Labor Network for Sustainability

By Jeremy Brecher,
Senior Strategic Advisor, LNS Co-Founder

Listen to the audio version >>

The startling growth of hyperscale data centers for processing artificial intelligence threatens to exacerbate the climate crisis, the jobs crisis, and the affordability crisis. This commentary presents an overview of the data center explosion and its likely effects. The next commentary in this series will examine the emerging “Data Center Rebellion” and how it can become a major force promoting a Greentech New Deal.

Aerial view of data centers intermingled with other commercial buildings in Loudoun County, near Ashburn, November 26th, 2025. Photo credit: Theodore Christopher, Wikipedia Commons, CC0 1.0 Public Domain.

Data centers are large warehouse-like structures filled with digital electronics that process artificial intelligence (AI). According to the International Energy Agency, “conventional” data centers can use between 10 and 25 megawatts of electricity while “a hyperscale, AI-focused” data center can use 100 megawatts or more. Hyperscale data centers can encompass more than a million square feet. Today there are 4,149 data centers in the US, with 2,788 more under construction or planned. Data center construction rose more than 34 percent between March 2025 and March 2026.

The explosive growth of data centers is already having a significant impact on the energy system. It will have an even greater impact on the transition from climate-destroying fossil fuel energy to climate-protecting Greentech energy in the future. So far, those effects are overwhelmingly negative.

The future of data centers, and AI more broadly, is filled with unknown unknowns. AI is pretty clearly both a technological revolution that will change the way we do things in many spheres of life – but also a technological bubble based on extreme claims that are unproven hype at best. Google CEO Sundar Pichai says artificial intelligence is “more profound than, I dunno, electricity or fire.”

Decisions and investments based on such dubious claims are speculative at best. For example, Chinese AI, with its far cheaper energy system and its cheaper and less energy-intensive strategy, is widely seen as less than a year behind the AI frontier. The AI boom depends on a debt bubble similar to many in the past marked by colossal overinvestment followed by collapse. Tech giants are using other people’s money to make huge investments in hyperscale data centers that have not yet shown they can be even marginally profitable. All of this is developing in the context of Polycrisis 2.0, with its unlimited warfare, unlimited arms races, energy crises, climate crises, galloping inequality, destruction of democracy, and overall prevalence of folly. Finally, the AI bubble is largely driven by the colossal egos of “hyperscalers” like Elon Musk whose megalomania and struggles with each other for dominance will have unpredictable ramifications.

Data centers and jobs

Anti-data-center sentiment in rural Kansas neighborhood, May 24th, 2026. Photo credit: Catboy69, Wikipedia Commons, CC BY 4.0.

AI is clearly affecting employment, but estimates of its employment impact vary wildly. S&P Global’s recent executive survey showed that 42 per cent of organizations abandoned most of their AI initiatives in 2025, compared with 17 per cent in 2024. And a 2024 RAND report indicated that more than 80 per cent of industrial AI projects fail, mainly due to process complexity, poor data quality, and lack of real-world context. The vice president of vehicle hardware engineering at Ford, Charles Poon, explained, “Mistakenly, we thought that by just introducing artificial intelligence and adjusting the design requirements that we had, that that would produce a high-quality product.” Ford recently brought back 350 experienced engineers it had fired and tried to replace with AI.

The building of data centers will undoubtedly create jobs for a sector of construction workers. Nobody knows how many. Like most construction jobs, these jobs are temporary. In a Cologix data center in Columbus, Ohio, construction lasted on average six and a half weeks, with about 146 workers on site at a time. Jobs building data centers often are taken not by local workers but by workers from all over the country who come in temporarily to take the temporary jobs. The Industrial Development Agency in Genessee County, New York anticipates that 60% of the construction workforce at a proposed Stream US Data Centers Project will be from outside of the 14-county region.

