The EPA is planning to scrap public review rules for data center pollution
capitalbnews.org
capitalbnews.org
This is potentially good news for everyone who wants to do anything less dirty than a datacenter (logistics, cold chain, light manufacturing/assembly, etc) because they'll probably be able to get the precedent extended to them in the next decade or so. The people and communities that make money off that sort of stuff will probably do well. Most of that sort of industry is in poorer sections of states where the municipalities are constantly being hamstrung by their own state because the municipalities want to permit it but state rules make that hard. So there is potential for some good to come out of it.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/pfas-forever-chem...
"Great" news indeed.
This is like Republicans claiming that they're doing everything for small businesses, when the reality is they're doing things for contract workers who more often are just being forced into contracts that wouldn't exist without the lax regulatory reality and are abused thereof.
"This will benefit the little guy (assuming they survive their cancer diagnosis)"
https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2026/09/10/treasury-launder-mon...
That program had a simple ask of every corporation doing business in America: who really owns it? No more hiding of ill gotten gains and laundering through US real estate, etc (hint: anybody come to mind who might do a lot of that)?.
They killed it. To "protect small businesses".
The Trump Regime is pure corruption.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
Sales Tax handling is more of a burden on the business than this reporting was.
All it did was make your 3 member condo association have to pay a lawyer $500/yr in compliance fees for utterly no benefit to anyone other than the compliance folks collecting their rent. Or take on personal criminal liability to file it yourself. Better not forget one random year or it’s a felony!
Just like most of the rest of the AML/KYC creep after 9/11 it did absolutely nothing to go after anybody they say it did - it just made things harder on normal everyday people.
What do you have in mind?
Subpoenas and search-warrants exist but are not trivial.
Oh yes, the well-known path to riches by being a toxic dumping ground.
There are plenty of major industrial powers with very clean industries who used to have very dirty industries in previous decades or centuries. I can't think of any nation at all that developed while maintaining a firm commitment to clean industry trough the process of industrialization (though, there are a few places that never industrialized and developed a service economy directly, especially tax havens and financial hubs).
The vast majority of these these no one knows even exist until told. They are basically warehouses without loading docks not much traffic goes into or out of.
Sure some horrible projects exist and are repeated over and over on social media, but they are the exception.
Most folks working across the street from one of these facilities had no idea until they were told to care.
Trump is running a spoils system. You don't obtain favor through reasoned argument. You obtain favor by making him like you personally.
Let's not be this flippant about where the real pressure for this is coming from. Presidents and their appointees come and go. The people pushing the regulators[1] are not subject to US election cycles. It's important to know who they are when we aim our finely honed fingers, even if we find that these folks were formerly virtuous and mighty green energy advocates, because if your solution is merely different figureheads, all that will really change is the scale of the bribes.
I did not say that, but is so obvious, like looking through a plate glass window. There is no pressure, its just a natural transition to the end of bipedal life.
While true, it’s also true that presidents and their appointees can vary wildly in their susceptibility to those “people pushing”. Both sides might be bad, but one’s very obviously worse.
> the jenga tower
I am not so sure about these narratives anymore.
Sure, the next step is complete regression to feudalism, but they aren't thinking that far ahead, they just want to take every job in existence that isn't physically turning a proverbial wrench.
Especially after seeing what the “learn to code” movement has brought people into, I can’t imagine those people will just roll over and peacefully enter homeless encampments..
They're largely the ones voting for this.
This has always been a story Americans tell themselves to sleep better at night that has zero relation to reality.
The US is a country that has seen many injustices perpetrated by the government. From concentration camps for people of a certain descent to legal racial discrimination (and slavery before that) to wanton violence by security forces against innocent people (pick your favourite police/ICE/etc murder here).
When have armed Americans ever risen up against a government injustice? Best I can think of is the Oklahoma city bombing and I'm pretty sure that's not what you're all refering to.
You don't need everyone to wake up someday and think "Hey, I think those Jacobins in France had a good point" to have a revolution. You only need a few detonators.
If the societal conditions are ready, nobody can really stop the masses once they are ignited.
* 2 land disputes between federal land management and individuals that thought they deserve more rights over federal land. Hardly fighting against an injustice here, were they
* The BLM protests/unrest started by the murder of George Floyd. I don't recall Americans taking up arms against murderous cops, or anyone, really. The closest to arms taking I can remember is an underage guy going to a protest to "protect" against rioters, getting attacked and killing people in response. Hardly anyone fighting against government instilled injustice with their right to bear arms, is it?
* January 6, where a bunch of mentally challenged individuals tried to overturn the election results at the request of the loser of that election. There was no injustice done against the people in question, and they didn't use their arms against it, they just stormed a barely defended building. One of the shittiest coup attempts of all time, and if anything, for furthering injustice and government overreach than anything else.
So no.
My point is that nobody stands up with arms against injustice in the US.
> The point is that people really do take up arms against the govt all the time
6 times in 50 years, half of which didn't involve any arms? "All the time" might be a stretch.
