They both went to this job interview to hone their skills, and got a dream job at Microsoft! In its fast-growing and AI-pioneered Azure division. With a romance on top of it…

Yet several years later, they decided to both resign. Why? On sustainability ground, and more specifically for the lack of support on “enabled emissions” issues. 

Holly and Will Alpine are now the Bonnie & Clyde of Azure and give us insider perspectives, in a nuanced and well-documented way, on this “elephant in the room” about sustainability claims in all big tech companies.

In the final part of this 2-part episode, great insights were shared on :

   🤯 What is enabled carbon and why it offsets by far all Microsoft achievements 

   😈 Devil is in the details from tailored solutions to “carbon-neutral” oil company not following standard definitions of “net-zero”

   ✨ Can responsible AI principles really not mention anything about the environment? 

   ⚖️ Why regulation will ultimately be needed

   ♀️✊ And … the Pussy Riot!

❤️ Subscribe, follow, like, ... stay connected the way you want to never miss an episode, twice a month, on Tuesday!

📧 Once a month, you get carefully curated news on digital sustainability packed with exclusive Green IO contents, subscribe to the Green IO newsletter here. 

📣 Green IO next Conference is in Paris on December 3rd, 4th and 5th (use the voucher GREENIOVIP to get a free ticket) 

📧 You can also send us an email at [email protected] to share your feedback and suggest future guests or topics.   

Gaël Duez (00:00)
Got it. So if I understand, if I can wrap up the first part of this podcast episode, you joined Microsoft because you believed in the brands. Both of you, you were part of a super strong grassroots movement who achieved significant results when it comes to sustainability across all countries

where Microsoft is operating. You listed some significant achievement, whether it's your local community program, Holly, deploying SCI, not necessarily at scale, but at least testing it in a very serious production environment for you will. So it was pretty good time. Am I correct to say so?

Holly Alpine (00:40)
Yeah.

Will (00:40)
I'd say it's been one of the best times of my career thus far, and especially seeing the impact that we've both made at such a scale has been truly rewarding. I'm grateful for the experience.

Gaël Duez (00:50)
Okay, so thanks a lot for sharing it.
But now I think it's time to ask the $1 million question, At some point, both of you, you decided to leave and you didn't do it that quietly. So could you tell us a bit the story here? And I recall the basis for your decision of Microsoft on cloud and AI. Could you explain us a bit well what you wanted to say with this very strong word.

Will (01:24)
Let's start with the science. The world needs to reduce emissions by 50 % by 2030 to meet the Paris Agreement targets. And the IEA, a industry friendly group, has stated in its net zero by 2050 report that no new oil and gas natural fields are required beyond those that are already approved for development. So when the science is telling us that we don't need more oil and gas,

We at the same time have technology companies providing advanced technology such as AI, IoT and high-performance computing to oil and gas companies to help them dramatically increase and expand their fossil fuel production. It raises the question, is AI truly a climate tool or is a weapon? Now AI is often hailed as an essential tool to address climate change, but the reality is that it's actually being weaponized by the fossil fuel industry.

And this advanced digital technology is seen as a quote, game changer in optimizing oil and gas exploration, drilling and production, which drives untold emissions and hinders an equitable energy transition. so Microsoft really exemplifies the cognitive dissonance that we're facing here. is promoting AI's potential to expedite decarbonization while simultaneously aggressively marketing its AI solutions and custom technology.

to these fossil fuel giants. And in essence, it's fueling the single biggest industry to the climate crisis. And so the issue that we're actually talking about here is we define as enabled emissions. These enabled emissions are defined as emissions that would have not been possible without the use of advanced technology. And specifically, these enabled emissions are facilitating new oil and gas production and enabling continued fossil fuel expansion.

despite the fact that the science is saying that we don't need to do so.

Gaël Duez (03:20)
enabled emissions is a core concept here to understand what push you away from Microsoft. this enabled emission concept was something framed internally at Microsoft or was it something more brought by the scientific community?

Will (03:38)
I don't think we are the first to have coined the term enabled emissions. I believe it's actually an industry term, but it's something that we within Microsoft formalized. Sometimes it's called serviced emissions and there's actually a broad movement around that. And that's specifically in the professional services provider industry. But enabled emissions could better be called technology enabled emissions, which is the specific flavor that we are most familiar with and we're advocating for change around.

