Matt Damon speaking at a public event advocating for global clean water access.
Matt Damon is riding the promotional wave for Christopher Nolan’s summer blockbuster The Odyssey. But the 55-year-old Academy Award winner is also using the spotlight to pitch his longtime passion: global water access.
Damon co-founded Water.org, a non-profit dedicated to improving safe water and sanitation through microfinance. Leading up to his film’s release, he has aggressively pitched “Get Blue,” a fundraising campaign backed by major retail and tech corporations.
A promotional display for a large-format film screening
The catch? Some of those partners, specifically Amazon, drain billions of liters of water every year to cool their massive data centers.
Corporate PR or Genuine Help?
The Get Blue campaign leverages daily consumer spending. Gap offers a Get Blue capsule collection, donating $5 per item sold. Starbucks pledged 25 cents for every special blue beverage purchased between June 16 and July 7.
Amazon takes a digital approach. Users can ask Alexa to donate $5 to the charity on their behalf at no cost, capped at 100,000 U.S. donations. The tech giant also donates $1 every time a user streams its Get Blue playlist.
However, corporate partnerships of this nature raise eyebrows. Alison Kemper, an associate professor at Toronto Metropolitan University, notes that Amazon’s immense water consumption puts it under heavy public scrutiny.
A civic building where local officials debate technology infrastructure
Partnering with a clean water charity acts as a corporate shield. “It’s a way of managing the public relations risks,” Kemper said.
The Math Behind Water.org
Damon launched Water.org with CEO Gary White in 2009. By providing microcredit loans, they claim to have connected 92 million people to reliable water sources in developing nations.
“I couldn’t believe how big this issue was and how no one was talking about it,” Damon told Men’s Journal last month. On its website, the charity claims a $5 donation helps one person, while $25 can secure lasting water access for an entire family.
Damon’s spokesperson declined to comment on the ethics of the specific corporate partnerships. However, Water.org defended the strategy in an email, stating: “Companies that use a lot of water also have real resources to help solve the water crisis.”
An Amazon spokesperson added that the company’s long-standing support has directly helped 1.25 million people access safe water and sanitation through the charity’s microfinance programs.
The AI Thirst Trap
While Amazon highlights its charitable footprint, its environmental reality remains staggering. The company operates more than 900 data centers globally.
Last month, Amazon admitted it used nearly 9.5 billion liters of water to cool those facilities in 2025 alone. They claim this reflects a two percent reduction from the previous year, pointing to new water efficiency engineering efforts.
Yet, tech giants like Amazon, Microsoft, and Google continue building infrastructure in water-scarce regions. The rapid, global expansion of generative AI is only accelerating the drain.
Kaveh Madani, a director at the UN University Institute for Water, Environment and Health, notes the hidden costs. Mining critical minerals and manufacturing semiconductors in developing nations leaves a massive, often untracked water footprint.
Consuming With Caution
Madani warns against placing all the blame on data centers, emphasizing that nothing in tech is “absolutely bad or absolutely good.” However, he acknowledges the severe strain these facilities place on communities that are already “water bankrupt.”
Industrial cooling towers emitting steam over a facility
For consumers, buying a blue hoodie or streaming a playlist offers a convenient way to feel philanthropic. Kemper warns this often just greases the wheels of corporate consumption. “One just has to be aware of why they’re doing it,” she said.
If people truly want to offset the tech industry’s water drain, Madani offers a simpler solution: rethink your screen time. Using energy-intensive AI less frequently is far more effective than buying charity merchandise.
“It means that we have to use it more responsibly,” Madani said. “When it’s necessary and when there is value added.”