> that fact has historically had major effects on the conduct of police and politicians
Yes, police have stopped murdering innocent people. Right?
Or a bunch of dudes in the deserts of yemen couldn't defend against a modern military with aircraft carriers, realtime control of almost all communications, autonomous drones and missiles and 5th gen fighters
History and current events seem to be disagreeing with you.
Suppression of populace is vastly different than "trying to beat terrorism" or end resistance in a jungle.
Go take a look at actutal comparable environments, like china, or north korea for how well that goes for the dissenters
The median white collar job in the US (picking it on purpose because it's a country with high wages, your math would be even worse in a France or Italy) is in the $60-70k. Yes you have to add benefits and etc, but we're still pretty far off 150k.
How much tokens does $80k buy you and do you think it's capable of replacing a human's output? For some, definitely. For plenty, I doubt it. Currently token costs are subsidised by the bubble frontier labs and already we're seeing tightening of budgets because it's costing more than expected
They are though! They are literally building castles for themselves already.
Yes, datacentres can be reused for other purposes but dark fibre didn't save the telecom bubble and the utility of train tracks didn't save the railway bubble.
Public review is a blight on the democratic process. Instead of having a set of democratically established laws and regulations that apply fairly to everyone, a small handful of noisy people with too much time on their hands can stop anyone they don't like from doing something that is perfectly legal.
It's an incredibly dumb process and bypassing it is good, actually.
It also has nothing at all to do with whether the environmental regulations themselves are being followed.
We're talking about data centers, which are deeply unpopular with just about everyone. It's laughable to suggest that skipping public review is a good thing here, because it's only going to result in data centers being sneakily approved contrary to the overwhelming desire of constituents. We can ruminate all day on whether public comments or public review is useful in the grand scheme, but the realpolitik of the situation is that – barring possession of a time machine to go back and elect different representation – it's one of the few levers that constituents have to prevent data centers from moving into their area.
https://www.natesilver.net/p/why-does-everyone-hate-data-cen...
Speak for yourself. Plenty of people support them. The technological progress and economic benefits they bring are good for our country. But are you always an opponent of democracy, or only when you pretend everyone is on your side on an issue?
70% opposition and people who strongly support (7%) continues to decrease. I guess that’s plenty in absolute numbers. But even the Iran war has more supporters than that.
Your definition of "plenty" does not match up with the accepted definition.
> But are you always an opponent of democracy, or only when you pretend everyone is on your side on an issue?
Have you stopped beating your wife?
A local business owner bought up one of the blocks in the center of the street and announced plans to demolish it in order to build a 5-over-1 complex several stories higher than any of the other buildings.
Without the public comment process, he'd have been able to do this practically overnight, completely ruining the street. The public fought back long and hard for many months and eventually won by convincing the town council to vote against the rezoning that would permit this construction.
I can't say I'm opposed to the public comment process.
(Note that this was not a case of never-change NIMBYism; tons of other similar buildings are going up all over the town completely unopposed. It was the ugly, generic design and the sheer size put so blatantly in the middle of everyone's favorite part of town.)
An odious commercial use is the next best thing to no change whatsoever.
I live on .1ac in a post-industrial shithole that remains a post-industrial shithole largely because the politics of snooty people mostly a hundred miles away.
The last thing I, or anyone else here, needs is "those people" in our midst telling us how to live. Our lifestyles are fundamentally incompatible.
You're cheering for the prevention of building new housing in the most valuable, most useful part of the town. I bet it would have kept all the same retail and restaurants in the bottom too, so there would have been zero downside for anyone who actually uses the street.
Instead a bunch of people with no stake except an aesthetic preference blocked it. How on earth is that a good thing?
"More traffic" is not sufficient. I can actually sort of believe shade from an apartment building could count, but the impression I get is that is rarely a good-faith argument (and in any case it should only severely affect a few people in any new development, so you could easily justify just compensating them in some way rather than outright blocking a development.
If the highest other building was 2 stories then it would have been 4 taller. More likely 3? Not several.
I appreciate your complaint about generic design but damn putting apartments downtown sounds amazing actually, not ruining. Would you have been happy if they had a better design and it was 3 over 1?
> The name derives from the maximum permissible five floors of combustible construction (Type III or Type V) over a fire-resistive Type I podium of one floor for "5-over-1" or two floors for "5-over-2", as defined in the United States–based International Building Code (IBC) Section 510.2.[1][4] Some sources instead attribute the name to the wood framing of the upper construction; the IBC uses "Type V" to refer to non-fireproof structures, including those framed with dimensional lumber.[5][6]
Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that".
† (I think they're fine and moreover I think they're a huge missed opportunity for blue states to get more sustainable and regulated power delivered and data centers running under those regulations, rather that what's going to happen, which is data centers all being located in red states that aren't going to regulate them at all).
The data center backlash is bipartisan though? Even Texas froze all data center buildouts recently [1].
[1]: https://www.texastribune.org/2026/08/03/texas-data-center-pr...
The public comment process has stopped a lot, a LOT, of shitty things from happening at the federal and state government level. I've seen it happen time and time again, because I've been part of it time and time again. Over decades.
