pricing mechanisms that could influence accounting for carbon costs in digital services and encourage efficient and sustainable practices (Stern and Stiglitz, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCollectively, these policies and agreements drive the momentum toward mandatory reporting of carbon costs in digital services by enhancing regulatory demands for environmental impact disclosure, fostering international cooperation and benchmarking and incentivizing the reduction of carbon footprint in the digital sector. This aligns with the broader ambition of decarbonizing economies and integrating sustainability into all business operations, including the growing digital infrastructure and services domain.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3 Legal Gap and Conflict of Rights\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe current regulatory landscape concerning digital technologies primarily emphasizes data privacy and cybersecurity protections, creating a significant legal gap regarding the physical carbon costs of technology production, deployment and use. This gap exists because existing laws and regulations predominantly address intangible digital rights, such as data ownership, confidentiality and protection against cyber threats, rather than environmental externalities, such as carbon emissions tied to digital services and infrastructure (Zubaedah et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Watini et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). The principle of proportionality plays a pivotal role in reconciling conflicts between individual digital property rights, such as the right of users to access and control personal data and the collective right to a healthy and sustainable environment. In this context, proportionality mandates that digital rights should be exercised within limits that do not disproportionately harm environmental interests, ensuring that personal or corporate digital freedoms do not undermine public health or climate goals. Hence, balancing these rights involves evaluating the extent of users or providers digital entitlements against the environmental harm caused by the carbon footprint of digital services and technology infrastructure.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, this balance is complicated by the absence of explicit legal provisions addressing the environmental footprint within data privacy or cybersecurity laws. While multiple jurisdictions have robust legal frameworks to protect privacy, secure data and manage cyber risks, these typically do not incorporate environmental accountability for the carbon costs of digital activities (Zubaedah et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR83\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Prastyanti and Sharma, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). This legal vacuum highlights the need for adaptive legal approaches that integrate environmental considerations into digital governance. Such frameworks would require expanding existing digital rights laws or climate regulations to encompass mandatory reporting and mitigation of the carbon impact of digital services and infrastructure. Moreover, legal scholars have advocated for reforms that bridge cybersecurity, privacy and environmental law through interdisciplinary mechanisms that respect digital individual rights while safeguarding collective ecological well-being (Qian, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn summary, the principle of proportionality emerges as a critical legal doctrine that mediates the tension between users\u0026rsquo; digital property rights and society\u0026rsquo;s environmental rights, suggesting that future regulatory developments must incorporate carbon accountability into the digital rights paradigm to effectively address this substantive legal gap.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3 Conceptual Framework and Technical Background","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1 Digital Carbon Footprint in Metaverse Operations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe digital carbon footprint refers to the aggregate greenhouse gas emissions generated by all the computational processes required to execute a digital activity, such as a virtual meeting within the metaverse. Metaverse platforms exhibit a multi-layered emission architecture encompassing hardware utilization, network traffic, and server-side processing.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpecifically, hardware components, including virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) devices and user terminals, account for significant energy consumption. Furthermore, network traffic associated with high-bandwidth data transmission further escalates energy demands. Cloud and data center operations represent a substantial contribution to total emissions (Jerosha et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Kadry, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Life cycle assessments (LCA) emphasize that accurate carbon accounting must incorporate both direct emissions, such as those from devices and servers, and indirect emissions inherent in the supply chain (Jerosha et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Baklaga, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2 Blockchain \u0026amp; Green Oracles: Immortal Evidence System\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA blockchain provides an immutable ledger for recording environmental data. Internet of Things (IoT) sensors or smart meters feed real-time energy/emission data into a blockchain. These tools can be conceptualized as \u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;green oracles\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e within a blockchain-based carbon governance framework (Chai et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Ojadi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). This creates an \" immortal evidence system,\" sealing environmental declarations against tampering or fraud. Such systems are being piloted in supply chains, construction material certification, energy markets, and urban infrastructure (Ojadi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Green oracles can improve data reliability by automatically aggregating and transmitting real-time environmental metrics. Systems that connect IoT meters, carbon trackers, and other sensors to a blockchain significantly reduce manual entry and associated errors and increase the granularity of carbon data. One enterprise study reported a 25% improvement in carbon reporting accuracy when IoT meters streamed data into a blockchain-based system (Zhang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Oil-sector simulations using IoT and blockchain showed traceability accuracy rising from 65/100 to 96/100 (Almher et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). The immutability of a blockchain means that once oracle-fed data are recorded, they cannot be altered without detection, addressing manipulation, corruption, and opaque adjustments common in traditional carbon accounting. Consensus and multi-party validation of incoming records further enhance data \u0026ldquo;veracity\u0026rdquo; compared with centralized systems (Rodrigo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Green oracle-based systems enable tracing emissions across supply chains and product lifecycles, improving the completeness and consistency of footprints (Rathnayake et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). However, the full assurance of accuracy depends on the quality and calibration of the sensors and measurement devices supplying data to the green oracle, the correctness of the emission factors applied, the reliability of the off-chain models used, and the robustness of the oracle design in preventing incorrect data inputs and their irreversible storage on the blockchain (Guo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Ojadi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, blockchain oracles enhance the practical accuracy, reliability, and auditability of carbon footprint data by automating trusted data flows and preventing post-hoc manipulation; however, they must be complemented by high-quality measurement systems and robust verification mechanisms at the oracle boundary.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3 Smart Contracts for Real-Time Carbon Credit Offsetting\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSmart contracts function as the primary administrative and enforcement layer of the proposed model by automating critical regulatory processes. Utilizing code structures that operate in real-time, these contracts calculate energy-related emissions based on immutable data provided by green oracles. This technical framework ensures that carbon footprints are instantaneously matched with tokenized carbon credits, which are then automatically retired or offset through embedded smart contract logic. To bridge the gap between \u0026ldquo;code\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;law\u0026rdquo; this framework ensures that digital obligations are legally enforceable and brought into compliance with existing regulatory oversight (Cruz et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Sadawi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSmart contracts automate the core components of blockchain-based carbon governance systems. Through emission calculation modules, coded algorithms process real-time data supplied by green oracles to determine the precise carbon footprint of a given activity. These calculated emissions are then programmatically matched with tokenized carbon credits, which can be automatically retired or offset through predefined smart contract logic, ensuring immediate and verifiable compliance. In more advanced regulatory models, smart contract architectures are designed to incorporate legal principles, such as concepts derived from debt law, to strengthen the enforceability of carbon-related obligations, thereby bridging technical automation with legally binding accountability (Cruz et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Patro et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe reviewed literature strongly supports the proposed conceptual framework. It demonstrates that digital carbon footprints in metaverse-like environments, although technically complex, are measurable and quantifiable when supported by adequate instrumentation and lifecycle-based accounting methods (Hong \u0026amp; Xiao, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Jerosha et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Blockchain technology contributes to the trustworthiness of environmental reporting through its immutability, while so-called green oracles function as critical bridges between physical emission measurements and digital ledgers, thereby reducing the risks of greenwashing and double-counting (Stokkink \u0026amp; Pouwelse, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, smart contracts facilitate automated carbon offsetting by directly linking verified emission data to tokenized carbon credits, streamlining regulatory compliance, and lowering administrative burdens. Nevertheless, significant challenges persist, including interoperability between platforms, privacy concerns associated with granular data tracking, blockchain scalability\u0026ndash;particularly in energy-intensive PoW systems\u0026ndash;regulatory harmonization across jurisdictions, and the fundamental requirement that oracle-supplied data be independently verifiable and reliable (Cruz et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Stokkink \u0026amp; Pouwelse, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, the technical framework that combines digital carbon footprint modeling for metaverse transactions, blockchain-based green oracles, and smart contract-driven automated offsetting is strongly supported by current research as a promising solution for transparent and unmanipulable environmental accountability. The conceptual framework you describe is well supported by recent research as a technically viable approach to transparent digital carbon footprint management using blockchain-based green oracles and smart contracts; however, full-scale implementation is still an area of active development.