Lost hippie data center. Source ChatGPT

FOE Accuses Big Tech of Lying about the Climate Benefits of AI

Essay by Eric Worrall

But who is the real target audience of big tech climate propaganda?

Report Exposes Big Tech’s AI Climate Hoax: 74% of Industry’s Claims About AI’s Climate Benefits are Unproven

February 17, 2026

First critical analysis of industry’s statements on AI and climate impact

BERLIN – The big tech industry’s claims about the climate benefits of artificial intelligence (AI) are a hoax, according to a new report released today. A staggering 74% of claims about AI’s climate benefits are unproven, serving the profits of tech and fossil fuel industries, while downplaying the major climate harms of generative AI.

The research looks at 154 statements claiming AI will serve as a net climate benefit – including from companies like Google and Microsoft, and from institutions such as the International Energy Agency – and, for the first time, critically analysed the assertion that AI will be a net benefit to climate action, making up for the increased fossil fuel demand by AI-driven data centres. 

According to the findings, only 26% of the claims cited published academic papers and 36% did not cite any evidence at all. Overall, these claims tend to rely on weak forms of evidence rather than robust, peer-reviewed academic papers.

The report was commissioned and published by a consortium of environmental organisations including Beyond Fossil FuelsClimate Action Against Disinformation (CAAD)Friends of the Earth U.S.Green Screen CoalitionGreen Web Foundation, and Stand.earth, and was authored by climate and energy analyst Ketan Joshi. It is released ahead of the AI Impact Summit 2026 (19-20 February, New Delhi, India).[2]

The study examines the types of AI underpinning these claims, and the strength of the evidence put forth alongside them. The analysis did not uncover a single example where consumer generative systems such as ChatGPT, Gemini, or Copilot were leading to a material, verifiable, and substantial level of emissions reductions. It finds that claims about “AI sustainability” blur the differences between generative AI – which carries major environmental costs, with the much lower energy and environmental footprint of “traditional” AI, used for instance for machine learning to forecast wind patterns. This deceptive bait-and-switch is a new form of greenwashing used by the tech industry.

Ketan Joshi, Independent climate and energy analyst, said: “It appears tech companies are using vagueness about what happens within energy-hogging data centres to greenwash a planet-wrecking expansion. This has bled through into organisations like the International Energy AgencyThe promises of planet-saving tech remain hollow, while AI data centres breathe life into coal and gas every day. These claims of climate benefit are unjustified and overhyped, and could  cover up irreversible damage being done to communities and society.”

Jill McArdle, International Corporate Campaigner, Beyond Fossil Fuels, said: Big Tech’s AI hype is distracting users from the rapid and dangerous expansion of giant, energy and water-intensive data centres, while the tech industry’s huge energy demands are throwing the fossil fuel industry a lifeline. There is simply no evidence that AI will help the climate more than it will harm it. Rather than relying on credible and substantiated data, Big Tech companies are writing themselves a blank cheque to pollute on the empty promise of future salvation. We cannot bet the climate on these baseless claims.”

Michael Khoo, Policy co-chair, Climate Action Against Disinformation, Program Director, Friends of the Earth U.S., said: “Any climate benefits are far outweighed by how much energy generative AI is using. By lumping traditional and generative AI together, possible climate solutions are bundled with extreme pollution, and presented as a package deal. Governments must require basic transparency from the AI industry so communities and scientists can know how much energy is being exploited for this technology.”

In short, the evidence that AI will lead to large-scale climate benefits is weak, whilst the evidence of immediate and substantial climate and environmental harm is strong.

Exaggerating AI’s climate potential distracts from the real costs of massive, energy- and water-hungry data centres imposed on communities worldwide.

Nathan Taft, Senior Campaigner Stand.earth, said: “The sheer scale of these AI data center buildouts could have global implications for the climate, and it also comes with serious impacts for local communities. The least these corporations can do is ensure that demand isn’t met with fossil fuels that pollute local communities. Hyperscalers can’t hand-wave away community concerns with sleight-of-hand promises of future clean energy, or greenwash its ongoing love affair with fossil fuels — these new data centers must be backed by new, locally sourced, 24/7 renewable energy before they go online, or not go online at all.”