Gaël Duez (04:07)
enabled emissions. Holly, how was it tackled from this huge sustainability community that has been gathered as you described previously as a grassroots movement? Was it something that was discussed?

Holly Alpine (04:22)
This topic was discussed within the employee community at Microsoft. I would say most employees though were unaware of the extent that Microsoft was supporting increased fossil fuel production. A lot of employees like us work and love Microsoft because of its sustainability commitments and it was really quite

disappointing and devastating to a lot of employees to see so just how deeply Microsoft was embedded with these fossil fuel companies and reading the explicit goals around expanding production with Exxon or generating new exploration opportunities with Chevron or accelerating extracted and refined hydrocarbons with BP. We use the word hypocrisy because

those statements and those very explicit goals are so starkly at odds with Microsoft's extremely outspoken stance on the ethics of technology and sustainability and other quotes from senior leadership around Microsoft's role in climate change and committing to helping the societal conditions to cultivate a net zero economy.

enabling a just transition, mean, extremely strong quotes and stance around pursuing Microsoft's mission and the enormous responsibility to ensure the technology that they build benefits everyone on the planet, including the planet itself. So we did speak internally about this topic and employees were

pretty distraught and I mean a lot of what we heard from employees it was around how the work is hypocritical that Microsoft needs their relationship with customers to focus on renewables and tech innovation and delivering safe and reliable and clean energy. And they hated the idea that as hard as they work as a company to drive sustainability goals, one big Azure contract with an oil and gas company could put

any progress in jeopardy by actually increasing global emissions. And I'm paraphrasing here from the quotes from a survey that we sent out to the employee community to ask about their opinions on enabled emissions.

Gaël Duez (07:00)
And that's a very important point that you've raised and thanks for the clarification. And I really want to make sure I understood it right. Because when I read the stories first reported in newspapers about you quitting and being some sort of whistleblowers on it, my question was, is it an ethical dilemma or a scientific dilemma? by that, mean, was it a question of Microsoft supporting companies

that it shouldn't support and claiming kind of the opposite like we're here to bring technology to save the world, blah, blah. So it's bad from an ethical perspective. Or is it also a scientific issue, meaning that the numbers are really worrisome? And by that, mean that by helping fossil fuels expand their production,

Holly Alpine (07:36)
Mm-hmm.

Gaël Duez (07:52)
It is actually offsetting in the wrong sense any other progress that Microsoft are doing. So how much thousands of millions of tons are we talking from one side and from the other?

Holly Alpine (08:01)
Yeah, yeah, so it's both. But we can tell you that back in 2019, Microsoft published a press release around a deal with Exxon to expand production by 50,000 barrels per day by 2025. And we did the carbon math and had it checked by carbon experts.

and the annual metric tons of CO2 increase from this one deal was about six and a half million metric tons per year. That is 640 % of Microsoft's annual carbon removal pledge of 2020 from one deal. There was another contract that we've seen with Chevron and that works stream increased production. So this is what we're saying enabled emissions.

emissions that would otherwise not occur if not for Microsoft technology was increasing their production

barrels per day. That gives you about 51 million metric tons of CO2 per year. That is 2000 % of Microsoft's 2021 carbon removal, about 300%.

of Microsoft's entire carbon footprint for FY23.

Gaël Duez (09:26)
Okay, got it. it's a serious ethical

massive climate science issue that has been raised. We're talking about numbers completely offsetting any pledges, any offsetting programs, any progress made by Microsoft worldwide.

Am I getting this right? Because that's a very important piece of your case against Microsoft, if I got it right.

Holly Alpine (09:52)
That's correct. And one of the things that we would like to do going forward is come up with some estimates for what that total is worldwide. We would like to put the numbers into context on a global scale. And that's one of the things that we need to do, because we know that it's a lot from just these two deals. And so we want to show what it could be.

globally with all of the deals and have some sort of estimates for that.

Will (10:23)
specifically the impacts that it could have on net zero pathways. I do want to add that from what we've seen today based on case studies, oil and gas companies are using advanced digital technologies to increase their yield by up to 15%. And so imagine increasing the world's fossil fuel production by 15 % using this advanced technology provided by big tech.

