Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Tue Aug 25, 2026 12:32 pm
"Analysis finds" something the Guardian doesn't like anyway is bad. It's our old friends Foxglove, who who might as well have a seat in the Guardian office. An almost comically biased set of commentators are phoned up for quotes. None of this is peer reviewed, it's on the hoof campaigning.
Two planned datacentres will have higher UK carbon emissions than ExxonMobil, analysis finds
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... exxonmobil
Nobody is processing data or pulling fossil fuels out of the ground for fun. They're serving the wider economy and our lifestyles. Is Europe supposed to leave this stuff to the US and China? We hear a lot about strategic importance and resilience. Isn't this part of that? This isn't that hard to decarbonize over a time period, much easier than lots of heavy industry which most people accept we need here. Without being too James O'Malley, this is doable.
I'm still up on this tech stuff- I even had a decent experience with Evri this week.
I think people would have more time for some of it if it wasn't being used for such transparent and endemic enshittification: online, and via LLMs.
At the very least, a data centre is a visible, big, ugly box/series of boxes to point to and say 'this represents a load of shit I hate', be that NIMBYism and/or anti-tech and/or anti-AI and/or environmentalism etc etc. And yes, punters are hypocrites, they'll order something from Amazon a moment later.
'Lifestyles' does a lot of heavy lifting here, and doubly-so when we're essentially being repeatedly told the future is AI and all that it entails - as if we have no choice, and there's no other possible way of living.