Tech companies have underestimated the opposition to energy-hungry datacenters – and experts predict the pushback will intensify
Hello, and welcome to TechScape. I’m your host, Blake Montgomery, listening to Dolly Parton in the wake of her death. I was lucky enough to see her in concert a decade ago in California, in the same arena where Google now hosts its annual I/O conference. It’s been a long time, and all my iPhone 4 photos are so blurry you can barely tell it’s a musical performance, but my memory is clear enough to compensate. She told many stories about her childhood, which led into a trio of fabulous songs: My Tennessee Mountain Home, Applejack and Dr Robert F Thomas. They’re still my favorites.
Demonstrators wave signs during a nationwide protest against AI data center expansion in Imperial, California, on July 18, 2026. | Sandy Huffaker/AFP via Getty Images
In the United States, building a data center now polls roughly as well as abolishing the police. If current trends continue, server warehouses may soon be less popular with Americans than pizza topped with pineapple and shattered glass.
In an August survey from Heatmap Pro and Embold Research, just 15 percent of Americans said they would support a data center being built in their area, while 75 percent expressed opposition. One year earlier, 43 percent of respondents in the same poll had approved of nearby data center development, while just 42 percent opposed it.
Key takeaways
Data center projects are increasingly unpopular and vulnerable to local opposition.
Nevertheless, the AI infrastructure buildout remains massive.
The economic forces driving the data center boom are extremely strong.
Since AI data centers can be located almost anywhere, it’s difficult to stop them from being built somewhere.
This soaring backlash is visible in other surveys — and in the actions of elected officials. In recent weeks, Wisconsin’s gubernatorial candidates sparred over who hates data centers more, Pennsylvania’s center-left Gov. Josh Shapiro enacted new restrictions on AI infrastructure projects (after previously championing such investment), and even Texas’s staunchly pro-business Republican government announced a temporary moratorium on new approvals.
But such panic and celebration are both premature.
In truth, despite exploding opposition, the data center boom is still going strong. Interviews with industry experts and recent construction data suggest that the economic forces driving the buildout remain more powerful than the political winds blowing against it. And unless Congress enacts a national moratorium, AI companies will almost certainly be able to continue finding jurisdictions willing to tolerate hyperscale campuses, in exchange for sufficient revenue and incentives.
America’s data center boom can be slowed and geographically shifted. But it probably can’t be killed, absent a collapse in demand for computing power or a much bigger revolution in American politics.
The boom is bigger than the backlash
There are two fundamental facts about today’s data center boom: 1) The backlash against it is huge, and 2) the buildout is even bigger.
The climate news outlet Heatmap has kept a tracker of new data center restrictions and cancellations. As of late July, it found that more than 500 jurisdictions had enacted severe constraints or bans on data center construction. The vast majority of these measures had been enacted since the beginning of this year.
The publication also found that contested data center projects face a skyrocketing cancellation rate. In late 2024, 20 percent of disputed developments were canceled; in the first half of 2026, that figure was closer to 50 percent. By Heatmap’s tally, more than 100 data center projects have been nixed this year in the face of local opposition, while more than 200 are currently being fought.
This surge of mass resistance is remarkable. And yet, it is also nowhere near sufficient to end the AI buildout.
Although the number of places with severe restrictions (or outright bans) on server farms is rapidly rising, more than 90 percent of US counties had no significant constraints on data center development at July’s end.
What’s more, many of the most eye-catching recent policy changes are less significant than they appear. For example, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s pause does not actually halt data center construction in the Lone Star State. Rather, it essentially establishes a more thorough screening process, when server farms apply for electricity from the state’s grid. Projects that supply all of their own power through on-site natural gas — as a rising share of new data centers do — are exempt.
Pennsylvania and New York’s recently enacted restrictions on data center development are more substantial. Yet neither of those states are particularly important to the AI buildout. Taken together, New York and Pennsylvania host only about 6.5 percent of America’s data centers, according to Data Center Map.
And their share of all pending developments is even more negligible, as the trade publication Construction Connect has illustrated:
Meanwhile, although half of contested data center projects are now failing, many still go undisputed. In the aggregate, cancellations have not kept pace with construction or new development. In the first quarter of this year, at least 3.5 gigawatts of data center capacity were canceled amid local opposition, in Heatmap’s tally. During the same three months, at least 36 GW of capacity were added to the US pipeline of proposed and active projects, according to the analytics firm Wood Mackenzie. As of April 1, that pipeline contained a total of 106 GW worth of developments that had alreadysurvived the permitting gauntlet.
To be sure, cancellations have risen sharply since March. By Heatmap’s count, at least 13 gigawatts of capacity have been nixed so far this year. But the capacity of permitted projects has also grown since April 1. And the ratio between blocked and active developments has not radically changed, according to industry analysts.
“At this point, we do not think the recent wave of opposition and policy intervention has materially changed our national capacity growth trajectory,” Maya Barkin, an analyst at the AI industry research firm SemiAnalysis, told me.
Indeed, monthly construction spending on data centers in the US hit a record high this June.
In short, data centers are marching forward despite taking heavy fire, like a pack of gut-shot zombies.
The secrets of the AI buildout’s success
Why has the AI buildout proven so resilient? There are at least two reasons.
First, and most importantly, demand for computing power remains astronomical. As frontier AI companies have built out larger models — and consumers and companies have increased their use of artificial intelligence and digital services — our economy’s appetite for computation has far outstripped supply. According to a recent report from the commercial real estate firm JLL, 99 percent of North America’s data centers are occupied. What’s more, of the 66 GW of data center capacity currently being constructed in JLL’s count, 95 percent has already been reserved.
