this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2026
426 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
88987 readers
2842 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They won’t be camouflaged for long once the pollution starts to kill off the vegetation…pretty sure we have seen this scenario exactly before in the 60s & 70s…
Once they'll built they'll start to argue that they pollute anywhere so might as well stay there...
And still build as many as they can anywhere.
Their MO seems to be do whatever it takes to get started then finish
Yah its the whole move fast and break things mentality, and then ask for forgiveness later. Sometimes you don’t even have to ask for forgiveness…its fucked up.
Data centers aren't heavy industry. They do emit some minor pollutants but not excessive amounts. You make it sound like there is an open sewer pipe oozing black sludge.
They will generate huge amounts of heat, both from the generation of the power they will use and from their actual running.
Yes. But that's going to create winds and convection, not pollution. Less so if cooled evaporatively or using said wetland as a heat sink(unlikely). They might even be good for the water table.
What. Half the hue and cry is because they're a huge waste of water unnecessarily because economics.
The renaturation might be really good. I don't know how the site looked before.
Have a look. https://petapixel.com/2026/09/19/before-and-after-photos-show-data-centers-furiously-popping-up-across-america/
Yeah, but this article describes Microsoft exactly not doing that.
Let's quote the article, shall we?
The goal is to "minimize the visual impact on communities near our data centers." Not to actually be sustainable, but to look less offensive to the casual observer.
"I cannot really see any level of biomimicry investment that makes a gas plant a desirable neighbor." Me neither.
"Emissions have risen by Microsoft’s own accounting, too." It is pollution.
"Microsoft had no clear answer when questioned if it would ever change its mind on a site." They are raping the planet we live on. Please think.
You do know that when water evaporates the wind carries it away, right? And most of the time very far away from where it originally evaporated.
The renaturation not the evaporative cooling.
It specifically mentions gas power. The air will be polluted and living things breathing that air will suffer. "AI" data centers are waste generators and planet heaters. The goal is to further wreck the environment and kill most of us. The rich think they can survive it somehow. It is unacceptable.
Power plants typically connect via the grid, hence aren't local to the data center. Changing over is trivial. All industry generates waste and consumes energy. That's not their purpose and framing it as such makes you sound like a raving lunatic. Destroying the environment isn't profitable. Same goes for killing everyone. You have a warped perception of reality.
You must not be following the news. Many data centers get local power from on premises gas turbines and more than a couple are doing so illegally. Put ‘ data center gas turbine’ into your favorite news aggregator and there’s hundreds of articles about this.
Then they wouldn't be clearcutting the amazon rainforest.
Cutting wood is profitable. Creating clear cuts isn't.
Not being forced to follow environmental regulations (hence destroying the environment) is significantly more profitable than following them.
Or do you think op is talking about companies who produce literally nothing but harm to the environment?
But they don't have to, and they don't generally ask, just do.