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4 Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe nexus of metaverse operations, blockchain technology, and smart contracts is rapidly redefining the trajectory of digital carbon footprint governance. Virtual ecosystems -characterized by a sophisticated emission profile emerging from hardware utilization, high-intensity network traffic, and server-side rendering- require a transition from static reporting to dynamic oversight. Blockchain technology provides a tamper-proof infrastructure for monitoring and validating these emissions, particularly when integrated with green oracles that facilitate real-time data ingestion. Central to this framework are smart contracts, which operationalize environmental accountability by automating the offset of tokenized carbon credits based on instantaneous emission metrics. This mechanism replaces fragmented and non-transparent accounting systems with a verifiable and efficient ledger of ecological responsibility. Consequently, a comparative analysis between traditional carbon-tracking methodologies and blockchain-based systems in virtual environments reveals a structural shift toward decentralized, autonomous, and transparent regulatory compliance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1 Comparative analysis focus\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eVirtual ecosystems, specifically the metaverse, exhibit a structural dichotomy regarding ecological governance that mirrors the tensions inherent in physical supply chains. While traditional carbon-tracking methodologies are characterized by centralized architectures, manual data entry, and procedural latency, blockchain technology offers a paradigmatic shift toward decentralized, tamper-proof, and autonomous carbon tracking. By replacing fragmented and non-transparent reporting systems with a real-time, verifiable ledger, blockchain facilitates a more rigorous alignment between digital economic activities and global sustainability imperatives.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2 Key Weaknesses of Traditional Carbon Tracking\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAcross diverse industrial sectors, conventional monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems are characterized by manual or semi-manual data entry into centralized databases, supported by periodic third-party audits. This traditional architecture suffers from several systemic vulnerabilities that undermine the integrity of ecological governance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eFragmentation and Information Asymmetry\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe centralization of data often results in inconsistent reporting formats and the emergence of data silos, fostering significant information asymmetry between emitters, regulatory bodies and verifiers (Almher et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Schletz et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eTemporal Latency and Audit Costs\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eAudit-driven, ex-post verification processes generate substantial reporting lags, exemplified by delays of approximately 7.5 days in simulated supply chain environments, while imposing high administrative and audit costs (Almher et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eIntegrity and Manipulation Risks\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eManual entry protocols and centralized data storage are inherently susceptible to human error and deliberate manipulation, which fundamentally erodes stakeholder trust in ESG and carbon disclosure reports (Almher et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Ojadi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eL\u003cb\u003eack of high-frequency granularity\u003c/b\u003e: Traditional MRV frameworks in built environments and carbon markets rarely provide continuous, high-frequency data streams that are requisite for dynamic optimization or the complex requirements of virtual worlds (Ojadi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3 Advantages of blockchain-based tracking in virtual environments\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBlockchain-integrated systems fundamentally transform environmental governance by replacing periodic manual reporting with decentralized, immutable ledgers that leverage IoT and software agents for source-level data capture. This transition addresses the systemic failures of traditional frameworks through the following technical and operational advancements:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eData Integrity and Immutability\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe recording of emissions and activity data on-chain ensures that records cannot be retroactively altered, thereby significantly mitigating fraud and the risk of \u0026ldquo;double-counting\u0026rdquo; within carbon accounting and credit systems (Almher et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Ojadi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eEnd-to-End Traceability and Audit Efficiency\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe integration of smart contracts and distributed nodes facilitates near-real-time tracing of emissions across supply chains. Comparative simulations indicate that these systems can enhance traceability scores by 36% and audit effectiveness by 91% relative to conventional methodologies (Almher et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eOptimization of Transactional and Audit Costs\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eBlockchain architectures can reduce verification costs by as much as 70% in specific industrial simulations by eliminating intermediaries through automation and shared ledgers (Almher et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, this infrastructure lowers the administrative and registry overheads associated with carbon trading (Ojadi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eHigh-Frequency Granular Visibility\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe convergence of blockchain with IoT and digital twins enables continuous data streams to be securely logged on-chain. This granularity supports precise carbon accounting and allows for the dynamic optimization of operational energy efficiency (Ojadi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eFortified Stakeholder Trust\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe provision of a single, verifiable record accessible to regulators, enterprises, and users enhances the credibility of ESG reporting and fosters robust market mechanisms for carbon credit registries (Boumaiza, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Kim \u0026amp; Huh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn a metaverse context, this architecture maps naturally to virtual assets, avatars, and transactions with smart contracts that manage carbon rules and offsets for digital activities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.4 Trade-offs and limitations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite the demonstrable advantages of decentralized architectures, blockchain technology is not universally superior and presents significant systemic challenges. A primary concern involves energy consumption and scalability; certain consensus mechanisms, specifically PoW, are inherently energy-intensive and may paradoxically undermine the net climate benefits sought through digital transformation. Furthermore, the inherent trade-offs between decentralization and throughput often lead to scalability and latency bottlenecks in high-frequency transaction scenarios (Rani et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Rodrigo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Beyond technical limitations, the implementation and maintenance of blockchain infrastructures require substantial capital expenditures and technical expertise, particularly when integrating decentralized ledgers with physical sensors or legacy enterprise systems (Alotaibi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Finally, the absence of unified global reporting standards and the prevalence of inconsistent regulatory frameworks across jurisdictions further complicate the large-scale adoption of blockchain technology within carbon markets and global supply chains (Kirui et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn summary, empirical research indicates that blockchain-integrated architectures significantly outperform conventional carbon-tracking systems in terms of transparency, traceability, and cost efficiency. However, to ensure environmental sustainability and operational scalability within virtual ecosystems, these systems necessitate rigorous design parameters, including the adoption of energy-efficient consensus mechanisms, the establishment of unified reporting standards, and the implementation of robust governance frameworks. The ecological legitimacy of the metaverse ecosystem should be evaluated not through a reductive approach focusing solely on high energy consumption, but through the technology\u0026rsquo;s potential to substitute physical activities. This study presents an original \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003enet emission balance model ($E_{net}$)\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e that analyzes the environmental cost savings of digitalization on the same plane.