Nationwide Backlash Brewing Against Big Tech’s Energy-Devouring AI Data Centers

Spread the love

Original article by Brad Reed republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

An operator works at the data centre of French company OVHcloud in Roubaix, northern France on April 3, 2025. (Photo by Sameer Al-Doumy/AFP via Getty Images)

“For any Democrat who wants to think politically, what an opportunity,” said Faiz Shakir, a longtime adviser to US Sen. Bernie Sanders. “The people are way ahead of the politicians.”

America’s biggest tech firms are facing an increasing backlash over the energy-devouring data centers they are building to power artificial intelligence.

Semafor reported on Monday that opposition to data center construction has been bubbling up in communities across the US, as both Republican and Democratic local officials have been campaigning on promises to clamp down on Silicon Valley’s most expensive and ambitious projects.

In Virginia’s 30th House of Delegates district, for example, both Republican incumbent Geary Higgins and Democratic challenger John McAuliff have been battling over which one of them is most opposed to AI data center construction in their region.

In an interview with Semafor, McAuliff said that opposition to data centers in the district has swelled up organically, as voters recoil at both the massive amount of resources they consume and the impact that consumption is having on both the environment and their electric bills.

“We’re dealing with the biggest companies on the planet,” he explained. “So we need to make sure Virginians are benefiting off of what they do here, not just paying for it.”

NPR on Tuesday similarly reported that fights over data center construction are happening nationwide, as residents who live near proposed construction sites have expressed concerns about the amount of water and electricity they will consume at the expense of local communities.

“A typical AI data center uses as much electricity as 100,000 households, and the largest under development will consume 20 times more,” NPR explained, citing a report from the International Energy Agency. “They also suck up billions of gallons of water for systems to keep all that computer hardware cool.”

Data centers’ massive water use has been a consistent concern across the US. The Philadelphia Inquirer reported on Monday that residents of the township of East Vincent, Pennsylvania have seen their wells dry up recently, and they are worried that a proposed data center would significantly exacerbate water shortages.

This is what has been happening in Mansfield, Georgia, a community that for years has experienced problems with its water supply ever since tech giant Meta began building a data center there in 2018.

As BBC reported back in August, residents in Mansfield have resorted to buying bottled water because their wells have been delivering murky water, which they said wasn’t a problem before the Meta data center came online. Although Meta has commissioned a study that claims to show its data center hasn’t affected local groundwater quality, Mansfield resident Beverly Morris told BBC she isn’t buying the company’s findings.

“My everyday life, everything has been affected,” she said, in reference to the presence of the data center. “I’ve lived through this for eight years. This is not just today, but it is affecting me from now on.”

Anxieties about massive power consumption are also spurring the backlash against data centers, and recent research shows these fears could be well founded.

Mike Jacobs, a senior energy manager at the Union of Concerned Scientists, last month released an analysis estimating that data centers had added billions of dollars to Americans’ electric bills across seven different states in recent years. In Virginia alone, for instance, Jacobs found that household electric bills had subsidized data center transmission costs to the tune of $1.9 billion in 2024.

“The big tech companies rushing to build out massive data centers are worth trillions of dollars, yet they’re successfully exploiting an outdated regulatory process to pawn billions of dollars of costs off on families who may never even use their products,” Jacobs explained. “People deserve to understand the full extent of how data centers in their communities may affect their lives and wallets. This is a clear case of the public unknowingly subsidizing private companies’ profits.”

While the backlash to data centers hasn’t yet become a national issue, Faiz Shakir, a longtime adviser to US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), predicted in an interview with Semafor that opposition to their construction would be a winning political issue for any politician savvy enough to get ahead of it.

“For any Democrat who wants to think politically, what an opportunity,” he said. “The people are way ahead of the politicians.”

Original article by Brad Reed republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Continue ReadingNationwide Backlash Brewing Against Big Tech’s Energy-Devouring AI Data Centers

Revealed: Forecasts of greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels soar in Trump’s first 100 days

Spread the love

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/02/trump-drill-baby-drill-tariffs

Expected greenhouse gas emissions from US oil and gas fields has jumped under Trump, after previously dropping under Biden, forecasts show. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images

Tariff chaos hampers Trump’s pledge to ‘drill, baby, drill’, but analysis still shows surge in planet-heating emissions

Donald Trump’s ambitions for the US to “drill, baby, drill” for more fossil fuels have ironically been hampered by the economic chaos unleashed by his own tariffs, but the US is still on track to increase oil and gas extraction, causing a surge in planet-heating emissions, a new analysis shows.

