A few years ago, my company moved its client-facing web applications from a small local host (we were one of four tenants) to a cloud service operated by one of the Big Three. My management is now asking whether we can argue that this contributes to our carbon-reduction goals.
I’m doing some reading online, and … it turns out this is not a simple question to answer.
A giant data center is obviously a massive consumer of electricity — not just the servers themselves, but especially the racks and cooling systems that keep the servers from melting down. Overall, data center power usage seems to be commonly estimated at up to three percent of the global total. Individually, compared to an average house, a data center is estimated to consume anything from ten to fifty times more power on a square-meter basis. However, conceptually, it stands to reason that at least some of the expansion in this space is balanced by the elimination of the old-fashioned self-hosted corporate facility — it is called a migration, after all — so there has to be some degree of reduction incorporated into the net picture.
It also makes sense, conceptually, that a few large facilities could be more efficient consumers of electricity compared to multiple small or independent data centers. In addition to centralized generation and delivery, there’s also the notion that these large facilities could use their market leverage to demand more sustainable energy sourcing, thereby putting pressure on providers to modernize their grids.
In principle, these are sound arguments. The hard part is finding reliable evidence to support them.
There are a lot of corporate blog posts in the technology space asserting that migrating from a dedicated facility to a cloud provider is an unqualified net positive in terms of energy consumption, relying on the angles above. I’m disinclined to trust them, however. Not only are these articles inherently self-serving from a business standpoint, they use squishy, noncommittal language that sounds good but doesn’t actually say anything if you read carefully. For example, in describing how cloud centers can use more sustainable sources of power, they consistently say this is an “opportunity” with the “potential” to effect this change. None that I’ve found is willing to say that any of this has actually happened to any meaningful degree. Example. Example. Example.
Consultants catering to the corporate market are similarly vague. This page enthusiastically argues for the environmental benefits of the cloud revolution, but their position is couched evasively: “For the subset of initiatives in which the cloud can play a significant role, we calculate that each use of the cloud to power key technologies can reduce the cost of implementing a decarbonization initiative by 2 to 10 percent. On aggregate, we estimate that the total benefit of using the cloud to accelerate decarbonization could be up to 1.5 GtCO2e per year by 2050.” See that? “Can be.” “Could be up to.” Nothing about what has actually been achieved. (And of course, this is McKinsey, reigning royalty in the domain of weaselly hand-waving.)
There are, of course, contrary arguments. This page goes into great detail on the topic, noting that most of Google’s claims for progressing toward carbon neutrality are actually achieved by the purchase of carbon credits, a practice which is fraught at best. The page also includes this chart, which seems to show that while the old-fashioned data centers are indeed dying out (consistent with the “pro” arguments above), cloud centers are expanding at a faster rate, and the real picture of electricity usage is an overall increase.
However, while the source is named, there’s no link, and there’s no detailed information reproduced in the text about the methodology behind the chart. So although the graphical argument is clear, I’m hesitant to take it at face value.
The same article also spends a lot of time analyzing the differences in approach between Microsoft, Google, and Amazon, suggesting that Google’s claimed benefits are at least partially illusory (per the above) while Microsoft has made a more meaningful commitment to clean and sustainable energy sourcing in its data center network. But then it gets into some pretty tangled weeds, and it’s hard to parse a clear conclusion. This is another consulting firm, focused on selling their expertise in energy efficiency, so it’s unsurprising they wouldn’t give away the goods; they want to hook your interest (“uh oh, we’re not doing enough!”) so you’ll be willing to retain their services.
Finally, it feels to me like the available discussion, incomplete and unreliable as it is, is already obsolete, because none of it accounts for the explosion in interest in the new so-called “AI” technologies. The processing hardware required for the emerging language-modeling systems is much more energy-intensive than the previous generation of cloud computing, so instinctively I suspect that whatever gains might arguably have been achieved per the preceding paragraphs are rapidly being wiped out. But this is just my gut feeling.
So. What’s the real picture here? I’d like to keep this in FQ if possible, because I’m seeking concrete information and hard citations to the extent these are available. Can I give my management a happy reply in good conscience? Or should I just send them the McKinsey article and then hide under my desk in guilt?