Contributions, Companies & Climate: How Tech Companies Fund Denial
For many major tech companies, their environmental impact is visible in the physical world. Whether in data centers or delivery vans, these companies produce emissions and pollution that directly impact the global climate and the lives of people internationally. However, a look at these companies' bureaucratic and policy-focused measures must also be taken into account, as many of these same companies fight against climate resolutions while also promising to uphold them. This hypocrisy can be observed across the tech industry, from service-based providers like Amazon and Google to hardware and software giants such as Microsoft and Apple. In recent years, each of these companies has worked to hinder progress on combating climate change through lobbying or rejecting shareholder proposals. As early as 2019, Google began supporting conservative think tanks, such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), which played a key role in the US's withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement (Guardian). Along with CEI, the company has also funded organizations like the American Conservative Union and the Cato Institute, which both publicly oppose environmental legislation (Guardian). Similarly, Apple and Microsoft both supported combating the 2021 budget bill, which included a system to remove emissions from the US electricity grid (Guardian). Although company representatives focused on the bill’s higher taxes on the wealthy, their decision to fight against it represents a lack of serious interest in combating climate issues on any terms other than their own (Guardian). Companies like Amazon also employ internal methods to block meaningful climate policy, as the company recently rejected a series of shareholder proposals, including two that specifically called for more reporting on the climate impact of data centers and the company’s overall climate emissions (Reuters). In response, the company claimed its existing reporting was “sufficient” and that it was “working towards reducing its environmental impacts” (Reuters). Whether through lobbying groups or board votes, major tech companies lead a double life regarding climate policy, promising a greener, more sustainable future in environmental reports while opposing measures that would enforce those exact promises.
In the book Vibrant Matter: An Ecology of Things, author Jane Bennet aims to widen the scope of ideas such as agency, power, and ability to change to include creatures and things beyond humanity. She asserts the framework of vital materialism against the dominant anthropocentric view of nature, recognizing the ability of both natural and non-natural agents to alter the environment significantly (Bennett xvi). In the second chapter, Fraser explores how large-scale events like the Northeast blackout of 2003 are products of the relationship between human and nonhuman assemblages, including the decision of electric company CEOs to reroute power across strained lines, the decision of regulators to loosen energy restrictions, and even the electricity within the power lines themselves (Bennett 25). The modern lobbying of tech companies is part of a new assemblage actively working to harm the environment. Paradoxically, these companies seem to exist at two ends of the assemblage, driven by profit to protest climate proposals, yet motivated socially to adopt them. However, the public position of these companies is more influenced by protecting their personal interests rather than the public good. As shown by Amazon’s refusal to adopt more transparent environmental reporting, these corporations are willing to adopt climate pledges and fossil fuel divestment policies, but only on their own terms. This position is concerning as it allows tech companies to avoid any meaningful consequences for their environmental destruction, similar to the energy companies in Chapter 2 of Vibrant Matter (Bennett 37). These major tech companies try to reduce the agency of both nature and the public by lobbying against environmental legislation. For these companies, their lobbying serves as a means to an end, allowing them to maintain control over their policies even as they actively harm the environment. To keep these companies accountable, we must recognize and protest their lobbying and business practices, especially as their environmental impact continues to grow. As Bennett writes, acknowledging the existence of these companies as a part of a larger assemblage is necessary. Still, we must also recognize the same companies as the source of harmful effects on both he environment and vulnerable populations. These companies exist as a large piece of an even larger assemblage, and it's our responsibility to recognize and regulate their role in the current environmental crisis.
Works Cited
Kirchgaessner, Stephanie. “Revealed: Google Made Large Contributions to Climate Change Deniers.” The Guardian, 11 Oct. 2019. Environment. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/11/google-contributions-climate-change-deniers.
Milman, Oliver. “Apple and Disney among Companies Backing Groups against US Climate Bill.” The Guardian, 1 Oct. 2021. US News. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/oct/01/apple-amazon-microsoft-disney-lobby-groups-climate-bill-analysis.
Milman, Oliver. “Microsoft Joins Group Seeking to Kill off Historic Climate Change Lawsuits.” The Guardian, 2 May 2019. Technology. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/may/01/microsoft-joins-group-seeking-to-avoid-climate-change-lawsuit.
Bennett, Jane. Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things. With Project Muse, Duke University Press, 2010. K10plus ISBN.
Bensinger, Greg. “Amazon Investors Again Reject All Shareholder Proposals.” Reuters, 21 May 2025, https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/amazon-investors-again-reject-all-shareholder-proposals-2025-05-21/.