very well said Gretchen - i personally think that the people in power are too blame and not the AI itself. I do think that data centers should not be placed in populated areas near homes or farms due to the loud noises they generate and emf they give off.
I personally believe the environment issue comes down to our politicians at the local, state and federal level. They are in bed with AI companies and allow them to build these data centers while ignoring concerns from citizens and bypassing normal regulations and straining local power grids and water systems.
I believe that if a company wants to build an AI data center they should be forced to invest in renewable energy, consider different cooling methods and also be "forced" to invest in the protection of the local peoples water source if they plan to use it and it should be mathematically calculate to offset their usage to not affect local citizens heavily. Just like in many other industries in the USA unfortunately our politicians at the local, state, and federal level are the root cause of most problems. (this was reponse was personally typed by me and was not ai generated)
Thank you, Preston—thanks so much for writing this out; it really means a lot that you said this.
I definitely agree with your main point: the technology isn't deciding whether a data center should be placed adjacent to residential areas or whether its developers should deplete the area's water table. Humans are. Firms are. And the regulatory bodies that should serve as a brake on this are, in many of these cases, not moving as fast as the build-out itself — or not doing so at all. This isn't an issue of the technology being unethical; rather, it's an issue of accountability, and I don't blame you for being frustrated with it.
The siting concern you bring up is also very valid: There are multiple reports on the noise generated by the nearby data centers, and asking whether a data center "should be built next to homes and farms at all" is certainly a question of zoning and urban planning that local governments can solve quite easily.
However, your list of concerns — renewable energy investment, alternatives to air cooling systems, and calculated water offset so that the local community wouldn't foot the bill — isn't radical. It's precisely the type of environmental responsibility that is normally expected of resource-intensive businesses. That AI infrastructure hasn't faced any of these so far speaks to how rapid the development has been and how behind the regulatory bodies were.
This is exactly the kind of pressure that should be put on firms by residents and communities — the former react to costs and public pressure much faster than to mere good intentions.
This genuinely made my day — thank you for sharing this. A family with that mix of perspectives around the table sounds like exactly the kind of conversation more households (and more communities) need to be having. Writers and designers who feel the real stakes, people who use AI daily and find it genuinely useful, and everyone watching the data centers multiply around Central California — that's not a contradiction, that's just the full, honest picture. I'm glad this could give y'all a little more shared language for it. And for what it's worth, the Central Valley/Central California buildout is a real and active fight right now — you're not imagining the scale of it.
Thes are important conversations to question. Ethical use and fighting for responsible environmental protections keeping resources for towns and cities is imperative. We don't want what happened in Utah (correct me if I'm wrong) with residents told they lost their utility provider over a data center! That's dirty politics.
Thank you, Ruth—you're pointing at something real: the Lake Tahoe story is the one that's actually happened, not Utah (though Utah has its own fight brewing too, in Box Elder County, over a data center that a majority of residents there oppose). In Lake Tahoe's case, roughly 49,000 California-side residents were told their utility is losing its power supplier because that electricity is being redirected to data centers in Nevada, where they already account for over a fifth of the state's total power generation.
And honestly, that story makes your point even better than mine did. This is exactly the difference between individual and infrastructure-scale impact I was trying to draw out — a business owner using AI to draft an email isn't what's straining a grid. Utility companies quietly prioritizing data centers over the towns they were built to serve is. That's a policy and accountability failure, not an individual-use one, and it deserves exactly the scrutiny you're bringing to it. Appreciate you pushing the conversation further.
very well said Gretchen - i personally think that the people in power are too blame and not the AI itself. I do think that data centers should not be placed in populated areas near homes or farms due to the loud noises they generate and emf they give off.
I personally believe the environment issue comes down to our politicians at the local, state and federal level. They are in bed with AI companies and allow them to build these data centers while ignoring concerns from citizens and bypassing normal regulations and straining local power grids and water systems.
I believe that if a company wants to build an AI data center they should be forced to invest in renewable energy, consider different cooling methods and also be "forced" to invest in the protection of the local peoples water source if they plan to use it and it should be mathematically calculate to offset their usage to not affect local citizens heavily. Just like in many other industries in the USA unfortunately our politicians at the local, state, and federal level are the root cause of most problems. (this was reponse was personally typed by me and was not ai generated)
Thank you, Preston—thanks so much for writing this out; it really means a lot that you said this.
I definitely agree with your main point: the technology isn't deciding whether a data center should be placed adjacent to residential areas or whether its developers should deplete the area's water table. Humans are. Firms are. And the regulatory bodies that should serve as a brake on this are, in many of these cases, not moving as fast as the build-out itself — or not doing so at all. This isn't an issue of the technology being unethical; rather, it's an issue of accountability, and I don't blame you for being frustrated with it.
The siting concern you bring up is also very valid: There are multiple reports on the noise generated by the nearby data centers, and asking whether a data center "should be built next to homes and farms at all" is certainly a question of zoning and urban planning that local governments can solve quite easily.
However, your list of concerns — renewable energy investment, alternatives to air cooling systems, and calculated water offset so that the local community wouldn't foot the bill — isn't radical. It's precisely the type of environmental responsibility that is normally expected of resource-intensive businesses. That AI infrastructure hasn't faced any of these so far speaks to how rapid the development has been and how behind the regulatory bodies were.
This is exactly the kind of pressure that should be put on firms by residents and communities — the former react to costs and public pressure much faster than to mere good intentions.
This was so helpful! Thanks so much for the breakdown and sharing the nuance that's involved.
This genuinely made my day — thank you for sharing this. A family with that mix of perspectives around the table sounds like exactly the kind of conversation more households (and more communities) need to be having. Writers and designers who feel the real stakes, people who use AI daily and find it genuinely useful, and everyone watching the data centers multiply around Central California — that's not a contradiction, that's just the full, honest picture. I'm glad this could give y'all a little more shared language for it. And for what it's worth, the Central Valley/Central California buildout is a real and active fight right now — you're not imagining the scale of it.
Thes are important conversations to question. Ethical use and fighting for responsible environmental protections keeping resources for towns and cities is imperative. We don't want what happened in Utah (correct me if I'm wrong) with residents told they lost their utility provider over a data center! That's dirty politics.
Thank you, Ruth—you're pointing at something real: the Lake Tahoe story is the one that's actually happened, not Utah (though Utah has its own fight brewing too, in Box Elder County, over a data center that a majority of residents there oppose). In Lake Tahoe's case, roughly 49,000 California-side residents were told their utility is losing its power supplier because that electricity is being redirected to data centers in Nevada, where they already account for over a fifth of the state's total power generation.
And honestly, that story makes your point even better than mine did. This is exactly the difference between individual and infrastructure-scale impact I was trying to draw out — a business owner using AI to draft an email isn't what's straining a grid. Utility companies quietly prioritizing data centers over the towns they were built to serve is. That's a policy and accountability failure, not an individual-use one, and it deserves exactly the scrutiny you're bringing to it. Appreciate you pushing the conversation further.