So we're discussing an Amazon data center and somehow managed to blame an entire state, its voters, and its politicians before discussing a single engineering or environmental detail of the project. Impressive efficiency.
Amazon isn't getting an “out of jail card.” The facility still requires permits and is subject to emissions limits. The 33 million tons being thrown around is the permitted maximum, not a prediction of actual annual emissions.
There are legitimate questions here...Is natural gas the best option? What will actual emissions be? How does Amazon reconcile this with its climate pledge? Those are worth discussing.
“Texas voters are closed minded corporate goons” isn't analysis. It's just politics wearing a hard hat.
“United States of Dystopia” sounds dramatic, but it doesn’t actually say anything about the project.
A private company needs an enormous amount of reliable electricity and is proposing to generate much of it itself instead of dumping that demand onto an already stressed grid. There are absolutely legitimate environmental tradeoffs worth debating.
But apparently “dystopia” is easier than discussing those.
Meanwhile, half the people horrified by the data center will probably use AWS, stream something tonight, ask an AI a question, and have Amazon deliver a package tomorrow.
The dystopia apparently has excellent shipping.
Kirby, you might want to check the numbers before turning an Amazon data center article into another Trump post.
The U.S. did not reduce emissions every year for “10+ years” before Trump. There were increases before 2017, and emissions also rose in 2018 before falling again.
And somehow we’ve gone from “California haters are everywhere” in one thread to “Trump and bot accounts” in this one.
You have a remarkable talent for finding the same political argument hiding inside completely different articles. At this rate, TechSpot could publish a review of a toaster and you’d be in the comments looking for MAGA bots and California critics.
Maybe we could try discussing Amazon, natural gas, grid capacity and the actual article for a change.
By that standard, every large permitted project is just one suspicious handshake away from a prison documentary.
If there’s evidence of corruption, post it. Otherwise this is less “follow the money” and more “invent the money, then follow it.”
pnntmp makes a legitimate point...33 million tons is the permitted maximum, not a prediction of what this plant will emit every year.
I am not completely on board with carbon emissions have “no significance.”
But somehow your answer is completely less useful.
“MAGA caps cutting off blood flow” isn’t a rebuttal, and “7 billion people adding energy to a system” isn’t how the greenhouse effect works either.
CO2 matters because increasing its concentration changes how heat is retained and escapes through the atmosphere. We can debate how serious the consequences are, what policies make sense, whether net zero targets are realistic, and whether this Amazon project is justified.
That would actually be an interesting discussion. You should join it.
Drop the keyboard warrior routine, do a little research, and post something intelligent enough to argue with instead of immediately reaching for MAGA insults.
Instead we got MAGA hats and 7 billion human space heaters.
