Climatists tend to either actively oppose (or worse) economic growth or be extremely suspicious of it. Unsurprisingly they would like to be another obstacle in the path of data centers.
And where climatists are, the ESG/stakeholder capitalism complex and those who flourish within it, will not be far behind.
“In the AI race, tech giants risk undermining their climate commitments at precisely the moment disciplined, long-term decision-making matters most,” said Andrea Ranger, director of shareholder advocacy at Trillium Asset Management. “Shareholders are asking for a credible strategy that preserves both climate goals and leadership in the AI economy.”
In each proposal, shareholders request that the company “issue a report explaining how it will meet the climate change-related commitments it has made on greenhouse gas emissions, given the massively growing energy demand from artificial intelligence and data centers.”
Trillium describes its mission as being “to activate capital to advance humankind towards a global sustainable economy, a just society, and a better world.”
Okey dokey.
Ranger’s comments raise again the question of why companies should have “climate goals.” If anyone is to be setting climate goals, it should be democratically elected governments, not C-suites. Unless corporate managements can show how such goals will add to shareholder value, an uphill struggle, they should not have them — unless shareholders decide otherwise.
Back to Bloomberg:
In addition to climate and other environmental concerns, the data center buildout poses a governance issue, said Jill Fisch, a professor of business law at the University of Pennsylvania.
A board of directors can’t say it’s committed to net zero while also building plants that create a climate problem, she said: “Those two statements are inconsistent. That’s not good governance.”
Whether building plants “create” a climate problem is a question that might be debated. But if a board of directors has committed to net zero that, like any other “climate goal,” is something that it should not have done unless that commitment is compatible with its fiduciary duty to its shareholders. If that cannot be shown, the commitment should be rescinded even as the work on data centers, which has presumably been undertaken to generate shareholder return, should continue.