When I arrived at work to discover that Outlook had vanished from my computer, I wondered how I was supposed to get through my working day. No emails. No calendar. No meeting invitations.
Then another thought crossed my mind: when did we become so dependent on a single technology company that losing access to one application could disrupt our entire working routine? And what is the financial and environmental cost of that dependence?
We regularly discuss sustainability in terms of reducing plastic, cutting carbon emissions and consuming less energy. But the digital systems we rely on every day also have huge environmental consequences.
As world leaders gather at the UN climate summit, Cop31, in Turkey, perhaps it is time to ask an uncomfortable question: can our digital economy really become sustainable when so much of it depends on a handful of technology companies?
The cloud has a physical footprint
The cloud may sound weightless, but it runs on data centres, electricity, cooling systems and hardware.
The International Energy Agency estimates that data centres consumed 415 terawatt-hours of electricity in 2024, around 1.5% of global demand. It projects that consumption could reach 945 terawatt-hours by 2030, largely driven by AI and other digital services.
Microsoft’s own 2026 sustainability report illustrates the tension. The company reported a 25% year-over-year rise in total emissions in 2025, primarily because of expanding data centres and a change in renewable-energy certificate accounting. Microsoft is also investing in cleaner energy and more efficient infrastructure. Both facts matter: technological progress can reduce emissions per task, while growth pushes overall demand higher.
Asking the right questions
Turkey’s Cop31 presidency released the voluntary Antalya artificial intelligence pledge in October. This pledge aims to encourage climate-responsible AI while acknowledging the energy and water demands of the technology.
The World Resources Institute, a global research organisation, welcomed the pledge’s direction but warned that voluntary commitments need stronger accountability mechanisms. Meanwhile, the International Telecommunication Union has scheduled a Cop31 event for November 16 on financing cleaner digital infrastructure, measuring emissions, and promoting durable, repairable and reusable electronics.
The message is important: sustainability cannot stop at greener electricity. It also concerns what technology organisations purchase, how long they keep it, and who pays for its environmental effects.
When a software decision becomes a hardware bill
Consider a computer that still works but cannot support a newer operating system. Windows 10’s regular support ended in October 2025, although Microsoft offers extended security updates for eligible consumer devices through October 2027.
The transition does not make every older computer obsolete. Yet software support and compatibility can influence whether organisations replace otherwise usable equipment.
Manufacturing devices consumes energy and raw materials. It also creates electronic waste (e-waste). According to the UN’s global e-waste monitor, the world generated 62 million metric tonnes of e-waste in 2022, of which just 22.3% was documented as formally collected and recycled.
These figures cover all electronic waste, not waste attributable to Microsoft. They nevertheless show why extending equipment lifetimes deserves a place in climate policy.
Costs that are rarely counted
A software subscription has a visible price. Less visible are the costs of training employees, migrating files, replacing equipment, maintaining duplicate systems and eventually switching suppliers.
Economists call these switching costs. They can lock organisations into existing providers even when better-value alternatives emerge.
This is not merely hypothetical. In March 2026, the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority announced plans to investigate Microsoft’s business software ecosystem. It also reported steps by major cloud service providers, including Microsoft Azure and Amazon Web Services, to reduce data-transfer fees and improve interoperability, making it easier for businesses to switch between providers.
What might this have to do with sustainability? A buyer unable to change providers easily may also struggle to choose lower-emission computing services. That is a potential environmental consequence of lock-in, not a demonstrated claim that Microsoft users emit more carbon.
There is a wider accounting problem too. The UN estimates that global electronic waste was associated with approximately US$78 billion (£59 billion) in externalised costs in 2022, including pollution and climate-related impacts. Such costs are largely absent from the price of a software license.
A responsible procurement decision should therefore compare lifetime financial costs, equipment lifespans and credible emissions data rather than only the next annual bill.
Freedom to choose
Could workplaces use alternatives (such as Thunderbird and LibreOffice) or interoperable cloud services? Often, yes. But migration has costs and a rival provider is not necessarily greener.
The better goal is freedom to choose: portable data, open document formats, repairable devices, transparent environmental reporting and software contracts that do not penalise switching.
Digital systems that remain affordable, competitive and environmentally responsible, even when their preferred technology changes, will be the most resilient ones.
- is an Assistant Professor in Finance, University of Exeter
- This article first appeared in The Conversation