So I see this, and to be honest? I'm going to move on! Because this clashes with a lot of extremely personal experiences to me that have shaped public policy and legislation in positive ways. Sometimes people will get it wrong and it can be corrupted by Big Money like anything else, but it's one of the few levers the public has until they start moving to the different boxes of Democracy.
People get really irrational about things built near them and their say causes problems finding anywhere to build reasonable things.
> There are certainly things I wouldn't want to live near to, data centers being one of them.
Give it a residential noise limit and I'm happy to live near a data center. (I am worried about power prices but that's a matter of total number rather than specific location, and utilities charging them enough to cover expansion.)
Separately there's a problem with the lack of enforcement, most notoriously Musk's infamous gas-powered data center that apparently violates a bunch of regulations including noise. Musk does this because he believes that he can get away with it in a sense that the eventual fines, if any, will be dwarfed by the profit extracted. The penalties need to be hefty enough that this computation doesn't work out.
That's not how the vast majority of this works, and the average best case scenario on this you get to vote a politician out after they already fucked people over.
On one hand, fair representation is important, and the idea that every person has an equal say in how governmental decisions are made. One person one vote.
On the other hand, not everyone has the same ‘skin in the game’ for different decisions. For example, if we are deciding if a noisy building should be allowed to be built, someone who lives 5 miles away is not going to be affected by the noise, so they aren’t going to care about that. If someone comes to a community and says “we will give everyone in the community $50 if you let us build this loud building here”, then all the people out of the noise range are going to think that is a great deal. They get $50, and they don’t hear the noise anyway. Why WOULDNT they want to approve that?
So is it fair for the community to decide to make one (or a few) people miserable for years so they get $50?
So things like public review that let a “concentrated local interest group” have more power makes some sense if the thing they are reviewing also has a concentrated local impact.
Of course, there has to be some balance, otherwise we will live in a NIMBY world and nothing will be built.
And your natural inclination is to assume that turnout at public comment maps to those people most impacted by an issue. But that's not at all the case! Turnout maps to those most activated by an issue, which is a function of how much free time they have (public comment is generally wealthier and older) and how fearful they are of change (public comment biases sharply towards "no").
I'm fond of asking people locally here how many of them have even considering turning out at public comment opportunities to support new apartment development. I've never met someone who has, even though people here are broadly supportive of housing. But go to a Plan or HPC meeting: there's a line of commenters out the door opposing the apartments.
Public comment is antidemocratic.
This is a fascinating train of thought. I get the logic, but where does it stop?
If the idea is that any situation where people are influencing the government/making decisions without absolutely everyone in the electorate being involved, is anti-democratic, at what point are people in the government allowed to make decisions without consulting everyone?
We have representatives for a reason, and part of that reason involves making decisions without having a vote (even when that decision is made by someone several rungs down the chain from the person actually elected).
I'm highly sympathetic to the idea that the actual effect of these types of "public comment" situations and hopefully anyone involved in one keeps in mind the inherent biases of who shows up, but I don't see how you can flat out deny the idea of asking people, you know, the voters, to come give opinions on decisions being made that are inbetween the actual elections.
But this isn't the case. In every representative democracy around the world, including ours, the bedrock principle is that elected politicians "vote their conscience", i.e. they are not bound by what they said they'll do if elected. So in practice you can't assume that what you voted for will be put into action. If anything, the track record on that is pretty poor.
This was literally my point about "public comment".
We vote for representatives. They then make decisions based on all sorts of things like ancient holy texts and whoever they spoke to most recently.
How is this formal meeting to give opinions antidemocratic but you setting up a personal meeting to influence someone is just fine?
But that doesn't mean the people trying to prevent change have (only) invalid reasons.
Voting is critical, but it still lags behind. Kicking someone out of office a year after they sign off on the new data center doesn't stop the data center from getting built.
I happen to disagree with most data center opposition, but I'm not saying data center opposition is per se bad because it's delivered through public comment.
What you call "a small handful of noisy people with too much time on their hands" I call "We the People" and it should fall to them to decide what happens in their own communities. It's legal for me to put a hot tub in my living room. My family doesn't have to let me put it there. It's legal to pave over city park in my community and turn them into parking lots, but the people in my city should have a say in that.
That doesn't give anyone veto power, the worst people can do is say mean comments and make the listeners feel bad before they do the thing anyway.
Moving to cut off comments is simply breathtaking arrogance, which is on brand for this regime.
It's like giving people excessive discretion. Then if you're someone they don't like (eg. a black person if you're racist), then you deal out a maximalist punishment. If they're someone you do like, you let them off and tell them not to do it again.
Policy like this is just corruption. It allows some people to exercise more rights than others, at the expense of the commons.
Anyone who knows the story of the US auto industry in the 1970’s and 1980’s knows how excessive government protection for an industry works out.
I think you'll need to wait for the Orange Toddler to pass away before you can get anywhere with reinstating environmental checks and balances.
Even then you'll need to contend with large corporations with buckets of money... and the Republican party...