The US was already the world’s leading oil and gas power, producing more of the fossil fuels than any country in history during Joe Biden’s administration. But Trump has sought to escalate this further, declaring an “energy emergency” to open up more land and ocean for drilling and launching an unprecedented assault on environmental regulations in his first 100 days back in the White House.

This new political climate means that the expected amount of greenhouse gas emissions from active and planned projects in US oil and gas fields has jumped under Trump, after previously dropping under Biden, forecasts shared with the Guardian show.

Despite awarding more drilling leases than Trump in his first 100 days, Biden also pursued policies to combat the climate crisis that saw oil and gas companies revise down their production estimates. That situation has now reversed, threatening a pulse of new pollution that will further add to the fever of a planet already suffering from heatwaves, floods, droughts and other disasters accelerated by global heating.

“The uptick in embodied emissions from forecast US oil and gas production is worrying,” said Olivier Bois von Kursk, policy adviser at the International Institute for Sustainable Development, which tracks emissions projections from the lifetime of projects, based on data from research consultancy Rystad Energy. “The world can’t afford more climate chaos.”

The International Energy Agency, which has forecast that global oil and gas demand will peak by 2030, has said that no new major fossil fuel projects can occur if the world is to stay within agreed temperature limits and avoid catastrophic climate impacts. Last year was the hottest, worldwide, ever recorded and governments are collectively failing to meet targets to avert escalating disasters.

Tariffs on solar panels from Vietnam, Cambodia and Malaysia have been ratcheted up to as much as 3,521%. “We don’t want windmills in this country,” the president said shortly after his inauguration in January. “We don’t want windmills. You know what else people don’t like? Those massive solar fields.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/02/trump-drill-baby-drill-tariffs

Neo-Fascist Climate Science Denier Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.
Neo-Fascist Climate Science Denier Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.
Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
Orcas discuss Donald Trump and the killer apes' concept of democracy. Front Orca warns that Trump is crashing his country's economy and that everything he does he does for the fantastically wealthy.
Orcas discuss Donald Trump and the killer apes’ concept of democracy. Front Orca warns that Trump is crashing his country’s economy and that everything he does he does for the fantastically wealthy.

‘A ruthless agenda’: charting 100 days of Trump’s onslaught on the environment

Continue ReadingRevealed: Forecasts of greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels soar in Trump’s first 100 days

BP has been rowing back on renewables for years. So why was it helped by ‘net zero’ banks?

Spread the love

Original article by Rob Soutar republished from TBIJ under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Oil companies’ move to double down on fossil fuels should come as no surprise to anyone – not least its financers

Last week, BP’s CEO Murray Auchincloss said his company had gone “too far, too fast” in its plan to transition away from fossil fuels. BP still says it aims to be a net zero company by 2050 but it will now take a different path to the one it set out in 2021 … doubling down on fossil fuels in the meantime.

Perhaps the move shouldn’t have come as a surprise. After all, BP is a commercial enterprise with a responsibility to deliver returns for its shareholders. And since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which led many countries to prioritise energy security over long-term sustainability, oil and gas have remained reliably lucrative.

What’s more, the company made a similar announcement two years ago, saying it would be ramping up its investments in oil and gas.

But if BP had indicated such a significant change in direction so long ago, how did it continue to raise billions from banks that said they’d only do business with “net zero” companies?

Milestone moment?

At the 2021 climate talks in Glasgow, a number of the world’s leading banks made landmark pledges: to slash the footprint of their own operations and, crucially, the emissions of their lending and investment portfolios.

It was hailed as a watershed moment. In theory, the vast stockpiles of money that had supported fossil fuel expansion would now be cut off for companies without net zero ambitions. The same year, the International Energy Agency warned that there must be no new oil and gas projects if the world is to reach net zero by 2050.

Yet throughout 2023, after it said it would invest significantly more in fossil fuels, BP raised more than $5bn with help from “net zero” banks including NatWest, HSBC and Barclays.

The deals illustrate a core problem with the banks’ net zero commitments. A key condition for companies they agreed to do business with was the existence of a “credible” transition plan. But it wasn’t always clear how the banks were assessing that credibility.

