Amazon, Despite Climate Pledge, Fought To Kill Emissions Bill In Oregon 23
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Washington Post: Amazon has branded itself as a climate crusader, touting its commitment to renewable energy and sustainable practices. But in Oregon, it helped quietly quash a climate bill that would have regulated its data centers. The bill would have set a 100 percent carbon emissions reduction deadline of 2040 for high energy users. Its goal was to rein in industries with outsize carbon footprints, like cryptocurrency mines and data centers, of which Amazon is planning three more in the state that would be powered by fossil fuels. Though the bill would have matched the timeline of Amazon's own "Climate Pledge," which promises net-zero carbon emissions by 2040, the company helped kill it, said Oregon state Rep. Pam Marsh.
"Amazon's representatives were in the Capitol lobbying against the bill from the very first moment of discussion," said Marsh, chair of the Oregon House climate committee and sponsor of the bill, HB2816. Though Amazon did not testify publicly, Marsh said the company's lobbyists helped organize the opposition and "successfully nurtured fear that our energy requirements would drive away the development of data centers." "No one wants that," Marsh continued, "but we do want them to use energy in a responsible, sustainable manner."
In addition to the Climate Pledge, Amazon has set a goal of moving entirely to renewable energy by 2025; the company has spent millions on solar and wind energy projects and is the largest private purchaser of clean energy. From its $2 billion climate fund to the Climate Pledge, Amazon has invested heavily in creating the perception that it's an environmental leader. But its dealings in Oregon show that, behind the scenes, it wants to call the shots on how that transition happens. Amazon spokesperson David Ward said in a statement that "a number of organizations, including Amazon, oppose HB2816 because the bill does not address the build-out of electric infrastructure that is needed to bring more clean energy to the grid."
"Building new renewable projects requires infrastructure investments in the grid and today there are hurdles in key areas like permitting and interconnection," he continued. "Accelerating energy infrastructure permitting and interconnections for renewables like solar and wind would have a greater impact on reducing emissions, bringing more clean energy to the grid, and helping achieve our goal of accessing more clean energy in Oregon."
Oregon's biggest business organizations are all opposed to the bill, reports Government Technology. "That includes Oregon Business & Industry and the Technology Association of Oregon, and the national trade group TechNet." Aside from Amazon and its lobbying behind the scenes, no other major tech company has taken a position on the bill.
"Amazon's representatives were in the Capitol lobbying against the bill from the very first moment of discussion," said Marsh, chair of the Oregon House climate committee and sponsor of the bill, HB2816. Though Amazon did not testify publicly, Marsh said the company's lobbyists helped organize the opposition and "successfully nurtured fear that our energy requirements would drive away the development of data centers." "No one wants that," Marsh continued, "but we do want them to use energy in a responsible, sustainable manner."
In addition to the Climate Pledge, Amazon has set a goal of moving entirely to renewable energy by 2025; the company has spent millions on solar and wind energy projects and is the largest private purchaser of clean energy. From its $2 billion climate fund to the Climate Pledge, Amazon has invested heavily in creating the perception that it's an environmental leader. But its dealings in Oregon show that, behind the scenes, it wants to call the shots on how that transition happens. Amazon spokesperson David Ward said in a statement that "a number of organizations, including Amazon, oppose HB2816 because the bill does not address the build-out of electric infrastructure that is needed to bring more clean energy to the grid."
"Building new renewable projects requires infrastructure investments in the grid and today there are hurdles in key areas like permitting and interconnection," he continued. "Accelerating energy infrastructure permitting and interconnections for renewables like solar and wind would have a greater impact on reducing emissions, bringing more clean energy to the grid, and helping achieve our goal of accessing more clean energy in Oregon."
Oregon's biggest business organizations are all opposed to the bill, reports Government Technology. "That includes Oregon Business & Industry and the Technology Association of Oregon, and the national trade group TechNet." Aside from Amazon and its lobbying behind the scenes, no other major tech company has taken a position on the bill.
Re: (Score:3)
Amazon is run by MBAs, who are trained to identify and eliminate costs
Unless the cost of lawsuits outweighs the savings of only supplying one type of bathroom it is a win
Similarly, EVs are more expensive, and unless there are other costs associate with using ICE vehicles (like a carbon tax) they are going to stick with ICE vehicles until such a point that EVs are less expensive
No suprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure its your cake they want to eat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: No suprise (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
they want to have their cake (public image) and eat it too (reduce their costs), even if it means damning the climate.
