• stickyprimer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 day ago

    Yay Texas the business-friendly state. As if billionaires aren’t raping the planet and all of us hard enough, the lone star state is always looking for way to pump their penises just a little bit bigger.

  • Gammelfisch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    The red run deregulated Texas Oblast allowed this shit. Kiss the water supplies and eventually the local economy good-bye.

  • melsaskca@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 day ago

    It’s all worth it if my plastic “made in China” hula dancer arrives in time so I can put it on my cars dashboard. /s

  • LilBobbyTables@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    Net zero doesn’t mean lowering pollution btw. Net zero means essentially cancelling out any pollution by planting trees, buying carbon credits, etc. It’s possible to be the biggest polluter and also net zero as a company. If that actually helps the planet is another story.

    • 7101334@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      2 days ago

      Most “we plant a tree for every _____” things are just scams. They plant the trees, sometimes as monocrops that could never become a healthy forest, and usually without monitoring the trees or guaranteeing their survival into at least early-maturity.

      • Jarix@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Trees get too much credit. It’s plankton in the ocean that absorbs like 70% of all co2

        • 7101334@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 day ago

          Don’t plankton mostly release that back into the atmosphere when they die though? Trees sequester it underground as roots and above ground as wood (assuming it doesnt burn, which is an increasingly ambitious assumption)

    • quarkquasar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 days ago

      Well, as long as trees magically suck pollution out of the atmosphere in extremely high numbers, and sequester it for at least a few million years, that should be fine

      Otherwise, we’re probably fucked.

      • wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        In case it was not your intent to point this out with sarcasm, for anyone reading:

        1. not all forests are created equal: new growth forests are simply not as good at long-term burial of carbon.

        2. carbon sinks only work so long as the carbon stays sunk, so if a tree dies and rots before it’s buried, all of that carbon just goes back to the atmosphere, except a lot of it is now methane, which is MANY times worse than CO2.

        3. this means that it is possible for a poorly - managed tree to actually be an effective carbon source for the purpose of greenhouse gas emissions, rather than a sink, since a single molecule of methane can do the damage of a hundred molecules of carbon dioxide.

        4. the largest carbon sink on earth is not the forests, but the ocean, and that carbon only really has two ways out: back into the atmosphere, or buried at the bottom in the calcareous ooze. Now if you really want to understand how fucked we are, read up on the following:

        • Carbonate Compensation Depth (see how it relates to the amount of calcareous ooze being buried in the ocean)
        • Methane Clathrate Hydrate
        • Permafrost Methane
      • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        i dont trees can safely do it fast enough. also its mostly co2 , pollution is a different matter. Also algae, phytoplankton make half of the carbon capture as well, a net benefit when they become marine snow and sink to the bottom of the ocean.

    • benjirenji@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      And we gotta be negative. Net 0 is a nice milestone on the way to build a future for our children.

  • jballs@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    2 days ago

    It would also be in stark defiance of Amazon’s stated climate goals, which center on reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2040.

    That’s not lost on the tech giant. But as Amazon spokesperson Margaret Callahan told the NYT, the “world looks different now than when we co-founded the climate pledge.”

    What the fuck? They looked at the world recently and said “yeah, climate change isn’t as much of a problem as it was before”?!?

    • D_C@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      2 days ago

      No, they looked at the blatant corruption from Fatboy McKiddieFiddlers regime and figured, “eh, what’s the point of pretending to give a shit. No fucker has got the balls to stop us from fucking thing up.”

    • Mannimarco@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 days ago

      They mean politically, they can get away with this now without blownack, they never gave one single shit about the climate

      • deathbird@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        The same company that will same day deliver a single tube of toothpaste to my door doesn’t care about carbon emissions? What?

        • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 day ago

          On one hand that sounds bad, but if that delivery driver is dropping off enough things in one run that would have been individual people driving to a store, does it balance out?

    • skozzii@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      It’s those pesky Canadians again, it’s all their fault for mismanaging the fires, not the fact we are cooking ourselves alive.

  • yarr@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    ·
    2 days ago

    Don’t forget to use your paper straws people! It’s the average person that causes harm to the climate, not businesses. Maybe we should give them more tax breaks.

    • brachiosaurus@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      And don’t forget to vote for the lesser evil party that will allow amazon to build just a dozen of these enormous datacenters instead of even more

    • Tja@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      27
      ·
      2 days ago

      You’re going to be surprised when you find out who consumes what businesses produce…

        • Tja@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          19
          ·
          2 days ago

          Not only that, actively consume products and blame the creators of the products for the consequences.

