Before everything got disrupted by the attempt on President Trump’s life, I had written a post last week titled “Big Tech On The Path To Net Zero.” That post looked at the most recently issued “sustainability” reports from Google, Microsoft and Meta, and noted that all three admit to going rapidly in the opposite direction from “net zero.” As their businesses grow in the direction of power-hungry data centers and AI, they inevitably require large incremental amounts of always-available electricity — the kind of electricity that wind and sun cannot provide. Lacking viable alternatives to fossil fuels, their “emissions” rise.
But, you might ask, how about Amazon and Apple? They too put out annual “sustainability” reports. Here is the “2023 Amazon Sustainability Report” (that appears to have just been issued); and here is the “Apple Environmental Report covering fiscal year 2023,” that came out in April. Unlike the similar Reports issued by Google, Microsoft and Meta, these Amazon and Apple Reports do not admit to lack of progress (let alone negative progress) on the “net zero” goal. Are they being honest?
The answer is that these Reports from Amazon and Apple are substantially less honest than the efforts of Google, Microsoft and Meta. Amazon’s Report follows the general pattern of the Google, Facebook and Meta Reports, with happy talk in the introduction and summaries and then some potentially real information buried deep in the interior. Apple’s Report is the worst of the lot, and can best be described as an effort at deception and misdirection. Let’s take a look.
From Amazon’s Report, the introductory letter from Chief Sustainability Officer Kara Hurst:
On renewable energy, we set an ambitious goal to match 100% of the electricity consumed by our global operations with renewable energy by 2030, and we reached that goal in 2023—seven years early. As we look to the future, we are steadfast in our Climate Pledge commitment to be net-zero carbon across our operations by 2040. We will continue to lead and invest in creating carbon-free energy around the world at scale, including through solar, wind, nuclear, and other emerging energy technologies.
What does it mean to “match 100% of electricity consumed . . . with renewable energy”? It sounds like it has something to do with actually using wind and solar electricity for operations, but does it? You won’t find any real answer in this Report. What you know is that Amazon demands and uses electricity at all hours of the day and night, and expects the power to be available when they need it. Wind and solar don’t and can’t deliver that. Clearly, they are drawing electricity from the grid at times of overcast days and calm nights. Are they paying some fee to utilities to get the utilities to say that they have allocated some solar power from a sunny afternoon to “match” the power that Amazon bought on a calm night? That would be my inference. If that’s what they are doing, I would call it a pure scam.
If you should make it as far as page 11 in the body of the Report, you will come to a chart headed “Amazon’s Carbon Footprint”:
They claim that this “carbon footprint” thing is down 3% since last year. But do the comparison since 2019, and you will see that the overall “footprint” has gone up from 51.17 MMT CO2e to 68.82 MMT CO2e in 2023. That’s an increase of more than 25%. The 3% reduction in 2023 over 2022 largely flows from the line headed “Emissions from Purchased Electricity (Scope 2).” Although they don’t say it here, that likely relates to the widely proclaimed Amazon program to build their own massive wind and solar farms. Is this 3% the puny reduction that they can get from this program?
Over at Apple, here’s the key quote from the introductory letter:
Apple 2030 is our commitment to be carbon neutral for our entire footprint by the end of the decade. We’ll get there by innovating at every stage of the product lifecycle — from how they’re made, to what they’re made from. That starts with bringing new clean energy online across our supply chain. Today, more than 320 suppliers have committed to using renewable electricity for Apple production. With over 16 gigawatts already online, they’re avoiding more than 18 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions.
The letter comes from Lisa Jackson, Apple’s VP of Environment, Policy and Social Initiatives. Do you recognize the name? Jackson was EPA Administrator back in the Obama Administration.
But where is the real information on “emissions”? I can’t find it. The closest I can find is an incomprehensible chart on page 14, accompanied by this text:
In 2023, we estimate that our environmental programs avoided 31 million metric tons of emissions across all scopes. Initiatives that we’ve been growing for years continue to yield clear results, including sourcing 100 percent renewable energy for our facilities, transitioning suppliers to renewable energy, and using low-carbon materials in products. While our revenue has grown by more than 64 percent since 2015, our gross emissions have decreased by more than 55 percent.
There is no clue as to the methodology of how they came up with that line that emissions “decreased by more than 55%.” Sure they may have found some efficiencies, or maybe they are using some lighter materials. But the only way they could come up with a number as large as a 55% decrease is by buying supposed carbon offsets and credits. In other words, scams. And they provide no information sufficient to evaluate the legitimacy of how they derive this figure.
There is no real possibility that any of Google, Microsoft, Meta, Amazon or Apple can operate its business without large-scale carbon emissions, at least until there has been a massive build-out of nuclear power that as of now has not even gotten started. Likely these Reports pledging adherence to the carbon neutrality creed are just so many words intended to buy time until the whole climate change mania blows over. When that happens, all these programs will be quietly scrapped. Along the same lines, note this piece from the New York Post today, reporting that Microsoft has just quietly scrapped its DEI program.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
And as much of Apple’s manufacturing is in the PRC, any claims made by the Chinese as to the source of electricity is highly dubious.
If these goals are met, what will they accomplish beyond self-aggrandizement?
Nothing, at tremendous cost.
The take away with Amazon and Apple is that they are lying. As I have said before language is everything. We don’t need any of their gobbledygook. The only thing we need to hear from them is that they have to rely on fossil fuel and nuclear to stay in business. If they can’t say that then they must report all CO2 emissions in a legal document. If the legal document has been falsified all the top executives must face severe jail sentences or be sentenced to work camps removing wind and solar farms.
