Climate goals go up in smoke as US datacenters turn to coal
Self-hosting, AI, and data center demand
- Some argue coal‑powered data centers are a reason to “ditch big companies” and self‑host.
- Others question this, noting devices still need power, and utilities must supply the same total energy.
- Points in favor of self‑hosting: lower network bandwidth (thus less network energy), better alignment with home solar production, and potentially no need for active cooling.
- Several comments note that much new data center capacity is for AI, not traditional hosting.
How bad will climate change get?
- One side warns we’ve crossed 1.5°C, are likely to hit 2°C by ~2035, and face species loss, mass migration, resource conflicts, and possible civilizational decline.
- Others are confident civilization won’t “collapse” by 2050 or 2100, arguing human resilience, historical precedents (e.g., WWII did not end civilization), and adaptation capacity.
- A middle view distinguishes between global civilizational collapse and regional collapses (e.g., parts of Africa/Asia), plus steep declines in quality of life rather than total breakdown.
Food, refugees, and social stability
- Many see food system disruption as the key risk: unpredictable weather, droughts, and heat can cut yields and drive up prices.
- Optimists argue this mainly means higher costs and a shift to more intensive methods (greenhouses, hydroponics), plus reducing waste.
- Pessimists outline cascades: harvest failures → price spikes → hoarding and crime → state repression and breakdown, especially in poorer regions.
- Climate refugees and freshwater scarcity are highlighted as destabilizing forces; opinions differ on whether these cause hardship or systemic collapse.
Species extinction and ecosystem collapse
- Some dismiss extinctions as natural and inevitable, arguing human comfort should prevail and cheap fossil energy prevents collapse.
- Others counter that current extinction rates far exceed historical background, threaten food chains and pollinators, and risk large‑scale ecosystem collapse.
- Debate centers on whether the speed of extinctions now outpaces evolution and migration enough to make this extinction event qualitatively different.
Emissions trends and atmospheric CO₂
- One camp says CO₂ emissions are no longer increasing at an increasing rate, citing plateauing or reduced emissions in the US and early signs of a Chinese pivot.
- Critics point to Mauna Loa data showing atmospheric CO₂ levels still rising faster over time; defenders reply this lags and differs from annual emission flows.
Fossil fuels, markets, and “doomerism”
- Some argue letting markets run will naturally handle fossil fuel depletion via price signals, avoiding “planned” collapse.
- Others say this guarantees worst‑case warming, as markets ignore long‑term climate externalities and can’t rapidly deploy nuclear/renewables when shortages hit.
- There’s tension between “doomerism” (seen as demotivating) and insistence that lack of urgent policy change justifies pessimism.
Nuclear vs solar/wind and coal‑to‑nuclear ideas
- Pro‑nuclear voices say we have enough fuel for centuries and that anyone serious about decarbonization must support nuclear, including coal‑to‑nuclear plant conversions and SMRs.
- Critics respond that today nuclear is slower and more expensive than solar + batteries, particularly in the West with chronic megaproject overruns.
- Others argue regulation, not fundamental technology, is the main cause of nuclear delays, pointing to faster builds in countries like China.
- Some see political opposition to nuclear and over‑regulation as effectively extending fossil fuel use; others claim nuclear advocacy is often used to stall cheaper renewables.
China, growth, and “keeping up”
- One view: the US must burn coal (and build nuclear) to stay economically competitive with China, echoing “no rich, low‑energy countries.”
- Multiple replies note that China’s recent demand growth is mostly met by wind, solar, and storage; fossil and coal use have begun to plateau or decline slightly.
- Critics suggest the US should prioritize scaling renewables (e.g., not canceling large solar projects) instead of leaning on coal.
US politics, solar hostility, and corruption
- Some commenters highlight state and federal hostility to solar despite abundant land and sun, blaming legalized corruption and incumbent fossil interests.
- Others call for lobbying focused on nuclear (especially coal‑to‑nuclear transitions), SMR funding, and deregulation as politically realistic under the current administration.
- There is disagreement over how partisan this is: some see it as primarily a fossil‑fuel–aligned right‑wing project; others note high‑consumption tech sectors voting left also drive demand (AI, crypto, etc.).
Will coal really come back?
- Skeptics doubt a major coal resurgence, citing collapsed US coal production, shuttered mines, and the capital cost of rebuilding ports and logistics.
- Counter‑evidence is offered: at least one large new coal terminal project (after protracted litigation) is moving forward, showing some investors still see coal exports as viable.
Historical blame and symbolism
- Some trace today’s situation to decades of US policy: from early solar on the White House to later alignment with fossil fuel interests across parties.
- Symbolic gestures (installing/removing solar panels) are contrasted with the lack of sustained structural change over ~50 years.