Even before Auchincloss’ announcement last week, the world-leading Grantham Research Institute assessed the credibility of oil and gas companies’ transition plans – and found that BP’s fell well short.

That lack of clarity on what was “credible” left the banks with enough wriggle room to maintain relationships with huge fossil fuel companies.

Recommended Articles

And those relationships have proved profitable. Since May 2021, global banks that have committed to net zero have poured almost $1 trillion into companies pursuing expansion of oil and gas projects that would push the world beyond its survivable limits.

Looking long-term

The policy environment has changed since Glasgow, when both fossil fuel companies and banks launched net zero targets. BP is not the only company of its kind to have “reset” its core business to oil and gas. But critics say that recent moves to boost fossil fuels and ensure quick returns are alarmingly short-sighted.

In the UK, the costs of getting to net zero are cheaper than was anticipated just five years ago, according to a recent report by the Climate Change Committee. And in a low-carbon economy, fossil fuels could nosedive – leaving the oil and gas fields currently in development as “stranded assets” with little value.

But crucially, the banks face considerable risks too. Their previous promises to work only with clients committed to the transition were made for a reason: they were feeling the pressure from climate-conscious investors.

If the banks are found to have broken these promises, they could well be held to account by regulators – not to mention see their credibility shattered in the eyes of their investors.

Reporter: Rob Soutar
Deputy editor: Chrissie Giles
Editor: Franz Wild
Fact checker: Ero Parksakoulaki
Production editor: Alex Hess

TBIJ has a number of funders, a full list of which can be found here. None of our funders have any influence over editorial decisions or output.

Original article by Rob Soutar republished from TBIJ under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. Corrected a reference to “oil company’s” in the subheading in this version.

Experienced climbers scale a rock face near the historic Dumbarton castle in Glasgow, releasing a banner that reads “Climate on a Cliff Edge.” One activist, dressed as a globe, symbolically looms near the edge, while another plays the bagpipes on the shores below. | Photo courtesy of Extinction Rebellion and Mark Richards
Experienced climbers scale a rock face near the historic Dumbarton castle in Glasgow, releasing a banner that reads “Climate on a Cliff Edge.” One activist, dressed as a globe, symbolically looms near the edge, while another plays the bagpipes on the shores below. | Photo courtesy of Extinction Rebellion and Mark Richards
Greenpeace activists display a billboard during a protest outside Shell headquarters on July 27, 2023 in London.
Greenpeace activists display a billboard during a protest outside Shell headquarters on July 27, 2023 in London. (Photo: Handout/Chris J. Ratcliffe for Greenpeace via Getty Images)
Neo-Fascist Climate Science Denier Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.
Neo-Fascist Climate Science Denier Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.

Continue ReadingBP has been rowing back on renewables for years. So why was it helped by ‘net zero’ banks?

How the UK’s plans for AI could derail net zero – the numbers explained

Spread the love
Data centres use an enormous amount of electricity for cooling and to power servers. Andia/Alamy Stock Photo

Tom Jackson, Loughborough University and Ian R. Hodgkinson, Loughborough University

The UK government’s goal to increase public-controlled artificial intelligence computing power twentyfold by 2030 would significantly raise electricity demand. Can renewable energy supply meet it – and still have enough left over to electrify sectors like heating and transport, which must be fully decarbonised by 2050?

First, let’s discuss why AI is so energy intensive. AI systems demand a huge amount of computing power. The creation and use of AI involves training the programmes on models and algorithms that must be invented and calibrated, all of which demands computing power. Then, that AI model must draw conclusions from the new data it is fed, which is another energy-intensive process in itself.

The need for more and more computing power has risen sharply as AI has become more sophisticated. Computing power is becoming scarce as a result and is a major bottleneck for the further development and use of AI. Indeed, the UK’s national AI strategy published in 2021, recognised that computing power capacity must be increased if the potential of AI is to be realised.

The more sophisticated the AI, typically, the more energy intensive it is. This has significant implications for the UK.

How much energy does the AI rollout need?

Data centres (facilities that store, process and distribute data) are a significant and growing consumer of electricity. From training complex AI models, which requires immense computational power and data storage, to running data through trained AI models to make predictions or solve tasks, data centres are central to every stage of AI’s use and development.

According to estimates by the International Energy Agency, data centres globally account for approximately 1%-1.3% of total electricity consumption. One recent observation suggests that developing the most sophisticated AI systems currently requires a fourfold increase in the amount of computing power annually. The total amount of data required for AI training has also risen by 2.5 times a year, increasing reliance on data centres.

