US tech firms lobbied EU to keep datacentre emissions secret(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
US tech firms lobbied EU to keep datacentre emissions secret
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/apr/17/microsoft-us-tech-firms-lobbied-eu-secrecy-rules-datacentre-emissions
14 comments
I believe it is your framing that is reductive. We don't know if those centres get all their energy from the grid.
Think of the horrible pollution caused by the gas turbines of X as a counterexample: https://www.selc.org/news/resistance-against-elon-musks-xai-...
Think of the horrible pollution caused by the gas turbines of X as a counterexample: https://www.selc.org/news/resistance-against-elon-musks-xai-...
When the grid is the main factor, what's the problem with providing other metrics like water usage, etc.?
Your argument doesn't convince me. Sounds more like lobbying.
Your argument doesn't convince me. Sounds more like lobbying.
Is there a problem with providing other metrics like water? I didn't see that mentioned any where in the article. Not to be snarky, but your response kind of reminds me of this famous tweet: https://x.com/AustingrahamZ1/status/1029385497213366279?lang...
If you want to talk about water you're obviously free to do so, but you were the one to bring it up. Most of the articles I see about water usage in data centers seems to be propaganda as well. That's not to say data centers aren't consuming more water. I'm sure they are. Considering however that agriculture still accounts for over 70% of overall water usage and we're wasting a lot of it growing things like alfalfa in water hungry regions. Last I'd seen the metric data centers were estimated at around 6%. So I'd argue we should probably look at the worst offenders first.
If you want to talk about water you're obviously free to do so, but you were the one to bring it up. Most of the articles I see about water usage in data centers seems to be propaganda as well. That's not to say data centers aren't consuming more water. I'm sure they are. Considering however that agriculture still accounts for over 70% of overall water usage and we're wasting a lot of it growing things like alfalfa in water hungry regions. Last I'd seen the metric data centers were estimated at around 6%. So I'd argue we should probably look at the worst offenders first.
Bringing up alfalfa (which is horrible) is the typical whataboutism: wasting water there doesn't make it right to waste fresh water for basically cat pictures and slop.
Sprinkling it with dismissing the water issue with "propaganda" and calling agriculture "worst offenders" (seriously? Nourishment is bad and 6% for data centres is insignificant?)...
I don't think I can even remotely agree.
It's funny to me that you would dismiss my point as a 'whataboutism' when it was an attempt to engage with your point about water, which was itself a whataboutism. I hope the irony isn't lost on you there.
Since you want to conflate nutrition with agriculture I'm happy to meet you there and bring it back to what the article was actually about, emissions. If we compare data center water intake and emissions to just the US beef industry alone, data centers are a very small drop in a very large pond. We're talking on the orders of almost 2000x the water usage and twice the emissions. And that's just beef, we could talk about avocados, bananas, or tons of other actual 'nutrients' that are an effective waste of water. But we like those things, just like we like cat pictures and slop (even though I'm not a fan of your reductionist comparison). I'm not saying you have to like it, but other's do. Just like some people like beef, and others will never touch it.
I'm actually not even disagreeing with you about the rise of data center consumption being something we should be monitoring. You're not wrong about that. But can we at least have an honest conversation about reality and get a little further than what all the headlines say. Maybe instead actually respond to the topic at hand and not make whataboutisms about water.
Since you want to conflate nutrition with agriculture I'm happy to meet you there and bring it back to what the article was actually about, emissions. If we compare data center water intake and emissions to just the US beef industry alone, data centers are a very small drop in a very large pond. We're talking on the orders of almost 2000x the water usage and twice the emissions. And that's just beef, we could talk about avocados, bananas, or tons of other actual 'nutrients' that are an effective waste of water. But we like those things, just like we like cat pictures and slop (even though I'm not a fan of your reductionist comparison). I'm not saying you have to like it, but other's do. Just like some people like beef, and others will never touch it.
I'm actually not even disagreeing with you about the rise of data center consumption being something we should be monitoring. You're not wrong about that. But can we at least have an honest conversation about reality and get a little further than what all the headlines say. Maybe instead actually respond to the topic at hand and not make whataboutisms about water.
Talk about casting aspersions!
Waiting for the brigade of HN users crying ablut how EU regulations are "bad for business"
We don't want datacenters here anyway. They offer almost no economic activity benefits after construction, only low skilled remote hands and security. And they're a huge load on the power grid and cooling water in the area.
That is incredibly shortsighted
Datacenters are means of production, no different than factories
Without means of production, you are at the mercy of those with
No different than outsourcing manufacturing
> huge load on the power grid
Then build reliable power plants, ideally ones that aren't turned off every day at 10pm
Datacenters are means of production, no different than factories
Without means of production, you are at the mercy of those with
No different than outsourcing manufacturing
> huge load on the power grid
Then build reliable power plants, ideally ones that aren't turned off every day at 10pm
But factories employed people. Datacenters hardly do. And whatever there is is low quality menial stuff. Moving boxes, bring told what to do by another low paid engineer in Bangalore.
And these datacenters aren't our means of production. They're generally owned by American companies and the proceeds disappear.
And yes outsourcing has been a huge negative for society too. It's the groups that have drawn the short straw from this that are now voting extreme right. That's what we get for not looking after the interests of our own workers.
And these datacenters aren't our means of production. They're generally owned by American companies and the proceeds disappear.
And yes outsourcing has been a huge negative for society too. It's the groups that have drawn the short straw from this that are now voting extreme right. That's what we get for not looking after the interests of our own workers.
Exactly.
More news at 11.
More news at 11.
More discussion on source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47803745
[deleted]
This is a reductive framing of the problem. The power grid fuel mix is what determines most of this. There are some cases of on-site generation (which is definitely not ideal), but this can also be addressed with a better grid.
You can argue that the data centers shouldn't be built until the grid can catch up, which I think is probably the most defensible argument a Luddite could offer right now. I'd get on board with that one if it was presented rationally. However, it does appear that the environmental arguments are merely a means to and end for some. Quotes like this make it hard to not see the underlying goals.