Imagine what impact that really has on the net zero projections. From what we've seen, it has not been factored into any of the discussion, let alone the modeling. And that is terrifying. I think this will break our chances of a habitable.

Gaël Duez (11:04)
So that's truly terrifying. And yet I'd like, if you indulge me to do so, to play a bit the devil's advocate here, because I've met countless of people still working at Microsoft, working at Amazon, working at Google, and they're facing all the time this kind of dilemma. my first question would be, yes, but what about the use of technology and especially machine learning AI, if you indulge me there?

broad word, to reduce the emissions from the fossil fuel industry. And I'm especially thinking about methane. Was it included this potential savings or even complete disappearance of methane emissions, thanks to AI in the estimate, the mass, you say, the Holy, that were done by a scientist when you estimated

carbon emissions, mean the greenhouse gases emissions to be a bit more precise from this increase in production from Chevron and BP.

Will (12:03)
To be clear, we'd never completed the math. That's something that we were advocating is done. And one that includes the net impacts of both. I will say that the Atlantic published an article which compared the emissions reductions from using advanced technology on, I think it was Shell's operations and compared it to Shell's overall carbon footprint. And it was, I think I quote, paltry in comparison. It's a fraction of a percent.

Gaël Duez (12:29)
Okay.

got it. My second question is, okay, but what should Microsoft do regarding the current economic environment, way of doing business, et cetera?

should be according to your past experience, the right attitude from Microsoft toward the fossil fuel industry. Because I guess many C-level might say, hey, if we don't get these deals, others will do it, maybe even less cleaner than we are. And we cannot really afford losing these clients. I could list a lot of pushback stances, I would say. According to you,

what is true, what is false, what is debatable here.

Will (13:13)
You know, you actually you raise a great point and I want to mention to start. This is not just Microsoft. This is an industry wide issue. The initial reasoning was we you know Microsoft needs a seat at the table to have these discussions, but change doesn't happen at scale. If you just go by one technology provider at the time, this has to be regulated mandated. The campaign only focuses on Microsoft because Microsoft has up to 65 % share of the market, but.

corporations like Google have publicly committed to not provide custom technology to the upstream oil and gas industry. That is a gold standard and it's something that Microsoft seems to be unwilling to do. But there are things that Microsoft could do. For example, align its responsible AI principles to include environmental harms. It's not a big leap to make the jump between harms to the planet and harms to people.

things like impact assessments could be done. This could really readily be operationalized in a way that is good for business and good for the planet.

Holly Alpine (14:15)
I can add on to that too. So just to elaborate on that a bit. So Microsoft has responsibly AI standards that evaluate their impacts of their technology and avoid human harms. They just currently do not include environment. And so just rolling that up into that just to add a little bit to what Will was saying. But another thing that Microsoft can do is Microsoft has published

energy principles for how they'll work with the oil and gas industry. One of the main principles that they have to make change is that they'll only work with oil and gas companies that have a net zero target. At first, that sounds great. Net zero, that's where the world needs to go. But when you really drill down, pun intended, into that principle, you find that

Will (15:05)
you

Holly Alpine (15:08)
this net zero target that those companies, the oil and gas companies need to set only includes their operational emissions. Basically how they power their office buildings. It's only scope one and two. It does not include the fuels themselves. And so that is, we believe, just a glaring omission. And we have asked Microsoft when we were there,

to follow standards for net zero. There are some fantastic standards that exist like the IIGCC's net zero standard for oil and gas or the UN high level expert groups net zero standard. And if they could follow those standards then that would actually have a credible net zero rather than right now we believe is extremely misleading.

Will (15:59)
And so what you're saying is really great. In essence, what we're advocating for is to align business activities with climate science. So you can't have a net zero commitment without basing it in science.

Holly Alpine (16:11)
and aligning to the climate science that Microsoft very strongly supports. mean, have published, mean, their Accelerating Sustainability with AI playbook that Will was a part of crafting talks about how society needs to push harder on the AI accelerator while establishing guardrails.

to steer the world safely, securely and equitably towards net zero emissions and a nature positive future. And we just see that as starkly at odds with their actual business practices. And yes, if Microsoft stopped, maybe these companies would move to So yes, it needs to be a tech-wide issue, but we can't just capitulate to the system because of those reasons.

