Last week in Hamilton, Ontario, there was a city vote about a proposal for an AI data centre to be built. Against the backdrop of hundreds of people attending the meeting as on lockers and saying NO, the proposal was voted down. If they are built anywhere, these data centres need to pay 100% of water, electricity use and pay for the infrastructure for them, and pay full property taxes and make a financial contribution to the city/community they are locating in. They add nothing in the way of jobs or prosperity.
Interesting, Mary... and that Hamilton vote says something important...
communities are starting to demand a seat at the table.
I think many people would agree with your basic principle...
if a project consumes massive amounts of power, water, and infrastructure, the public shouldn’t be subsidizing it indirectly.
“Growth at any cost” gets a lot less popular when locals are left paying higher bills or absorbing the strain.
The bigger challenge will be finding the balance between attracting investment and making sure communities actually benefit from having these projects in their backyard.
Right now, a lot of people clearly feel the scales are tilted too far in one direction.
Fred, I didn't realize that the pushback was so extensive. This makes me modestly positive. This article makes it seem as though the real people actually may have a way to fight back against the oligarch class steamrolling their power over their lives. It is high time that this group of robber baron carpet baggers pays for their pillaging. That means that every dime of infrastructure be paid for by the developers, protecting the environment a non-negotiable prerequisite before a project can start, and that every single person affected in the region be compensated through royalties. There should also be ironclad legal agreements that will make it impossible for the AI companies to walk away scot free once they are done with the facilities.
I think what surprised me too was realizing the pushback is no longer isolated...
communities are organizing, showing up, and saying “not without conditions.”
And honestly, your point about accountability matters.
If projects move forward, many people would argue they should come with clear obligations...
infrastructure paid for, environmental safeguards upfront, cleanup responsibilities locked in, and communities sharing in the benefits rather than just absorbing the costs.
The old model of “trust us, it’ll be good for you” is clearly wearing thin.
I don't want them running on fossil fuels. Renewables only. And closed-loop grey water cooling. No sucking up all the fresh water that we need for the land and everything it sustains. Don't know how to make either of those demands work? Figure it out,**before** you build.
Even if you are correct that the oligarchs step up contribute to the betterment of society, the evidence suggest that any such contribution will be only what is minimally impactful on thier profits. I remain skeptical.
But the other thing about these monstrous data centres, aside from the enormous amounts of electricity and water consumed, is the heat generated.
As things presently stand, it would be possible to legislate that they must provide their own electrical power using only solar, wind, or hydro. It would probably also be possible to legislate that they cannot use any water that is needed for other human activities (and especially consumption), so only grey water. And this one is really critical, the amount of fresh water on the whole planet is minimal (compared to salt water).
However, recent research suggest that these huge facilities could raise the ambient temperature for miles around by as much as 5 degrees centigrade. That would affect the whole ecosphere in ways that are as yet unknown. There may be conceivable ways in which to dissipate that heat for productive uses, such as heating for buildings in close communities, it would take considerable invesment in technologies that that are, if they even exist, in their infancy.
Finally, it seems to me that there is a question that hasn't been asked: What purpose do these serve? We are told what they will do, but how will the doing of this improve our lives? All I've seen to date is that it will add to the wealth of those few who can afford to build them and who are already obscenely wealthy.
I swear AI is going to fall flat on its face and a lot of people will lose their money. The AI bubble will burst within the next year or so. That’s why the tech guys are pushing so hard to get the data centres built. The governments spend the tax dollars, the billionaires and tech bros get to stuff their pockets with money, and we are left with wreckage and environmental distruction. Just like the dot-com era.
You’re right in saying AI is here to say, but I don’t believe we have to build these monstrosities. I read a piece on the approach the Chinese are taking with AI centres. They are building much smaller versions that are use-dedicated. Their designs include green energy-efficient infrastructure with self liquid cooling technology and renewable energy sources in the form of wind turbines. I don’t see why we can’t take a page from them. Just a thought.
Why are billionaires worried about the consequences of their deeds now? Because they realise that if 70% people lose their jobs, that eventually means 70% less customers, 70% less benefits, and 70% less shares...
