The story of Amazon and Apple – is Watt happy about it?

From Manhattan Contrarian

Francis Menton

Before everything was disrupted by the attempt to assassinate President Trump, I wrote an article last week titled “Big Tech Companies on the Path to Net Zero.” This article examines recent “sustainability” reports from Google, Microsoft, and Meta, and notes that all three acknowledge that they are moving rapidly in the opposite direction from “net zero.” As their businesses move toward power-hungry data centers and artificial intelligence, they inevitably require large incremental amounts of always-available power—power that wind and solar cannot provide. Due to the lack of viable alternatives to fossil fuels, their “emissions” increase.

But, you might ask, what about Amazon and Apple? They also publish an annual “sustainability” report. This is the “2023 Amazon Sustainability Report” (seems to have just been released); this is the “Apple 2023 Fiscal Year Environmental Report” released in April. Unlike similar reports from Google, Microsoft and Meta, these reports from Amazon and Apple do not acknowledge the lack of progress (let alone negative progress) towards the “net zero” goal. Are they honest?

The answer is that these reports from Amazon and Apple are far less honest than those from Google, Microsoft, and Meta. Amazon's report follows the general pattern of Google, Facebook, and Meta reports, talking happily in the introduction and summary, then burying some underlying truth deep inside. Apple's report is one of the worst and can best be described as deceptive and misleading. let's see.

Report from Amazon, introductory letter from Chief Sustainability Officer Carla Hurst:

On renewable energy, we set an ambitious target to match 100% of the electricity consumed by our global operations with renewable energy by 2030, achieving this target seven years ahead of schedule in 2023. Looking ahead, we remain committed to our climate commitment to achieve net zero carbon across our operations by 2040. Energy technology.

What does “match 100% of electricity consumption” mean? . . “Use renewable energy”? It sounds like this has something to do with actually using wind and solar power to operate, but is it really? You won't find any real answers in this report. All you know is that Amazon's energy consumption during the day and at night Electricity is needed and used all the time and is expected to be available when needed. Wind and solar obviously cannot and do not get that from the grid on cloudy days and calm nights. Cost, for utility companies to say they have allocated some solar power from a sunny afternoon to “match” the power Amazon purchased on a calm night? This is my deduction. If this is what they did I would call it a pure scam.

If you read to page 11 of the main report, you’ll see a chart titled “Amazon’s Carbon Footprint”:

They claim that their “carbon footprint” has dropped by 3% since last year. But since 2019, you will find that the overall “footprint” has disappeared up It will increase from 51.17 MMT CO2e to 68.82 MMT CO2e in 2023. Increase More than 25%. There will be a 3% decrease in 2023 compared with 2022, mainly from the “Purchased Power Emissions (Scope 2)” line. Although they didn't say it here, this may have something to do with Amazon's widely publicized plans to build its own large-scale wind and solar farms. Is the 3% reduction they get from this program insignificant?

At Apple, here are key quotes from introductory letters:

Apple 2030 is our commitment to become carbon neutral across our entire footprint by the end of the century. We will achieve this by innovating at every stage of the product life cycle – from how our products are made to what they are made from. The first is introducing new clean energy sources into our supply chains. Today, more than 320 suppliers have committed to using renewable electricity in Apple production. They have connected more than 16 gigawatts of electricity to the grid and can avoid more than 18 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions.

The letter comes from Lisa Jackson, Apple's vice president of environment, policy and social initiatives. Do you recognize this name? Jackson served as administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency during the Obama administration.

But where is the real information about “emissions”? I can't find it. The closest I can find is an incomprehensible diagram on page 14, accompanied by the following text:

By 2023, we estimate that our environmental programs will have avoided 31 million tonnes of emissions across all scope. Measures we have implemented over the years continue to deliver tangible results, including sourcing 100% renewable energy for our facilities, switching suppliers to renewable energy and using low-carbon materials in our products. Since 2015, our revenue has grown by more than 64% while total emissions have decreased by more than 55%.

There's no clue as to how they arrived at the line of “emissions reduced by more than 55%.” Sure, they might have discovered some efficiencies, or they might be using some lighter materials. But the only way they can come up with emission reduction figures as high as 55% is by purchasing so-called carbon offsets and credits. In other words, it's a scam. They did not provide enough information to assess the legitimacy of their arrival at this figure.

It’s unlikely that any of Google, Microsoft, Meta, Amazon, or Apple will be able to run their businesses without massive carbon emissions, at least not until nuclear power is built on a massive scale, which so far has not gained traction. Scale construction. These reports pledging to abide by the creed of carbon neutrality may just be trying to buy time until the whole climate change craze is over. When that happens, all of these plans will be quietly scrapped. Also, note this article from today's New York Post, reporting that Microsoft has just quietly canceled its DEI initiative.

related