>The exponential growth of data and the rising demand for data centres is challenging global climate progress. The rapid development of AI could undermine decarbonisation efforts worldwide by driving electricity consumption and emissions to extreme levels. >As AI models evolve from simple text generation to more complex image, video, and music generation, data requirements are expanding rapidly, further amplifying energy demand. Since 2022, global investment in data centres has nearly doubled, reaching half a trillion dollars in 2024. However, this boom has also triggered mounting concerns around the sector’s growing energy footprint. Today, data centres and data transmission networks are responsible for about 1 percent of global energy-related greenhouse gas emissions. >AI-optimised data centres, particularly hyperscale facilities, are pushing energy use to unprecedented levels. Some centres now require 100 megawatts or more of electricity. For perspective, a single large-scale facility can consume as much electricity annually as 350,000 to 400,000 electric vehicles.>In 2022, data centres consumed an estimated 240 to 340 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity, accounting for approximately 1 to 1.3 percent of global electricity demand. Electricity demand from AI-optimised data centres is projected to more than quadruple by 2030, reaching about 945 TWh, which would exceed Japan’s current electricity consumption.>As of March 2025, the United States holds the largest number of data centres globally, operating 5,426 facilities. As a result, the USA accounts for the highest share of global data centre electricity consumption, responsible for 45 percent of global usage in 2024, followed by China at 25 percent and Europe at 15 percent. >In the United States, data centres are expected to drive nearly half of the country’s electricity demand growth between now and 2030. By the end of the decade, the USA will consume more electricity for data centres than for the production of aluminium, steel, cement, chemicals, and all other energy-intensive goods combined.>A recent study examined 2,132 data centres operating across the United States, representing 78 percent of all facilities, between September 2023 and August 2024. The findings showed that these data centres accounted for over 4 percent of total US electricity consumption, with more than half of that electricity sourced from fossil fuels. This contributed to more than 105 million tons of CO2e emissions, representing 2.18 percent of total US emissions in 2023.>The strain on local power grids will continue to intensify as more data centres are built. Construction timelines for new centres often outpace upgrades to grid and transmission infrastructure. Several jurisdictions have already paused new data centre projects to process connection backlogs and evaluate grid capacity. Rising concerns over electricity availability and prices have led some regions to consider temporary moratoriums on development.>Data centers consume water primarily to cool servers from overheating. A Cornell University study estimates AI demand alone could require 4.2–6.6 billion cubic meters of fresh water annually by 2027, roughly half of the UK’s yearly usage.>The demand for water for data center cooling is exacerbating the water crisis in water-sensitive regions already suffering from the effects of climate-related water shortages. Stakeholder engagement is most necessary while choosing a location to set up new data centers. While huge data centers generate employment and create an uptick in the economy, the environmental cost of setting up a data center needs to be assessed first. One such example was the proposed approval for a data center in Arizona which is known for its arid landscape and water woes. >In 2021, Google’s global data centers consumed approximately 4.3 billion gallons (16.2 billion litres) of water altogether. Though water-cooled data centers consume less energy to cool heating and emit roughly 10% less carbon emissions than air-cooled data centers, they still place immense stress on freshwater resources.>Data centers contain thousands of components with varied life cycles. While servers, batteries, and networking equipment typically require replacement every 3–5 years, infrastructure such as air conditioning systems and generators may last over a decade.>Short upgrade cycles—especially in high-performance facilities—result in significant volumes of e-waste. In a 2020 survey, 42% of IT managers reported replacing servers every 2–3 years. Given the scale of global data centers, e-waste volumes are staggering. >Data centers require substantial real estate and resources, often competing with agriculture, housing, or other commercial sectors. In some regions, their expansion fuels gentrification, increases land costs, and stresses local infrastructure. >Noise pollution from data centers is rarely ever spoken about, even though it increasingly affects nearby communities. The constant hum of servers, network switches, routers, air conditioning systems, and industrial cooling fans creates significant and persistent noise levels. This mechanical chorus can generate sound levels exceeding 80 dBA, comparable to a leaf blower.>Communities living near large data centers frequently report health concerns linked to the unceasing background noise. Chronic exposure causes sleep disturbance, headache, hearing loss, elevated stress hormone levels, hypertension, anxiety, and even cardiovascular risks.>Persistent land-based noise pollution also affects other species. Noise from data centers disrupts animal communication, alters natural behavior, and forces wildlife to change migration patterns.https://archive.ph/dCTMo 69 posts and 10 image replies omitted.>>2421123Good luck operating nuclear powerplants in long lasting droughts lmao.
> I love modern farmingI have multiple family members in agriculture and they all got prostate cancer, very humanist yes.
Their harvests are also getting significantly worse due to extreme.weather events.
