A movement imposing moratoriums and bans on new data centers across 78 local jurisdictions in the United States poses a threat to the nation's economic prosperity and national security, potentially ceding advantage in the artificial intelligence (AI) race to China. This trend could also lead to significant job losses and reduced tax revenue.
The opinion piece draws a parallel between current opposition to data centers and potential obstructionism during World War II, suggesting that such actions would have benefited enemy nations. It argues that the United States, currently holding a 75% share of global AI compute capacity compared to China's 15%, risks losing its dominance if the infrastructure required to power AI innovation is curtailed.
Opponents of data centers often cite concerns about electricity costs, water usage, and economic impact. However, the piece contends these claims are based on myths. It asserts that building new data centers can actually lower electricity costs by spreading fixed expenses over a larger volume of sales. Regarding water usage, the argument is made that many data centers use water minimally, and those that do consume less than sectors like golf courses. Economically, the development of data centers is presented as a job creator, with studies indicating significant increases in construction and information sector employment, as well as wage growth. Tax revenues are also projected to increase due to the economic activity generated.
The implications extend beyond economic benefits. AI and its supporting data centers are deemed crucial for national security, with applications ranging from military uses like "killer drones" to cybersecurity, intelligence analysis, and streamlining defense manufacturing. The piece suggests that a U.S. victory in the AI war is contingent on robust data center infrastructure.
While New York is the only state to have implemented a statewide moratorium on new data center construction, 14 other states are reportedly considering similar measures. The article expresses concern that if this movement gains broader political backing, particularly from the Democratic party, temporary bans could become permanent, to the benefit of geopolitical rivals like China.