Data centers create few permanent jobs. According to Kartik Hosanagar, codirector of the Wharton Business School’s AI research center, “Most data centers employ about one hundred to 200 people. In fact, when Apple created a $1 billion data center in North Carolina, the news stories reported that there were less than a hundred permanent jobs created as a result.”

A study of data centers in Texas found, not surprisingly, that when a data center opens there is a gross increase in data center jobs in a county. But, more surprisingly, these job increases are “offset by job losses in other sectors.” In other words, “though there are gross job flow changes, there is no discernable net change in jobs associated with the data centers in Texas.”

How many jobs will be destroyed by the AI that data centers power? The answer is, nobody knows. Some of the claims made by the AI industry seem extravagant.

“Dario Amodei, the head of Anthropic, has warned that A.I. could eliminate 50 percent of entry-level white-collar jobs within years. The tech investor Vinod Khosla predicted last year that A.I. would replace 80 percent of jobs by 2030. Elon Musk has said the technology will render work ‘optional.'”

Non-industry accounts indicate that the impact of AI on workers will be extensive. For example, researchers at Boston Consulting Group estimated that more than half of the jobs in the United States would be “reshaped” by artificial intelligence over the next two to three years, though far fewer would be replaced entirely. Amazon delivery driver Jonathan Rosenblum gives a vivid description of what that reshaping can mean:

“When I’m in the Amazon truck, every movement I make is tracked with technology and evaluated by AI programs — where I am, which packages I’ve delivered, and whether it’s keeping pace with the algorithm that Amazon has determined I must meet. Readouts at the end of every shift show how each of my deliveries compared to the timing prescribed by Amazon’s algorithmic standard. We are evaluated every week on whether we took accurate photos on delivery, delivered the packages exactly where the customer requested, and got good or bad customer feedback. Through the system, drivers who don’t “make rate” or who don’t meet Amazon’s prescribed standards don’t stay employed.

“Employers everywhere are seeking to imitate the behemoth’s labor model of exploitation, job instability, and — terrifyingly — the deployment of AI technologies to discipline and disempower workers. This workplace dystopia is being perfected at Amazon, then exported to other employers — in factories, grocery stores, hospitals, restaurants, hotels, construction sites, laboratories, and offices.”

AI-related layoff of tech workers at tech firms have made big headlines. But tens of millions of “back office” jobs are also threatened, such as customer service representatives, bookkeepers, payroll clerks, human resources specialists, and many others. These jobs are predominantly, or overwhelming held by women. Says Molly Kinder, a former researcher on AI at the Brookings Institution, “I worry that A.I. will be to high-school-educated women what deindustrialization was to high-school-educated men.

Whatever the future holds, AI is already destroying jobs right now. Researchers at Stanford University found that employment is already declining for entry-level workers in jobs that were highly exposed to A.I. “Early-career workers (ages 22-25) in AI-exposed occupations experienced 16% relative employment declines.”

Derailing the Greentech revolution?

Roof of a data center featuring cooling towers and backup generators, November, 23rd, 2025. Photo credit: Rsparks3, Wikipedia Commons, CC0 1.0 Public Domain.

Data centers use massive amounts of energy. They already used 448 terawatt hours globally in 2025, more electricity than all but 10 countries. That is on track to double within four years. Some data centers consume more energy than a mid-size city. According to Kartik Hosanagar of the Wharton Business School’s AI research center, in some US states data centers are already consuming up to 5% of all energy used in the state. In two to three years that is projected to be over 10% in most states. By 2030, data centers may consume enough electricity to increase the annual growth in electricity demand nearly five-fold. This July, BloombergNEF’s estimate of projected U.S. data centers’ power capacity by 2035 increased 83% compared to their estimate just half a year earlier. Data centers would account for about 20% of total US electricity consumption by 2035, up from less than 6% today.

