(Bloomberg) — When Google wanted to build a new $1.1 billion data center in the Luxembourg countryside, the government championed the investment and helped the company to acquire the land. Authorities in the Netherlands granted Meta Platforms Inc. permission for what promised to be an even bigger one, part of the country’s ambition to become Europe’s “digital hub.”
With a squeeze on energy supplies because of Russia’s war on Ukraine, the political metrics are now changing for the giant facilities. The two projects were paused after grassroots resistance from locals and environmental activists. But when the focus is on ensuring the lights stay on this winter, data computing and storage that can guzzle a small town’s worth of power are no longer as in vogue for some European governments.
Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany and Denmark have teamed up to propose stricter efficiency measures at a meeting of European Union energy ministers on June 27. The aim is to get all 27 member states to sign up to the same rules on big tech to protect the EU’s green energy targets. That means putting a tighter rein on the facilities that handle everything from social media posts to apps for businesses.
“If we don’t act on data centers, we are losing some of the potential to exit gas and help the energy transition,” said Claude Turmes, Luxembourg’s energy and spatial planning minister and a member of the Green Party.
Record prices are spurring EU countries to figure out how to consume less electricity. The dilemma is how to reconcile the bloc’s green agenda with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s priority of ensuring the EU leads the transition to a new digital world.
Data centers in the EU accounted for 2.7% of the bloc’s electricity demand already in 2018 and the continual digital transformation means more and more people spend their time browsing the internet, shopping online or streaming movies. Left unchecked, that could rise to 3.2% by 2030, the European Commission said — or consumption of almost 100 terrawatt hours. That’s roughly twice the power that Greece used in 2019.
The energy regulator in Ireland, home to one of the largest clusters of data centers, recently warned consumers could eventually face outages without a new policy on access to the power grid. It predicted data centers could account for 23% of Ireland’s electricity demand by 2030.
Tech giants running data centers in Europe say they already abide by their own high green standards. Meta said its hubs have achieved net-zero carbon emissions and are supported by 100% renewable energy. Microsoft Inc. is aiming to reduce the consumption of water, used for server cooling systems, in its operations by 95% by 2024.
The question is whether that’s the right way to deploy green resources in the current climate, said Julia Krauwer, a technology analyst at Dutch bank ABN Amro. “For a lot of individuals and politicians, the fact that we use energy from newly constructed wind parks for the benefit of hyper-scale data centers feels out of balance,” she said.
Read More: Europe’s Data Centers Will Gobble Up a Lot More Electricity
The push by policy makers to green up the tech industry comes as the EU debates its massive package unveiled last year to implement an ambitious objective to slash greenhouse gases by at least 55% this decade from 1990 levels.
The plan will affect every corner of the economy, introducing new goals to boost renewables and step up energy savings, requiring companies to lower their carbon footprint and forcing a shift to cleaner transport.
Then came President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine in February. In response, the EU announced it would phase out fossil fuels imported from Russia and proposed increasing the renewables and energy efficiency targets for 2030 even further.
Luxembourg’s Turmes and his allies aim to introduce more stringent reporting requirements for data centers, including on carbon emissions, the use of renewable energy and the effectiveness of power, cooling and water usage. The five countries also want to empower the commission to set minimum performance criteria.
There are currently no binding comprehensive EU-wide standards on energy efficiency at data centers, which are set to proliferate across the continent. The Netherlands, for example, already houses hyper-scale facilities for Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Microsoft and is facing applications for 20 to 25 new or expanded data centers.
Meta, the owner of Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram, was planning its new investment in the Dutch town of Zeewolde, 55 kilometers (34 miles) east of Amsterdam. The company initially received a warm welcome from politicians in 2019.
Three years later, local party Leefbaar Zeewolde — or “Livable Zeewolde” in English — won a regional vote leading its campaign on opposition to the facility. Covering 166 hectares, the equivalent of roughly 230 football pitches, it would be the largest in Europe.
Just before the election, the Dutch government in February announced a nine-month block on permits for new data centers larger than 10 hectares and that require more than 70 megawatts of energy. Ministers, however, exempted the region of Zeewolde and the provinces where Google and Microsoft already host their hyperscale centers.
Meta’s center was to be “one of the most efficient in the world,” with nearly every watt entering the data center to be used to run the computing equipment, according to local authorities. Still, it was expected to use 1,380 gigawatt hours of energy, an amount comparable to twice the total consumption of Zeewolde, a town of about 23,000 people, the development plans showed.