Nearly 3 in 10 workers admit they have actively resisted workplace AI efforts.
Regular people started pushing back.
Because people can tolerate change.
What they won’t tolerate forever is being handed the bill for a future they never agreed to.
Bravo Fred!
From your reply to Mary:
"The bigger challenge will be finding the balance between attracting investment and making sure communities actually benefit."
Attracting investment is a tricky goal. In our economy, it is usually only done with the expectation of profit on invested capital, not social benefits. And the holders of capital are usually private and the "already rich". So attracting investment is not always good.
AI is like Dot-Com. Both were/are going to be wildly successful, make working life easier, but who exactly benefits? Certainly not the local communities, nor the environment or wildlife. We are already dealing with severe hot spots do to the climate impact, and now we want to build these massive heat generators that will suck up the electricity, the water and the air quality. #SayNoToAI
The dot-com era is actually a useful reminder... huge hype, real winners, real losers, and eventually a lot of sorting out between what was genuinely valuable and what was just momentum.
I’m probably a little less absolute on the #SayNoToAI side only because I do see potential benefits in medicine, research, logistics, and productivity.
But I think your bigger point lands...
communities shouldn’t be expected to absorb all the environmental and infrastructure costs while a small number of companies collect most of the upside.
The question may not be “AI or no AI?” so much as “on whose terms?”
Data centres aren’t the only path to AI. We have computers why don’t they make AI work for less power intensive computers? It not like they can’t do it. They just think they will make more money this way. What company doesn’t want to control the AI system they use? Also the whole way these tech companies have been pushing AI to the general public is by giving us things that work worse than what we had from non-AI programs. AI uses more power works worse than what we had and isn’t correct half the time. Doesn’t seem really for this mass rush of what will quickly become outdated data centres. Need more efficient AI models and more regulation. People need to continue to push back hard against this mad rush.
I understand that Kevin O'Leary wants to build a data center just south of Grande Prairie which has not been required to have an environmental assessment done. I also understand that a lot of people are against it. It is supposed to be very large-I have heard approximately 8000 acres although I can't seem to confirm this information. This area called Wonder Valley is a high drought area and forest fire risk is huge! What the heck does O'Leary think he's trying to pull off? I don't live anywhere near there but I don't want to see this in Alberta!
Last week in Hamilton, Ontario, there was a city vote about a proposal for an AI data centre to be built. Against the backdrop of hundreds of people attending the meeting as on lockers and saying NO, the proposal was voted down. If they are built anywhere, these data centres need to pay 100% of water, electricity use and pay for the infrastructure for them, and pay full property taxes and make a financial contribution to the city/community they are locating in. They add nothing in the way of jobs or prosperity.
Interesting, Mary... and that Hamilton vote says something important...
communities are starting to demand a seat at the table.
I think many people would agree with your basic principle...
if a project consumes massive amounts of power, water, and infrastructure, the public shouldn’t be subsidizing it indirectly.
“Growth at any cost” gets a lot less popular when locals are left paying higher bills or absorbing the strain.
The bigger challenge will be finding the balance between attracting investment and making sure communities actually benefit from having these projects in their backyard.
Right now, a lot of people clearly feel the scales are tilted too far in one direction.
Fred, I didn't realize that the pushback was so extensive. This makes me modestly positive. This article makes it seem as though the real people actually may have a way to fight back against the oligarch class steamrolling their power over their lives. It is high time that this group of robber baron carpet baggers pays for their pillaging. That means that every dime of infrastructure be paid for by the developers, protecting the environment a non-negotiable prerequisite before a project can start, and that every single person affected in the region be compensated through royalties. There should also be ironclad legal agreements that will make it impossible for the AI companies to walk away scot free once they are done with the facilities.
You may be right, Frank.
I think what surprised me too was realizing the pushback is no longer isolated...
communities are organizing, showing up, and saying “not without conditions.”
And honestly, your point about accountability matters.
If projects move forward, many people would argue they should come with clear obligations...
infrastructure paid for, environmental safeguards upfront, cleanup responsibilities locked in, and communities sharing in the benefits rather than just absorbing the costs.
