A new report says Big Tech companies including Amazon, Microsoft, and Google are relying on gas and diesel generators to power their hyperscale artificial intelligence data centres while burying data on the facilities’ true emissions and energy use.

Green Web Foundation, a non-profit campaigning for a fossil-free internet by 2030, drew on its own data and 140 other sources for its inaugural report, which it calls the “dirty data centre” edition. It finds that generative AI is jeopardizing the energy transition, demanding far more computing power than earlier AI models, and that the roughly 1,300 hyperscale data centres built to run it are increasingly turning to fossil fuels like gas and coal.

For example, Meta’s planned Hyperion data centre in Louisiana recently added seven more gas power plants to the three in its original plan—set to use as much electricity as the entire state of South Dakota, reported Tech Crunch.

Chris Adams, technology and policy director at the Green Web Foundation, told The Energy Mix that Google, Amazon, and Microsoft do not publicly disclose their energy use in a format that makes it possible to monitor or compare, but said “all three are burning more fossil fuels than ever.”

The three companies are responsible for more than half of all hyperscale AI data centres. Adams said the Green Web Foundation has created a scorecard to start tracking the issue and updating it annually. Other major operators are Meta, Alibaba, Tencent, Oracle, Apple, and ByteDance.

“We hope that when we publish the next State of the Fossil-Free Internet report, the data tells a different story,” he said.

A Pause on Data Centre Expansions

The groups behind the report are calling for “a pause on all data centre expansions until there is more accurate and granular data available locally and globally, and stronger measures in place to ensure that new data centres will not be powered by fossil fuels.”

Green Web recommends that “all claims about energy generation and use should be publicly accessible and independently verifiable,” since “the actions of just a few companies could theoretically make a huge difference to reducing the global emissions of the internet.”

Major tech companies are “driven by extractive capitalism,” Mike Gifford, open standards and practices lead for CivicActions, told The Mix. They are in “a race to get there first” and unwilling to wait until their business goals can be met sustainably.

The big tech culture of ‘‘move fast and break things” is operating at “previously unimagined speed and scale,” he added.

“Governments need to step up and start highlighting how AI can be harnessed to actually benefit society,” Gifford said. “That begins with ensuring that data centres do not destroy our communities.”

Not only are data centres not disclosing information, but when they do, “they fail to use a consistent open standard,” he said. That’s something Gifford and others have been advocating for.

“Data on energy consumption could be near real-time, and same with water consumption and noise pollution,” he explained. “The companies argue it could disclose trade secrets. However, this transparency should be ‘table stakes’ for this industry.”

Gifford said communities need to know projected values for energy, water, and noise, including for conditions such as heat waves and drought. “Citizens need to know the full expected cost before these data centres are built,” including their contracts with local governments and energy providers.

Industry Claims: 74% Unproven

Another report released in February, authored by climate and energy analyst Ketan Joshi, found that 74% of industry claims about AI’s climate benefits are unproven. Green Web Foundation was one of a consortium of environmental organizations that commissioned the study.

The report found that Google and Microsoft, along with institutions such as the International Energy Agency, claimed AI would result in a “net climate benefit”. But that conclusion did not hold up under scrutiny. A review of 154 statements making the claim found only 26% cited published academic papers, and 36% did not cite any evidence at all.

“It appears tech companies are using vagueness about what happens within energy-hogging data centres to greenwash a planet-wrecking expansion,” Joshi said in a news release. “The promises of planet-saving tech remain hollow, while AI data centres breathe life into coal and gas every day.”

Nathan Taft, senior campaigner with Stand.earth, one of the groups that commissioned the February study, told The Mix that “there is a right way to do it, but we’re not seeing that from hardly anybody.”

Communities “need to take a real hard look at the data centres that are coming in, and make sure that they’re getting proper benefits, that the company’s paying its taxes, they’re not adding to the pollution burden, they have a plan for water, and they have the community partnership locked in from the beginning,” he said.

A ‘Big Red Flag’

Taft added that “it’s a big red flag” when tech companies demand non-disclosure agreements and residents are kept in the dark.

“Ultimately, it’s the communities that are going to have to live with this data centre and the associated infrastructure,” he said. “It’s crucial for communities to continue to speak up and really make it clear that this is not something that is partisan.”

The Green Web Foundation outlined three strategies to deal with “runaway” data centre demands: a public debate about what digital infrastructure is actually needed; a call for technology companies to completely green their energy supply; and more public control and ownership of technology to challenge what it calls “corrosive power.”

Gifford also points to ways to get involved, including with communities like ClimateAction.tech, where technology workers can collaborate on climate action. As well, the work to help create the W3C’s Web Sustainability Guidelines “could always use more support.”

Gifford said anti-greenwashing laws should be adopted and strengthened, and more policies like the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) are needed. Canada scaled back its greenwashing law in late 2025, and the federal government continues to work on clarifying the remaining rules.

“We live an increasing amount of our lives in front of our screens. Whether we should or not is another matter, but it has a huge impact,” Gifford said. “We don’t think about the environmental impact of digital technology or the data centres behind it, but we need to start considering this impact.”