US utilities are racing to build new fossil-fuel plants and are keeping ageing gas and coal plants open to meet the swelling requirements of data centers. But often the grid simply can’t keep up. Delays are holding up data centers’ connections to the electric grid by as much as 12 years. So big tech is investing massively to produce its own power by any means available. The biggest growth is in the gas industry, including fracking firms and pipeline companies. Gas companies are building new plants solely to supply data centers, leading to the largest ever construction boom of natural gas-fired power plants.

Some of the demand for electricity is being met by Greentech. For example, Google just developed the world’s largest grid-scale battery to power a data center in Minnesota, and purchased an energy company with which it is expanding renewable development, including a new “off the grid” center in Texas that will include wind, solar, batteries, and gas.

But the new energy for data centers is coming overwhelmingly from fossil fuels. Since 2023, some communities have seen a 48% increase in greenhouse gas emissions because of data centers. An example: Mississippi Power agreed to keep burning coal at one of its plants for roughly a decade longer than planned. In Michigan and other states, data centers have effectively derailed the grid’s planned transitions to renewable energy. Meta plans to build 10 gas power plants across Louisiana for its data centers.

The AI industry and data centers represent an extraordinary concentration of wealth and power.

According to the investment firm Jeffries, Amazon, Google, and Microsoft account for more than half of the country’s data center power capacity. Due to the data center boom, Microsoft consumes nearly four times as much electricity as it did before the pandemic; Google’s electricity use has more than doubled. Amazon’s emissions increased by 16% last year; Google’s increased by 18%; Microsoft’s grew by 25%.

Data centers are dramatically increasing electricity costs for utilities’ residential and business customers. Utilities requested $18.6 billion in electric and gas increases in the first six months of this year, according to a new report from the nonprofit PowerLines. More than $9 billion of those requests were filed in the second quarter of 2026 alone, up 26% from the same period in 2025. On July 14 the nation’s largest electrical grid operator said rising electricity costs would add $6.3 billion to the bills of millions of households and businesses within the next three years as a result of the power demands of data centers. Some reports estimate electricity bills may double by 2039 if data centers continue to be built at current rates.

Unconstrained, the rise of hyperscale data centers threatens to accelerate greenhouse gas emissions and thereby put climate change on steroids. It also threatens the jobs of millions of workers, local environments, neighboring communities, and the affordability of electricity, water, and other necessities of life.

The next commentary in this series will describe the “Data Center Rebellion” that is emerging from the grassroots around the country and presenting an unprecedented challenge to hyperscale data centers and the tech oligarchs who are attempting to impose them on American communities.

Get “Strike!” via EmailGet “Strike!” via Substack DONATE ONLINE

The post Will Data Centers Derail the Greentech Revolution? first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.

By Jeremy Brecher,
Senior Strategic Advisor, LNS Co-Founder

Listen to the audio version >>

The Greentech revolution makes it possible to pivot rapidly away from fossil fuels. But realizing that possibility requires actually halting and reversing fossil fuel extraction and burning. President Trump is doing everything possible instead to expand such fossil folly – and to crush any efforts to restrain it. But the fight to reduce fossil fuels continues from below.

Oil well along U.S. Route 6 in Railroad Valley, Nevada, July 17, 2014. Photo credit: Famartin, Wikipedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0.

The previous commentaries have described how people in cities, states, and communities have been expanding fossil free energy production and reducing energy use through Greentech initiatives.

These are essential aspects of reducing climate-destroying greenhouse gas emissions, but in themselves they will not halt the destruction of the climate through the burning of fossil fuels. That requires halting new fossil fuel infrastructure and accelerating the closing of existing fossil fuel facilities. That is often referred to as a “phaseout” or “managed decline” of fossil fuels. It’s often summed up in the slogan, “Leave it in the ground!”

Greentech and fossil fuels can increase at the same time – indeed, they are doing so today. But the cheapening and improvement of Greentech can have a crucial impact on fossil fuel use. For every decision on future energy use, fossil fuels are worse and renewable energy is a better deal in almost every way (unless you are a fossil fuel company). But we must make the choice not only to create more fossil free energy, but to relentlessly reduce fossil fuel extraction and burning.