Pylons at sunset.
Britain’s electricity grid will strain to meet rising demand even without AI. SuxxesPhoto/Shutterstock

In the UK, AI and related infrastructure consumed around 3.6 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity in 2020. If this consumption increases twentyfold, as per the government’s target, it could reach 72 TWh by 2030. This would represent over one-quarter of the UK’s total electricity consumption in 2021, which was approximately 261 TWh.

The rapid growth in AI computing requires careful planning. However, data centres are only part of the equation. The devices that use AI, such as sensors in smart homes, gas and electricity meters, routers, wifi hubs, streaming devices and social media platforms, could add significant energy demand that is difficult to estimate.

These additional components of AI’s total energy consumption are often overlooked.

Renewable energy growth is insufficient

The UK has made significant strides in renewable energy production, with wind and solar power contributing over 40% of electricity in recent years.

However, our projections, reported in the journal Energy Policy, indicate that global renewable electricity supply will not meet surging demand from global digital data growth.

Our research considered different scenarios for AI’s energy use. The UK’s target of a twentyfold increase in AI computing power by 2030 is certainly a high-consumption scenario, in which energy demand from digital infrastructure alone could outpace the growth of renewable energy capacity.

At the same time, the UK’s decarbonisation hinges on electrifying transport and heating, sectors traditionally reliant on fossil fuels: replacing natural gas boilers with electric heat pumps and combustion engine cars with electric vehicles. These will require substantial increases in electricity supply.

A row of electric cars plugged into public chargers.
Britain’s electric vehicle charging network will need to expand to decarbonise transport. Shutterstock

However, solving this problem will not just require expanding renewable energy production. The energy efficiency of AI systems and related technologies must improve too. Ensuring that the energy needed for AI and other digital advancements is sustainably sourced, without compromising broader net zero goals, will require a combination of government policy, technological innovation and public awareness.

AI’s growing electricity needs could exacerbate competition for limited renewable energy resources. This competition risks increasing reliance on fossil fuels, especially during periods of peak energy demand. If additional renewable capacity cannot be deployed quickly enough, the UK might face a scenario where AI-driven electricity demand increases overall emissions rather than reducing them.

The UK’s commitment to a twentyfold increase in public AI computing power by 2030 presents an immense challenge for the country’s electricity system. Meeting this goal sustainably will require balancing AI’s energy needs with broader electrification goals and renewable energy limitations.

Without immediate and concerted efforts to expand renewable energy and improve efficiency, AI’s electricity demands could hinder the transition to a net zero future.


Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 40,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.


Tom Jackson, Professor of Information and Knowledge Management, Loughborough University and Ian R. Hodgkinson, Professor of Strategy, Loughborough University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue ReadingHow the UK’s plans for AI could derail net zero – the numbers explained

To resist is democratic

Spread the love
Just Stop Oil protesting in London 6 December 2022.
Just Stop Oil protesting in London 6 December 2022.

Original article republished from Just Stop Oil under Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Licence

Blogs / October 6, 2022

Democracy is a precious, and essential part of our society. Our leadership must always be accountable to the people, and if they are not, we risk oppression. We are, without a doubt, lucky to live in a liberal representational democracy, and when the time comes to vote, we should. So why then, are people acting politically, with civil resistance, outside of this mechanism?

Over the last twelve months, thousands of people in the UK have engaged in peaceful resistance, and over a hundred (and counting) have been imprisoned. It’s not just in this country, in Canada ‘Save Old Growth’ are blocking motorways demanding no more felling of ancient trees. In France, Germany, Italy, Austria, Norway, the USA and Australia, ordinary people are resisting, disrupting transport and cultural activities – demanding that their states act to protect, not destroy, life. 

They are ordinary people – coming together and acting out of love as much as fear and grief. Engaging in civil resistance, and defying a state, that while democratically elected, has proved deeply harmful. There’s no denying this harm – while the International Energy Agency has made it clear we can have no more new oil and gas development, the UK Government is ready to approve new oil fields and issue new exploration licenses, a death sentence for millions.

Our politicians say they are ‘committed to reaching net zero’. What they are actually committed to is kicking the can down the road and round the corner. Gambling on unproven or non-existent technology to reverse our dumping of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Instead of taking action, they’re making the problem worse for another 30 years, literally pouring fuel on the fire. The UK is the home of BP and Shell who are making eye-watering profits, and enjoying tax breaks to destroy life – because “pensions”, because “jobs”, because “economic growth”.

