Transparency

Researchers need to be more careful about the inputs into their models. Overestimates undermine the goal of reducing the environmental impact of IT.

The GHG Protocol needs to evolve to better represent the complexity of how energy markets work.

There is a correlation between the training time and energy consumption, but that doesn’t mean there is a correlation between training time and carbon emissions.

Customers should now be asking their suppliers for the carbon footprint of the software services they buy.

An example of poor quality research with flawed assumptions designed as click-bait to get news coverage timed to land during COP26. Deleting a few photos will have zero impact on your carbon footprint.

There are currently only two credible estimates for global data center energy consumption: 196 TWh to 400 TWh for 2020. Why do we see vastly higher reports?

It is currently impossible to properly compare how sustainable one product is vs another. Pictures of wind farms look nice, but how do you choose which cloud region to deploy (or move) your resources if there is no way to compare them?

More rigorous transparency regulations for negative externalities to force companies to measure, and reduce.

Public cloud price wars have ended, and a new battle over who is the greenest has begun.

Why can’t environmental impact be like the price mechanism in a properly competitive market?