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(E_{net} = E_{saved} - (E_{device} + E_{network} + E_{server}))\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe equation provides a structured framework for evaluating the net carbon impact of metaverse technologies. Here, (E_{saved}) represents emissions avoided by substituting physical activities (such as travel or manufacturing) with virtual alternatives, whereas (E_{device}), (E_{network}), and (E_{server}) capture the operational emissions from end-user devices, data transmission, and server infrastructure, respectively. Recent research highlights both the significant potential for emissions reductions \u0026mdash;especially in sectors such as transportation, construction, and enterprise collaboration\u0026mdash;and the substantial risks of increased energy demand if digital infrastructure is not decarbonized or efficiently managed (Larbi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Liu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Zhao \u0026amp; You, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR81\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). The balance between these terms is context-dependent: industrial and enterprise applications often show net savings, whereas consumer metaverse use (e.g., gaming or leisure) may increase overall emissions owing to high device and server energy consumption (Kshetri \u0026amp; Dwivedi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Nleya \u0026amp; Velempini, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). This review synthesizes current evidence on each term in the equation and discusses when metaverse adoption is likely to yield positive or negative climate outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe meaning of each term\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTerm\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMeaning in formula\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEvidence \u0026amp; typical drivers\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eE_{saved}\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePhysical activities avoided (flights, hotels, commuting, events, prototyping, factory trials)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndustrial and enterprise metaverse use (digital twins, remote meetings, virtual events) can cut travel and physical operations; examples include energy savings in factories and buildings, and reduced travel emissions (De Giovanni, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Nleya \u0026amp; Velempini, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eE_{device}\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnd-user hardware energy (VR headsets, PCs, mobiles)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVR headsets\u0026thinsp;\u0026asymp;\u0026thinsp;10\u0026ndash;20 W per user; high-end gamers/VR users can reach\u0026thinsp;~\u0026thinsp;0.91 tCO₂/year in intensive scenarios (Al-Kfairy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Kshetri \u0026amp; Dwivedi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eE_{network}\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTelecom and data transmission\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5G/edge networks and cloud gaming/VR streaming are highly energy intensive; cloud/VR traffic is a major share of ICT energy and CO₂ (Viola et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eE_{server}\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eData center\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;rendering\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;blockchain\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eData centers and cloud rendering dominate backend energy; metaverse blockchain/economy layer may grow\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;8\u0026times; 2022\u0026ndash;2030 and become a major share of energy use (De Giovanni, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Nleya \u0026amp; Velempini, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Viola et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eQuestion\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on the formula, how different might the carbon emissions be if a three-day in-person meeting, which is planned to include air travel, were held in the metaverse area?\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eEmissions: in-person vs. metaverse-style meeting\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor an in-person, 3-night meeting, travel, accommodation, and city transport dominate emissions:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eConference studies find that travel accounts for approximately 55%-95% of the total carbon footprint, while accommodation accounts for another 10%-13%, and local spending and catering account for the remainder (Bousema et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Chuter et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; J\u0026auml;ckle, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Kitamura et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Mannheim \u0026amp; Avat\u0026oacute;, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Zanella et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e Example\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003e A large in-person scientific conference emitted 1.3\u0026ndash;1.8 t CO₂e per attendee, almost all from flights (Van Ewijk \u0026amp; Hoekman, 2020); another found 1.4 t CO₂e per attendee, with hotel+venue\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;5% (Chuter et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn contrast, virtual/online conferences (similar to a \u0026ldquo;metaverse\u0026rdquo; meeting) have a far smaller footprint:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eA natural language comments LCA shows that virtual conferencing reduces carbon footprint by ~\u0026thinsp;94% and energy use by 90% relative to in-person events (including food, accommodation, ICT, and transport) (Tao et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn Indian 3-day national virtual conference emitted 6.4 t CO₂e, compared with a modelled 356 t CO₂e (\u0026asymp;\u0026thinsp;55\u0026times; higher in-person) (Periyasamy et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eScenario analysis for 3D/6G videoconferencing finds that virtual meetings cause only 0.2%-0.9% of the emissions of a \u0026ldquo;mean-distance\u0026rdquo; physical business trip (Seidel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eA VR/metaverse meeting case study for EU research projects estimates 7\u0026ndash;19\u0026times; lower emissions for VR vs. physical meetings after including VR hardware and information and communication technology life-cycle impacts (Van Thienen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eWhat the metaverse adds\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMetaverse/VR meetings add:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eDevice manufacturing and e-waste, as well as data center and network energy use (Esposito et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Kshetri \u0026amp; Dwivedi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, current evidence suggests that when replacing flights and hotels, these digital emissions remain small compared with avoided travel, especially for international or multi-day meetings (Seidel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Tao et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Renewable-powered infrastructure further improves this balance (Esposito et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Nleya \u0026amp; Velempini, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eReplacing a 3-night, travel-intensive meeting with a metaverse/VR meeting of similar duration and participation would, based on current studies, likely cut per-person emissions by roughly 90\u0026ndash;99%, as it removes flights, hotel stays, and most local transport while adding only modest ICT-related emissions. The reviewed literature supports the utility of your equation as a conceptual tool: the net climate benefit from metaverse adoption hinges on maximizing (Esaved) while minimizing device/network/server emissions through efficiency improvements and clean energy sourcing (Larbi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Liu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Industrial applications, where large-scale travel or resource-intensive processes are replaced, show strong evidence for a positive net impact (Nleya \u0026amp; Velempini, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). However, consumer-facing uses risk negative outcomes unless paired with decarbonized infrastructure and responsible device management (Kshetri \u0026amp; Dwivedi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Rebound effects remain a concern. Increased accessibility may drive new forms of consumption that erode initial gains unless carefully regulated or incentivized toward true substitution rather than supplementation (Pellegrino et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Lifecycle assessments tailored to specific use cases are urgently needed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn summary, this methodology provides a robust framework for quantifying the ecological impact of the metaverse using blockchain-based carbon management. By implementing the \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003eE_{net}\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e formula within a transparent digital ledger system and validating it with real-world data center experiments, this approach enables detailed monitoring and policy-compliant reporting of environmental performance in digital ecosystems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Policy Implications and Solutions","content":"\u003cp\u003ePolicymakers are deepening their work on advanced legal and financial instruments to encourage the adoption of sustainable protocols in metaverse and blockchain ecosystems (Sadawi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). This includes exploring strategic interventions, such as deterrent tax regulations for high-carbon-intensity blockchain operations and the imposition of progressive administrative fines and access restrictions on platforms exceeding emission thresholds. The integration of blockchain technology into existing emissions trading systems (ETS) is critical for standardizing carbon accounting practices across different jurisdictions and ensuring alignment with global climate goals, such as the SDGs (Lanteri et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Regulatory frameworks developed through this process include the recognition of tokenized carbon credits as \"digital assets\" subject to property law and affirmative action mechanisms, such as tax incentives for platforms that automatically offset carbon through smart contracts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe integration of blockchain-based oracle systems into energy network enet formulations offers a transformative approach to carbon footprint management, enabling real-time, tamper-proof, and transparent emissions data. This technological advancement supports the development of robust policy frameworks that can drive carbon neutrality, enhance market integrity, and incentivize sustainable practices. The following review synthesizes current research to assess the viability of four key policy recommendations: (1) emission licensing and transparency, (2) legal status of carbon credits, (3) incentive and sanction regimes, and (4) interoperability of carbon credits. Evidence from recent studies highlights the role of fintech and blockchain in promoting green finance, improving environmental reporting accuracy, and supporting regulatory innovation (Addy et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Agrawal et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Babar \u0026amp; Wu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Muganyi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). These findings provide a strong foundation for policy solutions that leverage digital verification to achieve climate goals.