Month: May 2024

Interest in sustainable IT is growing. The British Computer Society (BCS) has just published, on 20 May, in their magazine ITNOW for computer professionals, an article by JAAG’s Andrew Nind and Siani Pearson (https://doi.org/10.1093/itnow/bwae059) – in which they explain how the assessment of digital technologies from a climate perspective can be misleading, and why the use of smaller systems should be considered.

Carbon footprints tend to be calculated on an operational basis, without quantification of the embedded carbon. Furthermore – and rarely assessed numerically – the way in which energy-related emissions are accounted for tends to significantly understate the operational emissions that are physically caused by the sector. A more holistic assessment of the climate impact of ICT, combined with greater accountability for its emissions, could potentially lead to different courses of action: for instance, a greater focus on low energy models and data streamlining and less of a focus on location for new developments.

Related articles:

• Saving the Planet – Microsoft and Brookfield (blog – May 2024)

• JAAG Explainer – Greenwashing

Earlier this month, Microsoft and Brookfield Renewables agreed the “largest ever corporate renewable energy deal”, as described by both companies: a 5-year power purchase agreement (PPA) that will support the construction of 10.5 GW of new clean energy in the US and Europe. This deal is a key component in Microsoft’s “100/100/0” clean energy goal: having 100% of its electricity consumption, 100% of the time, matched by clean energy supplies, by the year 2030.

However, let us ask the following questions:

1. What price is Microsoft paying for its electricity under this deal – and how does this price compare with the current forward price in the relevant wholesale market? (“Relevant” because this question may be asked separately in each jurisdiction.)

2. If Microsoft is getting a good price (or set of good prices, one in each relevant market), does that not mean that the new renewable energy is competitive – and hence would probably be developed anyway?

3. What government-backed support mechanisms are available to the new projects in the deal (e.g. support under the Inflation Reduction Act in the US, Contracts for Difference in the UK and Ireland, Germany’s renewable energy levy, etc.)? Apart from financial support, there may be support in terms of planning permission, relevant permits, etc. Can Microsoft produce a table ranking the countries involved in terms of the level of government subsidy paid to Microsoft?

4. If public support for the new projects is available, would it not be reasonable to attribute some of the reduction in emissions (vis-à-vis normal grid supplies) to the general public rather than all of it to the offtaker – in this case Microsoft?

5. What is the increase in electricity consumption by Microsoft associated with this deal?

6. What would be the measured increase in carbon emissions, associated with this electricity consumption, if only a fraction of the new clean energy is attributed to Microsoft and the remainder is socialised, pursuant to Q4? Or if none of it is attributed to Microsoft, pursuant to Q2?

7. How might the answers to questions 5 and 6 affect the measurement of progress towards Microsoft’s 100/100/0 goal?

8. What emissions are associated with the new infrastructure and hardware (e.g. data centres, cables, hardware) that Microsoft may construct in relation to the power supplies in this new deal?

9. If these embodied emissions are also taken into account, how does the measurement of progress compare with the 100/100/0 goal?

10. What efforts are being made to reduce Microsoft’s demand for electricity? Can these efforts be quantified – including, specifically, efforts to make Microsoft’s AI algorithms as efficient as possible so that they are using the least amount of server energy?

Perhaps Microsoft (or Brookfield) has good answers to these questions. If so, we should hear them.

So soon after receiving Royal Assent on 26 Oct 2023 it is worth asking if the Online Safety Act (OSA) has run out of steam and so effectively gone offline.

On BBC TV on 5 May 2024 the parents of children lost to suicide induced by online material challenged Ofcom that they had been sidelined in over-complex and over-sized consultations on Illegal Harms.

It will be a year before the OSA Codes of Practice are published and the Statutory Effect comes into play. It must feel to some as if the Online Safety Act is still offline.

The Online Realm which operates on the Internet, is like a large algorithmic machine, an industrial revolution in its own right. Like all machines made by human hand, it does a great deal of good and, sadly, a great deal of harm. At the moment it seems like the harm is greater than the good, and some of the public are not happy about government responses. Public discontent is currently aimed at many situations besides online safety.

The infected Blood Scandal 40 years after issues were notified to authorities is resulting in £210,000 payouts with more to come; which won’t help the 3000 who died. Then there is the Post Office Horizon Scandal with issues starting 35 years ago and despite many lives destroyed or lost, financial payouts are yet to be awarded by government.

How similar these backgrounds are – a small issue that if attended to could have prevented a significant safety failing. Instead, those with the knowledge and power spent decades of time and effort in preventing the bad outcome being found and worked on. Which raises the question: will online safety be the next disaster in 10 years time where it is found that something that could have been done now, wasn’t, AND that instead of using public funds to make things work, our money was used against us to ensure that the bad things that had happened, were prevented from proper scrutiny and allowed to get worse?

The original Industrial Revolution started in Great Britain in 1731 was also a source of good which had bad outcomes. It took until 1974 for significant safety law to be created (Health & Safety At Work etc Act 1974) but only after the Aberfan coal disaster killed 116 children and 28 adults. Even now after 50 years of this law, safety in the workplace is far from guaranteed, with some playing Russian Roulette with people’s lives.

The Tech Companies are the modern day equivalent of 1731, overseeing the Information Factories of the world. The only difference is that most of us are inside those factories not outside, often unwittingly within a whisker of being mangled in those algorithmic machines.

Regulators like Ofcom have always had a tough time, on behalf of the public, to obtain some order and protection from things going wrong. Up until now it was accepted that regulators would have to play catch-up with issues. The modern regulator of the online realm does not have that luxury of time because the level of harm generation already far exceeds what was thought possible. Traditional approaches to safety involve an attempt to stifle the production of failure. This has not worked. Safety in the online realm demands a new strategy: a strategy designed to amplify the potential good, such that the potential for harm is stifled by the success of the good.

As Ofcom have said: tech companies have had the opportunity to self-regulate, and the lack of good outcomes means that the online realm needs to be regulated. However, regulation in the traditional way has always provided the opportunity for profit to be put above safety. The online realm is a multi-billion dollar industry which means plenty of money is available to fend off perceived challenges to profit by safety concerns. The message that has not yet struck home in any industry is that Profit and Safety CAN co-exist if we find ways to make that happen.

As the Online Harm Genie is out of the bottle and gone offline, we need a regulator with this never-seen-before way of thinking about safety; for all our sakes. Else the algorithmic machines will chew us all up and there will be nothing left of us. There is no need for this tragic outcome. All of us need to help our online safety regulators create green and pleasant online realms for us.