The accelerated growth of AI is increasing pressure on the climate, and Big Tech must take responsibility for mitigating its environmental impactsCompanies must disclose their energy consumption and emissions, and be transparent about the environmental and social justice impacts of their technologies, and whether data centres are really serving the critical needs of society. 

CONTACTS

Jill McArdle, International Corporate Campaigner, Beyond Fossil Fuels, jill.mcardle@bff.earth, mobile +32 456 723 993 (English)
Pierre Terras, Corporate Programme Lead, Beyond Fossil Fuels, pierre.terras@bff.earth , mobile +33 646 90 21 04 (French, Spanish, English)
Shane Reese, Corporate Campaigns Media Director, Stand.earth, shane.reese@stand.earth , mobile +1 919 339 3785 (English)

Source: https://foe.org/news/report-exposes-big-techs-ai-climate-hoax/

The claim energy guzzling AI is a tool to reduce emissions always was an absurdity. But why would big tech persist with such nonsense?

More than 1,000 Amazon workers warn rapid AI rollout threatens jobs and climate

Workers say the firm’s ‘warp-speed’ approach fuels pressure, layoffs and rising emissions

Varsha Bansal
Sat 29 Nov 2025 00.50 AEDT

More than 1,000 Amazon employees have signed an open letter expressing “serious concerns” about AI development, saying that the company’s “all-costs justified, warp speed” approach to the powerful technology will cause damage to “democracy, to our jobs, and to the earth.”

The letter, published on Wednesday, was signed by the Amazon workers anonymously, and comes a month after Amazon announced mass layoff plans as it increases adoption of AI in its operations.

Among the signatories are staffers in a range of positions, including engineers, product managers and warehouse associates.

Reflecting broader AI concerns across the industry, the letter was also supported by more than 2,400 workers from companies including Meta, Google, Apple and Microsoft.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/nov/28/amazon-ai-climate-change

The open letter makes interesting reading;

Dear Andy Jassy and S-team,

In recent years, tech leaders have accelerated their race to build the most powerful AI first. “Sink or swim,” “AI is not going anywhere,” and “work with it or be replaced” have become mantras in workspaces at Amazon and beyond. 

We, the undersigned Amazon employees, have serious concerns about this aggressive rollout during the global rise of authoritarianism and our most important years to reverse the climate crisis. We believe that the all-costs-justified, warp-speed approach to AI development will do staggering damage to democracy, to our jobs, and to the earth.

We’re the workers who develop, train, and use AI, so we have a responsibility to intervene. Here’s why we’re sounding the alarm:

All of this is daunting, but none of it is inevitable. A better future is still very much within reach, but it requires us to get real about the costs of AI and the guardrails we need.

We demand Amazon leadership commit to the following:

  1. No AI with dirty energy.
    No more vague promises that “AI will solve the climate crisis.” Amazon must implement a public plan that includes: 1) powering all data centers with 100% additional, local renewable energy, 24/7, 2) ending custom AI solutions for oil & gas companies to drill more oil faster, and 3) publishing a detailed, science-backed glidepath for how it will meet its climate commitments.
  2. No AI without employee voices.
    We want ethical AI working groups of non-managers across the company that will have significant ownership over org-level goals and how or if AI should be used in their orgs, how or if AI-related layoffs or headcount freezes are implemented, and how to mitigate or minimize the collateral effects of AI use, such as environmental impact. 
  3. No AI for violence, surveillance, or mass deportation.
    Amazon sells a huge range of products and services — from physical goods to digital infrastructure to films to medical services. It should not need to be helping surveil civilians in Gaza, collaborating with AI companies that specialize in drone warfare, or supporting a mass deportation machine.

The Amazon employees signing this letter believe in building a better world — not in building bunkers to fall back to. We want the promised gains from AI to give everyone more freedom to play and rest, to spend time with family and friends, to be moved by nature, to create, to feel safe being who we are. 

This is an incredibly consequential moment in history. It’s time for us to step up and spark a conversation about the real benefits and costs of AI. Workers have guided Amazon to a better path before, and we can do it again. The choices we make now, for the planet, for its people and animals, matter more than ever. Let’s make ones we can be proud of.

