Amazon would rather shareholders did not look too closely at carbon footprint
(2026/04/10)
- Reference: 1775824410
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2026/04/10/amazon_climate_goals/
- Source link:
Amazon's board of directors is urging shareholders to reject a proposal that would have the megacorp disclose more information on the impact of datacenters on its climate commitments.
The proposal is one of several shareholder suggestions in the online bazaar's [1]proxy statement [PDF], sent to all shareholders ahead of its annual meeting next month.
It notes that Amazon has made high-profile climate commitments central to its corporate strategy, but also that the firm's cloud business aims to massively expand its infrastructure over the next several years. This calls into question whether the original commitment is realistic.
[2]
This proposal was submitted by Brian Kariger, represented by As You Sow, a nonprofit that advocates corporate responsibility, and Mercy Investment Services, the investor arm of the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas.
[3]
[4]
With its Climate Pledge, Amazon committed to "net-zero carbon emissions by 2040" and match 100 percent of its electricity use with renewable energy by 2030, the proposal says.
While Amazon claims to have met the latter commitment in 2023, the shareholders behind the proposal question whether the company will be able to maintain this in the coming years, given the huge datacenter expansion planned by its Amazon Web Services (AWS) cloud division.
[5]
Earlier this year, CEO Andy Jassy [6]told investors that Amazon had added 3.9 gigawatts of compute capacity during 2025, and he expects to double that by the end of 2027, spending $200 billion on infrastructure during 2026. That's more than the entire gross domestic product of some mid-sized national economies, according to [7]statistics available from the IMF .
All of that extra infrastructure needs power, and the proposal notes that utilities in states such as Virginia – the [8]datacenter capital of the world – now have to build [9]new gas-powered generator plants to meet the growing demand, or even [10]keep coal-fired facilities online . All of this is pumping millions of tons of extra greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
As a result, Amazon faces questions over how it intends to deliver on its climate promises. The company relies heavily on renewable energy credits (RECs), according to the proposal, which asks whether the volume purchased will increase and whether enough will be available. Amazon's investors would benefit from analysis that explains how the company will tackle those concerns, it states.
[11]Microsoft accused of 'greenwashing' as AI used in fossil fuel exploration
[12]So much for green Google ... Emissions up 48% since 2019
[13]Microsoft throws more cash at its carbon guilt by replanting Brazilian rainforest
[14]AWS wants to cook its datacenter chips with vegetable oil
As The Register has previously reported, hyperscalers are [15]not being entirely transparent about their carbon footprint, and AWS was accused of being the worst offender.
Amazon's board of directors recommends that shareholders vote against the proposal for more detailed reporting on the impact of datacenters on the its climate commitments.
[16]
We asked Amazon why it is urging shareholders to reject the proposal and whether it believes existing disclosures are sufficient to reassure investors.
Instead, a spokesperson simply referred us to the board's response in the proxy statement, which essentially says Amazon believes the report requested in the proposal is unnecessary.
"We already provide regular, public updates on our progress, initiatives, and work in pursuit of our climate goals, including routinely reporting on our carbon intensity and on our efforts to reduce the carbon footprint of AI workloads and make our datacenters more sustainable and efficient," the text says.
"As a result, our current public reporting already addresses the specific challenges highlighted by this proposal and makes the report requested in the proposal unnecessary."
Last year, AWS was part of a body of datacenter operators that published a report critical of the EU's plans to introduce [17]minimum performance standards for the sustainability of server farms. ®
Get our [18]Tech Resources
[1] https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001018724/b0920373-524c-460c-a3ab-16d00579dc84.pdf
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offprem/paasiaas&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2adkep28XOs64Vu-YFb-fnQAAAMQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offprem/paasiaas&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44adkep28XOs64Vu-YFb-fnQAAAMQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offprem/paasiaas&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33adkep28XOs64Vu-YFb-fnQAAAMQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offprem/paasiaas&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44adkep28XOs64Vu-YFb-fnQAAAMQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2026/02/06/amazon_earnings_q4_2025/
[7] https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2024/08/15/hyperscale_capacity_global_research/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2026/02/17/ai_datacenters_driving_up_emissions/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/10/datacenter_coal_power/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/31/microsoft_greenwashing_ai/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2024/07/02/google_datacenter_emissions/
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/22/microsoft_carbon_credits/
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2023/03/20/aws_wants_to_cook_its/
[15] https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/22/datacenter_emissions_not_accurate/
[16] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offprem/paasiaas&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33adkep28XOs64Vu-YFb-fnQAAAMQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[17] https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/30/datacenter_lobby_eu_efficiency/
[18] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
The proposal is one of several shareholder suggestions in the online bazaar's [1]proxy statement [PDF], sent to all shareholders ahead of its annual meeting next month.
It notes that Amazon has made high-profile climate commitments central to its corporate strategy, but also that the firm's cloud business aims to massively expand its infrastructure over the next several years. This calls into question whether the original commitment is realistic.
[2]
This proposal was submitted by Brian Kariger, represented by As You Sow, a nonprofit that advocates corporate responsibility, and Mercy Investment Services, the investor arm of the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas.