That highlighted the scale of the challenge for Europe when energy is more scarce, said Guus Dix, assistant professor at the University of Twente and a climate activist for Extinction Rebellion who participated in the campaign against the Zeewolde data center. “We only have limited energy available, and we have other needs as well, like greening our houses and becoming less dependent on Russian oil and gas,” he said.
Meta announced in March it would halt plans for the data center as it prides itself on being “good neighbors” and stressed the importance of the project of being a “good fit” for the community.
In Luxembourg, Google agreed to acquire farmland in the commune of Bissen in 2017 before progress on its data center was delayed by opponents. Mouvement Ecologique lost its main legal challenge attempting to stop the land being reclassified as for industrial rather than agricultural use, according to Blanche Weber, president of the campaign group. But as of this year, no work has started.
A Google spokesperson said the site is ready, but the company has no further plans at the moment. The government wants the company to make a decision and says if Google chooses to go ahead, it will have to deploy the most energy-efficient technology.
But even if the biggest companies already use the latest innovations to reduce their environmental footprint, the shift towards greening the sector may not be happening fast enough across the board given the new focus on energy security, according to Merima Dzanic, chief operating officer of the Danish Data Center Industry, an association that promotes the industry in Denmark.
“Suddenly there’s a huge urgency because of the prices and because of the war that we’ve never really seen before,” she said. “At the end of the day, with the data center industry it is very much in the DNA to constantly focus on sustainability because it is in the businesses interest.”
NEW YORK (AP) — In a new video posted early Election Day, Beyoncé channels Pamela Anderson in the television program “Baywatch” – red one-piece swimsuit and all – and asks viewers to vote.
In the two-and-a-half-minute clip, set to most of “Bodyguard,” a four-minute cut from her 2024 country album “Cowboy Carter,” Beyoncé cosplays as Anderson’s character before concluding with a simple message, written in white text: “Happy Beylloween,” followed by “Vote.”
At a rally for Donald Trump in Pittsburgh on Monday night, the former president spoke dismissively about Beyoncé’s appearance at a Kamala Harris rally in Houston in October, drawing boos for the megastar from his supporters.
“Beyoncé would come in. Everyone’s expecting a couple of songs. There were no songs. There was no happiness,” Trump said.
She did not perform — unlike in 2016, when she performed at a presidential campaign rally for Hillary Clinton in Cleveland – but she endorsed Harris and gave a moving speech, initially joined onstage by her Destiny’s Child bandmate Kelly Rowland.
“I’m not here as a celebrity, I’m not here as a politician. I’m here as a mother,” Beyoncé said.
“A mother who cares deeply about the world my children and all of our children live in, a world where we have the freedom to control our bodies, a world where we’re not divided,” she said at the rally in Houston, her hometown.
“Imagine our daughters growing up seeing what’s possible with no ceilings, no limitations,” she continued. “We must vote, and we need you.”
Harris used the song in July during her first official public appearance as a presidential candidate at her campaign headquarters in Delaware. That same month, Beyoncé’s mother, Tina Knowles, publicly endorsed Harris for president.
Beyoncé gave permission to Harris to use the song, a campaign official who was granted anonymity to discuss private campaign operations confirmed to The Associated Press.
Outside of sports and a “Cold front coming down from Canada,” American news media only report on Canadian events that they believe are, or will be, influential to the US. Therefore, when Justin Trudeau’s announcement, having finally read the room, that Canada will be reducing the number of permanent residents admitted by more than 20 percent and temporary residents like skilled workers and college students will be cut by more than half made news south of the border, I knew the American media felt Trudeau’s about-face on immigration was newsworthy because many Americans would relate to Trudeau realizing Canada was accepting more immigrants than it could manage and are hoping their next POTUS will follow Trudeau’s playbook.
Canada, with lots of space and lacking convenient geographical ways for illegal immigrants to enter the country, though still many do, has a global reputation for being incredibly accepting of immigrants. On the surface, Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver appear to be multicultural havens. However, as the saying goes, “Too much of a good thing is never good,” resulting in a sharp rise in anti-immigrant sentiment, which you can almost taste in the air. A growing number of Canadians, regardless of their political affiliation, are blaming recent immigrants for causing the housing affordability crises, inflation, rise in crime and unemployment/stagnant wages.