Creative Renewable Energy Banking (creative bookkeeping)
If Amazon used say 24MWh A day (1MW per hour) that’s 8760MWh per year.
They would need to have dedicated renewable generation assets of 365MW available hourly.
Wind will only give them their needed supply for about 40% of the year so would need 240% over capacity available to make the claim.
Further Solar would only produce 4 hours a day so they would either need 600% over capacity and lots of battery storage or only count on solar from 10am till 2pm
Either way they wouldn’t get their power from renewables exclusively. They would get it from the grid then supply an equal amount of renewable generation back into the grid
If CO2 levels drop below 150 ppm the photosynthesis in most land plants stops and they die and the land animals die with them.
In the last glacial period that ended around 12,000 years ago the CO2 level dropped to 180 ppm when the oceans cooled, and more CO2 could dissolve in them, and they sucked the CO2 out of the air.
That was only 30 ppm pf CO2 above the extinction level for most land plants and animals and we don’t know how cold the next glacial period will be or how much CO2 the oceans will suck out of the air when they cool..
Glacial period occur roughly about every 10,000 years so another one may occur at any time and there had better be enough CO2 in the air.
https://pioga.org/just-the-facts-more-co2-is-good-less-is-bad
Virtue signaling and CO2 saving deception go hand in hand. Unfortunately most people believe the claimed CO2 reduction …. as they believe it’s saving the planet.
Carbon indulgences (aka credits) are one of the biggest parts of the on-going green scam. Prosecutions ought to be legion.
I have 17 acres of trees, brush and grass that I pay taxes to continue to own. Someone should be paying me. Come on Google, Microsoft, Meta, Amazon, and Apple write a check or direct deposit.
Yep, you should be compensated for maintaining your 17 acre carbon sink
I will have to give credit to Apple for their M series CPU’s for the Macs. These have the highest performance/watt of CPU’s for laptops and desktops. OTOH, the primary motivation or the improved energy efficiency was improved battery life for laptops as battery size is effectively limited by the FAA for a very good reason.
Having said that, Lisa Jackson is not someone that I would take seriously with respect to “green credentials”.
I have often thought that one of the general strengths of the the US system is that it allows socio-political experiments to take place. Good ideas get recognised as such. Bad ideas get to f-up for all to see.
It makes sense that large corporations can be allowed to do likewise before they rediscover obvious truths. But when the very large companies are bigger than many of the states, where do we draw the line?
These are not new questions, of course. But it seems they need to be repeated more frequently.
Its quite obvious that any claims by Big Tech of any progress on Net Zero are rooted in hand waving and creative accounting.
One wonders if some internal memo will come out some years in the future sparking headlines and law suits:
Apple Knew
Never underestimate the power of carefully crafted bullshit…
Just by being ‘here’, being ‘alive’ and having at least one new surviving generation we could be claimed to be adding to emissions unnecessarily, without ‘natural’ purpose . It depends upon what you believe to be the natural purpose of, well, just about everything!
Are Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc essential to the plot? Of course they are not and never have been. They are human constructs that have benefited from patents, from investments, from fortune, from the opportune just like all who went before them so did. Without them who knows where ‘new’ technology would have taken us and what new ‘new machines’ other than PCs and/or Android may have appeared in their places? It may have been a lot better for us but we will never know!
What is this obsession with data other than with the companies who appear to benefit through control of it all? What the hell was their contribution to the Internet if not net zero? Didn’t Gates denounce the Internet at the time of Windows 95 or thereabouts? Wasn’t and Isn’t Windows pretty much crap? Isn’t Apple not really any better? Would our future be better with a complete reboot or even a Linux revolution? Aren’t our logic machines so WWII and isn’t that a huge problem when you really think about it? Size no longer matters because there isn’t a future down that path – there never was and never will be. Semaphore and Morse were great but telephone analogue was better.
We walk many a muddled path and get seriously and badly mislead by the conceits you will not find with and from The True Path Setters (TTPS). We need to find TTPS again and pretty damn quickly before we really see what chaos will leave behind if we are not very careful. AI will show us what the word ARTIFICIAL really means and why it really has no place being coupled with a word like intelligence.
The TTPS are, meantime, patiently waiting
“Wasn’t and Isn’t Windows pretty much crap?”
W11 sure is- it’s the worst of MS OSs.
all of big tech is in bed with the USA government and the (((globalists))). hell, most of big tech was started, formulated and polished by USA citizens tax dollars. The enormity of the grift requires big lies. Sustainable lies. $$Green$$ lies.
Headline correction:
‘Apple and Amazon Continue With Plan to Steal Energy from Poor and Middle Class Americans in order to Continue USA Government Spying Program on Poor and Middle Class Americans’
All of the packages containing my orders from Amazon are delivered in gasoline-fueled vehicles. ALL of them.
Aren’t they all buying electricity from wholesale sellers and claiming that a certain % of the wholesaler’s power is from renewable sources? If the wholesaler is having a verifiable 10 MW input from solar panels for 5 hrs/day for 80% of the days (10MW x 5 hrs x 365 x .80 =14,600 mw/hrs) then the various companies are just buying these 14,600 mw/hrs through the same wire that the rest of the power comes in through. It all looks the same. They are still producing the same amount of CO2.
Typical with modern Progressivism: It’s always up to someone else to make the real sacrifices. Their business demands 100% reliable power 24/7. It’s up to someone else to to do without, somehow and somewhere else.