          • Avicenna@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            19
            ·
            2 days ago

            I don’t know, if you actively are reducing your shopping from amazon and try to stay away from their products, I wouldn’t call you a hypocrite for criticising them. And many people now a days are doing just that, so you can’t really assume right from the start that a person is being hypocritical.

            • Tja@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              Amazon is a seller, they don’t manufacture almost anything, but that’s beside the point. It’s not about the individual. I can blame either BP for drilling for oil, or the millions of people who refuse to:

              • drive an EV
              • ordering the more expensive but locally manufactured products that don’t need that much transportation
              • vote for walkable cities and public transportation
              • simply consume less stuff

              That would require introspection, and maybe accepting responsibility. It’s easier to live in a world that the BP’s CEO is the bad one and me and all of my friends are blameless victims.

              Billionaires can only burn so much oil with their private planes and yachts, they don’t consume 100 million barrels per day.

              • Avicenna@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 day ago

                Retrospection is always nice and needed and consumption habits definitely need to change. However there is something to be said of someone who single handedly and deliberately pushes the world towards more and more unsustainable consumption habits because they are playing the world like they are playing a game of monopoly. Imagine opening a supermarket chain in a town with local shops and driving others out of business by creating unfair competition with very low prices (by providing goods from countries with lower wages and questionable production standards). Sure you can also blame the local consumers for being selfish and not owning their community but in some cases people actually have to choose between cheaper grocery prices vs other essentials. And now in this case you are comparing someone who is being selfish because it becomes a matter of providing yourself and your kids with basic necessities vs someone who already has billions but is driving even less sustainable consumption practices because it makes them more money. To me it is clear in this case on whom the bigger part of the blame falls to. Educate people and ask them to do retrospection yes but as long as people like billionaires exist, they will actively look for ways to exploit the system. So they should not exist.

                Billionaires can only burn so much oil with their private planes and yachts

                Everything aside, if someone is personally consuming yearly the fuel equivalent of hundreds of people, I can still call them a much more selfish person even though on a grander scale that particular impact is negligible compared to totality of commercial flights.

  • DaddleDew@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    83
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Remember that Stargate SG1 episode where they find themselves into a huge underground facility that is under attack by external forces. Jack O’Neill accepts to pilot one of their drones to help defend the complex from a wave of bombers and is infuriated to learn that the attacker’s bombers were manned while he believed they were unmanned.

    spoiler

    At the end it turns out the facility was actively poisoning the entire planet, threatening to wipe out all life and the “attackers” were simply the people of the rest of the world trying to stop it.

    That is what the Amazon data center is to me.

  • Kissaki@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 days ago

    Imagine the local government decides they can’t pull water anymore. Like several nuclear reactors having to shut down due to low river levels recently.

    The picture of facility in vast desert is baffling.

  • TrackinDaKraken@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    100
    ·
    2 days ago

    It doesn’t need to be so, the asshole billionaires just don’t give a single fuck about anyone but themselves. They don’t even care about their kids.

    • eldavi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      they wouldn’t be able to do shit if we didn’t enable them to do it; point the anger at the right place.

  • Dustin03@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    It is safe to say im done with amazon deleting my account now I will not support them anymore I worked there and saw how bad workers are treated and used to order stuff from them often im done with them period.

  • cogitase@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    ·
    2 days ago

    It’s in one of the sunniest places in the US too. 6.0 kWh/m²/day of solar irradiance. There’s even already a relatively large solar farm in the same county.

    • A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      80
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Wait, it does not run on solar, even partially? JFC.

      edit: yep.

      Amazon has confirmed its investment in a massive gas-burning power plant in Texas, meant to supply up to 7.65 gigawatts of energy to a planned data center in Pecos County. Should it come online as planned, the plant’s 35 turbines would be allowed to spew 33 million tons of CO2 a year, the NYT notes, which would easily make it the largest single fount of emissions in the country.

      It would also be in stark defiance of Amazon’s stated climate goals, which center on reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2040.

      🤦

      Does greed know no end in this country?

      • SkybreakerEngineer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        7.65 GW × 24 hrs / 6 kW/m2/day = 30.6 km2 of just solar panels, just for this one data center

        The solution isn’t solar, the solution is don’t build it

      • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        It‘s universally known by now that new mega data centers are generally powered by gas. And it‘s the same everywhere in the world. Destroying them and prohibit exorbitant wealth are measures that are long overdue already. We genuinely do not need all that calculating power. Not for this high of a price.

    • dan1101@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      If I were king they could run data centers with solar and fans. No outside power, no outside water.

      • CIA_chatbot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        47
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        You realize they are for sifting through the massive amount of surveillance data using AI right? They aren’t for ChatGPT. They are for categorizing and watching every person on the planet 1984 style.

