Greenwashing & Gaps

Nonetheless, it is still quite challenging to identify and pinpoint the exact size of Microsoft’s educational footprint. In parallel, Buss (2018) identified many data holes in her conflict minerals studies, and highlights how this cloudiness in research about educational aspects or involvement in cloud-based infrastructure limits one's understanding, decision-making process, and study of it. One reason for this could be that the research on education’s impact on the environment is relatively new and underfunded, and many assume that there are bigger polluters, like large corporations, with greater impacts. Additionally, school districts and the Gates Foundation, may be biased and avoid all research in this area due to potential environmental, political, and economic implications. Why would educational authorities (be it policy makers, superintendents, or NGOs like the Foundation) research the school district’s own role in CO2 emissions while simultaneously pushing the adoption and integration of cloud tech in schools under the banner of a “saving trees” policy? Without transparency in research and reporting in this field, no one can fully understand and determine the cloud's environmental impact, raising concerns and false understanding of true sustainability and carbon offset initiatives in the education sphere. 

As such, the Gates Foundation, which is involved and funds both educational and global innovations, must reconsider their commitment and assess their overall contribution to the CO2 emissions, be it as a byproduct or unintended consequence of investment's service and platform via infrastructure and hardware used.