The title of this pic on Getty Images was ‘corporate businessman taking no responsibility for pollution and environmental impact’ and I thought that was pretty apt.A few weeks ago, HEATED reported on a bombshell new peer-reviewed study showing that data centers are nowhere near the biggest climate problem with artificial intelligence.The research identified a far bigger problem with AI: How fossil fuel companies are using the technology. Oil giants like ExxonMobil, Chevron, and BP are working with Microsoft, Google, and Amazon to develop custom AI tools that help them boost production. The use of these AI tools could trigger 3.3 to 13.3 times more climate pollution than the emissions from AI data centers, the study found. Importantly, the study also found that the fossil fuel industry’s use of these tools will almost always outweigh the climate benefits AI provides to renewable energy.You all took the research pretty seriously. Last month’s article was one of the most liked and shared letters of the year.Unfortunately, I’m disappointed to report that the companies responsible for building custom AI for Big Oil are not taking the research seriously. The responses I received from Microsoft, Google, and Amazon raise serious questions about their stated commitments both to responsible AI and a livable planet. HEATED is dedicated to holding corporations accountable for fueling the climate crisis. If you appreciate this work and want to see more like it, become a paid subscriber.Confronting Big Tech’s climate darlingsI sent off requests to Microsoft, Google, and Amazon’s press teams on August 19. I asked them to respond to the new research. Do they accept the findings? If not, why not? And if so, will they do anything to make sure their AI technology isn’t enabling climate chaos?I also asked whether they track or count the emissions their technology enables; how they reconcile helping oil companies increase production with their climate commitments; and whether they would consider restricting contracts designed to expand fossil fuel extraction.The questions were asked in good faith. As I wrote last month: Microsoft, Google and Amazon have all promised both to fight climate change and to develop AI responsibly. Microsoft says it will become carbon negative by 2030, and that the systems it builds ‘must also support the long-term health of the planet.’ Google says its AI safeguards are designed to mitigate ‘unintended or harmful outcomes,’ and it aims to reach net zero emissions across its operations and value chain by 2030. Amazon says responsible AI includes preventing harmful outputs and misuse, and it has pledged to reach net zero carbon by 2040.I gave the companies one week to respond, figuring they might need some time to assess the research methodologies, consult with lawyers, and draft a meaningful reply. Google and Microsoft’s responses: , After initially confirming receipt of my questions, Google wound up ghosting. I never heard from them again. Microsoft also declined to respond, though they at least let me know about it. A media relations team member said ‘the company has nothing to share.’The non-responses were disappointing but not surprising to Holly Alpine, a former senior project manager at Microsoft who worked on sustainability, and co-author of the new research.’Their silence tells you more than their talking points ever could,’ said Alpine, who now runs a campaign dedicated to seeking guardrails on AI tools for Big Oil.In the past, Alpine said, Microsoft and Google have responded to questions about their work with fossil fuel companies by changing the subject. They cite their own responsible AI principles (which do not address fossil fuel expansion); their low operational emissions (which do not address the emissions enabled by their technology); or claim that they are complying with greenhouse gas reporting protocols (which do not require enabling emissions to be counted).’This time, they didn’t even try, which suggests they know those answers don’t hold up anymore, and they’d rather say nothing on the record than repeat them,’ she said.Amazon, however, was a different story. Subscribe nowAmazon’s response: Double down, change the subjectTo its credit, Amazon was the only company to provide a response to my questions. Unfortunately, that response was chock-full of misdirection and greenwashing.Amazon did not dispute a single finding in the research, nor did it engage with its central question: whether the company’s technology is enabling massive amounts of pollution that will cause catastrophic climate impacts.Instead, the company doubled down on its practice of providing custom cloud technology for the fossil fuel industry, claiming it is helping those companies become less ‘carbon intensive.’‘The energy industry should have access to the same technologies as other industries,’ an Amazon spokesperson told HEATED via email. ‘We will continue to provide cloud services to companies in the energy industry to make their legacy businesses less carbon intensive and help them accelerate development of renewable energy businesses.’I showed this to Holly Alpine, who pointed out that Amazon was answering a fairness question that was never asked. ‘No one is arguing the energy industry should be denied technology other industries get,’ she said. ‘The question was never access, its application—whether these specific tools are being used to find and produce more oil and gas, faster and cheaper than would otherwise be economical.’And Amazon’s technology explicitly helps oil companies increase production. The company’s own oil and gas marketing materials promise to help fossil fuel companies ‘find oil faster,’ ‘recover more oil,’ and ‘reduce the cost per barrel.’ This is what I was asking them about, and what the research focuses on. But Amazon did not address this. Instead, the company claimed its custom technology is helping oil companies become less carbon intensive. But ‘Carbon intensity’ is a greenwashing term: It measures pollution per barrel, allowing oil companies to claim climate progress even as rising production drives up total overall emissions. In other words, Amazon may be helping oil companies lower carbon intensity. That doesn’t mean it’s helping oil companies lower carbon emissions.Amazon continued to sidestep the central question as its response went on. The spokesperson added: ‘We support sustainability programs for our own business, and we work with partners to reduce their demand for carbon fuel sources.’ This, again, is misdirection. Amazon’s sustainability programs ‘are real but irrelevant,’ Alpine said. ‘None of it touches what its cloud and AI services are doing to expand the supply of oil and gas in the first place.’The only other specific question that Amazon tried to answer was whether the research should call into question the company’s Climate Pledge, its commitment to reach net zero by 2040.’Our Climate Pledge commitment hasn’t changed,’ the spokesperson said. ‘We’re being transparent about the challenges, investing in innovation, and delivering measurable results. Growth and sustainability don’t have to be in opposition—in fact, our results show they reinforce each other.’But Alpine said the response only illustrates the problem further. Amazon’s Climate Pledge only measures emissions from its own operations—it does not count the emissions enabled by its business deals. ‘That’s exactly the accountability gap we’re pointing to: a company can be truthful about its operational net-zero progress while contracts that materially expand global oil and gas production sit entirely outside what gets measured or disclosed,’ she said. ‘Growth and sustainability not being in opposition, on paper, is only possible because the accounting was never built to see this part of the business at all.’That’s why Alpine argues the solution is not to wait for Big Tech to voluntarily act. Where to go from here?If tech companies will not engage with the climate harm their AI technology is enabling, I asked Alpine: What’s next? Her response:Three concrete places to start, and none of them require Microsoft or Google’s cooperation.Investors and ratings agencies can start by amending their frameworks to ask whether a tech company’s AI, cloud, or automation services are helping expand a client’s fossil fuel production, not just what the company’s own operations emit. Global accounting standards can start requiring companies to report this directly: the GHG Protocol is considering a new ‘facilitated emissions’ category in its live Scope 3 revision that would formalize exactly this kind of reporting gap.And policymakers can require disclosure of whether an AI system a tech company develops, markets, licenses, or deploys is intended to optimize, expand, or extend fossil fuel production.Of course, none of this will happen automatically. Investors, accounting bodies, and policymakers must first be convinced that enabled emissions matter. That is where public pressure comes in.Microsoft, Google, and Amazon can ignore questions from one journalist. It is much harder to ignore employees, customers, investors, and elected officials all asking the same question: How much fossil fuel production is your technology enabling—and what are you going to do about it?Subscribe nowCatch of the Day: That was a lot of information. Margo is proud of you for getting through it. Now will you please throw the stick? Support climate journalism (and Margo)