Throughout history, populations have engulfed themselves in a tribal frenzy, a psychological state where people identify strongly with their own group, often leading to a ‘us versus them’ mentality. This has led to quick shifts from complacency to panic and finger-pointing at groups outside their tribe, a phenomenon that is not unique to any particular culture or time period.
My take on why the American news media found Trudeau’s blatantly obvious attempt to save his political career, balancing appeasement between the pitchfork crowd, who want a halt to immigration until Canada gets its house in order, and immigrant voters, who traditionally vote Liberal, newsworthy; the American news media, as do I, believe immigration fatigue is why Kamala Harris is going to lose on November 5th.
Because they frequently get the outcome wrong, I don’t take polls seriously. According to polls in 2014, Tim Hudak’s Progressive Conservatives and Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals were in a dead heat in Ontario, yet Wynne won with more than twice as many seats. In the 2018 Quebec election, most polls had the Coalition Avenir Québec with a 1-to-5-point lead over the governing Liberals. The result: The Coalition Avenir Québec enjoyed a landslide victory, winning 74 of 125 seats. Then there’s how the 2016 US election polls showing Donald Trump didn’t have a chance of winning against Hillary Clinton were ridiculously way off, highlighting the importance of the election day poll and, applicable in this election as it was in 2016, not to discount ‘shy Trump supporters;’ voters who support Trump but are hesitant to express their views publicly due to social or political pressure.
My distrust in polls aside, polls indicate Harris is leading by a few points. One would think that Trump’s many over-the-top shenanigans, which would be entertaining were he not the POTUS or again seeking the Oval Office, would have him far down in the polls. Trump is toe-to-toe with Harris in the polls because his approach to the economy—middle-class Americans are nostalgic for the relatively strong economic performance during Trump’s first three years in office—and immigration, which Americans are hyper-focused on right now, appeals to many Americans. In his quest to win votes, Trump is doing what anyone seeking political office needs to do: telling the people what they want to hear, strategically using populism—populism that serves your best interests is good populism—to evoke emotional responses. Harris isn’t doing herself any favours, nor moving voters, by going the “But, but… the orange man is bad!” route, while Trump cultivates support from “weird” marginal voting groups.
To Harris’s credit, things could have fallen apart when Biden abruptly stepped aside. Instead, Harris quickly clinched the nomination and had a strong first few weeks, erasing the deficit Biden had given her. The Democratic convention was a success, as was her acceptance speech. Her performance at the September 10th debate with Donald Trump was first-rate.
Harris’ Achilles heel is she’s now making promises she could have made and implemented while VP, making immigration and the economy Harris’ liabilities, especially since she’s been sitting next to Biden, watching the US turn into the circus it has become. These liabilities, basically her only liabilities, negate her stance on abortion, democracy, healthcare, a long-winning issue for Democrats, and Trump’s character. All Harris has offered voters is “feel-good vibes” over substance. In contrast, Trump offers the tangible political tornado (read: steamroll the problems Americans are facing) many Americans seek. With Trump, there’s no doubt that change, admittedly in a messy fashion, will happen. If enough Americans believe the changes he’ll implement will benefit them and their country…
The case against Harris on immigration, at a time when there’s a huge global backlash to immigration, even as the American news media are pointing out, in famously immigrant-friendly Canada, is relatively straightforward: During the first three years of the Biden-Harris administration, illegal Southern border crossings increased significantly.
The words illegal immigration, to put it mildly, irks most Americans. On the legal immigration front, according to Forbes, most billion-dollar startups were founded by immigrants. Google, Microsoft, and Oracle, to name three, have immigrants as CEOs. Immigrants, with tech skills and an entrepreneurial thirst, have kept America leading the world. I like to think that Americans and Canadians understand the best immigration policy is to strategically let enough of these immigrants in who’ll increase GDP and tax base and not rely on social programs. In other words, Americans and Canadians, and arguably citizens of European countries, expect their governments to be more strategic about immigration.
The days of the words on a bronze plaque mounted inside the Statue of Liberty pedestal’s lower level, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…” are no longer tolerated. Americans only want immigrants who’ll benefit America.
Does Trump demagogue the immigration issue with xenophobic and racist tropes, many of which are outright lies, such as claiming Haitian immigrants in Ohio are abducting and eating pets? Absolutely. However, such unhinged talk signals to Americans who are worried about the steady influx of illegal immigrants into their country that Trump can handle immigration so that it’s beneficial to the country as opposed to being an issue of economic stress.