This is the future of the planet we're talking about. And some of the most profitable company in the world with extremely intelligent people that can absolutely come up with solutions going forward.

Gaël Duez (17:13)
So here, yeah.

Will (17:13)
the most profitable company in the planet cannot do this, then what I is that...

Gaël Duez (17:19)
Yeah, that's my point is how much are we talking about? guess even if it's big, the revenues coming from contracts with the oil and gas industry doesn't make more than 1 % or 2 % of the overall revenue streams from Microsoft. Am I right or am I completely missing the point here?

Will (17:40)
not so sure. I'd love to see transparency, but I think that's unlikely that that information will be shared. But according to the recent Atlantic report, the digital technology oil and gas market is somewhere between 30 and $70 billion for that total addressable market. And that is a sizable share of Microsoft's cloud and AI revenue.

Gaël Duez (18:00)
So it will make a significantly more important effort from a business perspective, which is completely insane regarding the basic survival of a specie, but that's another point. So that will be a significant effort. Like Microsoft could issue a profit warning saying, okay, we decided to stop our work with the oil and gas industry,

Holly Alpine (18:22)
but I will have to interject there because we have never and we will never ask for Microsoft to completely cut ties with the oil and gas industry. That is, we know, not something that is possible and we think unrealistic. But we don't think that what Microsoft should and the industry at large should be doing with these companies is increasing production that is completely at odds.

with the climate science and with what the top climate researchers say needs to happen. when we know that new oil and gas reserves

necessary, as Will mentioned at the beginning of this episode,

Gaël Duez (19:06)
Do you really have this kind of overview on how Microsoft products are used by their customers? Because let's say that, okay, we don't want to cut ties with the entire oil and gas industry. So we keep the contract with Chevron going on. We provide services here and there, et cetera. How can you make a difference?

whether they use this for increasing the effectiveness and the cleanliness of their day-to-day operation or exploring new fields and increasing their production. can you say how using your products and...

differentiate and say, okay, we allow you to use that kind of algorithm because I know we use it for purposeful, positively impactful way, or we don't want you to use this machine learning algorithm because it will be to explore some new rig fields.

Will (19:59)
So I want to circle back to the point I made about Google earlier. Google has publicly committed to not providing customized technology to the upstream oil and gas industry. And I want to emphasize customized technology here because that's a lot of what's happening. It's not just, hey, here's a generic model. Let it lose on the world. This is custom technology with millions of dollars in revenue associated or staff.

Gaël Duez (20:03)
Mm-hmm.

Mm-hmm.

Will (20:26)
several staff behind it that are customizing this advanced technology for specifically upstream oil and gas scenarios. So finding and extracting more

Gaël Duez (20:35)
Yeah, I think that that

Will (20:35)
So if Microsoft followed something like Google's guidance, then it could possibly reach parity with its competitors.

Gaël Duez (20:42)
Okay, got it. This is the point I wanted to reach to make sure that we are on the same page and we're really talking about customized services. So people will use all the regular Azure solutions off the shelf, but they will not have access potentially to data scientists, experts, product manager, helping them to fine tune models, et cetera, to increase oil production. I'm at right here.

Will (21:09)
That is part of it, but I do also really want to emphasize regulation is necessary here. It's an unregulated industry, but having transparency, mandated transparency as to what use cases are being supported with what technology. Full accounting, that would be required by law to put guardrails on what this technology is used for or not used for.

Gaël Duez (21:15)
Hmm.

And actually, I would love to follow a bit on you here, Will, because I was struck when you say that Microsoft AI responsible policy doesn't include any environmental aspects, which seems a bit insane for me. So how would you see a more responsible use of AI, including but not only the environmental impact, being enforced? In the European Union, we...

have the AI Act, which has been enforced, with massive pushback from the industry, massive lobbying of big American and European tech companies saying that it will kill innovations, that Europe is already a lagga behind China and the US, and that will get even worse, et cetera, et cetera. So how do you see the possibility of a regulation that doesn't kill innovation in the AI industry?

And once again, sorry for using the buzzword AI, but I think we all understand that it covers mostly algorithm, machine learning stuff, and not necessarily chat GPT here.

