I’ll start by saying I am not going to argue against the existence of data centers. I am arguing for their responsible regulation.

The world knows from harsh experience what happens when powerful individuals and groups are allowed unregulated ability to do whatever increases their own power and influence. Most of our environmental laws and regulations exist because of abuses that have harmed millions. Data centers are the newest example. This doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t exist. They will continue to expand and have a substantial influence on our lives. It does mean that their owners must be compelled to be transparent about their plans, build and operate their facilities in ways that do not trample on the lives of their neighbors, and they must pay their own way.

The Economist in a current article tells us not to worry about data centers because they "bring their own power." First, many don't do that. When they don't, new generation capacity must be built by public utilities at accelerated speed and at very high cost, costs inflated by the massive demand for energy generation equipment induced by the data center boom. Absent regulations, traditional utility financial models require that those inflated costs are then averaged out including other users.

Second, when data centers do provide their own power, they have a history of indifference to direct impacts on their neighbors, as for example in the case of Elon Musk’s xAI in Tennessee and Mississippi. DoJ has intervened in court on behalf of xAI, not by claiming they are now operating within the law but that they are so important that they should be immune to it. Tech oligarchs are using their political heft to bring the government on board with claiming that their untrammeled and unregulated growth is a national emergency voiding environmental and citizen protections.

Third, a lack of transparency clouds plans for many data centers, with NDA’s from local government officials leaving the public in the dark until it is late in the planning process. If their plans are so benign, why do this?

And finally, many of the tech oligarchs have been very clear about their underlying philosophy of contempt for the people and environments they affect. Peter Thiel of PayPal and Palantir lectures on the Anti-Christ and identifies as such anyone who opposes his having free rein to do whatever he finds convenient and profitable. Jeff Bezos celebrates a $40 million wedding in Venice while firing thousands of employees to replace them with AI.

Alex Karp of Palantir has said that the tech leaders should be less vocal about cutting jobs to replace with AI. I have found no record that he says they shouldn’t do it, just that they should stop telling everyone what they are doing. Karp has also said that he believes, as do some others in the industry, that AI shouldn’t just aid, but replace, government as we now know it. The industry would presumably continue to be under the control of himself and others like him. Representative democracy in this worldview is just an obstacle to progress and the acquisition of power and wealth by some, at the expense of all. European governments are responding to this threat by ending contracts with Palantir and other American companies.

Sometimes, it is clear that other people simply don’t matter. Elon Musk gloated about cutting USAID at the cost of the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, mostly children. The power of life and death is apparently intoxicating. Why should we trust him, or anyone like him, to conduct his business affairs with concern for the legitimate rights of others and the health of the world in which he operates?

And so, I argue for sound regulation of environmental and financial costs associated with data centers.

Responsible owners and managers should agree, not just for the rest of us but for the good of their industry. Ultimately, alienating the public cannot serve them well.