The old model of “trust us, it’ll be good for you” is clearly wearing thin.
People want terms... not promises.
I don't want them running on fossil fuels. Renewables only. And closed-loop grey water cooling. No sucking up all the fresh water that we need for the land and everything it sustains. Don't know how to make either of those demands work? Figure it out,**before** you build.
Fair ask, Karen... and honestly, I think a lot of people would agree with the principle...
if a project is going to consume massive amounts of power and water, the burden shouldn’t fall on the public or the environment.
Your point about “figure it out before you build” is probably the key one.
Too often the pattern seems to be...
Approve first
Promise solutions later
Let communities deal with the consequences
If these projects are truly as transformative as advertised, then companies should be able to show... upfront...
how power, cooling, water use, and environmental impact will be handled responsibly before the first shovel hits the ground.
That doesn’t sound unreasonable to me.
Fucking awesome Fred!! Thank you. Clear, honest and succinct! What could be better?! 🇨🇦
Thank you, Patricia 😄
That means a lot.
I’m trying hard to cut through the noise, ask the uncomfortable questions, and keep things understandable without the political tap dancing.
Sometimes the biggest question is the simplest one...
Who benefits… and who pays?
Glad this one landed for you. 🙏
Even if you are correct that the oligarchs step up contribute to the betterment of society, the evidence suggest that any such contribution will be only what is minimally impactful on thier profits. I remain skeptical.
But the other thing about these monstrous data centres, aside from the enormous amounts of electricity and water consumed, is the heat generated.
As things presently stand, it would be possible to legislate that they must provide their own electrical power using only solar, wind, or hydro. It would probably also be possible to legislate that they cannot use any water that is needed for other human activities (and especially consumption), so only grey water. And this one is really critical, the amount of fresh water on the whole planet is minimal (compared to salt water).
However, recent research suggest that these huge facilities could raise the ambient temperature for miles around by as much as 5 degrees centigrade. That would affect the whole ecosphere in ways that are as yet unknown. There may be conceivable ways in which to dissipate that heat for productive uses, such as heating for buildings in close communities, it would take considerable invesment in technologies that that are, if they even exist, in their infancy.
Finally, it seems to me that there is a question that hasn't been asked: What purpose do these serve? We are told what they will do, but how will the doing of this improve our lives? All I've seen to date is that it will add to the wealth of those few who can afford to build them and who are already obscenely wealthy.
Fair skepticism, Brad...
and I think your final question may be the biggest one of all...
What problem are these data centres solving for ordinary people?
That’s the part many governments and companies haven’t explained very well yet.
We hear what AI can do, but much less about who tangibly benefits, who carries the costs, and what protections are in place for communities.
Your points on water, heat, and power are exactly the kinds of questions that should be answered upfront... not after approvals are signed.
If the environmental footprint is significant, people are understandably going to ask whether the public is getting enough back in return.
And you’re right about skepticism too.
History teaches us that large corporations tend to be generous right up to the point where it materially affects quarterly profits.
That’s not cynicism... that’s observation. 🇨🇦
I swear AI is going to fall flat on its face and a lot of people will lose their money. The AI bubble will burst within the next year or so. That’s why the tech guys are pushing so hard to get the data centres built. The governments spend the tax dollars, the billionaires and tech bros get to stuff their pockets with money, and we are left with wreckage and environmental distruction. Just like the dot-com era.
You may be right about the hype cycle, Barb.
History definitely teaches us to be cautious when something gets marketed as the next thing that changes everything forever.
We saw it with dot-com. We saw it with crypto. We’ve seen booms before where real innovation existed... but hype got way ahead of reality.
That said, I’m not fully convinced AI itself disappears.
I suspect the bubble around it may be the thing that bursts.
Meaning... a lot of overbuilt expectations, overinvestment, and companies chasing shiny-object money may get shaken out.
The bigger question you’re raising is a fair one...
Who carries the downside if predictions don’t pan out?
If governments subsidize infrastructure, communities absorb environmental costs, and companies walk away if economics change…
people are right to ask tougher questions before signing the cheque.
The dot-com comparison may end up being less about “AI fails” and more about “who survives once the hype wears off?”