Will (22:36)
not convinced that regulation kills innovation. I believe that you could still be mandated to provide an inventory of the use cases of the technology to inform future decision making. I think you could mandate that certain environmentally sensitive applications such as upstream oil and gas go through what could be called a sensitive uses review process and establish governance there and then report that out to stakeholders.

That would not kill innovation in my eyes. That would possibly only help the planet, help the employees, and help people.

Holly Alpine (23:12)
Yeah, I agree with Will and we had an environmentally responsible AI memo that kind of wrote up what Will was just saying and provided it to Microsoft leadership who agreed with our stance. It just was not implemented.

Gaël Duez (23:30)
So I'd like to move on now that I think we've got a very clear understanding, at least from my point of view, what is at stake here and why this word has been used and all this climate science issue that you raised that goes even beyond the ethical issue and how devils is in the details, whether it's

regarding working with oil companies that are committed to go net zero, but net zero on scope one and two, which is complete nonsense regarding what is at stake with the scope

Holly Alpine (24:07)
Mm-hmm.

Gaël Duez (24:09)
of the oil industry and also the customized aspect. think you covered quite a lot and explained quite a lot in details. And eventually, both of you decided to leave. And I'd like to talk a bit more now from a personal

I've spotted at least two, if not three articles where you explained why and you used some very strong words against a company, not the people, the people were never attacked, but the company and its strategy.

My first question would be, what was the news What was the momentum around this debate?

Holly Alpine (24:49)
Those have been the three main articles so far. We've also recorded a few podcasts so far and will not be the last. The uptake has been really fantastic from these stories and it's been slightly uncomfortable to have the story be about our journey and.

what we did and how we decided to leave because what we really want is coverage of the content. We want the public and employees and shareholders to be more aware of how this technology is being used. That is the main purpose of everything that we're doing right now. But we do know that having a narrative helps folks follow along the story, it gets more readership.

That's been part of our journey. yeah, we've had a lot of really great feedback so far, a lot of people being very surprised by this information, but really seeing the importance of it. So we hope to continue that momentum. Of course, we've seen also some folks who disagree with our position, which of course is gonna happen, but I think...

Overall, we've seen a lot more support than we have detractors.

Gaël Duez (26:10)
Okay, so people working in the tech industry at large, I would say, have sent you more positive feedback than negative feedback regarding your current stance.

Holly Alpine (26:21)
Yes.

Gaël Duez (26:22)
Okay, and what about Microsoft?

Holly Alpine (26:24)
We haven't heard anything from Microsoft directly. When we were at Microsoft, we worked for years internally to try to make change in this space. It was very collaborative with some of the top senior leadership of the company. We co-wrote a memo back in 2019, I believe that really framed the issue and met with senior leadership and they...

really completely agreed with us on almost every single one of our recommendations. We came up with a very detailed and comprehensive list of recommendations for going forward, what they could actually implement. We didn't just say, you know, this is bad, stop everything. It was very well thought out recommendations. We got a lot of promises that ultimately went unfulfilled.

And including one of the reactions from the senior leadership from the president of Microsoft was being surprised that environment was not part of the responsible AI principles, which was surprising to us given that he was executive sponsor of those principles. But ultimately over the couple years that we saw these promises go unfulfilled, we really realized that internal pressure alone,

was not going to make the change required. We are not saying that internal pressure does not work and that we should give up. We did not quit because we were giving up. We were quitting because we realized we needed both, the internal to continue as well as now pressure from external position.

Will (28:05)
And I'd actually like to add on to what Holly was saying. From an external position, we're still really actively working on this. And there are three parts that we're doing. One is around raising awareness and educating the public as to the scope of the issue that we're facing here. The next is around mobilizing a coalition and engaging different stakeholders, be it regulators, be it shareholders,

building a support network here to really amplify. And the third is that we're advocating for and advancing research and policy reform. So those are three aspects of what we're doing about it and things that need to happen.

Gaël Duez (28:45)
But it's a bit strange not to have an official answer from Microsoft because that looks like a public relation nightmare that they're dealing at the moment. So they decided to go for the silent treatment.

Holly Alpine (28:59)
Well, they were interviewed for the Atlantic article. Daryl Willis, the CVP of Energy and Industry, who was our main contact, we worked with closely at Microsoft, was interviewed for Atlantic. It was pretty generic and he said that it's complicated many, many times. I think it was what, Will, like 11 or 14 times in their interview, which we just don't think is a sufficient response.

