Emily Cunningham

You are legitimizing AWS's immoral climate record by accepting us as a "climate sponsor." Would you accept Exxon or Shell as your climate sponsor? I would hope not. For the same reason you shouldn't accept AWS as a sponsor either. Please reconsider.

I worked in the environmental field in the 90s when we could have made significant difference if we hadn't been ignored. I took flak because I argued nuclear was part of the solution (it was seen as the great evil). I will start the journey and ratchet demands each year.

And why were you and others ignored? Because powerful fossil fuel interests spent a lot of money to spread disinformation and buy cover. Why are you now willing to take money now from AWS who says it helps, "Oil and Gas companies" .."find oil, produce oil, optimize production"?

A lot of it was that and I certainly agree that climate reports have been watered down over the last three decades. But part of it was also some attitudes within the field ... we needed to support nuclear, we needed to bring people with us along the path.

No. The real issue is that oil and gas companies spent billions of dollars to lie and deceive. @GeoffreySupran gave expert testimony to Parliament on this which you can watch in this thread. Nuclear is a red herring.https://twitter.com/GeoffreySupran/status/1109083684957810688 …

As the Environment speaker I'm shocked at having @amazon as the CC sponsor. @awscloud have by far the worst CC record of the major cloud vendors + they're actively contributing to CC through their work on fossil fuel extraction. AWS must change. We don't have a year to wait.

Then, say that in your keynote. The whole point of mapping is communication and enabling us to have frank and honest discussions.