With perhaps the most important election day in American history looming mere weeks from now, a new threat is changing the traditional calculus of climate change politics between Democrats and Republicans – the headlong rush among tech giants to build massive data centres for their AI development.
Grassroots communities in almost every US state are rising up to protest the sudden planning and construction of these massive complexes, arguing that their unquantified use of electric power, as well as local water supplies to cool their systems is a devastating environmental threat. What bothers the locals in particular is the secrecy behind the projects, which only adds to rising suspicions about AI.
Coming after a summer of extreme heat, wildfires, storms, and floods – capped by the deadly disaster in Nepal last month – the issue is being taken seriously by both parties. Candidates are staking out positions as hundreds of moratoriums on new construction are passed throughout the country.
“Maybe data centres are what unites us all after all,” said Erin Brockovich, the famous environmental advocate who is leading a campaign to map all the data centres, in an interview last week with The Independent.
As of mid-2026, more than 4,000 data centres were operational in the US, with as many as 1,500 new ones in the planning and construction phase, according to the Pew Research Centre. In the global AI arms race to be the first to develop superhuman intelligence, giant companies such as Meta, Google, Amazon, SpaceX, Anthropic, and Open AI are rushing to build out capacity, urged on by President Donald Trump to beat China to the punch.
Mr Trump has decried efforts to stop the building, arguing that American dominance is at stake. “If we kill the golden goose, we have only ourselves to blame,” he said.
Both sides have good points. With AI technology developing so rapidly – as well as the concerns about it – America can’t afford to lose the race. But the environmental threat of these data centres cannot be ignored either. How political candidates address it will be compelling, and they should come down hard against “big tech”.
We are now at a point where, after years of warnings about climate change, extreme heat and natural disasters have shifted to another level, just as scientists said they would. But instead of the usual denials, opponents of strategies such as decarbonisation and renewable energy have shifted to an argument that it is simply too costly to fight it.
Indeed, the promise of AI is being held up as a potential saviour for humanity, if only we spend more and spew out more pollution to just get there. All of which will make it even costlier when the next disaster hits, be it Nepal or closer to home, such as dangerous flooding in the Grand Canyon, or wildfires in Southern California. Instead of applying the brakes on fossil fuels, we are changing into an even higher gear in hopes of somehow outracing Mother Nature.
The United Nations said last week that the goal to stop global temperatures from rising 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, agreed a decade ago by most countries, has failed. Instead, temperatures now at 1.4 degrees above those levels will likely rise to 1.8 degrees or as high as 2.6 degrees. That might seem small, but consider the changes to our summer heat from rising just from 1.2 degrees to 1.4 degrees in the last five or six years.
The midterms may be the last real chance, at least in America, those concerned about global warming and harmful carbon emissions have to arrest the reckless pursuit of profit and stock market wealth that governs the great AI arms race.
If we fail to send the strongest possible message, then we really will have only ourselves to blame.
Climate 100 is sponsored in partnership with Octopus Energy
The Independent will be revealing its 2026 Climate 100 List on 20 September