Will (29:19)
11 times, yeah.

Holly Alpine (29:27)
We will point out that he came from a background of BP. He was an executive at BP for many, years and was a spokesperson during Deepwater Horizon. So he knows a thing or two about public relations.

Gaël Duez (29:41)
Okay. And what about other hyperscalers or massive solution vendors? Did they leverage the opportunity to have this debate or to witness this debate focusing a bit on Microsoft also to clarify their own positions? Will you mention Google or was it complete silence from all top executives regarding this enabled

emissions question.

Will (30:06)
I'm not aware of any reactions from the rest of Big Tech.

Holly Alpine (30:10)
Yeah, not yet.

Gaël Duez (30:11)
Okay.

Will (30:12)
But again, it's important to mobilize stakeholders and employees across the entire tech sector. This is not just a Microsoft issue, this is a global issue.

Holly Alpine (30:21)
Right, yeah, and sorry, that's kind of what I mean by not yet, that we're just not there yet because we just left not that long ago, but as we continue to push, do expect, I mean, that is a big part of our campaign is having that cross-industry collaboration. I would not be surprised, I I hope that we get a response before long.

Gaël Duez (30:44)
That will be excellent. OK, I've questioned you because I don't think I grilled you. I questioned you for almost an hour and a half. It's getting super late for you, Well, you've got dolphins and whales and and fishes to take care of. So maybe it's time to not necessarily wrap up, but actually open to a bit more personal angle. This is really a question I wanted to ask you.

Holly Alpine (30:58)
Hehehehe

Will (31:01)
Yeah.

Gaël Duez (31:12)
knowing that I would say thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of people working in big corporations, working in big tech companies and having strong environmental values are facing like should I stay or should I go? You decided to go, it went with some media exposure. So from a personal angle,

How do you deal with all the pressure?

Holly Alpine (31:38)
guess it's been really important to get support from folks who have also left their companies or are struggling within their own companies that they're still working at, but having this, just feeling this dissonance and just kind of feeling like there's a community out there who all feels this way and we're...

very, very far from alone. And we've gotten such nice messages from people who say that they're inspired, you know, that's such an amazing thing to hear that people will now speak up more inside their companies or at least speak more with their colleagues and think about what more they could do internally. So that's a way to kind of...

deal with the pressure and also luckily we have each other. I I'm so grateful to have Will as my partner in all of this. It's a challenge to do this kind of really high pressure work with your significant other, but it also has massive benefits.

Will (32:52)
And I'd actually like to add on to what Holly was saying, actually with the quote from the founder of Pussy Riot, the punk band that was persecuted by Putin because they were seen as a threat for their activism. Courage is contagious. Any act of speaking the truth can cause incalculable transformations in social consciousness. We all have this power. It's a moral act to use this power. You may or may not achieve the results you wanted, but there's eternal beauty.

Gaël Duez (32:52)
Is it?

Will (33:19)
and trying to find truth, risking what you have, you've got for what's right.

I think that summarizes my personal stance.

Gaël Duez (33:26)
Well, we'll usually ask people to close on a positive piece of news. But I think this is the perfect quote to end the podcast. I just wanted to add on a more personal note, congratulations for your wedding. Because I know that we were actually preparing the episode while you were getting engaged and then married. So all my best to both of you.

Holly Alpine (33:45)
He

Thank you, yeah, it's been good.

Will (33:51)
Our first wedding anniversary came up not too long ago.

Gaël Duez (33:55)
Excellent. And I really wanted to thank you from the bottom of my heart to take the time to join the podcast, to take so much time to elaborate the context, what drive your decisions, go a bit into the details of what is at stake here. I think you brought a lot of valuable content to the audience of this podcast and beyond. Thanks a lot, both of you. And I wish you the very, very best for the rest of your fight.

Holly Alpine (34:22)
Thank you, yeah, it's past 1 a.m. for me, so time to sleep. Thank you so much.

Will (34:23)
Thank you so much for having us. Pleasure chatting.

Gaël Duez (34:29)
I can't imagine. Thanks a lot both of you and talk to you soon.

Okay.