        • 🍉 DrRedOctopus 🐙🍉@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          30
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          that’s my biggest worry, more data centers won’t lower the cost of LLM tokens.

          The only reason they want so much compute power is to have AI agents watching and annotating everything flock cameras see.

          not just license plate readers (a raspberry pi could handle that). but everything.

          My paranoia is that in 5 years, if you protest, the police will come to arrest you with a long list of every “crime” you have committed: driving holding you phone, no seatbelt, a recipt flew out of your pockets… a long list of petty meaningless violations.

          and they’ll have that list for everyone.

          • willington@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            They are already unpopular now. Wait till the pigs dive even deeper in popularity.

            They might convince the general population that the first amendment is not worth exercising, and instead we all neet to contemplate military style resistance.

            Nobody apparently wants to bring trouble to themselves as long as there is still anything left to hope for. However that calculus can change once the powers that be engineer a life even more glaringly worthless than it already is. Lots of people are quiet quitting or not having children already. That trend will accelerate even further.

            • Tja@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              If ice killing random people on the street, on camera, multiple times, didn’t cross that line, a random construction site won’t do shit.

        • joe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          17
          ·
          2 days ago

          Do you have a source for this?

          Running an LLM is significantly less resource intensive than training it, and all indicators are that these data centers are being built to keep up the breakneck pace of companies racing to create AGI.

          • 4am@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            30
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            They’re literally buying up all the computing resources so that we can’t get any.

            We will all have to communicate though walled gardens on dumb tablets.

            They can quickly summarize vast amounts of text looking for any “undesirable” patterns using LLMs.

            We will all have to rent computing time from them.

            This is the point, this has been the point for a long time, it’s just that LLMs were the perfect storm of “impressive to rubes” and “resource hungry”. Micron has already eliminated its consumer brand, Crucial. Hell, Peter Thiel (the Palantir guy) goes around giving talks about how “being against AI is the antichrist” just to make sure that all the remaining brainwashed sheep fall for the ruse.

            This shit is not hard to see. They want to own our future entirely and they want us to pay them for the privilege.

            Capitalism was a fucking mistake.

          • A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            all indicators are that these data centers are being built to keep up the breakneck pace of companies racing to create AGI

            Amazon? Nah, it has commercial interest in this, not scientific*.

            Also, MAGA is pushing this like crazy, and destroying the planet in the process. For the next 10 years there’s by law practically no regulation wrt anything AI.

            That said:

            keep up the breakneck pace of US-American companies racing to create AGI more AI, or ELLM = even larger language models

            This affects the whole world, esp. if other governments (looking at EU) simply swallow the narrative hook line sinker.

            Fuck This Shit

            * If you say they are chasing AGI you mean that they are willing to make decisions that will further that goal, not just further profits. And I do not believe that for one second.

            • joe@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              I didn’t mean to imply it was scientific, any more than what OpenAI is doing is scientific. It’s all commercial.

              I’m not sure what the rest of your comment is supposed to mean. They are chasing AGI. That doesn’t mean they’ll create it, of course, but that’s what they’re aiming at.

              • A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                2 days ago

                Nono, I’m sticking to my statement. If you say they are chasing AGI you mean that they are willing to make decisions that will further that goal, not just further profits. And I do not believe that for one second. I also don’t believe AGI is anywhere in the near or even medium future for us.

                That said, they might say that they have such lofty goals.

                • joe@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  I’m not going to dwell on this much longer, but your mistake is that AGI is a lofty goal, and not driven by greed.

    • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      This thing is 7.65GW. The largest solar array in the US is 900MW and uses 4600-5000 acres. The scale to do this on solar alone is bonkers, but not impossible.

      You would need to at least 4x provision it which means a 30GW solar array, and 156,000 acres, before getting into battery storage for non sunny times.

      It’d be nice to use some solar absolutely, but this is better suited to nuclear.

      Edit: And if you aren’t storing / over provision to store, then you still need the peak output from another source anyway and these things likely always run near peak as they are constantly in use, so the size of the non-solar source doesn’t reduce, only its output during the sunny day time hours. So you end up with 7.65GW of natural gas still, but maybe they also build a 1GW solar farm on the side.

      • postmateDumbass@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        Nuclear power run by a publicly traded company worries me.

        Because there will be shareholder value vs. safety trades.

      • VAK@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Maybe Trump and Denmark can cover the ice in Greenland with solar cells. That’s about 434,000,000 acres

        • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          At this scale everything is bonkers. The hoover damn is 2GW.

          That severely limits where you can place it, probably more than solar. Now you need all that extra water, and height differential that can be at that scale.