Hardly at all. Global warming is caused by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere rather than the direct emission of heat. Greenhouse gases prevent heat (blackbody radiation) from escaping the Earth to space. The effect is much the same as multiplying the Sun’s energy by a small amount. Greenhouse gases remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years with this multiplying effect being continuous the whole time! The Sun’s energy is much greater than all of the human primary energy consumption, so the greenhouse gas effect dominates over the heat emitted from energy use.
Most energy use does cause some greenhouse gas emissions because a lot of fossil fuels are still used in the energy grid, so data centers are potentially contributing to global warming that way. Big data center providers, such as Google, buy all their power from renewable energy companies who have very low greenhouse gas emissions.
Brazil's government even authorised during the COP days (by decree, without previous consent from Indigenous communities) the privatisation of river waterways that will help agribusiness expand and export more grain.
That's why it's so important to look at the whole picture, not just emissions accounting.
Sorry. Since you didn't frame it as a question, I thought you mentioned it because you were interested in knowing more about our battles regarding bad developments in the Amazon region. But if it is a question, I'll gladly share my two cents:
This specific road is just a regular one and it is not part of the COP 30 construction. There are entire cities, urban centres, in the Amazon, which require new infrastructure for the people who live in these cities. It's not just a rainforest, it's a biome that co-exists with people's demands too. This road was actually part of a previous development project (it was first planned in 2012) and it is indeed problematic because certain public consultation processes were irregular). The actual process to build this road started in 2020, the responsibility of the local government, long before Brazil was chosen to host COP 30. It was meant to help relieve traffic in the region. But since the local government rushed it to be ready in time for COP30, it somehow got framed in international press as a COP30 specific project. It was not. BBC did a terrible job covering it and it led to the story going viral. While these roads connected to urban development take down many trees (as would be the case for urban expansion in any forest-heavy region) and bring in a lot of issues regarding the process of urbanisation in these biomes, this one was not built for the climate summit as BBC claimed. But it got all the foreign attention when much more deforestation will ensue from development projects championed by the government that are not designed to help the people in the region but big mining and agribusiness interests.
So that's why I suggested you might want to look at the big battles, the waterways (which also lead to deforestation), or you can check out the roads the government wants to pave to make room for agribusiness and mining commodity corridors (and we're desperately trying to block them from being paved). They're less about connecting people and they're more about making sure exports can reach specific ports. They're really problematic because you don't get deforestation just to create the road, but also lead to what we call "fishbone deforestation", killing pristine forest from inside.
Hardly at all. Global warming is caused by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere rather than the direct emission of heat. Greenhouse gases prevent heat (blackbody radiation) from escaping the Earth to space. The effect is much the same as multiplying the Sun’s energy by a small amount. Greenhouse gases remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years with this multiplying effect being continuous the whole time! The Sun’s energy is much greater than all of the human primary energy consumption, so the greenhouse gas effect dominates over the heat emitted from energy use.
Most energy use does cause some greenhouse gas emissions because a lot of fossil fuels are still used in the energy grid, so data centers are potentially contributing to global warming that way. Big data center providers, such as Google, buy all their power from renewable energy companies who have very low greenhouse gas emissions.
Hi Suman, was this in relation to this text or another text? I'm a bit confused.
I read about them cutting down chunks of the Amazon rainforest to make a highway to the conference. Irony.
Brazil's government even authorised during the COP days (by decree, without previous consent from Indigenous communities) the privatisation of river waterways that will help agribusiness expand and export more grain.
That's why it's so important to look at the whole picture, not just emissions accounting.
That was a world-class pivot but you didn't acknowledge what I said at all about the highway made by leveling parts of the rainforest.
https://www.climatedepot.com/2025/10/19/un-climate-summit-cop30-clear-cuts-100000-amazonian-trees-for-highway-meanwhile-greenpeace-claims-cop30-no-shows-wont-be-helping-fight-the-forest-destroyers/
Sorry. Since you didn't frame it as a question, I thought you mentioned it because you were interested in knowing more about our battles regarding bad developments in the Amazon region. But if it is a question, I'll gladly share my two cents:
This specific road is just a regular one and it is not part of the COP 30 construction. There are entire cities, urban centres, in the Amazon, which require new infrastructure for the people who live in these cities. It's not just a rainforest, it's a biome that co-exists with people's demands too. This road was actually part of a previous development project (it was first planned in 2012) and it is indeed problematic because certain public consultation processes were irregular). The actual process to build this road started in 2020, the responsibility of the local government, long before Brazil was chosen to host COP 30. It was meant to help relieve traffic in the region. But since the local government rushed it to be ready in time for COP30, it somehow got framed in international press as a COP30 specific project. It was not. BBC did a terrible job covering it and it led to the story going viral. While these roads connected to urban development take down many trees (as would be the case for urban expansion in any forest-heavy region) and bring in a lot of issues regarding the process of urbanisation in these biomes, this one was not built for the climate summit as BBC claimed. But it got all the foreign attention when much more deforestation will ensue from development projects championed by the government that are not designed to help the people in the region but big mining and agribusiness interests.
So that's why I suggested you might want to look at the big battles, the waterways (which also lead to deforestation), or you can check out the roads the government wants to pave to make room for agribusiness and mining commodity corridors (and we're desperately trying to block them from being paved). They're less about connecting people and they're more about making sure exports can reach specific ports. They're really problematic because you don't get deforestation just to create the road, but also lead to what we call "fishbone deforestation", killing pristine forest from inside.
Here's a bit about it: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jun/05/amazon-road-ruin-highway-threatens-heart-rainforest