Let’s be a huge burden to local utilities that prices skyrocket, make everyone else pay for the infrastructure cost, and then act surprised when people vote to block us.
Yes, we do need the data centers, but people have a saying too.
I don't mind Amazon using the water if they pay for it just like the rest of us.
Unfortunately companies tend to negotiate special deals. And for what? How many local people actually get jobs in a date centre? A few security guards, cleaners and gardeners?
I've seen these things they do everything remote and if that doesn't work they fly in a team.
Even them paying for it shifts the demand curve and makes it expensive for everyone else in the short term, and local government will abuse bureaucracy to make damn sure “short term” is long
> Asked about the leaked document, Amazon spokesperson Margaret Callahan described it as “obsolete” and said it “completely misrepresents Amazon’s current water usage strategy”.
> “A document’s existence doesn’t guarantee its accuracy or finality,” she said. “Meetings often reshape documents or reveal flawed findings or claims.”
Here's a person trained to speak in half truths. Am I the only one to find this revolting? Please tell me I'm not alone.
Maybe, but it is entirely possible that someone put together some numbers and got them completely wrong, in which case those statements sound pretty reasonable. They could be misleading or outright false, but we don't know that either way based on those statements.
The claims made by the document referred to in the article are potentially harmful to Amazon. If they were untrue and the truth painted Amazon in a better light, they would likely be willing to counter the article with information of their own.
That they instead respond with a total non-answer is a signal that either the document is accurate, or the truth is worse.
What would help is an analysis of second order benefits of having a data center, both for the locality and the nation at large. Any realistic analytical framework will acknowledge that all industry incurs some costs, but often still has a net beneficial impact on society due to the positive effect it has on income.
Let’s be a huge burden to local utilities that prices skyrocket, make everyone else pay for the infrastructure cost, and then act surprised when people vote to block us.
Yes, we do need the data centers, but people have a saying too.
I don't mind Amazon using the water if they pay for it just like the rest of us.
Unfortunately companies tend to negotiate special deals. And for what? How many local people actually get jobs in a date centre? A few security guards, cleaners and gardeners?
I've seen these things they do everything remote and if that doesn't work they fly in a team.
Even them paying for it shifts the demand curve and makes it expensive for everyone else in the short term, and local government will abuse bureaucracy to make damn sure “short term” is long
This article claims that's not happening: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2025/10/2...
There is a fairly obvious conflict of interest with that article.
> Asked about the leaked document, Amazon spokesperson Margaret Callahan described it as “obsolete” and said it “completely misrepresents Amazon’s current water usage strategy”.
> “A document’s existence doesn’t guarantee its accuracy or finality,” she said. “Meetings often reshape documents or reveal flawed findings or claims.”
Here's a person trained to speak in half truths. Am I the only one to find this revolting? Please tell me I'm not alone.
Maybe, but it is entirely possible that someone put together some numbers and got them completely wrong, in which case those statements sound pretty reasonable. They could be misleading or outright false, but we don't know that either way based on those statements.
We can make assumptions, however.
The claims made by the document referred to in the article are potentially harmful to Amazon. If they were untrue and the truth painted Amazon in a better light, they would likely be willing to counter the article with information of their own.
That they instead respond with a total non-answer is a signal that either the document is accurate, or the truth is worse.
It seems likely that the news cycle for a story like this is shorter than the time it would take to produce such numbers.
> completely misrepresents Amazon’s current water usage
Because their current water use is much higher?
("Strategy" is a meaningless word here.)
You're definitely not alone. Most people find this problematic.
Unfortunately, most of those people aren't elected.
What would help is an analysis of second order benefits of having a data center, both for the locality and the nation at large. Any realistic analytical framework will acknowledge that all industry incurs some costs, but often still has a net beneficial impact on society due to the positive effect it has on income.
How would you suggest AI data centers positively impact income?