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.1 Emission Licensing, Real-Time Transparency\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnsuring environmental sustainability within the metaverse ecosystem necessitates the establishment of a concrete and auditable foundation for the physical world impacts of digital activities. In this context, evidence indicates that mandatory and detailed greenhouse gas emission disclosures, alongside benchmarking initiatives, play a critical role in reducing emissions and enhancing corporate accountability. Blockchain-based measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems have the potential to significantly reduce administrative costs, particularly within structures such as emission trading systems (ETS). By leveraging the immutable nature of the technology, these systems enhance traceability and minimize the risks of fraud in carbon accounting (Traub et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Vilkov \u0026amp; Tian, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe utilization of verified data through \"Green Oracles,\" which lie at the heart of this architecture, enables platform operators to substantiate their environmental impacts instantaneously. Requiring operators to document their (near) real-time neutrality through this method is in alignment with the \u0026ldquo;duty of care\u0026rdquo; principle in information technology law and supports global calls for more rigorous, standardized, and transparent reporting frameworks (Liu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Mulligan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). The proposed regulatory framework strikes a fair balance between digital property rights and collective environmental rights, thereby securing the ecological legitimacy of the metaverse.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.2 Legal Status Of Tokenized Carbon Credits\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe burgeoning literature on carbon markets emphasizes that the transition to a digitalized climate economy necessitates a precise legal definition of property rights regarding carbon units, alongside a robust regulatory framework for smart contract operations and liability. Legal scholarship on tokenized and digital assets increasingly advocates for treating tokens as legally enforceable rights or \u0026ldquo;digital property,\u0026rdquo; provided that the nexus between the underlying asset and the digital representation is clearly codified in statute (Lavayssi\u0026egrave;re, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Lee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Yang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). In the absence of such statutory clarity, the \u0026ldquo;code is law\u0026rdquo; paradigm risks conflicting with established public law oversight and constitutional protections.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCurrent reviews identify interoperability and market fragmentation as the primary obstacles to large-scale adoption. To mitigate these barriers, scholars have recommended the harmonization of standards and the cross-jurisdictional legal enforcement of carbon-credit property rights. This includes formalizing registry links across diverse digital ecosystems to prevent double-counting and information asymmetry. In this context, legally guaranteeing the portability of oracle-verified carbon credits between metaverse platforms aligns with the global call for standardized, tokenized credits hosted on linked registries. Such portability is essential to resolve the \u0026ldquo; ownership paradox,\u0026rdquo; where the potential termination of an energy-intensive platform might otherwise result in the unlawful deprivation of a user's digital property (Lavayssi\u0026egrave;re, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Lee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Vilkov \u0026amp; Tian, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). By establishing these credits as \u0026ldquo;digital assets\u0026rdquo; subject to property law, the proposed framework ensures that environmental compliance does not compromise the security of digital tenure\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.3 Incentives, Sanctions, and Net-Zero\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe prevailing literature on carbon markets emphasizes a multidimensional approach to ecological governance, primarily grounded in the \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003epolluter pays\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; principle. Recent studies have advocated for a combination of carbon pricing and targeted fiscal instruments, such as differentiated energy taxation and specific levies on high-carbon blockchain operations, to catalyze a shift toward energy-efficient consensus mechanisms and verifiable emission reductions (Li et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Truby et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the integration of ESG-linked incentives and mandatory high-quality disclosure frameworks has been proven to significantly enhance corporate climate performance and stakeholder accountability. By transforming \u0026ldquo;soft law\u0026rdquo; ESG commitments into \u0026ldquo;hard law\u0026rdquo; regulatory requirements, legal frameworks can compel metaverse platforms to internalize their ecological externalities (Bui et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Traub et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnder this normative framework, the following policy interventions are proposed, which are consistent with international sustainability imperatives (Li et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Traub et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Wang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Truby et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e):\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eFiscal Incentives\u003c/b\u003e: Granting tax breaks or enhanced ESG credits for platforms that demonstrate verified net-zero status through the \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003eE_{net}\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e model.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eAdministrative Sanctions\u003c/b\u003e: Implementing escalating financial penalties or temporary access restrictions for platforms that persistently exceed established emission thresholds.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eDifferentiated Obligations\u003c/b\u003e: Imposing higher regulatory compliance standards for platforms utilizing PoW or other energy-intensive architectures.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBy leveraging these fiscal and legal tools, regulators can ensure that the metaverse evolves not as an unregulated digital frontier, but as a sustainable ecosystem that aligns with the constitutional duty to protect the environment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.4 Interoperability and Portability of Credits\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eExtensive literature reviews identify systemic fragmentation and a lack of interoperability as the primary barriers to the maturation of decentralized carbon markets. To overcome these obstacles, scholars have advocated for the establishment of harmonized technical standards and the rigorous legal enforcement of property rights associated with carbon credits. This necessitates the creation of secure registry links that transcend individual platform architectures and national jurisdictions, ensuring that carbon units maintain their legal and economic integrity as they traverse different ecosystems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this context, providing a legal guarantee for the portability of oracle-verified carbon credits between metaverse platforms is essential. Such a mandate aligns with emerging calls for standardized, tokenized credits hosted on interoperable or linked registries (Li et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Traub et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Wang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Truby et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e ; Garcia-Teruel \u0026amp; Sim\u0026oacute;n-Moreno, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). By codifying portability into law, regulators can prevent \"digital lock-in\" and ensure that environmental obligations\u0026mdash;specifically those governed by the \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003eE_{net}\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e model\u0026mdash;are fulfilled through a unified, cross-platform ledger of ecological accountability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"6 Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eEmpirical research demonstrates that blockchain architectures can significantly enhance transparency and institutional trust within carbon markets by providing immutable ledgers and automated verification protocols (Lanteri et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Zhou et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). This decentralized framework facilitates the emergence of peer-to-peer (P2P) trading systems, which empower \"prosumers\"\u0026mdash;individuals who both consume and produce energy\u0026mdash;to participate directly in carbon credit markets. By utilizing dynamic pricing mechanisms and tokenized reward systems, these platforms incentivize sustainable behavioral shifts (Karim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, the net environmental utility of these systems is critically contingent upon the underlying consensus protocols. Although decentralized ledgers offer governance benefits, energy-intensive mechanisms, such as PoW, remain fundamentally unsustainable. Consequently, a transition toward proof-of-stake (PoS) or other low-energy alternatives is a technical prerequisite for ecological legitimacy (De Giovanni, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Hern\u0026aacute;ndez et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo align digital innovation with global planetary health goals, proactive policy interventions are essential. This study recommends implementing the following best practices (Chai et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Sadawi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eFiscal Instruments\u003c/b\u003e: Targeted taxes on high-emission mining operations and energy-intensive digital activities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eRegulatory Mandates\u003c/b\u003e: Legal requirements for data centers and metaverse platforms to operate exclusively on renewable energy sources.