Greed and power are not and never have been an age-related thing past early childhood. It's the human condition, not strictly a "boomer" thing.
We are watching world leaders get increasingly old which is having catastrophic impact on society.
Ask me how I know...
I understand your argument though, I've seen it spouted from thousands of young people, trying to blame old people for everything. But it's those same young people that don't fucking show up to vote.
Maybe try voting, and motivating your peers to vote, and then things can change for the better, but young people of voting age notoriously are "not political" or just can't be bothered. Talk about short-sighted, lol, young people are very much so, too.
Practically everyone is at fault for the mess we are in, not just "boomers".
I gave up driving in the 1990's because I could see the climate calamity coming that we're now in. I was in my 20's at the time. It caused a lot of social pain for me, but I accepted it because I didn't want to be part of the problem. I wasn't short-sighted, and now I'm pretty old, and all I see is short-sightedness from every age group. "I got mine" is not an old-person thing, it's everyone that cares more about themselves than others - and it takes a lot of effort to do the opposite.
A lot of industry regulation has basically been regulatory capture since the start
Is that like saying "okay gold is 10x as expensive and nothing else changes"?
And as long as it's one big crash, at the end things stop inflating and all prices are higher and all wages are higher and everything is pretty much back to normal.
I can surely squirrel away a couple of GPUs into any random closet and rent out the capacity.
So literally yes you can avoid the review... until you manage to convince your local government to pass their own version of this law, or vote out the existing people if they are against this thing you didn't think you had to care about because it was already law. And the slated time is within a year, so good luck accomplishing that in time.
Also please note the rules of this forum: Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that".
Critics on all sides have ample ammunition AFAIK
Gosh, they were such a paragon of environmental protection, effective and well organized in the last 40 years.
Huh? The endangerment finding was in 2009. The problem is that we have a very litigious set of polluters and then we elected Trump who stacked the supreme court, and then we elected Trump again, this time with a bunch of insane people with him who had specific plans to bring on the end of this country via the unitary executive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_greenhouse_gases...
The last time the federal government had an agency that fit that description it was the Hoover FBI.
Vague example: You buy a house, a month later you get a demand letter from the EPA that you need to raise your home, spend millions to clean the ground contamination that was caused by a owner before you were born and more than 3 transactions before yours.
And they are not nice, they will gladly bankrupt you and put you in jail. Selling it or giving it to the EPA to release the obligation is not a option. The EPA can sometimes look a lot like a cartel.
so give local government the controls, that doesn't seem so bad. As for the next line in the article saying people are losing faith in their local government i don't buy that a bit. Local government and elections are where your vote and voice are loudest. The most faith lost seems to be at the federal level.
Triggering articles like this are usually not so alarming if you take the time to read them and fish out the details. They're made for social media distribution and engagement from the headline alone.
So no this isn't an issue for local governments who can be easily bribed, it's absolutely something the federal gov should be all over. This isn't some "gotcha" you're offering, it's damning.
> The federal Environmental Protection Agency plans to scrap a federal requirement that states tell the public — and allow public comment — before approving air-pollution permits for industrial facilities. That includes the data centers rising across the country, as well as the power plants built to feed their enormous appetite for electricity.
Second or third paragraph no less.
Moreover, those types of permits aren't a sensible way to deal with CO2 even if they were actually used for that, because you can't scrub CO2 using filters or more complete combustion methods or the like. There is nothing about the facility to inspect or approve, it's solely a matter of how much carbon is in the fuel that it burns. Which is why the only sensible way to handle it is to put a carbon price on the fuel, which has nothing to do with any particular facility.
Pros are running out of time to square their ambitions with a public that's about to go from needing a leg up to a public that wants their heads.
I get one small comfort knowing that Wall Street will be increasingly under water as the climate disaster progresses (remember Sandy?).
People who thinks they need the planet to survive until they die sees it as a great opportunity to reap the value they generated over their lifetime.
It's very shortsighted and foolish desire.
https://electrek.co/2026/07/14/musk-buys-gas-turbine-company...
https://floodlightnews.org/new-jersey-data-center-federal-vi...
I was in BPC during Sandy, never lost power, never had flooding. Stayed around to help get our servers moved over to DR. So yes, I remember.
Thankfully, people are seeing how bad NY and CA State governments are and are wisely moving what they can out of it. https://www.txse.com/
the public essentially has little interest in preventing human extinction. And tons of interest in preventing data centers under false arguments and performative displays.
What is the point of empowering the public when they are not curious but rather emotional children.
Basically, to empower the public now means, how to bastardize your arguments into an emotional narrative that is palatable to the commoners but probably misses all relevant arguments.
Like if you think x-risk is real, and datacenters are benign/reasonable/can-be-done-in-net-local-positive-way - then you are incentivized to pretend like datacenter are bad because peasants will not entertain your x risk calculus.
It's a herding/shepherding game where the only people willing to play are compromised.
yes, most people don't belong to that cult
Bill gates is talking about it, NYT just ran a bunch articles on AI safety concerns, a reporter just asked Trump about it in a one on one.