Many such actions are now being taken by local and state governments and grassroots activist groups to phase out fossil fuels. Although national and global action will be necessary to phase out fossil fuels completely, in their absence action from below is forming the tip of the climate protection spear.

However desirable a “big bang” shutdown of fossil fuel production and use might be, what is more likely is a persistent squeezing that reduces the value and profitability of fossil fuel investments. Each incremental squeeze on fossil fuel production and use tips the balance toward replacing them with Greentech. The remainder of this commentary will present just a few examples of how this is being done at the local and state level. (The next two commentaries describe another important set of examples — the movement against data centers.)

Facebook reel from Crain’s Detroit Business

One day Ken Klovski, a resident of Lima township in rural Michigan, noticed boreholes on the farm across the road from his home. Klovski checked county records and discovered the farm had a three-year option agreement with the utility Consumers Energy. Then he found a filing with a map showing a proposed 1.4-gigawatt power plant near the farm. A town official called a public meeting where representatives of Consumer Energy denied that they had optioned the land specifically for a power plant. Klovski accused them of lying. The Lima Township Board of Trustees passed a 12-month moratorium on new power-generating facilities. A resident of a nearby town organized Neighbors United Against Noxious Consumers Energy, or NUANCE. On the group’s Facebook page, he began a daily podcast “Dear Garrick,” expressing the concerns of the group’s 1,400 members directly to Consumers Energy CEO Garrick Rochow. Weeks later, the company issued a statement that, “We will release the option on the land back to the property owner and withdraw our application.”

Fossil fuel use can simply be banned on a compulsory timetable. The city of Los Angeles, for example, has committed to get all of its energy from fossil-free sources by 2035 – that is, to ban the use of fossil fuel energy. Shortly after Donald Trump was elected, the city halted use of all electricity produced by coal. Electricity was shut off from Utah’s largest coal-fired power plant to Los Angeles. The plant is being converted to hydrogen. Then it will supply power to Los Angeles that will initially be produced from a mix of natural gas and hydrogen. According to the city’s municipally owned utility, LA intends to transition to 100% green hydrogen made exclusively from water and renewable energy, ending its burning of fossil fuels.

When President Trump ordered old, highly polluting coal-fired power plants scheduled for retirement in Colorado to reopen or remain in operation, the legislature passed “Manage Emissions from Electric Generating Units” law to halt or circumvent the order.  While the state did not have the authority to directly nullify the president’s order, it took multiple pathways to render it less effective. It requires more transparency on the costs incurred from running coal units past their retirement dates; directs the Public Utilities Commission to approve new resources to help the state reach its 2030 climate targets; and requires modern pollution controls for any coal plants operating after 2033. According to a Sierra Club analysis, the Trump Administration’s coal orders have already cost Americans over $330 million, directly affecting ratepayers and the public health of surrounding communities. The Colorado legislation keeps the state aligned with its clean energy goals by curbing coal emissions and reinforces critical retirement dates of coal-fired plants, while also directing Colorado’s Air Quality Control Commission to set limits on pollutants like nitrous oxides and sulfur dioxide. Other states are also challenging Trump’s coal orders.

More than 1,500 institutions worldwide with over 14 trillion dollars in assets have divested from fossil fuels and others continue to join them. In May 2026 the Santa Clara CA County Board of Supervisors voted to divest its 10-billion-dollar investment pool from fossil fuel companies. The pool had already let $30 million in Chevron and Exxon bonds expire. The resolution means the investment pool will not buy any new fossil fuel company bonds to replace them, and the fund will remain fossil free. The decision followed a joint letter from 21 community groups, including Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action, 350 Silicon Valley, and the Pacifica Climate Committee, urging divestment. Carlos Davidson of the Pacifica Climate Committee said, “Just like with divestment from tobacco and South Africa Apartheid, by divesting we bring attention to the fact that the power of the fossil fuel industry is the single biggest obstacle to government action on climate change.” Divestment from fossil fuels has become more attractive as better Greentech alternatives have become available and as fossil fuel investments increasingly risk becoming stranded assets as a result.