Signed,

1,235 Amazon employees (and counting!)

Job titles and Amazon organizations listed below. We will update the signatories periodically after verification. Add your signature below.

4,034  people outside of Amazon (and counting!)

Read more: https://www.amazonclimatejustice.org/open-letter?ms=nai

The point is it’s not just warehouse staff who are about to lose their jobs, the very people who are developing AI are protesting against AI’s climate footprint. AI developers are demanding AI be low carbon, and not be used in ways which offend their left wing sensibilities.

How can big tech fix this staff rebellion? Because as the CEO of Honeywell recently explained, powering AI with renewables isn’t going to happen.

One possible solution to pacify radical tech giant staff is to reframe AI as an emissions reduction tool. Convincing big tech staff that AI is essential to solving the climate crisis might help keep them obedient and productive.

In summary, I don’t think big tech is serious about trying to convince the public to accept the absurd proposition that their new AI toys will help reduce global CO2 emissions. I believe the real target of big tech’s green propaganda campaign is their own staff. I believe big tech executives are spending billions on propaganda and, let’s say highly speculative energy projects, just to maintain the fiction amongst their own staff that tech leaders remain committed to reducing global CO2 emissions, even when tech giants’ soaring carbon footprints tell the opposite story.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
5 1 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
17 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Sparta Nova 4
February 18, 2026 6:12 am

“rather than robust, peer-reviewed academic papers”

That made me spew my coffee.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
February 18, 2026 6:50 am

Right- same for me- and every time I see the word “robust”. Makes me think King Kong.

Sparta Nova 4
February 18, 2026 6:33 am

“distracts from the real costs of massive, energy- and water-hungry data centres imposed on communities worldwide”

“the global rise of authoritarianism”

Those are serious topics for serious conversation.

The propaganda presented in the article is strong for both sides of the divide.

My real issue is the centralizing of all data in clouds and letting AI have unrestrained access to all of our data. I refuse to synchronize my devices. I refuse to put any data voluntarily in a cloud.

If you think there are valid concerns now, wait until the productize the neural implants allowing your brain direct interface with the internet. Total population mind control? Seems like SciFi, but it is a possibility that cannot be ignored. Will the individual have the ability to shut it off at will? I hope so. I cannot envision doing my work with a constant stream of email and text message interruptions.

So the question is, are we entering a brave new world? Will this be the end of humanity as we know it? Look at the past half century of technological developments and project that forward. We seem to be entering a new era of unrestrained cyber.

Just because a thing can be done does not mean it should be done. Past wisdom may well apply here.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
February 18, 2026 6:57 am

“I refuse to put any data voluntarily in a cloud.”

Right. One day after my W11 Dell desktop did an upgrade- when it came back- I saw a screen trying to sell me 100 GB of Microsoft Cloud. And, the bastard wouldn’t let me go- couldn’t get out of that screen- no X to close it. I tried control/alt/delete and that wouldn’t even work! I was shocked and pissed off. Should have just turned the computer off. That probably would have killed it. But instead, I went ahead with it at $2/month. Then, that cloud software started putting weird little pixels on some of my desktop files. They’d come and go. I was livid. Finally got into a dialogue with MS. I then uninstalled their cloud software. I think my I-Pad and I-Phone have some cloud by default but I won’t upgrade it. This cloud stuff is unnecessary. Anyone who worries about losing files can purchase excellent software that will back up your entire computer to external drives. Years ago I used Acronis but had some problems with it. I later switched to Macrium Reflect with good results.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 18, 2026 7:32 am

Same here. A year and a half ago I bought a W11 HP laptop and ended up uninstalling the OneDrive application because of a similar issue. I can still go to my default no-cost OneDrive storage (5GB I think – which is not new) using browser access. But I don’t use it regularly in any case. I use the free level of Google Drive, yes, for sharing files like I do on WUWT, but not for “backup.”

Denis
February 18, 2026 6:36 am

Huh? People working for a company whose goal is to sell all manner of things to people and Governments everywhere for a lower price than their competitors and that achieves this goal in the main actually believe they have the duty to “fight climate change!” Aside from the absurdity of that belief, Amazon actually is part and parcel of the source of CO2 emissions. These emissions arise from the energy, oil, gas, minerals and water consumed to produce the stuff they sell. Amazon’s internal “emissions” to purchase, store and ship the stuff it sells are tiny in comparison. Such irrational ignorant thinking! What a ridiculous letter!