Feels unfair to still dismiss it as a cult LessWrong thing at this point.
This is how all politics is, and frankly the existential risk crowd needs to learn how to play the game instead of complaining about it.
It's "regime" or "fascism" when you don't.
If you view a regime as fascistic, you still need to be able to do all the above.
Nazi Germany was defeated by an alliance of communists and capitalists who immediately started a Cold War when the Nazis were defeated. That required compromise, propaganda, and all the other distasteful things I called “all politics”.
Dealing with existential risk will require collaboration on a similar scale.
It's just to mobilize NIMBYs, a thing everyone was against when people were trying to protect their neighborhood against construction projects that would increase noise and stress the local public infrastructure, like high density housing.
But now that there's a different noisy project stressing public infrastructure, NIMBY seems like the right move, I guess.
It's fine though. It's fine.
Unions: famously devoid of men and white people.
Maybe you mean they don't specifically put men and white people at the top of their hierarchy?
Voters aren't that deep. For better or worse, no matter how badly partisans wish them to, identity politics don't matter nearly as much as basic economic issues.
To elucidate more my own 90's era influenced view, is that a list of identities is..."silly" comes to mind but isn't strong enough. "Stupid" is perhaps accurate, but lacks erudition. Perhaps "self-sabotaging" is best, as it reflects my understanding of corpo-politics as a cynical, amoral enterprise that has one goal: to win. It is a sad irony that perhaps this is an example of WHY such an enterprise cannot and perhaps should not attempt any big moral moves. It will always be ham-handed and cause harm.
Take the overt anti-male attitude of the left. That immediately alienates 50% of the population. Full stop. This is not just white men, but black men, Asian men, Latin men. It's all men. I hate this (I use the word "hate" advisedly) because it is bigotry masquerading as compassion, and it fundamentally undermines any claim to principled moral superiority the left has, or ever had. After all, if it is correct to bias against men today, what does that do to previous arguments that bias against women was wrong yesterday? Plus, on a more practical note, you simply can't win elections when you alienate 50% of the population.
I'm under no illusion that I can convince you, or anyone on the left, to change. I've no doubt that the reflexive "he's a sexist, racist, ist-ist" would be your first defense. But I'd hope that, in a moment of clarity, you'd look at the apparently unthinkable victory of Trump, especially the second term, and realize that such policies and attitudes cannot win general elections in the US even against a convicted felon, a rapist, a liar, twice-impeached, and a self-aggrandizing narcissist who is doddering into geriatric solipsism. If you can't beat him with these views, I daresay you can't beat anyone.
That's... not how it works. Democrats literally had a House speaker and the president was, as you could see, not removed despite impeachment.
We're all stuck with two more years of an increasingly demented trump. The best Dems can do is highlight to incompetence/corruption, limt the damage, and get their own brand out of the mud so they can win a strong majority in 2028.
Democracy is for good and for worse not a one-and-done thing, it is a continuous fight.
How do you think you as a voter who presumably aren't a billionaire (or CEO of a mega corporation) with politicians on speed dial who will take the call get the politicians to pass those laws?
If the electorate is asleep at the wheel, the people pushing the politicians are all pushing them one way and the car isn't going in the direction that most of the electorate would necessarily want.
If you value your democracy you sometimes have to be an active participant in it and sometimes that means turning up more than once ever X years and ticking a box.
What are they doing about DC water and energy level requirements in your own state.
Democrats aren't by default better on this issue vs republicans so you need to be more involved than just voting in the general.
If you are in a D leaning district, then register as a D and vote in the D primary. Make sure the candidate you vote for is the most likely to win who isn't captured by big business.
A good example of a datacenter friendly dem that just won by the skin of their teeth is Crowley for governor in Wisconson.
The only thing that matters is Democrats gaining control of Congress and state governments. The choice that isn't a democrat is the wrong one. The time to vote out an incumbent was the primary.
I agree, that's why I'm saying you should be involved in the primary and not just the general. Because, as I said, it's not the default position of the democrat party to be for regulating datacenters. I gave an explicit example of that where a dem is completely aligned with the republicans on DCs.
Dems win power, but they are still beholden to OpenAI, then they'll be no better than the republicans on this issue.
It's too late for 2026 and IMO you should vote for Ds wherever you are at. But if you want to affect change on DCs then voting in the primary for anti-dc dems is what you have to do. It's not enough to just vote in the general elections.
> they'll be no better than the republicans on this issue.
There is no reason to think this is true. I will eat a gas generator if a Democrat president orders his EPA administrator to break established rules and precedent like the current one is doing.
No I'm not. We can walk and chew gum. It's important to recognize when and how Dems fail and this is one case where more than a few are failing their voters.
> There is no reason to think this is true.
There is if people aren't involved. A Gavin Newsom president would absolutely be pretty happy to receive campaign funding from AI firms.
> I will eat a gas generator if a Democrat president orders his EPA administrator to break established rules and precedent like the current one is doing.