Litigation and legislation

State and local governments across the country have filed at least 40 lawsuits arguing that the fossil fuel industry should be held accountable for its role accelerating climate change. For example, Multnomah County, Oregon is suing Chevron and other fossil fuel companies for $50 billion for damages resulting from a deadly 2021 heat dome that brought temperatures to 116 degrees and killed 69 people. “Our case seeks to hold the defendants responsible under Oregon law for their deceptions and misrepresentations and failures to warn about the dangers of their fossil fuel products,” said a lawyer for Multnomah County. The county is seeking $50 million in actual damages, $1.5 billion in future damages related to anticipated heat events, and at least $50 billion for an abatement fund to “weatherproof” the county.

In 2024, the Sierra Club and several community and environmental groups sued the Louisiana Department of Energy and Natural Resources, challenging the Coastal Use Permit for a liquefied natural gas (LNG) export project to construct a massive methane gas liquefaction, storage, and export terminal on the Gulf of Mexico — in wetlands that provide critical flood prevention and other vital ecological functions to local communities and the environment. The project would generate greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to operating 14 new coal-fired power plants or 13 million new gasoline powered vehicles. A Louisiana state court terminated the coastal use permit, finding state officials violated the Louisiana Constitution by issuing the Coastal Use Permit without considering its disproportionate effect on the surrounding communities of color and low-income communities, as well as the climate change impacts and cumulative impacts with other export facilities already in the area.

In February 2025, the state of Michigan – fabled auto capital of America – filed a federal lawsuit accusing ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Shell, and the American Petroleum Institute of engaging in a decades-long conspiracy to block the development of clean energy and electric vehicles in order to ensure that their fossil fuel products dominated the market. According to the complaints, acting as a “cartel,” the defendants robbed consumers of energy and transportation choices in “one of the most successful antitrust conspiracies in United States history.”

State legislation is taking multiple approaches to put the squeeze on fossil fuel production and use. For example, Vermont is the first state to pass a law to charge fossil fuel companies for at least some of the damage their emissions have caused. Vermont’s law, the Climate Superfund Act, is largely modeled on the national superfund law. It instructs the state treasurer and Vermont’s Agency of Natural Resources to calculate what fossil fuel emissions have cost the state. The agency then determines the amount of emissions attributable to each fossil fuel company. Each company must then pay into a recovery fund. New York has also passed climate superfund legislation requiring payments to begin in 2028; 11 other states are considering similar legislation. A slew of lawsuits is trying to block the Vermont and New York laws. In May the Trump administration sued both New York and Vermont over their superfund laws and other states over efforts to make polluters pay for harms from climate change. US Attorney General Pam Bondi alleges the laws and other states’ planned legal challenges are “burdensome and ideologically motivated” and “threaten American energy independence and our country’s economic and national security.”

Other legislation to put the screws on utilities is legion; the environmental research group Climate XChange tracked 63 bills in 25 states that cover performance-based pay structures for utilities, limits on utility profits and executive pay, prohibitions on using customer rates for political activity, and expanded price transparency requirements. Hawaii’s SB1396 establishes a “green fee” for transient accommodations to fund response to climate change-related disasters and environmental improvement efforts. The green fee applies to hotels, short-term vacation rentals, timeshares, and similar accommodations and cruise ships.

Such state and local initiatives are far from enough to force the fossil fuel industry to transition to clean Greentech energy. But they contribute to the squeeze on the industry’s value and profits that is already resulting from Greentech competition. And they help lay the groundwork for a future transition from – and abolition of – fossil fuel extraction and use.

Get “Strike!” via EmailGet “Strike!” via Substack DONATE ONLINE

The post Phasing Out Fossil Folly first appeared on Labor Network for Sustainability.