This is also all the sabotage the saboteurs have volunteered to tell you about. If your opsec has allowed sabotage to happen, it’s prudent to assume there’s other sabotage you don’t know about.

> my vendor sends me junk

Indeed. A single bad review of a product from a user, if justified, can build the impetus to destroy a product. Three bad reviews probably will.

Insurance costs too can be affected.

That's right, which is why saboteurs need to be dealt with on the harshest terms.

> and doesn't change anything

It does change people that don't know about your cause against it, quite reliably as long as activism results go.

For climate change, everybody probably heard about it, so yeah.

I think XR would prefer your solution as well. Still I can understand young people’s frustration when we after years and years of knowing about climate change do so little and so few laws of this type are enacted.

But I agree that their strategy is lacking. It would probably be easier to get people in general to support it if it didn’t affect them directly, sadly.

I think fossil fuel taxes are a great idea, but if one consumer, data centers, should pay it, shouldn't all consumers (private car owners) pay it too? That's the only way we'll be able to make good decisions about what types of fossil fuels are useful (i.e. more good than harm) and which are pointless luxuries.

> Personally I think data centers should pay a 100% fossil fuel tax. Markets respond to incentives.

Yes, by changing the incentives to align with their desires.

I guarantee if a politician had a serious chance of introducing something like this that record breaking amounts of money would be poured into even a primary election these days to stop them.

Data centers should just pay anything really. They get massive tax breaks, eat up huge swathes of industrial zoned land, and piss off anyone nearby. And for what? 3 permanent jobs and a penny worth of tax revenue.

> now have to add security so it doesn't happen a second time

You assume that that cost is going to be borne by the corporation building the facility and not by the general public through lobbying to protect construction sites from mischief (mischief in the legal sense, which in many countries is an indictable offence).

In most democracies, private security generally has to defer to the police for anything that involves actual violence beyond detaining people until the police show up. From that point on, it's up to the police and the courts to deal with the matter.

> the overall attractiveness of building a datacenter in the region go down.

There are two directions this idea can go:

- a reduction in the rule of law by normalizing the idea that it is OK for citizens to damage otherwise legal and permitted construction - insurance costs go up for everyone because the country's government has demonstrated that protection of private property is not one of its priorities.

- an increased police presence / crackdown against protesters. The region remains a competitive venue.

If a country demonstrates the first option, this in turn leaves the corporation with two options:

- move on to a jurisdiction that does respect private property using the police

- move on to a jurisdiction where private security has more latitude to "deal with" protesters

The most likely bottom line impact that this will have, from my perspective: insurance premiums will go up a bit and everything else will stay pretty much the same. Most democratic countries will step in and protect property owners (yay property, sales, and income tax). Governments and courts don't generally look too favourably on protestors who do actual physical damage to people and companies going about their lawful business.

But delaying the opening probably means that the decommissioning date is also pushed back. The total life span is probably unchanged.

TrueAnon Rule #23, "Always Disavow"