Break the rules, no that's unlikely. However, it's entirely possible that the same results and rubber-stamping happens with enough campaign contributions. You need to look no further than all the money that's been dumped into "clean coal" and "CO2 capture" boondoggles by democrats to understand how this sort of thing works.
I could completely see a democrat president allowing DCs to be built so long as they buy carbon offsets, which is every bit as corrupt as just telling the EPA to not regulate. It's simply just not as brazen.
But I don't think this is true of any or all democrat presidential candidates, just some. Specifically Newsom would very much pull this sort of shit.
Republicans just took a vocal public oath of loyalty to their President in which they promised to cheat in the the election. That happened. It's on video.
My claim is that you should vote for the other party. That sounds reasonable to me.
I voted in the primary against the incumbent. The incumbent won. I will vote for them because the Republican opponent is a documented sexual predator. That is literally true.
These are the "two sides" we are dealing with.
Note that this promise is itself illegal. It is a violation of 18 USC 597.
See: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=title%3A18+section%3...
He literally says he'll cut a check for $5,000 for every adult american if the Republicans win both the House and Senate in the midterms.
You don't have to take my word for it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4NphZBfmnE
He's also stated that he can issue the money without help from Congress, which directly contradicts the idea that it's harmless bloviating about voting in a 120th Congress to implement specific policy:
See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbLXAdvZcro&t=40s
... though that distinction shouldn't really matter.
The payout is very much a quid pro quo bribe for voters. No additional interpretation of his words is necessary: he's said it very directly himself.
Which is exactly why it doesn't apply. The money would go to even the people who didn't vote for him.
The law you're referring to is about paying people for votes. Someone giving their own money to voters who can prove they cast a ballot in a particular way.
Saying that you're going to have taxpayer-funded transfer payments is ordinary politics. If your interpretation was right then proposing to increase social assistance programs would be vote buying in violation of that law.
It's not that simple. The Democrats are shit, and lost to Trump twice because of that shittiness. Perversely, Trump has allowed them to convince themselves that they don't have to reform.
I don't expect anything to change if the Democrats gain power, they'll curb only the most egregious abuses curbed a bit, while leaving the overall thing intact. Then they'll lose again because they're shit.
You've made it clear why you think people absolutely shouldn't vote for Democrats, but haven't really stated what people should do instead, just left the implication.
No, voting for Democrats isn't enough, because they're shit. They'll probably in better shape to be reformed that Republicans, but that's not saying much. I don't have a ton of hope based on what I'm seeing. I expect they'll either go back to the behaviors that enabled Trump, or commit some anti-democratic power grab more extreme than anything Trump has ever done.
IMHO, after someone like Trump, they need to reform themselves to be an actual-majority party that can competitive almost everywhere.
This is a natural consequence of a two-party system: you will be forced to choose between two parties that both deviate from your political preferences. Casting a ballot for a third party, or abstaining from voting, are both effectively the same as voting for the party you hate the most.
You may feel some semblance of true choice by participating in primaries.
Otherwise, the only path to installing politicians you truly believe in is to change the system -- be it by reform or revolution.
This is because the people on HN, Reddit etc are a minority. The views expressed here are not publicly supported by the people who actually go out and vote. Those people are not online writing in these long threads on the same topics over and over again.
Elections will never save you when the parties in power serve the billionaires.
If they are not required by legislation then you just deal with the change.
While you're thinking about this, realize even the Democrats are annoyed at how weaponized things like NEPA have become to slow down necessary changes.
2. Vote
3. Vote
4. Find every publicly accessible local forum with _your_ representatives at every level, and get on the mic. Tell your reps they will lose your vote and the votes of your entire network for complicity in harm against society on behalf of the billionaire class. Follow through on that threat.
Extreme option: Run for election yourself on the platform and get voted into office. The bar is lower than ever in some places.
The proposal to put data centers in space doesn’t seem too far fetched.
The most recent set of polls I saw said that 71% of Democrats and 64% of all Americans support banning datacenter construction. It's not merely a majority, at this point it's a pretty significant supermajority. There are good recents not to ban DC construction but at this point it's pretty clear it's what the people want and letting construction go ahead is, in some sense, undemocratic.
Winning scenarios in AI don't include being accountable for sustainability and they don't include expertise being valuable. Winners will decide what sustainable means for them.
A data center (right now) needs to be built fast, with a large amount of always-on power. Sticking a gas turbine behind the meter in the parking lot is one of the most practical ways to get there.
But that's not what anyone means when they're talking about sustainability for data centers in terms of power usage: they're either talking less power (ie less value) or power from renewable sources, which can't compete with sources like gas turbines across a mix of setup time, consistency, and power/$.
If solar and batteries were available sooner than gas turbines, GE wouldn't have a multiyear waiting list. If solar/batteries were cheaper than gas turbines after accounting for land/permitting/maintenance, every DC would be buying the empty land next to them for an eventual switch to solar. Notably these many-million dollar investments aren't doing those things, and I guarantee you they have tried every angle imaginable to get power to the DC as quickly and cheaply as possible.
