Amazon, ruthless, mean spirited, soulless and wedded to the obscene profit margin, is also in the business of habitual deception. When it comes to the use of water for its thirsty data centres, this is most telling. In its aggressive push towards artificial intelligence, more are set for construction. When one considers that, in 2021 alone, US data centres were found to be consuming approximately 415,000 acre-feet of water, the statistics are bound to be staggering.
Unlike its competitors, the tech behemoth is rather cagey on how much water is used by its data centres. Statistics on absolute water consumption are simply never provided. There is some speculation that water usage may be relatively less in some instances given the company’s focus on using evaporative cooling systems which only turn on when temperatures reach unacceptable levels.
Will Hewes, who steers the water sustainability efforts for the company at Amazon Web Services (AWS), gives the impression that using water is a lesser evil, as it “reduces the amount of energy that we use”, which assists the company meet “other sustainability goals.” In an interview with Grist in August 2024, he explains that the company “could always decide not to use water for cooling, but we want to, a lot, because of those energy and efficiency benefits.” To this apparent nod to environmental decency, Hewes goes on to remark that “big portions of our data center footprint are in places that aren’t super hot, that aren’t in super water stressed regions.” Virginia and Ohio are mentioned as places where the need to use water cooling is only pressing during the hot periods of summer.
Hewes was giving a barely good impression of verisimilitude. As with Microsoft and Google, Amazon is eagerly constructing data centres in a more systematic, global way, invariably focusing on areas of high aridity. Three data centres, for instance, are proposed for Aragon in northern Spain, all to accompany existing Amazon data centres. These will be licensed to use 755,720 cubic metres of water annually, an amount sufficient to irrigate over 200 hectares (500 acres) of corn, a staple of the region. According to SourceMaterial, the water usage promises to be even greater, as that figure fails to consider “water used in generating electricity to power the new installations.”
A stark, consistent tendency is evident in the company’s practices: They are trustworthy on the subject of water consumption. Take, for instance, the glossy optimism of its November 2022 “Water Positive” initiative, intended to apply, not to the company’s entire operations, but to AWS. The intention is to return more water to communities than is used by the company in AWS global operations by 2030, and direct operations in all Amazon facilities in India by 2027. Last month, AWS announced that it had reached 53% of its Water Positive goal.
One month prior to the launch of the initiative, a strategic memo titled “AWS Water Positive Public Launch” circulated within the company. It was never intended for public consumption, but recently, both The Guardian and SourceMaterial, managed to gain access to it. The authors of the document are mindful that any increase in the company’s projected water use would be detrimental to image and reputation. It was therefore more prudent to avoid making reference to secondary water use, as it “would double the size and budget” for the campaign while not “addressing meaningful operational, regulatory or reputational risks.” The authors further added that there was “no focus from customers or media” on water used for electricity consumption.
The plan by the company was to make water efficiency savings through cutting its 7.7-billion-gallon primary consumption to 4.9 billion by 2030, all the while failing to address the thorny issue of secondary use. Secondary data would only be released if demanded by regulators. “We may decide to release water volumes in the future,” the authors propose, but doing so would be “a one-way door and we should only do so if the lack of data undermines the programme or is required by regulators.”
Those behind the strategy document were not ignorant about the consequences of rationing the accuracy on water consumption. There was “reputational risk of publicly committing to a goal for only a portion of Amazon’s direct water footprint.” Certain potential press headlines were floated: “Amazon hides its water consumption behind AWS” and “Amazon disappoints, failing to take full responsibility for water” were two suggestions.
Already attuned to the implications of this snag, Amazon spokeswoman Margaret Callahan suggested that the document was only of historical interest. It was “obsolete” and, in any case “completely misrepresents Amazon’s current water usage strategy.” The models referenced in the memo “were preliminary and unvetted.” In a marketplace of rampant dishonesty, she also thought it good to point out that other companies were just as culpable for not counting secondary water use in their figures. (Standards are low in this field.) Focusing on the direct water footprint when implementing “corporate water positive programs” was “in line with industry best practices to ensure we’re making the most concentrated impact possible.”
As for accuracy or conclusiveness in such documents, best not count on them. “A document’s existence doesn’t guarantee its accuracy or finality,” stated Callahan with postmodern vacuity. Over the course of meetings, documents were often reshaped, or flawed findings or claims exposed. Much in keeping with the conduct of governments, Amazon operates with Machiavellian glee in an environment peopled by technological princelings and ill-deserving brats. Its practices are not merely draining much needed water supplies but creating a system of sinister opacity and impunity.
See also:
Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN
Dear Reader,
Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless voice for truth, giving public interest journalists a platform to hold power to account. From expert analysis on national and global events to uncovering issues that matter to you, we’re here because of your support.
Running an independent site isn’t cheap, and rising costs mean we need you now more than ever. Your donation – big or small – keeps our servers humming, our writers digging, and our stories free for all.
Join our community of truth-seekers. Donate via PayPal or credit card via the button below, or bank transfer [BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969] and help us keep shining a light.
With gratitude, The AIMN Team
Horrible.., lakes of water used, probably wasted, no proper processes, abuses yet to be revealed. Our little vote every few years gets us no feeling of satisfaction, control, revision, supervision, penalties. Mammoth money,manipulation,coercion, insider recruiting, submission, grovelling obedience, all this will fix everything, but not for most of us. And the Rural Boofhead Brigade, all vanity and vacuum, will be fine. No net zero, no security against fire, no bloody available water…
I cancelled my account nearly two years ago. They are not only deceitful not paying taxes in their relevant country, they are mercilessly monopolistic, inflate their prices including multiple price tags for the same product to the point of obfuscate confusion, fake discounts, charge extortionist prices for postage, the original publication you order and pay for may be fake or a poor quality re-print sometimes with pages missing. They destroyed their competitors, bought them out where able and closed them down or increased their warehouse space and offices to sell same products at higher prices or just capitalised and sold the facilities. Their aim is global domination, they do not pay their authors, expect them to write for free or pittance, and they treat their staff like shit – all for Jeff Bezos’ personal profit and fortune, so like Elon Musk he can undermine democracy, your vote, spread misinformation and continue building his empire. You are a fool to trade.
Do you remember the Book Depository (UK), one of their main competitors – Quality publications, great prices, fast delivery, no charge for post even when it came from overseas, no strings attached or malicious marketing. They bought them out and closed them down along with their successful business model and community standards of practice – Sad loss. Well now Amazon’s prices are mostly higher than a local book shop – Buy local!