Second, data center projects are unusually location-flexible. If a housing developer gets chased out of San Francisco’s suburbs by zoning rules and local opposition, it can’t relocate its condo tower to a mostly uninhabited stretch of Nevada desert. By contrast, data centers can — and do — operate in the middle of nowhere.
For certain purposes, these facilities need some proximity to the users they serve; you can’t adequately support online gaming in New York City with data centers on the West Coast. But even in such cases, servers merely need to be in the same broad region. The hyperscale facilities used to train AI models, meanwhile, can be located virtually anywhere with land, fiber optic cables, a modicum of labor, and electricity (and now that many data centers are powering themselves through on-site natural gas plants, even the latter is potentially expendable).
Taken together, these two realities make data center construction extremely difficult to choke off. Sky-high demand for compute means that hyperscalers can afford to throw a lot of money at localities, in order to secure a project’s approval. And location flexibility makes it very difficult for data center developers to run out of host jurisdictions, particularly when so many rural counties throughout the United States are starving for revenue and investment. Thus, unless Congress imposes a national moratorium, development deals will almost certainly keep getting struck.
“I think companies will need to open up their wallets and make sure that communities receive clear benefits,” John Arnold, a billionaire investor and philanthropist who sits on Meta’s board (and whose foundation has given funding to Vox), told me. “There will be places that raise their hands and say, ‘For X amount of benefit, we will welcome you into the community.’”
Just this week, West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey signaled that he was moving forward with plans to encourage data center development and use the consequent revenue to slash the state’s income tax.
Municipal permitting won’t preempt the robot apocalypse
On one level, all this may seem to validate anti-data center activism: If there are countless potential locations for these facilities, then why should any community host one it doesn’t want?
This said, many oppose new data centers out of concern for their aggregate impacts, rather than their local ones. Climate activists fear that the AI buildout will generate perilous increases in carbon emissions. Populists on the right and left, meanwhile, want to slow the progress of artificial intelligence, so as to prevent the technology from causing mass unemployment — and/or human extinction.
For these factions, the buildout’s resilience has more complicated implications. If state and local bans are unlikely to end the boom, then green groups might be unwise to push for such measures in relatively climate-conscious areas. After all, doing so could shift development toward jurisdictions with less renewable energy, and/or fewer restrictions on carbon pollution. Given that risk, blue-state environmentalists may do more to mitigate AI’s climate impacts by regulating data center development than by banning it. Specifically, climate groups could demand that hyperscalers help bankroll the vast expansions of clean energy and transmission infrastructure that the green transition has always required.
For AI doomers, on the other hand, local bans may have some instrumental value. Moratoria and other restrictions are surely slowing the data center buildout at the margin. Still, as long as hyperscale facilities remain location-flexible — and tech companies stay well-capitalized — AI infrastructure will get built somewhere. A national moratorium could buy significant time. But ultimately, humanity’s security from the risks of AI hinges less on whether data centers get built than on what companies are allowed to do with them — and how the wealth they generate is distributed.
The data center rebellion is among the most remarkable popular movements in recent memory. But it is arrayed against one of the largest investment frenzies in human history. Unless or until the AI industry’s alleged “bubble” bursts, its buildout will be exceptionally difficult to stop. Yet where that buildout happens, how it’s powered — and what communities extract from it — are all up for grabs (and, increasingly, being grabbed).
A year on from the purge, with thousands of jobs cut and billions in foreign aid lost, a former leader reflects on the sorry saga – and why it would never happen to Nasa
A year has passed since I and thousands of colleagues lost our jobs at USAID. Asking myself “Why us?” I have come to the conclusion that the American public had very little idea of what we were doing and why.
An EU export ban on Dutch tech giant ASML’s machines could force the pause we all need
At this point, it should be clear that AI is a choose-your-own-adventure book where every option ends in disaster. Exploding carbon emissions and ecological collapse? Turn to page 37. Other outcomes include some or all of: the bubble bursting and an ensuing financial crisis; mass unemployment via automation; the end of democracy and the rise of authoritarian surveillance states; raving cults who believe the pattern-matching algorithm is a consciousness; terrorists who create devastating bioweapons; nation states that deploy autonomous weapons systems that act on non-human timeframes; nation states or terrorists that hack all the myriad systems we depend on; or an AI that, conscious or not, pursues directives that are at odds with human wellbeing.
Imagining that people such as Elon Musk, the OpenAI boss, Sam Altman, Palantir’s Peter Thiel and the Trump administration tech adviser Marc Andreessen will lead us to a utopian future of flourishing environmentalism, social harmony and endless leisure requires hallucination and sycophancy so great that that choose-your-own-adventure scenario could only have been written by ChatGPT.
Alexander Hurst writes for Guardian Europe from Paris. His memoir Generation Desperation is out now
We are used to the idea that our fellow humans might intentionally mislead or manipulate us, but the idea that machines can now do the same is deeply unsettling. Researchers are racing to find solutions before it’s too late
The summer issue of the Long Read magazine is out now. Click here to order
In November 2023 – a lifetime ago in the field of artificial intelligence – some of the most powerful people in the world descended on Bletchley Park, the wartime codebreaking hub in Buckinghamshire, to talk about AI safety. In attendance were the then US vice-president, Kamala Harris, the AI bosses Sam Altman and Dario Amodei, delegations from 28 countries, two of the three so-called “godfathers” of AI, and Elon Musk.
The first iteration of ChatGPT had been released only a year earlier, and there was already plenty of evidence that AI models could be used for ill, from spreading misinformation to generating deepfakes. A presentation at the summit, however, highlighted a different issue: what if the biggest problem wasn’t to come from people misusing the technology, but from AI’s own behaviour?
Login