China hasn’t stopped using coal because of climate concerns. The US hasn’t stopped fracking. Africa won’t stop adding another billion people.
None of those things are going to change because of a potential issue, distributed across the globe 50 years from now.
If it doesn’t make economic sense (at a micro or macro level), it doesn’t happen.
I think they need humans to recycle money They need humans to run the green economy as the Afro-americans in the south They need humans as a hunting sport, how to make them do what we need. Let's play with them. The AI is not viable as a business model. So they will use it as a tool for their purposes as long as they can.
And a return to voluntary membership in the Paris Agreement?
- water usage
- water pressure
- water contamination (from evaporative cooling towers concentrating metals)
- purple pipe water
- heat waste from air cooling
- corrosion from evaporative cooling
- decibel levels (due to 60 Hz AC, air cooling fans, evaporative coolers,)
- electronics recycling
- non-sustainable and near-conflict chip inputs
- PFAS in waste process water
- energy usage
- emissions from nonrenewable electricity sources
- compact fast diesel for the generators
Constraints to solve within would help solve.
Methane is a potent greenhouse gas; it's worse than CO2.
Wells leaking methane cause it to be hotter.
We need to cap wells that are leaking methane.
We should pay for regular aerial methane surveys.
but of course a lot of permanent damage can be set in motion in that time
This is true. Although, I think resistance to datacenters is just a symptom of the majority of people being anti-AI.
You have to be really dumb not to view a devaluing of your skills is a bad thing.
So if you really believe AI is gonna devalue your skills, you'd rather want data centers to be built in your country and potentially get dividends/UBI rather than in another country and have your job decimated by international competition and get nothing in return.
This makes no sense. It's just as true for the reverse assertion "If you really believe that AI won't devalue your skills, you'd rather want data centers to be built in your country". If it's true for both assertions (very big IF), then why state it?
> rather than in another country and have your job decimated by international competition and get nothing in return.
Again, this assertion makes absolutely no sense. You don't see why citizens would protest against local companies, companies which are the recipients of the value created by local taxpayers, devaluing their skills?
It's also really odd that you think they'll get anything in return. What makes you think this? Has this ever happened in the past, in the US, when too-big-too-fail companies laid off all their staff? This unwarranted optimism is the stuff of science fiction.
=================
TBH I can't really tell where you're going with this. You appear to be implying that either:
1. The objectors don't really believe that AI will devalue them, or
2. That you believe that AI won't devalue them, or
3. Perhaps you want to indicate that their jobs are going to be decimated anyway, thus they shouldn't be objecting anyway.
Which is it?
I, and they (they said that AI would devalue their skills) think that their jobs are going to be decimated by AI.
They can stop AI in the US, but how are they gonna prevent China from making their jobs redundant with AI? Even if they put enormous tariffs on China, they would still lose all business outside of the US. In the best scenario, after some recession they could stagnate if they stay isolated while productivity in the rest of the world explodes.
>It's also really odd that you think they'll get anything in return. What makes you think this? Has this ever happened in the past, in the US, when too-big-too-fail companies laid off all their staff? This unwarranted optimism is the stuff of science fiction.
Don't you see the long term trend in every society to increase public spending to support their population more and more over the last 100 years?
I do not think it is in the interest of the AI overlords to have a revolution, but of course there are reasons to be fearful. Yet again, stopping AI in the US will not stop AI in the rest of the world, there is an arm race going on, one that seems almost impossible to stop, unfortunately.
There are very good reasons to call for more regulations and prevent data centers from being built too close to residential areas, or not using renewables, or plenty of other reasons. But being opposed to every data center because you are afraid for your job seems like a mistake to me. Unless you can prevent all of the world from using AI, in that case yes, it does make sense, I just think it is impossible.
Okay, in that case you're still being irrational and illogical, expecting people to go to the slaughterhouse quietly.
Of course they are going to protest. Whether it makes a difference because some competitor on the other side of the globe could theoretically do the same thing is irrelevant - people on the way to the slaughterhouse will not go quietly.
However it seems to me that you are the illogical one, or perhaps we are having a different conversation, you talking about their feelings, and me talking about the consequences of their choices.
There are two choices, go to the slaughterhouse (probably losing your job due to inability to compete internationally and getting nothing in return), or take the different option, which is less bad, and might even be good (probably losing your job and potentially getting money without even working).
Isn't it illogical to choose the slaughterhouse?
In both choices they are getting nothing in return, nor have they even been promised anything in return.
I mean, if they had been promised something in return, I can understand your PoV, but there are no promises that going to the slaughterhouse for the local companies gets them something in return.
I don't think there are a lot of countries that are happy that they are not the US nor China so that they don't have to deal with AI. Some of their population perhaps is, for now. But most would love to be able to catch up.
As for UBI, several AI leaders have talked about it, and it does seem to make sense, it is not in their interest to have a revolution. As for the electronic waifus, they are coming for sure, the digital ones are already here.
