Full title: Microsoft is using wetlands and native gardens to ‘camouflage’ 20-plus data center sites by blending them into nature — critics blast the ‘biomimicry’ effort as ‘lipstick on a pig’ amid a 20-year gas power deal

  • zaphod@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 day ago

    A tale as old as time. Forestry has been doing this forever: clear-cutting where the public can’t see it and keeping forests near roads pristine.

    Once again: the problem isn’t Microsoft or the datacenter builders. It’s the governments approving these projects in the first place. Regulation is the only fix. Companies will rape and pillage unless we collectively choose to stop them.

    • stinkytofuisgood@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 hours ago

      The problem is Microsoft. It’s also the datacentre builders. It’s also the governments.

      All three are a fucking problem

  • BuckFutter@timeyak.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    1 day ago

    They won’t be camouflaged for long once the pollution starts to kill off the vegetation…pretty sure we have seen this scenario exactly before in the 60s & 70s…

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 day ago

      Once they’ll built they’ll start to argue that they pollute anywhere so might as well stay there…

      And still build as many as they can anywhere.

      Their MO seems to be do whatever it takes to get started then finish

      • BuckFutter@timeyak.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 day ago

        Yah its the whole move fast and break things mentality, and then ask for forgiveness later. Sometimes you don’t even have to ask for forgiveness…its fucked up.

    • Gladaed@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      1 day ago

      Data centers aren’t heavy industry. They do emit some minor pollutants but not excessive amounts. You make it sound like there is an open sewer pipe oozing black sludge.

      • sbbq@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        1 day ago

        They will generate huge amounts of heat, both from the generation of the power they will use and from their actual running.

      • SnoopSqueak@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 day ago

        It specifically mentions gas power. The air will be polluted and living things breathing that air will suffer. “AI” data centers are waste generators and planet heaters. The goal is to further wreck the environment and kill most of us. The rich think they can survive it somehow. It is unacceptable.

        • Gladaed@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          26
          ·
          1 day ago

          Power plants typically connect via the grid, hence aren’t local to the data center. Changing over is trivial. All industry generates waste and consumes energy. That’s not their purpose and framing it as such makes you sound like a raving lunatic. Destroying the environment isn’t profitable. Same goes for killing everyone. You have a warped perception of reality.

          • Duchess@piefed.linenoise.vip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            1 day ago

            You must not be following the news. Many data centers get local power from on premises gas turbines and more than a couple are doing so illegally. Put ‘ data center gas turbine’ into your favorite news aggregator and there’s hundreds of articles about this.

          • Glitchvid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 day ago

            Destroying the environment isn’t profitable.

            Then they wouldn’t be clearcutting the amazon rainforest.

          • Oni_eyes@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 day ago

            Not being forced to follow environmental regulations (hence destroying the environment) is significantly more profitable than following them.

            Or do you think op is talking about companies who produce literally nothing but harm to the environment?

  • ATPA9@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 day ago

    A 20 year gas deal is probably THE dummest fucking thing you can do. Shit isn’t getting cheaper.

    • Leon@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Ah, but it is likely that the deal is locked in place with some kind of price guarantee. Meaning they’ve guaranteed that they’ll buy for 20 years, and in return they get a certain price. I doubt they’ve managed to get it for a flat price for 20 years, but it’s likely a curve that’ll be beneficial to both parts of the agreement.

      And then any other parties not part of the deal that also need this gas, those who don’t have 20 year contracts on fixed prices, they get to carry the burden. :)

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

    The only way to avoid negative environmental consequences I’ve seen implemented is Japan using geothermal vents in the ocean.

    They harvest the heat for energy, and the ocean (that would get heated up anyways) for cooling.

    The net effect is an artificial reef and spreading the heat out further in a temperate zone that facilitates biological growth.

    I don’t think there’s any scenario that actually works on land. Maybe out in the middle of the desert powered only by solar and using an absolutely massive heatsink that dumps it all over night when the desert is cold. But the cost for that would be insane.

    • BuckFutter@timeyak.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Yah but that requires coastal development or in the vicinity of the coast, with increasing sea level rise, that is just going to require these things to be made like giant doomsday bunkers able to survive a life extinguishing event. I still question the need for these data centers.

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

        Yah but that requires coastal development or in the vicinity of the coast

        There’s this new thing called “boats”…

        And data cables can (and do) run along the ocean floor, they don’t even need to connect to mainland, they can join an existing cable.

        I still question the need for these data centers

        We needed them before AI and well need them after…

        Finding an environmental positive way to have them is worthwhile. Arguing that it’s expensive literally just means you’re putting a price on our planet. Which is especially stupid since the billionaires are the ones keeping those savings.

        Quit fucking simping for billionaire techbros. Even if you don’t realize it’s what you’re doing, it’s what you’re doing. Fuck their profits the planet matters more.