We live in an era where artificial intelligence, cloud computing, and macro data centers are at the heart of the global digital ecosystem. But that heart, beating with millions of operations per second, consumes colossal amounts of energy, much of it still fossil-based. And although big tech companies like Microsoft, Google, and Amazon publicly committed long ago to achieving carbon neutrality by 2030, the data and facts tell a different story.
What's happening is that the massive deployment of generative artificial intelligence—such as models that allow for translation, creating images, writing code, or answering complex questions—has multiplied the energy consumption of data centers. These centers were already large consumers, but now they face an unprecedented explosion in demand.
And here's the problem: the use of polluting energy is also increasing. Not only are they nowhere near meeting their sustainability goals, but they are moving further away from them as consumption escalates.
Faced with this scenario, big tech companies have begun to resort to what we might call "strategic imagination." That is, they launch carefully crafted messages to give the impression that everything is under control and that the future will be clean, green, and technological. In reality, many of these statements fall within what we know as greenwashing: feigning environmental commitment while continuing to operate in an intensive and polluting manner.
A clear example is Google's recent announcement that it has signed an agreement with Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS), a startup seeking to develop nuclear fusion energy. According to the statement, Google will purchase 200 MW of clean energy from this company in the future.
So far, everything seems like a bold step toward sustainability. But there's a problem: nuclear fusion is still decades away from being commercially viable. Even if CFS makes significant progress (something that remains to be proven), it's unclear how they will generate commercially useful energy by 2030. Google itself knows this, but the announcement allows it to align its brand with concepts like "innovation," "cleanliness," and "future," even if those concepts won't translate into real energy for at least two decades.
Microsoft did the same thing a few years ago, with a similar company. And it's likely that more tech companies will follow this path: supporting futuristic technologies that don't yet exist on a commercial scale, while their current consumption continues to grow and pollute.
From a communications perspective, these moves are understandable. These companies committed years ago to ambitious sustainability goals, and now they are outpaced by real energy demand, driven by the growth of AI and digital services. They are in an awkward position: they don't want to admit that their environmental goals are no longer realistic, but they also can't stop their technological expansion.
Therefore, they choose to send "positive," hopeful messages, linking themselves to clean technologies that are still in their infancy, such as nuclear fusion. Ultimately, without blatantly lying, they are not telling the truth either, so they are actually lying. And that is precisely what defines greenwashing.
The first thing they should do is acknowledge the problem without any pretense. Digital society consumes a lot of energy, and for now, much of that energy is dirty. We can't talk about a green transformation without addressing the root of the problem: how to sustainably power the digital infrastructure that sustains our lives.
It is also key that regulators and citizens pressure tech companies not only to sign commitments, but also to report transparently, take tangible measures, and commit to real, short-term solutions, such as:
. Investing in renewables that are already available, such as solar, wind, or geothermal energy.
. Radically improve the energy efficiency of data centers.
. Locate new centers in regions with surplus clean energy.
. Share verifiable data on consumption and emissions.
In conclusion, Big Tech is juggling to maintain its green image while its data centers burn more energy than ever. Nuclear fusion, however promising it may seem, is not a solution for 2030, but for much later. Supporting research is fine, but using it as an excuse to justify the present is unethical and counterproductive.
We are facing one of the greatest environmental challenges of the 21st century: how to make digital growth compatible with a habitable planet. The solution will not come from marketing gimmicks, but from brave, transparent, and urgent decisions.
The problem is that we have plenty of imagination, but not so much time to react.
EN 
ES