>Last year, Lee Zeldin, who runs the EPA, said it was now the agency’s top priority to “make the United States the artificial intelligence capital of the world.” The 56-year-old agency was established in 1970 to protect the environment and public health.
lol, reminds me of those videos where a host will say one thing and then the cameraman pans to reveal the lie
I'm not wholesale against data centers, but there are more than a few projects that are downright irresponsible.
The sub 100MW data centers are mostly relying on the grid, but even a number of them plan on having natural gas turbines.
A data center can simply put the heat pumps onto the roof or in the backyard pointing away from housing. Humans have developed noise protection systems for ages. All this stuff is available.
This is just end-stage capitalism giving a sh*t about humans, burning fossil fuels without any filters of any kind next to kids playing outside like it's the year 1920.
We obviously want clean air and water, but this is the wrong battle to fight. It’s a fantastic way to divide humans though and distract them with their political team rivalries.
There are some aspects in which the EU provides a higher quality of life, but those have nothing to do with tax rates or the concentration of billionaires. They're more related to things like good city planning allowing for pedestrian and biking-friendly neighbourhoods (E.g. 50% of commutes to work in Copenhagen are by bike, where in the U.S. it's less than 1%.), old cohesive cultures, and better, more developed culinary traditions.
The billionaires here are just a scapegoat because the rent-seeking parties need a target that is naturally unsympathetic for the public to direct its anger toward. The National Education Association is the largest union in the US with three million members. 99% of its campaign contributions go to the Democrats. I haven't seen a single policy that it advocates that is actually good for society. If you look at the jurisdictions where the teachers' unions hold the most sway, they make the least efficient use of public money. New York spends three times more than Florida per pupil on public education and has slightly worse academic performance.
How do you think billionaires become billionaires?
And if the investors collect economic rent from the workers' output, then the workers collect economic rent every time an investor hires them for a project in which the investor loses money.
But under the standard Economics definition of "economic rent", a positive investment return from a project in which a person risked investment capital and the worker provided labor in exchange for a guaranteed wage is not economic rent that was extracted by the investor.
This type of thing will just enrage the opposition more, give them far more fuel, and attract far more people into opposing data centers.
The ruling regime is used to controlling a subservient political group that always, 100% falls in line to marching orders. Now that they control the entire country, they either need to have oppressed tho populace enough that all objection gets arrested or is subject to immediate political violence. But that's not going to be possible with how unpopular they have made themselves.
Water is a renewable resource. I know you folks in California can't comprehend this, but in the parts of the country where it actually makes sense for humans to live water just falls from the sky multiple times per week. We get so much water the problem is making sure we get rid of it safely, we don't have to fight over who has the most senior claim to it or decide whether we want to have endangered species or almonds more. Our streams don't run dry 4/5 of the year. We don't have to check about water restrictions when we water our lawns because there are never water restrictions and we never have to water our lawns.
There are entire areas miles across in this country where if you drive through it you might throw up from the smell. The ponds full of animal feces make the air un-breathable. Where is the protest over that? You realize that this literally does ruin ground water and poisons surface water? Where are the people coming out to say they have to live 4 miles from oceans of pig feces and when the wind blows their way they can't go outside? Yet the media is able to find the 4 people on earth that want to say a building full of computers is 'loud' and that computers use lots of water? When was the last time you filled the water tank on your computer? Yet people are very quick to believe that somehow a warehouse with a bunch of computers in it somehow destroys water?
When did datacenters start using up all the water? Nobody seemed to worry about this until the US and China were fighting for AI dominance, then suddenly datacenters use water and are so loud people go insane from them. What is the first time someone mentioned datacenters using water and causing pollution?
It's absolute group psychosis. Are you actually so dumb that you don't notice that a thing that has been around for 50 years suddenly is a threat to our survival? Were you born yesterday so you don't remember 2 years ago when nobody had ever realized the existential threat of building datacenters in America? Why didn't anyone notice that datacenters were pumping the wells dry in 2021? Maybe they weren't and still arent...
Also, your last two paragraphs are completely bogus because you overlooked something important: scale.
AI data centers are being built at a massively higher rate than data centers were being built a few years ago, and an AI data center uses 5-10x more energy than a non-AI data center.
It is quite common for something that is not a big problem to become a major problem when scale massively increases. You can't simply dismiss concerns because they weren't concerns a few years ago. You will have to actually do the analysis to determine if they are legitimate concerns now.
Second, why is the article trying so hard to make datacenters out as racist?
Also the article is trying to connect gas turbines from 2 years ago with cancer rates..
The article is from Capital B, which focuses on news affecting the Black community.
Also noise is pollution too.
Are all new data centers being built with on-site power generation (for regular operations, not just emergency backup)? I'd assume they'd prefer utility power where they could get it.
AI Datacenters are classist.
Because of their negative externalities they will always be constructed near the poor who have the least political power.
Humans are racist.
So there is a strong systemic correlation between that group of disenfranchised people and people of color.
The most directly harmful impacts of datacenters are racist, transitively.
We can’t have everyone extracting rent from all productive pursuits. If the public has their way they’d prefer to have the right to vote on who gets to be their neighbor.