A stable climate is not a competing policy demand to be set against pensions, transport, or public sector funding. One provides the basis for everything else, there simply isn’t a contest. Our predicament is almost comically simple – either we stop the destruction of the global systems that enable ordered civil society to work or we lose everything we value, our traditions, our cherished landscapes and, crucially, democracy. There are no free and fair elections on a burning earth. 

In 2019 the MoD published a report outlining what is coming if we don’t immediately reduce carbon emissions – “increased conflict over diminishing natural resources”. That’s code for war. War over food and water – and we know what war looks like, flattened cities, dictator warlords, child traffickers waiting on borders, tortured grandfathers – it’s being documented once again in Europe.

So what has happened in the UK to protect against this future? Traffic on the M25 has been disrupted, London bridges closed, oil terminals have been blockaded and occupied, football matches interrupted. Inept radio hosts have sparked viral memes about growing concrete and inspired themed stag nights. Just Stop Oil, Insulate Britain, XR and Stop HS2 have been painted on both the Left and Right as an eco-mob, eco-fascists, as selfish, naive and childish. But perhaps the most damaging criticism is that they are anti-democratic. 

It’s as if every right and freedom we enjoy has been handed to us by a benign government. As if the Suffragettes never smashed windows, as if the race riots never happened, as if Stonewall simply wrote letters, as if those demanding disability rights didn’t chain themselves to railings and buses, as if the poll tax was scrapped due to reasonable debate and discussion or waiting politely for a chance to vote. Change requires citizens to stand up and resist harmful governments, it is part of democracy.

Resistance has nothing to do with “protest”. Protest is when you express your disapproval. You do not express disapproval when murderous governments engage in an act condemning the world to go over 1.5C in the 2030s – a death sentence for small island states and millions in the global south.  Pakistan today demonstrates what we face – 33 million people impacted by floods and agriculture decimated.

We know what to do. It’s what the Suffragettes did, it’s what the Civil Rights movements did, it’s what everyone does when the inalienable right to life and a livelihood are violated. We engage in non-violent civil resistance.

What we must do now is block and disable the cogs of the machine. This is not a “tactic” – it is an act of self respect, an act of solidarity, an act of love and necessity. 

We must resist now or we will look back with longing at all we have lost. The last 250 years of sacrifice and tears expended by generations to create decent societies is about to be snuffed out in the blink of an eye. The word betrayal does not cover the reality of what is going on. All our traditions, all our values, all that we claim to stand for is about to be lost.

It’s not about winning. It’s about doing what has to be done. Those who fought fascism in the 20th century, those who are fighting the oil companies across the global south, those fighting the Russians in Ukraine, they act because they know someone has to stand up. 

The next generations are watching us. Can you feel the weight of billions of children yet to take their first breath? They are saying “Are you mad? Get out there, and stop this – or you condemn us forever”.

Original article republished from Just Stop Oil under Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Licence

dizzy: 1. I submit that we exist in a plutocracy rather than a democracy. 2. I couldn’t find the MoD article containing the quotation “increased conflict over diminishing natural resources”. I suspect that it existed but is no longer published openly. There are plenty of official reports making similar points and it is a reasonable statement. For example the WORLD DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2011, ‘Resource Scarcity, Climate Change and the Risk of Violent Conflict’ Alex Evans, Center on International Cooperation, New York University, September 9, 2010 makes similar claims. Edit: Despite that article being a very wooly academic paper, I think that it does make that claim

Although the conflict risk posed by climate change and resource scarcity will almost always be better
understood as a ‘threat multiplier’ than as a sole cause of violent conflict, a range of potential
linkages between climate, scarcity and conflict risk can nonetheless be identified, whether through
intensifying existing problems, or through creating new environmental problems that lead to
instability.

USAID (2009). Climate Change, Adaptation and Conflict: A preliminary review of the issues. CMD
Discussion Paper no. 1, October 2009

Later edit: Found the article: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/930787/dcdc_report_changing_climate_gsp_RR-A487.pdf but I’ve not found the phrase “increased conflict over diminishing natural resources”. I would also attribute it to The Global Strategic Partnership (which supports the Ministry of Defence).

Continue ReadingTo resist is democratic