February 18, 2026 6:49 am

There is simply no evidence that AI will help the climate more than it will harm it.”

Like every other industry- they have little impact on the climate, if any. Large scale land clearing probably has more effect than any industry.

Curious George
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 18, 2026 7:28 am

Somehow I missed the AI climate hoax entirely.

rovingbroker
February 18, 2026 7:12 am

Report Exposes Big Tech’s AI Climate Hoax: 74% of Industry’s Claims About AI’s Climate Benefits are Unproven

At least 74% of the claims about Global Warming are unproven and we’re still investing in electric cars and windmills.

GeorgeInSanDiego
Reply to  rovingbroker
February 18, 2026 7:34 am

At least 53% of statistics are completely made up.

Reply to  GeorgeInSanDiego
February 18, 2026 7:43 am

And 97% of them are Cooked up

SxyxS
Reply to  rovingbroker
February 18, 2026 7:48 am

There are no “climate benefits” because climate can neither benefit nor suffer from anything manmade in the first place.

There also is no “one-climate” in the first place.
Maybe on the sun or venus where the surface temperature is pretty homogeneous, but not on earth.And even there the climate would neither suffer nor benefit – it would simply change.

And for the climate to benefit we would need some kind of reference climate.
But this does not exist as there are at least 5 climate zones,
therefore they can not all benefit or be harmed at the same time as result of a change,
as even with a reference point , some zones would get closer to this point while others would move away.
Climate simply is and the fact that they first came up with the ice age and then AGW shows that the reference point can be moved at any given time for the sake of an agenda.

It is also interesting that those progressives who are pushing so hard for radical societal transformations and who are calling those who oppose those crazy radical changes all names in the book are so scared of a little bit climate change instead of embracing it as the tolerant, progressives they pretend to be.

February 18, 2026 7:20 am

I personally don’t think AI is good for anything since it lies, making it’s results meaningless.

22GeologyJim
February 18, 2026 7:30 am

All human emissions of carbon dioxide are inconsequential to “climate” and are, in fact, net positive for life on Earth.
Data centers gobble up electricity and water from municipal systems at the expense of the rest of the economy (and residential ratepayers)

AI and data centers raise the dangerous prospect of “surveillance and control” systems, both corporate and governmental. Neither has a track record of responsible use, especially in defense and expansion of human liberty.

Sweet Old Bob
February 18, 2026 7:35 am

FOE …Full Of Excrement ???

strativarius
February 18, 2026 7:36 am

Friends of the Earth, or more accurately Enemies of the Human.

robust, peer-reviewed academic papers

Indeed…

Last month, Nature, perhaps the most admired scientific periodical in the world, retracted a 2024 article, “The Economic Commitment to Climate Change.“ The paper, by three scientists with the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, had predicted that by 2100, climate change would reduce world economic output (GDP) by 62 percent, a shocking and widely reported claim. 
After two online criticisms, the authors conceded that the paper overstated the impact and understated the uncertainties of its prediction. The result: The paper was officially withdrawn from the scientific literature.

How Many Retractions?
There are a lot of retractions these days. According to Retraction Watch, which monitors scientific journals, “Nature has retracted 32 papers since 2020, including three in 2024. The retraction today [Dec. 3] marks the sixth for the journal in 2025.”Independent Institute

Robust is not the word.

February 18, 2026 7:45 am

I find it mildly entertaining to hear the climate worriers complaining about absurd claims based on little or no evidence.

There is no “climate” harm either way concerning fossil fuels for AI data centers. There are no “climate” benefits from AI either. The reason is that emissions of CO2 have NOTHING PERCEPTIBLE TO DO with trends of any climate variable.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1knv0YdUyIgyR9Mwk3jGJwccIGHv38J33/view?usp=drive_link

Oh, and to top it all off, there is this demand: “…these new data centers must be backed by new, locally sourced, 24/7 renewable energy before they go online, or not go online at all.”

Laughable.

Thank you for listening.