What is invalid about the environmental angle? (aside from the dubious water claims)

I personally see it as:

These companies subsidizing green energy expansion, because it's now the cheapest power to expand.

These companies are going to help "correct" the widespread problem with utility monopolies, in the US. Datacenters are deploying their own power generation, partly because power cost no longer aligns with power generation costs. This mismatch is motivating research into local nuclear power generation [1] (which is almost certainly an effort to force the monopolies, rather than actually deploy).

[1] https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/big-tech-puts-finan...

▲

overfeed 9 hours ago | parent [-]

> These companies subsidizing green energy expansion, because it's now the cheapest power to expand.

Unless you consider natural gass green energy, it's quite the opposite for the moment. This is because the AI build-out is about speed, not cost-effectiveness. That is why xai's Colossus I & II were illegally running gas turbines, and Google recanted its pledge for data center renewables targets.

	▲	nomel 8 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> it's quite the opposite for the moment This point is about power generation companies accommodating the new power demand. It's true that the power companies are keeping coal and gas peaker plants running, that they planned to retire. But, actual additions are all green [1]. And, step functions are inefficient, always, so "for the moment" isn't so unreasonable. Dataceners are something like 100 million tonnes of CO2 per year, where cars are 1,800! So, this isn't some world ending emissions, within this moment. Everything is trending green. Why? Because it's cheaper (thank you China). Xai using gas turbines is closer to my second point of side-stepping monopolies (improperly in that case), but is also just one example. See previous link for very long term, and all the datacenters using green energy, mid term. Everyone will do what's cheapest. Luckily, China has made that solar power. We just need to get the monopolies off their asses, and put some of their record profits into actual power expansion. Lucky for them, everyone blames the data centers for all of this. Where I am, the single power company has already raised rates so much, in preparation for electric, that it's more expensive to fast charge an electric car at noon than to buy gas, with a planned 10% increase over the next few years. So, they're dodging criticism too! [1] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=67205
	▲	9 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	jryle70 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		That's wrong. US battery energy is growing faster than ever, not in small part thanks to the push by data centers. https://www.siliconvalley.com/2026/09/01/us-battery-installs...

▲

simianwords 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Here's what I find invalid about environment angle.

I fundamentally don't think it is wrong to increase emissions as long as you consider the tradeoffs and externalities. Every single action you do in life has externalities - if you start opposing all of them then what really is your point? You just hate people doing stuff.

If you think emissions are so harmful, try putting a number to it. I implore you to do the exercise and convince yourself or me or others and suggest that the pros don't outweigh the cons. I'm half predicting that the conversation will end in dubious claims about tail risks and world itself collapsing (I hope you don't do that).

I don't think AI is uniquely harmful for the environment given the value it provides. Hell, it can even contribute to accelerating renewable resources and increasing efficiencies overall. There's way more to lose by slowing down AI because of emission control than to gain by reducing emissions.

▲

nateglims 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You are making claims for why you think the emissions are worth it but I don't see how this makes concerns about emissions invalid. Even water usage, while blown out of proportion, can be a rational concern if you have a fossil fuel power station.

You can just flip this around and ask why is slowing down AI to control emissions harmful? What numbers that don't make tail risk claims are you providing for this?

▲

simianwords 11 hours ago | parent [-]

wait, please stick to the argument. Why is increasing emissions bad while considering tradeoffs?

>You can just flip this around and ask why is slowing down AI to control emissions harmful? What numbers that don't make tail risk claims are you providing for this?

Slowing down reduces the value it provides to humans, that's clear to me and you I hope.

▲

cccbbbaaa 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Our current emissions level is causing climate change.

	▲	simianwords 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Ok so you are against any type of action whatsoever? No matter how useful it is?

▲

jplusequalt 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>Why is increasing emissions bad while considering tradeoffs?

Because climate change stands to be the biggest market failure in history. You need to show that the rapid scale out of data centers is going to reasonably offset the current trajectory we're on.

	▲	simianwords 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Because climate change stands to be the biggest market failure in history Proof?

▲

RetroTechie 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> There's way more to lose by slowing down AI because of emission control than to gain by reducing emissions.

If AI works out as proponents would make you believe, then either you'll see masses of people out of a job - for which society is unprepared. Or you'll see a big, society-wide productivity boost. Read: consuming non-renewable resources on this planet even faster (not just energy).

Society as a whole would benefit if rollout would slow down. Give us time to reflect on those 2nd-order effects & how to address them. But instead we have the opposite: a crazy race with big AI labs trying to out-spend & out-do the other guy, ignoring externalities everywhere.