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

  • 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?