Good article, but datacenters being more efficient than home computers does not imply that datacenters are good for the environment. Making something cheaper increases demand, which can increase overall usage. (Jevons' paradox.)
This is all well and good but it only works if people believe that the AI data centers are doing something good no?
It the residents believe that AI tech is only good for Shrimp Jesus slop on Facebook, then the efficiency and economies of scale arguments are moot.
I have seen some interviews with the Indiana residents who shut down the proposed Google data center. This is their view. They believe that the data center will only be good for Google and they don't trust Big Tech to have their best interests at heart.
I don't read Andy as saying "haha actually data centers are good" here — he's more saying "the common argument that 'data centers are bad because they use too much electricity / water' doesn't hold up." If you don't like what the data centers are being used for, that sounds to me (and, I'd bet, to Andy) like a coherent reason to oppose new data centers.
That reason doesn't have anything to do with electricity or water usage, though. So it's a bit disingenuous to oppose them *because* you think they use too much water (especially if that neighborhood has a golf course).
So tax the revenue to reduce use, don't drag in irrelevant issues like water and power use unless the argument that these have negative externalities, in whihc case tax the externality. The Gilbert and Sullivan/Tinbergen criteria: Make the punishment fit the crime-Make the policy fit the objective.
As a local issue, I completely get this. Building an eyesore next door that does nothing positive for my community would bring out all my NIMBY instincts.
But if people are using some small amount additional power for something that's useful or entertaining to them (streaming, gaming, researching, or generating Jesus memes, we mostly don't care), and you wouldn't object to that by itself, I think it's fair to say that you also shouldn't object to it being done more efficiently in a data center.
The problem comes in if local residents believe that an unsightly, noisy data center is being put up to do something *bad* more efficiently. They are thinking: they want to build the tech that is taking our jobs/sloppifying our feeds in my backyard. We get all the externalities (no matter how small), big tech gets all the billions, and there aren't even jobs created in the long term.
Great article. I’d add that the concentration of digital infrastructure in data centers also enables greater transparency and accountability when it comes to environmental impact. Unlike millions (or billions) of individual users whose energy and water footprints are difficult to track, data centers can be monitored for efficiency, water usage, renewable energy, and carbon reduction goals. That centralization makes it easier to implement and verify sustainability initiatives, an important advantage when working toward responsible growth.
I realize leaving a generic "thanks for these posts" is wandering into "did an AI write this" territory, but: thanks for these posts. I consistently find the environmental analysis posts informative and useful, on a topic that comes up often.
Also worth noting that data centers are built where both power and cooling are cheap(-er). That tends to favor renewables such as hydro or geothermal, as well as a cooler or water-rich climates. The "tiny computers" distributed case would have e.g. people running GPUs in Arizona in the middle of summer, all of which heat then needs to be air conditioned away, while receiving power at the very edge of the grid, from coal plants.
That’s actually a great comparison yeah! Landfills concentrate huge amounts of garbage, there's a broader debate about how much of that garbage was necessary in the first place, but they take up tiny tiny amounts of a country's overall surface area.
You make good points I agree with, but I think we need to look beyond CO2 and water to understand the impact of data centres as a social justice issue. The existing models perpetuate an extraction of profit, data and IP from communities and countries into the hands of a few tech giants. For example the UK will provide the land, energy and public subsidy while most profits are offshored. Long term local employment is minimal. Right now the UK gov is seemingly happy to give away too much value for short term investment, rather than secure stronger commitments to protect national interests (eg conditions on data sovereignty). People describe it as resource colonialism, perhaps fairly.
Good article, but datacenters being more efficient than home computers does not imply that datacenters are good for the environment. Making something cheaper increases demand, which can increase overall usage. (Jevons' paradox.)
I realized this objection might come up but wanted to keep the post short, talked about Jevons Paradox a lot here https://andymasley.substack.com/p/jevons-paradox-isnt-always-bad
But increasing overall usage is not bad if the externality is taxed.
This is all well and good but it only works if people believe that the AI data centers are doing something good no?
It the residents believe that AI tech is only good for Shrimp Jesus slop on Facebook, then the efficiency and economies of scale arguments are moot.