Corporations are established in order for those who establish them to make money. The principal purpose of every company is profit. However, by playing with the green cult, very popular among the barely educated youth, corporations can maximize profits or eliminate competition. Amazon is not "a climate crusader", as implied by the article, Amazon is simply a corporation which wants to make money and increase its market share. Amazon doesn't have morality or ethics because Amazon is not human. Amazon is an
Re: No suprise (Score:3)
Off with their heads! (Score:1, Insightful)
So, whether this is a good bill or not (noted infrastructure issues), they should support it because "climate emergency!!"? Blindly demanding obedience to the climate lobby/mob is leading to all sorts of stupid regulations, might want to read what it actually does before you exhibit your self-righteous indignation.
permitting and connections (Score:4, Interesting)
"Building new renewable projects requires infrastructure investments in the grid and today there are hurdles in key areas like permitting and interconnection", this was the excuse. It seems a little disingenuous to expect one bill to address all such problems between now and 2040.
It makes me think Amazon isn't really serious about their own energy goals and wants to be able to fudge. Or I guess it is possible that the amounts of renewable energy specified in the bill wouldn't actually be available. The goals are pretty ambitious.
"ensure that greenhouse gas emissions associated with electricity used by high energy use facility are reduced to 60 percent below baseline emissions levels by 2027, 80 percent below baseline emissions levels by 2030"
.
Re: (Score:2)
"The perfect is the enemy of the good" and I suspect Amazon will fight the next bill when it doesn't do what this one would have.
Re: (Score:1)
The goals are pretty ambitious.
"ensure that greenhouse gas emissions associated with electricity used by high energy use facility are reduced to 60 percent below baseline emissions levels by 2027, 80 percent below baseline emissions levels by 2030"
.
LOL! Those "goals" are not publicly accepted. The Paris accord provides no mechanism for forcing a country to lower emissions. China is still building coal based power plants. Those "goals" are yours, not mine. I will vote against any candidate who might wish to adhere to those goals, whoever may have set them. Those goals are not market driven, they are politically driven. That's why gasoline is so freaking expensive. That's why we have inflation and rolling blackouts in CA. The only way to convince me tha
Re: (Score:2)
They want to compensate with renewable sources on the other side of the country, probably with some grid as storage accounting to boot.
Renewable power is cheap if you can just ignore storage. The value signalling by Amazon, Apple etc. only very marginally increase the profitable percentage of renewable energy in the energy mix, they can't push to net zero.
What did you think Amazon's priorities were? (Score:2)
At no point ever has anyone at Amazon thought, "We should diminish our profits to make the world better."
"Spend some revenue to improve public perceptions," sure.
"Make things harder for new market entrants by entangling the industry in regulatory requirements," naturally.
"Soak up some renewable tax incentives," absolutely.
Companies love things like climate policy, inclusivity, etc. because they make extremely cheap gestures to be considered positionally good. It costs nothing to make your corporate logo ra
Crap crap and crap (Score:2)
Honestly, I've given up on penny pinching and want what we used to have:
Real fast shipping (no more logistic games)
Parity and choice (Amazon is in danger of becoming Walmart - great they put big box stores on guard, but you can't find or get exactly what you are looking for)
I fully understand if we get fast, variety and in stock, then ask they they pay/treat their employees well enough, that a replacement for Amazon won't come cheap. I'm ready to vote with my wallet and possibly buy less stuff and pay more
Evil corp is evil? (Score:2)
I mean any type of "pledge" from a for-profit enterprise is just hot air produced by the PR department because it sounds good. No binding value whatsoever. No legal consequences if they do the polar opposite. Are there really any people left that do not know that?
Living in fantasyland. (Score:1)
Expecting a company to do something not in the best interests of their shareholders.
Sure! I'm willing to bet they'll just flat out agree to something that'll destroy their businesses.
You betcha!
What was that? Why are my fingers crossed?
Didn't they choose Oregon for hydroelectricity? (Score:2)
Didn't they choose Oregon for its abundant hydroelectricity? What am I missing?