This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.
This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?
Just post some stuff and don't spam.
Original comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1uyyywv/comment/oy3cgd7/
Trees vs. Data Centers
Photo 1: Memphis, TN (top)
Photo 2: Sandston, VA
Photo 3: Abilene, Texas
Photo 4: New Albany, OH
Photo 5: Fayetteville, GA
Your argument is the difference between reactive and proactive legislation, and it's what we need to do to actually succeed. We are constantly on the back foot because we are trying to stop one problem at a time, i.e. Data Center deforestation. Data Centers are a problem, but not the problem. Destruction of natural, irreplaceable resources is the real problem. Sure, it would be great to stop all data centers from ever being built, but then something else will just take its place. We need to protect our resources first, then it won't matter what they want to build because they won't be able to. Getting mad about data centers is good, we should be mad, but let's make that anger work for us in the best way.
The caveat is that a lot of these protections can just be stripped away by whoever is in the oval office, as we've seen with this administration. When they don't give a damn about poll numbers, they just do whatever they want with impunity. That's why these need to be written into state constitutions and not just statutes, things that a Washington signature can't undo. They need to be guarded in land trusts and conservation easements. Put too many stops between the bastards and their prize.