If I'm not mistaken, the backlash wasn't because MS was using green energy, but rather the Dutch government had promised green energy to its citizens, and then

If I'm not mistaken, the backlash wasn't because MS was using green energy, but rather the Dutch government had promised green energy to its citizens, and then when the wind farms were built, in a surprise move MS announced that it's building servers to use the energy (that was initially intended to go to the Dutch public). Basically the server was a "convenient" way for the Dutch govt to technically build new renewables as per the requirement (also see: the Urgenda Climate Case against the Dutch Government) while the new (and otherwise unplanned MS server) used up all the new energy. It's in no way bad that the server uses clean energy, but the critique is that the government wriggled their way out, Microsoft got to boast about servers running on clean energy while the Dutch citizens were still stuck with the older CO2-intensive power source mix despite the govt's "commitment" to cleaner power.