>>2421129Renewables have not decreased the output of co2, they're just added on top. Reforestation hardly matters if the forests just dry out and burn down, desertification is a fact. It's not about pursuing de-industrialization, it's that it will not be possible maintain current levels of industry, a few years ago there was a chip shortage and a large part of it was the absence of enough fresh water. If anyone is coping, it's you.
>>2421134Damn, you are right. We should kill and rape third world countries to stop them from making the same mistake of modernizing as us westerners did
We gotta live within our means, bro
It is virtuos to live as medieval peasant
Ok I am being a bitch but c'mon modern industry and technology has brought prosperity humanity has never seen and freed us from so many natural suffering like starvation or disease. Green energy is not reliable enough to provide that and third world countries cannot skip any step of industrilization, let them cut down trees and burn coal so their children could be warm and fed
>>2421201Ah yes, I said all of those things. Evidently, people in the southern hemisphere will flourish once everything is an extension of the sahara.
>technology has brought prosperity humanity has never seen and freed us from so many natural suffering like starvation or disease.You're acting like I'm against technological developement in general, I'm disagreeing with "technology=good." Some problems were more or less solved through tech, others were more or less caused by it(even disease lmao), just blanket accepting technological changes as good things is beyond stupid. You accuse me of being anti-humanist, yet you completely disregard the extensive suffering caused by industrialization, and you disregard the death and misery that will be caused by it in the forseeable future. refugees will just be rounded up into camps and shot but sure, burning coal will help them with that (again, powerplants generally don't work in extensive droughts)
Also read some fucking history books if you'rere making comparisons to people living in premodern times.
>>2423063Are you legitimately retarded? Continued technological and industrial development only worsens the effects of climate change.
Why is everyone on this thread having the same opinion as tech porkies? Am I still on leftypol?
>>2423086No, degrowth is anti-human. Tell me: should third world people not be allowed to industrialize?
Should they live on subsistance farming forever?
Any effects so destructive as to seriously impair human viability on the planet are so large in scale, that nothing short of the world wide adoption of socialism could impair the profit-motivated scale of causes. And at that point, there is no need to worry about greenwashing imperialism.
I am weary of is when environmentalism is sold as something liberals can implement. As if you can just *scare* the workers into lobbying, not for revolution, but for environmentalism itself. And especially, when the environmentalism has curious blind-spots, such as militarism or the wastefulness of of liberal globalization hauling cargo all over the world at the whim of profit.
What sort of evironmentalism makes their main issue "datacenters" while war is raging? While actual war devastates actual land and displaces millions of actual people. Not hypothetical, however proven, future effects. Raising hundreds of $billions of additional investment in the business of destruction, which also are exempted from most environmental regulations.
Do people really think that if it worked with CFCs, you can just ask for degrowth and have it?
>>2423424How do you think they will be able to feed themselves when nothing can grow in the soil because of the temperatures and droughts? Do you think we can tech this away, when fresh water supplies around the world are only going to get smaller and smaller?
>>2423429How is believing we should do something concrete to prevent climate change from being worse than it's already going to be instead of blindly believing we can just find a technological solution to it anti-human?
>>2423428Yes, the degradation of soils is already a concerning effect of our current way of life, it's only going to get worse, thinking we can close our eyes on the problem by putting more nitrate in it is not a solution.
>>2423428Yes. Miracles are suddenly scientific communism according to this site clearly.
It's very obvious that this site is filled with babies who have not seen the destruction that is unfolding, global infrastructure is extremely fragile.
>>2423424OK Mr oil executive man.
>>2423432
>I am weary of is when environmentalism is sold as something liberals can implement. It's not really about that anymore though, the liberal world is crumbling before our eyes and in a decade or 2 you could die if you don't hide in a hole all summer, again none of our infrastructure or production is ready to deal with any of this. Billions of people are going to die in all likelihood.
Pretty funny how many here are just treatlerites who wilfully disregard scientific climatology and continue to use the third world as an excuse while they are the ones already dying because of this mess. Absolutely incapable of imagining any alternative modes of production, pathetic and antisocial, no different from your average neolib.
>>2412411>>2412817Narrative of anti-ai is arguing that the technology inherently leads to this, rather the problem is the implementation manifested under the framework of capitalism.
Environmentalists, generally liberal, don't see capitalism as fish don't see water, and argue against progress in the name of preserving the environment, unawarely defending the idea that capitalism isn't the problem and that all solutions for fixing the environment are about retvrning to a nicer capitalism.
Though I'll say,
>>2412271 , include the context to your frustration.
(inb4 they don't think that and its projection. Then I have egg on my face :^) ) >>2432560Displacement, projection
And it is in the main the imperialists making things hell on earth for the rest of us. Same as it's always been.
Like, "we are not the ones doing this, look at this anti-coal activist". Nonsense but it is very classic and mundane victim-blaming only with additional dimension to it. People who do not want us to fry are pitted cognitively (it's an illusion, a cheap magic trick) against the poor. Even if we do not want to fry.
Unique IPs: 34