Data centers keep expanding — but local communities are pushing back

Full text

Adding to the existing pressures that data centers face regarding energy supply and grid connections, land shortages and chip availability, many hyperscalers are now facing local opposition to project proposals.

At a congressional hearing earlier this year, US Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez presented two jars of murky water, filled from homes in Morgan County, Georgia, near one of Meta’s data center campuses.

Though Meta has disputed any connection between its construction work and residents’ private wells and water sources, tensions are becoming harder to ignore as the digital world’s physical infrastructure continues to expand.

We are creating our own data center paradox

Enterprise demand for cloud compute and the mass consumer and enterprise consumption of AI have ultimately led to a surge in demand for physical data centers, but they’re now being seen in a similar vein to airports and power stations – physical infrastructure that’s used by nearly all citizens, but projects that nobody actually wants to live by.

And it’s this paradox that many are grappling with at the moment – in this case, residents with a Facebook account can hardly argue against Meta’s need for physical infrastructure, and the same logic applies to users of streaming platforms, ecommerce websites, cloud storage, AI chatbots and so much more.

While International Data Center Authority (IDCA) founder and CEO Mehdi Paryavi believes this digital hypocrisy could afford hyperscalers some justification in their actions, it’s clear that service providers and infrastructure companies are not valuing communication and public engagement enough.

With hyperscalers planning data center buildouts years in advance and chipmakers facing major backlogs, it’s no longer about whether we need extra capacity – rather, it’s about where that compute should reside and how communities are consulted and engaged.

Should data centres be renamed as data factories instead given that they essentially process data at scale?

Data centers are just fine with their current naming. Data centers come in different sizes and types, fulfilling diverse purposes.

Some produce data and house AI as AI factories, some import and house data from the cloud and enterprise applications, some just serve as internet exchange and telecom shelter, and some just sit on your desk as USB drives and PCs that just house data with the least amenities.

Data centers are more holistic and overarching than data factories, while the latter is easier to understand for the general public. What differentiates data centers from one another is not their sheer size, but rather the type of data they house or process.

Depending on the use case, a small enterprise data center that is home to very sensitive information might prove to be more mission-critical than a large-scale AI data center that manufactures data at scale.

You mention that if you have a Facebook account, you can’t complain about data centers. I assume that this rings true for all hyperscalers and big cloud services as well. Is there any going back and what can be done to educate users more?

Our Facebook account, Amazon shopping cart, Gmail, iMessage or WhatsApp, Netflix, online banking, Google Maps, YouTube, ChatGPT, will simply cease to exist without data centers.

We are the reason that data centers get built and expanded. Our “consumption” and demand for higher speeds and better quality of service in the utilization of AI and Cloud services and the technological amenities we receive on an ever-evolving and ever-growing basis draw data centers to our communities.

Speaking of consumers, on the subject of it being digital hypocrisy to describe the paradoxical relationship between the user and the service provider. Can you expand on that further?

When you protest against the expansion of data centers, yet you publicize your protest on social media that are solely enabled through data centers, when you oppose the development of data centers while they offer some of the last standing jobs that can stay for the predictable future, when you push back on the data center industry, when you go home at night and use ChatGPT for your everyday needs, Google for your search, Amazon for your shopping, and Netflix for your entertainment, you are the creator of a paradox between yourself as the end-user and the ultimate beneficiary of what the service providers offer.

The cordial relationship between data center owners and local communities has given way to something more confrontational. What can Meta and others do to solve the increasing public distrust?

First of all, what companies such as Meta do as the ultimate goal of their companies and what data centers do are two separate conversations, and providers must draw a clear line between the two. If you have issues with the morality of Facebook, or the evolution of AI and the future of tech, your problem shouldn’t be pointing at data centers.

Economically and practically, data centers must be built to keep our economy going and our e-Gov, e-Health, e-Education, and even climate-friendly developments that are results of digital transformation, flowing.

Secondly, if data centers put the grid under stress or depict a shortage of water in certain areas, all fingers should be pointed at policymakers who have failed to invest in our old and fragile infrastructure.

Third, as far as data center owners and operators are concerned, they must allocate a fraction of their revenues to creating awareness, spending time with communities, and investing in the education of the local public they aim to serve and/or live amongst.

Last but not least, communication is key. Anywhere that a provider has initiated talks with the local community and invested in sparking dialog, success was on the horizon, and defensive lines against data centers were not formed by the public.

What is the biggest misconception - in your view - about data center water usage? And what can be done to set that right?

The biggest misconception is that modern data centers don’t really use much water. But unfortunately, our societies are driven towards assumptions made by either those who are not deeply aware of the true requirements of data centers or careless to substantiate their claims as long as they can provoke emotions and push back on data centers to replace it with some other agenda.

In reality, data centers worldwide use 0.1% of the water available for human use. Modern data centers, which are being built for both AI and cloud applications, have closed-loop cooling that uses no operational water. A brief look at IDCA’s Global Water Stress Index, from its 2026 Data Center Report, will shed some light here.

Looking at the big picture, data centers are essential to developing modern economies. The United States, for example, has by far the largest data center “footprint” in the world and an overall economy that is twice the world average in limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

Note that the global economy produces 317 metric tons of CO2 per US$1 million of nominal GDP, while the US produces 156. However, when we start throwing around big numbers, such as "millions of gallons of water per day," it's easy to forget the entire context.

The large new AI centers, as is becoming well known, have "closed-loop" cooling processes that use no operational water. But we think it's important to realize that there are always engineering problems to solve. For example, a new data center may consume electricity provided by nuclear power, which emits no greenhouse gases. But nuclear energy itself uses large amounts of water.

So, at IDCA, we stress that communities, states, regions, and entire nations need to have as many people engaged as possible to look at these issues in their complexity.

How realistic would it be to build data centers in specific controlled areas to shield vulnerable neighbourhoods from the full frontal impact of having a gigantic data center next door?

This is an important question. We at the International Data Center Authority (IDCA) believe in master planning the future.

The future that is both feasible and beneficial to nations all over the world is where countries and states plan for well-devised and highly concentrated digital hubs that house AI and cloud workloads.

The benefits of having these hubs planed and future-proofed is that first you take the data centers to environments that are most suitable to house them, secondly you create synergy and economy of scale at these hubs, third, you reduce the cost of compute by ensuring that all the amenities that these data centers need are available on centralized locations in bulk, forth you get the close proximity to the communities that are welcoming or simply create your own community, just like Loudoun County successfully created a whole new community around its data center economy.

The benefits will continue and can be enormous, including from the aspects of national security, where securing a handful of digital hubs is much easier than thousands of random and ad hoc locations during times of tension and conflict, which has become a critical topic in our industry these days.

As it stands today, there are almost always zoning considerations to be considered, so a theoretical "gigantic" data center will not be built right "next door" to residential communities. Even when zoning is not strong in a particular area, data center developers like to acquire enough land to create proper setbacks to mitigate noise, but also to be located where sufficient power can be provided.

So the reality is that large data centers today are already being built in "specific controlled areas," as your question states.