[3]
[4]
With its Climate Pledge, Amazon committed to "net-zero carbon emissions by 2040" and match 100 percent of its electricity use with renewable energy by 2030, the proposal says.
While Amazon claims to have met the latter commitment in 2023, the shareholders behind the proposal question whether the company will be able to maintain this in the coming years, given the huge datacenter expansion planned by its Amazon Web Services (AWS) cloud division.
[5]
Earlier this year, CEO Andy Jassy [6]told investors that Amazon had added 3.9 gigawatts of compute capacity during 2025, and he expects to double that by the end of 2027, spending $200 billion on infrastructure during 2026. That's more than the entire gross domestic product of some mid-sized national economies, according to [7]statistics available from the IMF .
All of that extra infrastructure needs power, and the proposal notes that utilities in states such as Virginia – the [8]datacenter capital of the world – now have to build [9]new gas-powered generator plants to meet the growing demand, or even [10]keep coal-fired facilities online . All of this is pumping millions of tons of extra greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
As a result, Amazon faces questions over how it intends to deliver on its climate promises. The company relies heavily on renewable energy credits (RECs), according to the proposal, which asks whether the volume purchased will increase and whether enough will be available. Amazon's investors would benefit from analysis that explains how the company will tackle those concerns, it states.
[11]Microsoft accused of 'greenwashing' as AI used in fossil fuel exploration
[12]So much for green Google ... Emissions up 48% since 2019
[13]Microsoft throws more cash at its carbon guilt by replanting Brazilian rainforest
[14]AWS wants to cook its datacenter chips with vegetable oil
As The Register has previously reported, hyperscalers are [15]not being entirely transparent about their carbon footprint, and AWS was accused of being the worst offender.
Amazon's board of directors recommends that shareholders vote against the proposal for more detailed reporting on the impact of datacenters on the its climate commitments.
[16]
We asked Amazon why it is urging shareholders to reject the proposal and whether it believes existing disclosures are sufficient to reassure investors.
Instead, a spokesperson simply referred us to the board's response in the proxy statement, which essentially says Amazon believes the report requested in the proposal is unnecessary.
"We already provide regular, public updates on our progress, initiatives, and work in pursuit of our climate goals, including routinely reporting on our carbon intensity and on our efforts to reduce the carbon footprint of AI workloads and make our datacenters more sustainable and efficient," the text says.
"As a result, our current public reporting already addresses the specific challenges highlighted by this proposal and makes the report requested in the proposal unnecessary."
Last year, AWS was part of a body of datacenter operators that published a report critical of the EU's plans to introduce [17]minimum performance standards for the sustainability of server farms. ®
Get our [18]Tech Resources
[1] https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001018724/b0920373-524c-460c-a3ab-16d00579dc84.pdf
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offprem/paasiaas&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2adkep28XOs64Vu-YFb-fnQAAAMQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offprem/paasiaas&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44adkep28XOs64Vu-YFb-fnQAAAMQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offprem/paasiaas&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33adkep28XOs64Vu-YFb-fnQAAAMQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offprem/paasiaas&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44adkep28XOs64Vu-YFb-fnQAAAMQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2026/02/06/amazon_earnings_q4_2025/
[7] https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2024/08/15/hyperscale_capacity_global_research/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2026/02/17/ai_datacenters_driving_up_emissions/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/10/datacenter_coal_power/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/31/microsoft_greenwashing_ai/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2024/07/02/google_datacenter_emissions/
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/22/microsoft_carbon_credits/
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2023/03/20/aws_wants_to_cook_its/
[15] https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/22/datacenter_emissions_not_accurate/
[16] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offprem/paasiaas&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33adkep28XOs64Vu-YFb-fnQAAAMQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[17] https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/30/datacenter_lobby_eu_efficiency/
[18] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
ParlezVousFranglais
Honestly, if I'm investing in a company (and I don't in Amazon), I'm doing it for one reason, and that's because I want it to make oodles of money for me.
If a failure to pander to namby-pamby wishy-washy tree-hugging ideology suddenly starts to directly impact profits, then for sure, the board needs to demonstrate it's "eco credentials" - but when people are buying on Amazon, or corporates are increasing their AWS spend, very few of them genuinely give a flying **** about how "green" the underlying system is, and those who do probably aren't going anywhere near Amazon in the first place anyway.
So if the Amazon board choose not to arbitrarily tie themselves in red tape and the eco-investors want to throw their toys out of the pram and take their investment elsewhere, that's fine by me, and I'm pretty sure that it's also fine by the vast majority of non-eco-activist Amazon investors
M.V. Lipvig
Normally I would agree with you, but not in this case. Amazon and others have made a lot of very publicised hay over how green they are, including supporting politicians and initiatives to force everyone else to follow suit. They should be forced to eat that hay instead of opting for steak and potatoes behind closed doors while still expecting everyone else to go "gangreen."
Inconvenient Balderdash
herman
It is time to move on and find a new, more profitable hoax.
When a company is this blatant about hiding things you really should think if is still a good idea to invest on it.