The Future Cost
We need to talk about AI and data centres.
“Bain & Company, a global business consultancy, said on Monday that AI and datacentres could account for 2% of global emissions and 17% of industrial emissions by 2035, with the impact highest in countries where fossil fuels still dominate power generation.”
Google’s huge new Essex datacentre to emit 570,000 tonnes of CO2 a year (15 Sep 2025)
How does the UK government prioritise major initiatives to do with AI?
The state of decision making
I asked Google Gemini to run a research report for me on all the current AI and data centre investments and projects in the UK. Yes, I’m aware of the irony here (but it saved me 4-5 hours of research).
The actors:
- The UK government: trying to build and harness the UK's AI capabilities to unlock economic growth, resilience and enhance UK national security;
- Tech companies: mostly US-based, unaccountable behemoths who don’t pay their taxes and are rushing headlong into creating an uncertain future for us all, because of some notion of (a) acting rationally, (b) being first, (c) maximising shareholder value, (d) world domination at any cost;
- Us, the general UK population: starting a decade of disruption and chaos at the very heart of daily life, the likes of which we have never seen as a society.
The opening scene:
An island off the coast of Europe, once a great empire. Now the 6th largest economy in the world but sliding (falling tax receipts and economic activity) and with a major debt crisis looming (unable to support a ballooning social welfare bill). How will the political leadership of the UK government court investment from large tech to support its reform plans and stay relevant in the age of AGI? How will tech companies find enough land, power and resources to feed their hungry AI models?
Lack of transparency
The answer - it seems - is to close your eyes and jump. As the Gemini report questions: “Is the UK building its own future or merely hosting the infrastructure of a foreign power?”. My concern - along with many others - is the complete lack of transparency that goes into these decisions. What trade-offs have been made with respect to the long term costs of supporting these gigantic furnaces and for what good?
Quoting the Gemini research report again:
In December 2024, the National Planning Policy Framework
(NPPF) was revised to explicitly support data centres and introduce a new "grey-belt" designation for previously developed land within the protected green belt, making it easier for infrastructure projects to gain approval. Furthermore, major data centre projects can now opt into the "Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects" (NSIP) regime, which allows them to bypass local planning authorities and have their applications decided directly by the Secretary of State.
This top-down approach has triggered significant local opposition and legal challenges. [ed: ex Deputy Prime Minister] Angela Rayner's decision to overrule local council rejections and grant permission for the Woodlands Park project in Buckinghamshire is a case in point, citing "employment benefits and the lack of suitable alternative sites" as her rationale. This ministerial intervention has been met with a landmark legal challenge from the non-profit groups Foxglove and Global Action Plan.
Their lawsuit argues that the decision was made unlawfully by bypassing a legally required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and by irrationally attributing climate benefits to a project that would use an immense amount of power. The outcome of this legal challenge will be a critical test case for the government's new planning policies and will set a precedent for how future data centre projects are approved.
Take action
If you agree that we need…
- more transparency on the long term costs and benefits, and
- to perform a comprehensive full environmental impact assessment (EIA) and minimum due diligence on the climate and nature impact,
…then head over to Foxglove (sign their petition) and Global Action Plan (subscribe to their updates).
