DATA CENTER SALVATION
9/6/2026
Proponents of data centers sometimes speak as though society is diabetic and data centers are insulin, the indispensable treatment without which our economy will collapse. Opponents often go to the opposite extreme, predicting a Terminator-like future in which artificial intelligence and massive computer systems ultimately threaten our humanity.
It is no wonder the issue has become so controversial. The public conversation is trapped between promises of economic emancipation and warnings of existential uncertainty. Somewhere between those extremes lies the truth, but finding it requires intellectual honesty and a willingness to seek it.
First, how exactly will we fail without building so many new data centers? Our economy already depends heavily on digital infrastructure, and we appear to be functioning with the facilities currently in operation. That does not mean additional capacity will never be necessary. It does mean proponents should identify the unmet need, explain how much capacity is required, and demonstrate what will happen if a proposed facility is not built.
We should also scrutinize the employment claims. Where will the promised jobs come from? Building a data center may create a considerable number of temporary construction jobs, but how many permanent, full-time positions will remain after construction is completed? Are advocates counting direct employees, contractors, suppliers, and speculative economic activity together to produce an impressive headline number?
The same examination should be applied to claims that data centers will lower taxes. Again, let's be honest. Are we expecting anything to lower our taxes? A large facility may add taxable value, but that is only one side of the ledger. Communities must also consider tax incentives, infrastructure improvements, utility upgrades, public safety needs, and other project-related costs. The relevant question is not how much revenue a data center might generate. It is whether the community will receive a net financial benefit after accounting for all subsidies and public expenses.
Location is the real issue. We know data centers are coming, but why must these facilities be built so close to populated areas? Many existing data centers operate far from major residential communities. If proximity is necessary due to fiber-optic connections, electrical transmission, response time, or other technical requirements, developers should clearly explain the need. They should also demonstrate why less disruptive locations are unsuitable.
Then there is the apparent rush. Why must so many data centers be approved so quickly? Is it the modern-day Gold Rush? Is it simply that developers have an opportunity to get rich quick, or is there corporate demand that is causing the industry to fall behind? It seems there is gold in them there hills, and many are eager to stake their claim.
Can computing operations be consolidated into fewer, more efficient facilities? Would regional campuses reduce the amount of land, electricity, and supporting infrastructure required? Urgency should not become an excuse to make permanent decisions before the long-term consequences are understood.
Perhaps the most basic questions are also the ones least often answered: Who will own the facility and who will own the data? What exactly will each data center be doing, and what will the data be used for? “Supporting technology” or “advancing artificial intelligence” is not sufficient. Will the facility provide cloud storage, process financial transactions, train AI models, host government information, or serve private corporate clients? Different purposes may present different demands, risks, and public benefits.
Finally, we must consider the cumulative impact. Evaluating one facility at a time can obscure what the future may look like when thousands of data centers operate continuously. What will that require from the electrical grid? How much land and water will be consumed? Who will pay for expanded infrastructure? What happens when equipment becomes obsolete, or a facility closes?
Asking these questions does not make someone anti-technology. Nor does acknowledging the potential benefits of data centers require blind acceptance of every proposal.
Data centers may be necessary, but necessity is not a blank check. Before communities surrender land, resources, tax revenue or control over their future, proponents should be required to provide specific, verifiable answers. The choice should not be framed as salvation versus extinction. It should be treated as what it truly is: a major public policy decision requiring transparency, evidence, and careful judgment.