You’re right in saying AI is here to say, but I don’t believe we have to build these monstrosities. I read a piece on the approach the Chinese are taking with AI centres. They are building much smaller versions that are use-dedicated. Their designs include green energy-efficient infrastructure with self liquid cooling technology and renewable energy sources in the form of wind turbines. I don’t see why we can’t take a page from them. Just a thought.
Why are billionaires worried about the consequences of their deeds now? Because they realise that if 70% people lose their jobs, that eventually means 70% less customers, 70% less benefits, and 70% less shares...
That’s actually a pretty blunt economic reality, Patrick.
A consumer economy only works if people have paycheques to spend.
If technology wipes out too many jobs too quickly, eventually somebody has to ask...
who exactly is buying the products, paying subscriptions, renting apartments, or investing in the market?
History shows productivity gains can create new industries and jobs over time...
but the transition matters.
If millions get displaced before new opportunities exist, the math gets ugly fast.
In other words...
you can’t automate your customer base out of existence and expect endless growth.
That seems like a pretty important detail. 😄
Nearly 3 in 10 workers admit they have actively resisted workplace AI efforts.
Regular people started pushing back.
Because people can tolerate change.
What they won’t tolerate forever is being handed the bill for a future they never agreed to.
Bravo Fred!
From your reply to Mary:
"The bigger challenge will be finding the balance between attracting investment and making sure communities actually benefit."
Attracting investment is a tricky goal. In our economy, it is usually only done with the expectation of profit on invested capital, not social benefits. And the holders of capital are usually private and the "already rich". So attracting investment is not always good.
The question is "Investment in what?"
Excellent point, Steven.
I think that’s exactly the deeper question...
Investment in what... and for whose benefit?
Not all investment is automatically good simply because money shows up.
If the return mostly flows upward while communities absorb the costs, then people are right to ask harder questions.
I’m not anti-investment.
Canada absolutely needs investment.
But I think many Canadians are becoming more selective...
Investment that builds long-term value? Yes.
Infrastructure, good jobs, energy resilience, medical breakthroughs, domestic capability? Makes sense.
Investment that extracts value while leaving communities with higher bills, strained resources, and little say?
That’s where the skepticism kicks in.
The old assumption that “investment = public good” probably doesn’t get a free pass anymore.
AI is like Dot-Com. Both were/are going to be wildly successful, make working life easier, but who exactly benefits? Certainly not the local communities, nor the environment or wildlife. We are already dealing with severe hot spots do to the climate impact, and now we want to build these massive heat generators that will suck up the electricity, the water and the air quality. #SayNoToAI
Interesting comparison, Barb.
The dot-com era is actually a useful reminder... huge hype, real winners, real losers, and eventually a lot of sorting out between what was genuinely valuable and what was just momentum.
I’m probably a little less absolute on the #SayNoToAI side only because I do see potential benefits in medicine, research, logistics, and productivity.
But I think your bigger point lands...
communities shouldn’t be expected to absorb all the environmental and infrastructure costs while a small number of companies collect most of the upside.
The question may not be “AI or no AI?” so much as “on whose terms?”
I like the “on whose terms.”
Data centres aren’t the only path to AI. We have computers why don’t they make AI work for less power intensive computers? It not like they can’t do it. They just think they will make more money this way. What company doesn’t want to control the AI system they use? Also the whole way these tech companies have been pushing AI to the general public is by giving us things that work worse than what we had from non-AI programs. AI uses more power works worse than what we had and isn’t correct half the time. Doesn’t seem really for this mass rush of what will quickly become outdated data centres. Need more efficient AI models and more regulation. People need to continue to push back hard against this mad rush.
Thanks Fred, another informative post :)
I understand that Kevin O'Leary wants to build a data center just south of Grande Prairie which has not been required to have an environmental assessment done. I also understand that a lot of people are against it. It is supposed to be very large-I have heard approximately 8000 acres although I can't seem to confirm this information. This area called Wonder Valley is a high drought area and forest fire risk is huge! What the heck does O'Leary think he's trying to pull off? I don't live anywhere near there but I don't want to see this in Alberta!