I have seen some interviews with the Indiana residents who shut down the proposed Google data center. This is their view. They believe that the data center will only be good for Google and they don't trust Big Tech to have their best interests at heart.
I don't read Andy as saying "haha actually data centers are good" here — he's more saying "the common argument that 'data centers are bad because they use too much electricity / water' doesn't hold up." If you don't like what the data centers are being used for, that sounds to me (and, I'd bet, to Andy) like a coherent reason to oppose new data centers.
That reason doesn't have anything to do with electricity or water usage, though. So it's a bit disingenuous to oppose them *because* you think they use too much water (especially if that neighborhood has a golf course).
Yeah I’d tried to write this neutral to the value of spending that small per capita energy
Yeah, that I agree with.
I'm adding that "thinking AI is a harmful/useless technology that shouldn't be built anyway" is also a big part of the resistance.
So tax the revenue to reduce use, don't drag in irrelevant issues like water and power use unless the argument that these have negative externalities, in whihc case tax the externality. The Gilbert and Sullivan/Tinbergen criteria: Make the punishment fit the crime-Make the policy fit the objective.
Yep great! Sounds like we're on the same page. Hope the rest of your day goes well!
You too!
Big Tech (no more than Adam Smith's butcher) does not have to have anyone's best interest but their own at heart.
As a local issue, I completely get this. Building an eyesore next door that does nothing positive for my community would bring out all my NIMBY instincts.
But if people are using some small amount additional power for something that's useful or entertaining to them (streaming, gaming, researching, or generating Jesus memes, we mostly don't care), and you wouldn't object to that by itself, I think it's fair to say that you also shouldn't object to it being done more efficiently in a data center.
The property taxes ought to do something positive for the community.
The problem comes in if local residents believe that an unsightly, noisy data center is being put up to do something *bad* more efficiently. They are thinking: they want to build the tech that is taking our jobs/sloppifying our feeds in my backyard. We get all the externalities (no matter how small), big tech gets all the billions, and there aren't even jobs created in the long term.
Great article. I’d add that the concentration of digital infrastructure in data centers also enables greater transparency and accountability when it comes to environmental impact. Unlike millions (or billions) of individual users whose energy and water footprints are difficult to track, data centers can be monitored for efficiency, water usage, renewable energy, and carbon reduction goals. That centralization makes it easier to implement and verify sustainability initiatives, an important advantage when working toward responsible growth.
It is wrong to ask whether the use of an unPigovian-taxed good is good or bad.
Tax the externality, the emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere and let people be guided by the resulting market prices.
I realize leaving a generic "thanks for these posts" is wandering into "did an AI write this" territory, but: thanks for these posts. I consistently find the environmental analysis posts informative and useful, on a topic that comes up often.
Really amazing feedback to get, thank you!
Also worth noting that data centers are built where both power and cooling are cheap(-er). That tends to favor renewables such as hydro or geothermal, as well as a cooler or water-rich climates. The "tiny computers" distributed case would have e.g. people running GPUs in Arizona in the middle of summer, all of which heat then needs to be air conditioned away, while receiving power at the very edge of the grid, from coal plants.
Kind of like a landfill is just a lot of individual people's garbage? At least a landfill serves a broader public interest.
That’s actually a great comparison yeah! Landfills concentrate huge amounts of garbage, there's a broader debate about how much of that garbage was necessary in the first place, but they take up tiny tiny amounts of a country's overall surface area.
You make good points I agree with, but I think we need to look beyond CO2 and water to understand the impact of data centres as a social justice issue. The existing models perpetuate an extraction of profit, data and IP from communities and countries into the hands of a few tech giants. For example the UK will provide the land, energy and public subsidy while most profits are offshored. Long term local employment is minimal. Right now the UK gov is seemingly happy to give away too much value for short term investment, rather than secure stronger commitments to protect national interests (eg conditions on data sovereignty). People describe it as resource colonialism, perhaps fairly.
Sounds rather like a failure to apply cost benefit reasoning to the policy. What positive externality woud justify subsidizing a data center.