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eStandardization of D-EIA\u003c/b\u003e: Development of standardized digital environmental impact assessments (D-EIA), analogous to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) or International Organization for Standardization (ISO) frameworks, specifically for virtual projects.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eCross-border Jurisdictional Cooperation\u003c/b\u003e: Harmonizing digital governance to prevent \u0026ldquo;regulatory arbitrage\u0026rdquo; in decentralized carbon markets\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite these advancements, several structural limitations persist that must be addressed in future legislative frameworks. The lack of universal standards for emissions accounting across divergent jurisdictions creates significant reporting gaps. Furthermore, the insufficient integration between physical and virtual regulatory regimes often leads to the \"decoupling\" of digital activities from their real-world ecological costs. Without robust third-party audits and \"Green Oracle\" verification, the risk of \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003egreenwashing\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; remains high. Finally, persistent socioeconomic inequities regarding access to green infrastructure and unresolved scalability bottlenecks continue to challenge the universal adoption of decentralized sustainability models.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"7 Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe rapid expansion of the metaverse ecosystem presents a dualistic challenge to global climate governance, oscillating between the potential for significant decarbonization through virtualization and the risk of escalated energy demands from decentralized infrastructure. This study has demonstrated that the ecological legitimacy of the metaverse cannot be achieved through technical optimization alone; it requires a robust, blockchain-based regulatory framework that bridges the gap between digital innovation and constitutional environmental mandates.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe proposed net emission balance model (\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003eE_{net}\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e) provides a normative foundation for evaluating this legitimacy by accounting for both the physical emissions saved through substitution (\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003eE_{saved}\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e) and the operational costs of digital architectures (\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003eE_{device} + E_{network} + E_{server}\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e). An empirical synthesis indicates that while industrial applications often yield a positive net impact, consumer-facing virtual environments require stringent oversight to mitigate \"rebound effects\" and systemic inefficiencies. Central to this governance model is the integration of \"Green Oracles\" and smart contracts, which transform the \u0026ldquo;environmental duty of care\u0026rdquo; from an abstract legal principle into an enforceable, real-time administrative reality. By utilizing immutable ledgers, platform operators can substantiate their ecological neutrality, thereby aligning with the SDGs and the CSRD framework.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, the transition to a sustainable digital frontier necessitates specific policy interventions. This study concludes that policymakers must prioritize the following:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eExplicit legal recognition of tokenized carbon credits as digital property to ensure jurisdictional certainty and prevent the \u0026ldquo;ownership paradox.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eImplementation of fiscal incentives for net-zero platforms and administrative sanctions for energy-intensive PoW protocols.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eEstablishing interoperability standards to facilitate the seamless portability of verified carbon assets across fragmented jurisdictions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn summary, as the metaverse evolves into a pervasive socioeconomic reality, its sustainability remains contingent upon a techno-legal synthesis. By codifying ecological responsibility into the \u0026ldquo;code\u0026rdquo; of virtual interactions, the proposed framework ensures that digital progress remains consistent with the collective right to a healthy environment and the long-term health of the planet.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eCompeting interests\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author confirms sole responsibility for the following: study conception and design , data collection and synthesis of the literature , development of the \u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003eE_{net} model and methodology , legal and policy analysis , and preparation of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAddy, W., Ofodile, O., Adeoye, O., Oyewole, A., Okoye, C., Odeyemi, O., \u0026amp; Ololade, Y. (2024). Data-driven sustainability: how fıntech ınnovations are supporting green finance. \u003cem\u003eEngineering Science \u0026amp; Technology Journal\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.51594/estj.v5i3.871\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.51594/estj.v5i3.871\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAgrawal, R., Agrawal, S., Samadhiya, A., Luthra, K. A., S., \u0026amp; Jain, V. (2023). Adoption of Green Finance and Green Innovation for achieving circularity: An exploratory review and future directions. \u003cem\u003eGeoscience Frontiers\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2023.101669\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.gsf.2023.101669\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAl-Kfairy, M. (2025). Greening the Virtual: An Interdisciplinary Narrative Review on the Environmental Sustainability of the Metaverse Sustainability. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su17167269\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su17167269\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlmher, M., Thiruchelvam, S., Isa, A., \u0026amp; Tawfeeq, O. (2025). Blockchain-enabled carbon tracking in the oil industry: A simulation-based study supporting ESG integration. \u003cem\u003ePeriodicals of Engineering and Natural Sciences (PEN).\u003c/em\u003e \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.21533/pen.v13.i3.574\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.21533/pen.v13.i3.574\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlotaibi, E., Khallaf, A., Abdallah, A., Zoubi, T., \u0026amp; Alnesafi, A. (2024). Blockchain-driven carbon accountability in supply chains. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su162410872\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su162410872\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlzoubi, Y., \u0026amp; Mishra, A. (2023). Green blockchain: A move towards sustainability. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cleaner Production\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139541\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139541\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBabar, Z., \u0026amp; Wu, W. (2025). Advancing green finance through FinTech innovations: A conceptual insight into opportunities and challenges. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Excellence in Management Sciences\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.69565/jems.v4i1.404\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.69565/jems.v4i1.404\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaklaga, L. (2024). Synergizing AI and Blockchain: Innovations in decentralized carbon markets for emission reduction through intelligent carbon credit trading. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Computer Science and Technology Studies\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.32996/jcsts.2024.6.2.13\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.32996/jcsts.2024.6.2.13\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBoumaiza, A. (2024). Carbon and energy trading integration within a Blockchain-powered peer-to-peer framework. \u003cem\u003eEnergies\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/en17112473\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/en17112473\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBousema, T., Selvaraj, P., Djimde, A., Yakar, D., Hagedorn, B., Pratt, A., Barret, D., Whitfield, K., \u0026amp; Cohen, J. (2020). Reducing the carbon footprint of academic conferences: The example of the American society of tropical medicine and hygiene. \u003cem\u003eThe American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene\u003c/em\u003e, 103, 1758\u0026ndash;1761. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.20-1013\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4269/ajtmh.20-1013\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBui, B., Houqe, M., \u0026amp; Zaman, M. (2020). Climate governance effects on carbon disclosure and performance. \u003cem\u003eBritish Accounting Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e52\u003c/em\u003e, 100880. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2019.100880\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.bar.2019.100880\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCadet, E., Babatunde, L., Ajayi, J., Erigh, E., Obuse, E., Essien, I., \u0026amp; Ayanbode, N. (2024). Developing scalable compliance architectures for cross-industry regulatory alignment. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Scientific Research in Humanities and Social Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(2), 494\u0026ndash;524. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.32628/ijsrssh242556\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.32628/ijsrssh242556\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChai, S., Yuan, D., \u0026amp; Li, Q. (2025). Blockchain-enabled carbon emission trading data quality regulation: A tripartite evolutionary game analysis. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Environmental Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e388\u003c/em\u003e, 126069. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.126069\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.126069\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChuter, R., Brewster, F., \u0026amp; Tanderup, K. (2025). Estimating the carbon footprint of an international radiation oncology conference and modelling reduction strategies. \u003cem\u003eRadiotherapy and Oncology\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2025.110956\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.radonc.2025.110956\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCruz, A., Santos, F., Mendes, P., \u0026amp; Cruz, E. (2020). Blockchain-based traceability of carbon footprint: A solidity smart contract for Ethereum. 258\u0026ndash;268. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5220/0009412602580268\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5220/0009412602580268\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDe Giovanni, P. (2023). Sustainability of the Metaverse: A transition to Industry 5.0. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su15076079\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su15076079\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDowie, I. (2017). Legal, ethical and professional aspects of duty of care for nurses. \u003cem\u003eNursing Standard\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(16\u0026ndash;19), 47\u0026ndash;52. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.7748/ns.2017.e10959\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.7748/ns.2017.e10959\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEsposito, M., Halkias, D., Diaz, J., \u0026amp; Tse, T. (2025). Environmental and climate impacts of the Metaverse. \u003cem\u003eThunderbird International Business Review\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/tie.70025\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/tie.70025\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFalkner, R. (2016). The Paris Agreement and the new logic of international climate politics. \u003cem\u003eInternational Affairs\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e92\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1107\u0026ndash;1125. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12708\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/1468-2346.12708\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFornasari, T., \u0026amp; Traversi, M. (2024). The Impact of the CSRD and the ESRS on non-financial disclosure. \u003cem\u003eSymphonya Emerging Issues in Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e, 117\u0026ndash;133. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4468/2024.1.07fornasari.traversi\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4468/2024.1.07fornasari.traversi\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGarcia-Teruel, R., \u0026amp; Sim\u0026oacute;n-Moreno, H. (2021). The digital tokenization of property rights. A comparative perspective. \u003cem\u003eComput Law Secur Rev\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e41\u003c/em\u003e, 105543. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2021.105543\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.clsr.2021.105543\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGuo, Y., Qian, X., \u0026amp; Credit, K. (2025). \u0026amp;, J. Group reasoning emission estimation networks. ArXiv, abs/2502.06874. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2502.06874\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.48550/arxiv.2502.06874\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHern\u0026aacute;ndez, M., Sentosa, I., Gaudreault, F., Davison, I., \u0026amp; Sharin, F. (2023). The emergence of the Metaverse in the Digital Blockchain Economy: Applying The ESG framework for a sustainable future. 2023 3rd International Conference on Advance Computing and Innovative Technologies in Engineering (ICACITE), 1324\u0026ndash;1329. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1109/icacite57410.2023.10182839\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1109/icacite57410.2023.10182839\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHong, Z., \u0026amp; Xiao, K. (2024). Digital economy structuring for sustainable development: the role of blockchain and artificial intelligence in improving supply chain and reducing negative environmental impacts. \u003cem\u003eScientific Reports\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-53760-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/s41598-024-53760-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJ\u0026auml;ckle, S. (2019). WE have to change! The carbon footprint of ECPR general conferences and ways to reduce it. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Political Science\u003c/em\u003e, 18, 630\u0026ndash;650. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-019-00220-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1057/s41304-019-00220-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJerosha, K., Annapurna, J. K., Rani, T., Balassem, B., Z., Naik, P. Building a sustainable business model through the integration of Blockchain and, \u0026amp; Trends (2025). in Computing (ICMCTC), 1\u0026ndash;5. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1109/icmctc62214.2025.11196142\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1109/icmctc62214.2025.11196142\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJimenez-Castillo, L., Sarkis, J., Saberi, S., \u0026amp; Yao, T. (2023). Blockchain-based governance implications for ecologically sustainable supply chain management. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Enterprise Information Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e37\u003c/em\u003e, 76\u0026ndash;99. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/jeim-02-2022-0055\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/jeim-02-2022-0055\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKadry, H. (2022). Carbon footprint management using Blockchain. Day 2 Tue, November 01, 2022. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2118/210930-ms\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2118/210930-ms\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKarim, S., Naeem, M., Tiwari, A., \u0026amp; Ashraf, S. (2023). Examining the avenues of sustainability in resources and digital blockchains backed currencies: evidence from energy metals and cryptocurrencies. \u003cem\u003eAnnals of Operations Research\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;18. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-023-05365-8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10479-023-05365-8\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKaushal, R., Van De Kerkhof, J., Goanta, C., Spanakis, G., \u0026amp; Iamnitchi, A. (2024). Automated transparency: A legal and empirical analysis of the Digital Services Act Transparency Database. 10, 1121\u0026ndash;1132. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1145/3630106.3658960\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1145/3630106.3658960\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKim, S., \u0026amp; Huh, J. (2020). Blockchain of carbon trading for UN Sustainable Development Goals. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su12104021\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su12104021\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKirui, T., Cheptonui, F., Opetsi, G., Matheka, J., \u0026amp; Gbadrive, S. (2024). Blockchain and digital technologies for Supply Chain Carbon Transparency: A systematic review and future research directions. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Scientific Research and Modern Technology\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.38124/ijsrmt.v3i6.956\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.38124/ijsrmt.v3i6.956\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKitamura, Y., Karkour, S., Ichisugi, Y., \u0026amp; Itsubo, N. (2020). Carbon footprint evaluation of the business event sector in Japan. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su12125001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su12125001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKshetri, N., \u0026amp; Dwivedi, Y. (2023). Pollution-reducing and pollution-generating effects of the metaverse. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Information Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e69\u003c/em\u003e, 102620. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102620\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102620\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKuyper, J., Schroeder, H., \u0026amp; Linn\u0026eacute;r, B. O. (2018). The Evolution of the UNFCCC. \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Environment and Resources\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e43\u003c/em\u003e(1), 343\u0026ndash;368. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102017-030119\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1146/annurev-environ-102017-030119\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLanteri, A., Esposito, M., \u0026amp; Cappuccio, M. (2025). Maximizing the economic, environmental, and social impact of the Metaverse. \u003cem\u003eThunderbird International Business Review\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/tie.70027\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/tie.70027\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLarbi, S., Bello, A., Boakye, K., Assumang, D., Akubilla, J., \u0026amp; Mohammed, U. (2025). Quantifying environmental impact reductions through metaverse technologies in transportation: Metrics, Methodologies and Sustainability Outcomes. \u003cem\u003eMagna Scientia Advanced Research and Reviews\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.30574/msarr.2025.13.2.0041\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.30574/msarr.2025.13.2.0041\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLavayssi\u0026egrave;re, X. (2025). Legal structures of tokenised assets. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Risk Regulation\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1017/err.2024.88\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/err.2024.88\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLee, L. (2024). Examining the legal status of digital assets as property: A comparative analysis of jurisdictional approaches. ArXiv, abs/2406.15391. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4807135\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2139/ssrn.4807135\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi, W., Wang, L., \u0026amp; Li, Y. (2020). A blockchain-based emissions trading system for the road transport sector: policy design and evaluation. \u003cem\u003eClimate Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e, 337\u0026ndash;352. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1851641\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/14693062.2020.1851641\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu, F., Pei, Q., Chen, S., Yuan, Y., Wang, L., \u0026amp; Muhlhauser, M. (2023). When the Metaverse meets carbon neutrality: Ongoing efforts and directions. \u003cem\u003eArXiv\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2301.10235\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.48550/arxiv.2301.10235\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. abs/2301.10235.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiu, Z., Sun, T., Yu, Y., Ke, P., Deng, Z., Lu, C., Huo, D., \u0026amp; Ding, X. (2022). Real-time carbon emission accounting technology toward carbon neutrality. \u003cem\u003eEngineering\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2021.12.019\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.eng.2021.12.019\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMannheim, V., \u0026amp; Avat\u0026oacute;, J. (2025). Examining the carbon footprint of conferences with an emphasis on energy consumption and catering. \u003cem\u003eEnergies\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/en18020321\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/en18020321\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMuganyi, T., Yan, L., \u0026amp; Sun, H. (2021). Green finance, fintech and environmental protection: Evidence from China. \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Science and Ecotechnology\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ese.2021.100107\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.ese.2021.100107\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. 7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMulligan, C., Morsfield, S., \u0026amp; Cheikosman, E. (2023). Blockchain for sustainability: A systematic literature review for policy impact. \u003cem\u003eTelecommunications Policy\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2023.102676\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.telpol.2023.102676\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNleya, S., \u0026amp; Velempini, M. (2024). Industrial Metaverse: A Comprehensive Review, Environmental Impact, and Challenges. \u003cem\u003eApplied Sciences\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/app14135736\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/app14135736\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOjadi, J., Owulade, O., Odionu, C., \u0026amp; Onukwulu, E. (2025). Blockchain and IoT for Transparent Carbon Tracking and Emission Reduction in Global Supply Chains. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Scientific Research in Science\u003c/em\u003e, Engineering and Technology. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.32628/ijsrset25122110\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.32628/ijsrset25122110\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePatro, P., Jayaraman, R., Acquaye, A., Salah, K., \u0026amp; Musamih, A. (2025). Blockchain-based solution to enhance carbon footprint traceability, accounting, and offsetting in the passenger aviation industry. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Production Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e63\u003c/em\u003e, 8235\u0026ndash;8268. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2024.2441450\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/00207543.2024.2441450\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePellegrino, A., Wang, R., \u0026amp; Stasi, A. (2023). Exploring the intersection of sustainable consumption and the Metaverse: A review of current literature and future research directions. \u003cem\u003eHeliyon\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e19190\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e19190\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePeriyasamy, A., Singh, A., \u0026amp; Ravindra, K. (2022). Carbon emissions from virtual and physical modes of conference and prospects for carbon neutrality: An analysis from India. \u003cem\u003eAir, Soil and Water Research\u003c/em\u003e, 15. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/11786221221093298\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/11786221221093298\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePoulle, J. B., Kannan, A., Spitz, N., Kahn, S., \u0026amp; Sotiropoulou, A. (2024). Corporate sustainability reporting directive. \u003cem\u003eEdward Elgar\u003c/em\u003e, 648\u0026ndash;653. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4337/9781035301959.00096\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4337/9781035301959.00096\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePrastyanti, R. A., \u0026amp; Sharma, R. (2024). Establishing consumer trust through Data Protection Law as a competitive advantage in Indonesia and India. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Human Rights Culture and Legal System\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(2), 354\u0026ndash;390. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.53955/jhcls.v4i2.202\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.53955/jhcls.v4i2.202\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQian, X. (2024). Redefining International Law paradigms: Charting cybersecurity, trade, and investment trajectories within global legal boundaries. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of World Investment \u0026amp; Trade\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(3), 295\u0026ndash;333. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1163/22119000-12340327\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1163/22119000-12340327\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQuintais, J. P., De Gregorio, G., \u0026amp; Magalh\u0026atilde;es, J. C. (2023). How platforms govern users\u0026rsquo; copyright-protected content: Exploring the power of private ordering and its implications. \u003cem\u003eComputer Law \u0026amp; Security Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e48\u003c/em\u003e, 105792. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105792\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105792\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRani, P., Sharma, P., \u0026amp; Gupta, I. (2024). Toward a greener future: A survey on sustainable blockchain applications and impact. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Environmental Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e354\u003c/em\u003e, 120273. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120273\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120273\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRathnayake, B., Gunathilake, L., Edirisinghe, R., \u0026amp; Perera, S. (2025). EcoConstruct: a blockchain-based system for carbon trading in construction projects. \u003cem\u003eConstruction Innovation\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/ci-08-2024-0224\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/ci-08-2024-0224\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRietig, K. (2019). Leveraging the power of learning to overcome negotiation deadlocks in global climate governance and low carbon transitions. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Environmental Policy \u0026amp; Planning\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(3), 228\u0026ndash;241. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/1523908x.2019.1632698\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/1523908x.2019.1632698\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRodrigo, M., Perera, S., Senaratne, S., \u0026amp; Jin, X. (2020). Potential application of Blockchain technology for embodied carbon estimating in Construction supply chains. \u003cem\u003eBuildings\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10080140\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/buildings10080140\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSadawi, A., Madani, B., Saboor, S., Ndiaye, M., \u0026amp; Abu-Lebdeh, G. (2021). A comprehensive hierarchical blockchain system for carbon emission trading utilizing blockchain of things and smart contract. \u003cem\u003eTechnological Forecasting and Social Change\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121124\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121124\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchletz, M., Franke, L., \u0026amp; Salomo, S. (2020). Blockchain Application for the Paris Agreement Carbon Market Mechanism\u0026mdash;A decision framework and architecture. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su12125069\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su12125069\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSeidel, A., May, N., Guenther, E., \u0026amp; Ellinger, F. (2021). Scenario-based analysis of the carbon mitigation potential of 6G-enabled 3D videoconferencing in 2030. \u003cem\u003eTelematics and Informatics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e64\u003c/em\u003e, 101686. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2021.101686\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.tele.2021.101686\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStern, N., \u0026amp; Stiglitz, J. (2017). Report of the high-level commission on carbon prices. 1\u0026ndash;61. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.7916/d8-w2nc-4103\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.7916/d8-w2nc-4103\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStokkink, Q., \u0026amp; Pouwelse, J. (2023). A local-first approach for green smart contracts. \u003cem\u003eDistributed Ledger Technology: Research and Practise\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e, 13. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1145/3607196\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1145/3607196\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTao, Y., Steckel, D., Klemeš, J., \u0026amp; You, F. (2021). Trend towards virtual and hybrid conferences may be an effective climate change mitigation strategy. \u003cem\u003eNature Communications\u003c/em\u003e, 12. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27251-2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/s41467-021-27251-2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTraub, J., Morillas, C., Gil, R., \u0026Aacute;lvarez, S., \u0026amp; Mart\u0026iacute;nez, S. (2025). Evaluating corporate carbon emissions reporting: assessing transparency and completeness with the Carbon Integrity Index. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su17177628\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su17177628\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTruby, J., Brown, R., Dahdal, A., \u0026amp; Ibrahim, I. (2022). Blockchain, climate damage, and death: Policy interventions to reduce the carbon emissions, mortality, and net-zero implications of non-fungible tokens and Bitcoin. \u003cem\u003eEnergy Research \u0026amp; Social Science\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102499\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.erss.2022.102499\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTurillazzi, A., Taddeo, M., Floridi, L., \u0026amp; Casolari, F. (2023). The digital services act: an analysis of its ethical, legal, and social implications. \u003cem\u003eLaw Innovation and Technology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(1), 83\u0026ndash;106. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2023.2184136\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/17579961.2023.2184136\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVan Thienen, P., Tsiami, L., Torello, M., \u0026amp; Savić, D. (2024). The potential of virtual reality meetings in international research projects for greenhouse gas emission mitigation. \u003cem\u003eTechnological Sustainability\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/techs-05-2024-0051\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/techs-05-2024-0051\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVilkov, A., \u0026amp; Tian, G. (2023). Blockchain\u0026rsquo;s scope and purpose in carbon markets: A systematic literature review. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su15118495\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su15118495\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eViola, R., Irazola, M., Ju'arez, J., Nguyen, M., Zoubarev, A., Futasz, A., Bassbouss, L., Abdelnabi, A., \u0026amp; Hidalgo, J. (2025). Energy consumption assessment of a Virtual Reality Remote Rendering application over 5G networks. ArXiv, abs/2510.25357. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2510.25357\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.48550/arxiv.2510.25357\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVladucu, M., Wu, H., Medina, J., Salehin, K., Dong, Z., \u0026amp; Rojas-Cessa, R. (2024). Blockchain on sustainable environmental measures: A review. \u003cem\u003eBlockchains\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/blockchains2030016\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/blockchains2030016\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang, R., Wang, J., Hao, Y., Hu, L., Alqahtani, S., \u0026amp; Chen, M. (2023). C3Meta: A context-aware cloud-edge-end collaboration framework toward green Metaverse. \u003cem\u003eIEEE Wireless Communications\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e, 144\u0026ndash;150. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1109/mwc.013.2300082\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1109/mwc.013.2300082\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang, Y., Feng, L., Wang, L., \u0026amp; Yu, W. (2025). A blockchain model connecting electricity market and carbon trading market. \u003cem\u003eAlexandria Engineering Journal\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2025.01.108\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.aej.2025.01.108\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang, Y., Yang, Y., Fu, C., Fan, Z., \u0026amp; Zhou, X. (2021). Environmental regulation, environmental responsibility, and green technology innovation: Empirical research from China. \u003cem\u003ePloS One\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(9), e0257670. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257670\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1371/journal.pone.0257670\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWatini, S., Davies, G., \u0026amp; Andersen, N. (2024). Cybersecurity in learning systems: Data protection and privacy in educational information systems and digital learning environments. \u003cem\u003eInternational Transactions on Education Technology (ITEE)\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(1), 26\u0026ndash;35. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.33050/itee.v3i1.665\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.33050/itee.v3i1.665\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWu, J., Yan, Y., Wang, S., \u0026amp; Zhen, L. (2025). Optimizing Blockchain-enabled sustainable supply chains. \u003cem\u003eIEEE Transactions on Engineering Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e72\u003c/em\u003e, 426\u0026ndash;445. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1109/tem.2024.3525105\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1109/tem.2024.3525105\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYang, Z., Li, X., Zhu, Y., \u0026amp; Li, X. (2025). Blockchain-driven innovations of carbon emission management in cement supply chain: Evidence from China. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Environmental Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e392\u003c/em\u003e, 126795. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.126795\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.126795\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYang, Z., Zhu, C., Zhu, Y., \u0026amp; Li, X. (2023). Blockchain technology in building environmental sustainability: A systematic literature review and future perspectives. \u003cem\u003eBuilding and Environment\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.110970\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.110970\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZanella, M., Ashraf, N., \u0026amp; Mahmood, Z. (2025). Carbon accounting for sustainability management: case study of MICE events. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Accounting \u0026amp; Organizational Change\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/jaoc-08-2024-0259\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/jaoc-08-2024-0259\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang, X. (2025). Design and implementation of energy efficiency audit, carbon footprint tracking and sustainable development path planning system for green economy enterprises based on blockchain technology. \u003cem\u003e2025 3rd Cognitive Models and Artificial Intelligence Conference (AICCONF)\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;5. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1109/aicconf64766.2025.11064234\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1109/aicconf64766.2025.11064234\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhao, N., \u0026amp; You, F. (2023). Growing Metaverse Sector Can Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 10 Gt CO\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003ee in the United States by 2050. \u003cem\u003eEnergy \u0026amp; Environmental Science\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1039/d3ee00081h\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1039/d3ee00081h\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhou, C., Chen, H., Wang, S., Sun, X., Saddik, A., \u0026amp; Cai, W. (2023). Harnessing Web3 on Carbon Offset Market for Sustainability: Framework and A Case Study. \u003cem\u003eIEEE Wireless Communications\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e, 104\u0026ndash;111. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1109/mwc.010.2300082\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1109/mwc.010.2300082\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZubaedah, P. A., Harliyanto, R., Situmeang, S. M. T., Siagian, D. S., \u0026amp; Septaria, E. (2024). Cybersecurity Regulations, and AI Ethics in a Digital Society. \u003cem\u003eThe Journal of Academic Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e(2). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.59613/29qypw51\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.59613/29qypw51\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. The Legal Implications of Data Privacy Laws,.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":false,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"metaverse, blockchain, carbon management, smart contracts, ecological sustainability","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9206807/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9206807/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThe rapid evolution of the metaverse -a digital frontier characterized by the convergence of blockchain technology, artificial intelligence (AI) and extended reality (XR)- presents a profound normative dilemma regarding its ecological legitimacy. While virtualization offers significant opportunities to decouple economic growth from physical resource consumption, the intensive energy demands of decentralized infrastructures and high-bandwidth data processing pose systemic environmental risks. This study addresses the \u0026ldquo;accountability gap\u0026rdquo; inherent in decentralized ecosystems, where the fragmented identity of the polluter complicates the enforcement of the \u0026ldquo;polluter pays\u0026rdquo; principle and the state's constitutional obligation to protect the environment. To mitigate these challenges, this study proposes an original net emission balance model (E_{net}\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e) as a conceptual and regulatory tool to quantify the net climate impact of metaverse operations. The framework integrates blockchain-based \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003egreen oracles\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; and smart contracts to facilitate real-time, tamper-proof carbon tracking and automated offsetting. By synthesizing contemporary research and life cycle assessments (LCAs), this study evaluates the transition from energy-intensive proof-of-work (PoW) protocols to sustainable alternatives, such as proof-of-stake (PoS). Central to these policy solutions is the legal recognition of tokenized carbon credits as \u0026ldquo;digital assets\u0026rdquo; subject to property law, ensuring that environmental compliance is harmonized with digital tenure security. Furthermore, this study advocates for a shift toward \u0026ldquo;hard law\u0026rdquo; requirements through mandatory emission licensing, targeted fiscal instruments, such as deterrent taxes on energy-intensive PoW protocols and legally guaranteed cross-platform interoperability to prevent digital lock-in and regulatory arbitrage.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Ecological Sustainability in Metaverse: A Blockchain-Based Carbon Management and Regulatory Proposals for Policy Makers","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-03-25 05:31:18","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9206807/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"12242b59-00dc-4f3d-a7c7-acff93cea730","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 25th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-02T17:54:15+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-03-25 05:31:18","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9206807","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9206807","identity":"rs-9206807","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}