Microsoft’s faltering commitment to decarbonization goals prompts criticism in open letter signed by over 50 organizations

SAN FRANCISCO (Chochenyo and Karkin Ohlone Lands) — In response to recent news that Microsoft is in talks about abandoning its leading clean energy commitment, more than 50 organizations across North America and around the globe co-signed a letter published today denouncing the company’s backsliding and calling on it to hold the commitment, including Stand.earth; Sierra Club; Greenpeace USA; Public Citizen; Friends of the Earth U.S.; Hip Hop Caucus; and Amazon Employees for Climate Justice. 

Questions about the credibility of the company’s sustainability commitments have grown pervasive on the heels of several recently announced methane gas-powered AI projects that contradict the hyperscaler’s previously touted climate leadership goals. The open letter and co-signer list can be found here.

“It was already clear that Microsoft has been veering off course on its climate leadership, but if it abandons the north star of its renewable energy commitments, it will never find its way back. Microsoft wants to have its cake and eat it too, literally building gas power plants to run its city-sized data centers, while still claiming to be 100% renewable Abandoning around-the-clock clean energy will mean a massive boost for fossil fuels in communities where Microsoft wants its data centers built quickly, and at all costs. If the company wants any community to trust it with their health and energy security, they need to recommit to clean energy,” said Stand.earth Senior Corporate Climate Campaigner Rachel Kitchin.

Microsoft’s commitment has been known as “100/100/0 by 2030” – short for 100% of its energy, 100% of the time, matched with zero-carbon energy. Also known as “24/7” or “around-the-clock” clean energy, the pledge was among the strongest corporate clean energy targets in the world, promising local and additional energy to displace fossil fuels and effectively eliminate pollution. Microsoft maintains that it has a commitment to “100% matched” clean energy – which is insufficient and potentially misleading as a climate strategy – allowing the company to burn harmful fossil fuels in communities while claiming to be carbon-free. This disclosure is seemingly inconsistent with what company President Brad Smith told the Associated Press in March, regarding his confidence that Microsoft was on track to meet its 2030 goal to remove more carbon from the atmosphere than it is responsible for via nuclear, solar, and hydropower investments.

“Microsoft weighed their potential profits against a livable climate, human health, and a cleaner future, and decided to throw everyday Americans under the bus. There’s a pathway where we can  advance technology without tossing out decades of hard-won climate and community health progress. Whether it’s powering their newest generation data center in Wisconsin with methane gas, using diesel to run Wyoming data centers, or becoming the anchor tenant at a toxic West Virginia gas site, Microsoft can – and must – do a lot better,” said Sierra Club Principal Advisor for Climate and Energy Jeremy Fisher.

The news of Microsoft’s climate backtracking is consistent with its three recently announced methane-powered AI data center projects, which are anticipated to increase the company’s data center carbon footprint by 160%, according to analyses developed by Stand.earth Research Group (SRG). With a combined capacity of 4.75 gigawatts (GW), these projects are capable of generating enough electricity to power nearly 4 million U.S. homes, while potentially emitting 15.52 million metric tons of million metric tons of CO₂e annually.

“I’m extremely disturbed that Microsoft is choosing data centers over its climate commitments. In 2019, I walked out of my job at Amazon to push for tech companies to make these much-needed climate plans, and in the seven years since, I’ve only seen the climate crisis hit home, with wildfire smoke following me to every city I’ve lived in. Tech workers don’t want unlimited growth of artificial intelligence, we want our future back from the tech leaders who are sacrificing our climate for this data center buildout.” – Former Software Engineer at Amazon and Member of Amazon Employees for Climate Justice Sarah Tracy.

Microsoft will be the sole client of a major new methane gas-powered plant project near Pecos, Texas announced last month as an exclusive partnership with oil giant Chevron and investment group Engine No. 1 that is projected to deliver 2.5GW – with the potential to grow up to 5GW – to the company’s planned data center. Meanwhile, another major off-grid data center facility leased by Microsoft was also announced in April in Abilene, Texas, adding 900 megawatts (MW) of capacity. A review of air permit applications for the facility revealed plans for methane-gas powered turbines for the site. These are in addition to the company’s share of a new Mason County, W.V.-based facility announced in March that will draw 1.35GW of methane-derived power, which alone would increase Microsoft’s data center pollution by 44%. These fossil fuel-powered data center proposals have drawn the protest of local communities, including in Person County, North Carolina, where the company is planning a 1,350-acre mega-site.

“Microsoft is planning a data center, powered by methane, in a community that already has groundwater contamination from coal ash. Last year, Roxboro, North Carolina, saw major damage to drinking water infrastructure due to a climate-fueled storm. Now, the entire county is in an extreme drought. Microsoft made promises that they would be responsible with water. Why should the community believe them?” said Clean Water for North Carolina Assistant Director Steph Gans.

The behind-the-meter methane gas buildout also comes with its own set of negative externalities including serious consequences for people living nearby. A Virginia Commonwealth University study published in March found that on-site power derived from methane gas and diesel generators for a single data center in Virginia could lead to $53-99 million in health-related costs.Communities living near fossil fuel power – off-grid or otherwise – face increased risk of cancers, heart disease, stroke, respiratory illnesses, and other adverse health outcomes. A 2021 Harvard University study found that 1 in 5 deaths globally can be linked to air pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels, reinforcing the industry’s responsibility for rapid climate action.###

Media contact: Shane Reese, Corporate Campaigns Media Director, Stand.earth, shane.reese@stand.earth, +1 919 339 3785 (U.S. Eastern Time)