[marcosdumay]

> Data centers are a net negative wherever they are.

They really shouldn't be.

There is a need for them and they aren't inherently damaging. There's no reason they can't be placed under some environmental regulations that cancel all their negatives, at least on some places. And they would still pay taxes.

But no, datacenter owners are using their connections to remove any regulation instead.

[scoofy]

Obviously the solution is to tax them instead of ban them so they end up dispersing income to the surrounding areas. The entire point though is that they won't get built where they are taxed, and eventually, through regulatory capture or governance capture, they'll get built without having to compensate for their exteralities.

The cynicism of residents is reasonable. They've have to be highly educated to actually understand the implications of what they're doing and how that revenue can be distributed. America's decline lends itself toward small-town corruption, where patronage is more important than communitarianism, due to large and accelerating net worth inequality, and an economy where outcomes are based on inheritance over labor.

This explains the logic behind an outright ban. You don't have to be vigilant about corruption and the principle-agent problem if the thing is just banned.

[order-matters]

>The entire point though is that they won't get built where they are taxed

I dont think this is entirely true. Maybe not the first wave of data centers, but there are a lot of factors that go into the cost calc and its possible that it would still be worth it to build them even if taxed.

[BeetleB]

He's not saying it's economically unfeasible to build where taxed. He's saying they'll simply build elsewhere where they won't be taxed.

About a decade ago, a bunch of data center companies got fantastic deals with my city (low/no tax). People are pretty upset about it. A few years in there was a report on how many people they employeed. I think combined it was under 10 who lived in the area.

[order-matters]

im saying it would not only be economically feasible but economically optimal. power generation and reliability is an important factor. Even just the cost of electric varies, and might change after a data center is put in. in the case they need to provide their own power, you now have all the costs associated with power generation in that area too.

there are real competitive differences to locations and the best locations will likely be able to afford to tax. lets say they all go solar power, then places that are good for solar and it doesnt snow or have as many cloudy days relative to other places will be able to tax more than other places and possibly still have it be the most economical choice.

They also cant build them all in the same spot or move them that easily after they are built. It might be smarter to agree to be taxed and have an amicable relationship with the community you build the data center in rather than risk them changing the law after its already built because youre screwing them over.

[scoofy]

I mean, just look at what happened with Foxconn in Racine, WI: https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/what-happened-to-foxco...

The community is a heck of a lot poorer now because they were convinced to offer incentives for a factory that never came. Once these firms can dangle hope in return for tax treatment or infrastructure, then you have a zero-sum game between townships where the winner — if there is a winner — ends up being the firm first, and the loser — if there is a loser, will be the township first.

[AgentK20]

Unfortunately it’s a race to the bottom in most of America: If you pass such regulations locally or in your state, the data centers will simply choose to not build in your area of authority (county/state). Unless we were to pass sweeping, nation-wide regulations (which this administration is aggressively against because they believe we are in an AI arms race with China), those regulations/bans just drive the data centers elsewhere.

[bryanlarsen]

Maine obviously wouldn't have a problem with that, this law indicates they want them somewhere other than Maine. Environmental regulations that are as good as a ban seem far preferable to an outright ban, IMO. There's a large segment of the population that see outright bans as oppressive but support environmental regulations.

[cucumber3732842]

>Environmental regulations that are as good as a ban seem far preferable to an outright ban, IMO. There's a large segment of the population that see outright bans as oppressive but support environmental regulations.

So basically steal legitimacy from real environmentalists by applying their label to something that's not really motivated by environmentalism but can be construed that way?

"They don't actually want what I'm selling so I'm gonna dress it up as something else, they'll never know"

AreWeTheBaddies.jpg

The other problem you're gonna have is that this isn't an original thought. You're at least 20yr late to the party. So, so, so much absolute garbage has sailed under the flag of environmentalism that the public is starting to be more critical (see for example the kerfuffle over wind turbines off Rhode Island) and it's not unforeseeable that eventually the environmentalists are gonna have some sort of purge or reformation or reversion to more traditional environmentalism and serving corporate interests in order to reclaim some lost respect/legitimacy. Trying to sail "obviously not primarily about the environment" stuff under the flag of environmentalism is only gonna hasten that.

[Shitty-kitty]

Unfortunately enviromental law has become a favorite tool of industry to stop, delay, increase costs to competition. Industry funded pretend enviriomentalist groups bringing up friviolous lawsuits has done much harm to the movement.

[cucumber3732842]

And a tool of industry to make easy money. You pay off the right people and your "environmentally friendly" product that's 99% as bad as the other thing while performing 50% as well can become "technically not mandatory but you won't get shit approved without it". Or some competing solution will get nerf'd driving business to you.

In a particular state in the midwest. The regulator has adopted the policy of "no new septics". You have to do a mound system at great cost. No rule, no code, no performance standard, just an unofficial policy of "we don't approve those". I know someone who's got a textbook perfect property for a traditional septic. They don't care. The shit pump people are laughing all the way to the bank.

It's all so tiresome.

[bryanlarsen]

Environmentalists are going to get blamed for the data center ban in Maine either way.

[DrewADesign]

But people probably wouldn’t have a problem with them building a data center in central Aroostook. Nobody making these regulations wants to simply stop data centers from being built anywhere— they’re trying to stop people from building them where it will really suck to have them, like densely populated Lewiston. I actually left tech to work in manufacturing. I know the value it provides and how much it can negatively impact others. Big companies want to build this shit near population centers because it’s more convenient, profitable, easier to hire people, etc. Tough cookies, I say.

[overfeed]

> There is a need for them and they aren't inherently damaging.

One solution: local taxes on the economic value generated by the data center. MNCs love to play accounting games, so a simple formula based on metered GWh multiplied by reported worldwide revenue with a scaling factor a fraction of a percentage. This fund should be ring-fenced be address whatever externalities are introduced by the data center, including electric bill subsidies, infra maintenance, and funding independent oversight.

[hackable_sand]

What's the need?