In many ways, if polls are to be believed, Harris is paying the price for Biden and her lax policies early in their term. Yes, stimulus spending quickly rebuilt the job market, but at the cost of higher inflation. Loosen border policies at a time when anti-immigrant sentiment was increasing was a gross miscalculation, much like Trudeau’s immigration quota increase, and Biden indulging himself in running for re-election should never have happened.
If Trump wins, Democrats will proclaim that everyone is sexist, racist and misogynous, not to mention a likely White Supremacist, and for good measure, they’ll beat the “voter suppression” button. If Harris wins, Trump supporters will repeat voter fraud—since July, Elon Musk has tweeted on Twitter at least 22 times about voters being “imported” from abroad—being widespread.
Regardless of who wins tomorrow, Americans need to cool down; and give the divisive rhetoric a long overdue break. The right to an opinion belongs to everyone. Someone whose opinion differs from yours is not by default sexist, racist, a fascist or anything else; they simply disagree with you. Americans adopting the respectful mindset to agree to disagree would be the best thing they could do for the United States of America.
PHOENIX (AP) — Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent proponent of debunked public health claims whom Donald Trump has promised to put in charge of health initiatives, said Saturday that Trump would push to remove fluoride from drinking water on his first day in office if elected president.
Fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities by replacing minerals lost during normal wear and tear, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The addition of low levels of fluoride to drinking water has long been considered one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century.
Kennedy made the declaration Saturday on the social media platform X alongside a variety of claims about the heath effects of fluoride.
“On January 20, the Trump White House will advise all U.S. water systems to remove fluoride from public water,” Kennedy wrote. Trump and his wife, Melania Trump, “want to Make America Healthy Again,” he added, repeating a phrase Trump often uses and links to Kennedy.
Trump told NBC News on Sunday that he had not spoken to Kennedy about fluoride yet, “but it sounds OK to me. You know it’s possible.”
The former president declined to say whether he would seek a Cabinet role for Kennedy, a job that would require Senate confirmation, but added, “He’s going to have a big role in the administration.”
Asked whether banning certain vaccines would be on the table, Trump said he would talk to Kennedy and others about that. Trump described Kennedy as “a very talented guy and has strong views.”
The sudden and unexpected weekend social media post evoked the chaotic policymaking that defined Trump’s White House tenure, when he would issue policy declarations on Twitter at virtually all hours. It also underscored the concerns many experts have about Kennedy, who has long promoted debunked theories about vaccine safety, having influence over U.S. public health.
In 1950, federal officials endorsed water fluoridation to prevent tooth decay, and continued to promote it even after fluoride toothpaste brands hit the market several years later. Though fluoride can come from a number of sources, drinking water is the main source for Americans, researchers say.
Officials lowered their recommendation for drinking water fluoride levels in 2015 to address a tooth condition called fluorosis, that can cause splotches on teeth and was becoming more common in U.S. kids.
In August, a federal agency determined “with moderate confidence” that there is a link between higher levels of fluoride exposure and lower IQ in kids. The National Toxicology Program based its conclusion on studies involving fluoride levels at about twice the recommended limit for drinking water.
A federal judge later cited that study in ordering the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to further regulate fluoride in drinking water. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen cautioned that it’s not certain that the amount of fluoride typically added to water is causing lower IQ in kids, but he concluded that mounting research points to an unreasonable risk that it could be. He ordered the EPA to take steps to lower that risk, but didn’t say what those measures should be.
In his X post Saturday, Kennedy tagged Michael Connett, the lead attorney representing the plaintiff in that lawsuit, the environmental advocacy group Food & Water Watch.
Kennedy’s anti-vaccine organization has a lawsuit pending against news organizations including The Associated Press, accusing them of violating antitrust laws by taking action to identify misinformation, including about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines. Kennedy is on leave from the group but is listed as one of its attorneys in the lawsuit.
What role Kennedy might hold if Trump wins on Tuesday remains unclear. Kennedy recently told NewsNation that Trump asked him to “reorganize” agencies including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration and some agencies under the Department of Agriculture.
But for now, the former independent presidential candidate has become one of Trump’s top surrogates. Trump frequently mentions having the support of Kennedy, a scion of a Democratic dynasty and the son of former Attorney General Robert Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy.
Kennedy traveled with Trump Friday and spoke at his rallies in Michigan and Wisconsin.
Trump said Saturday that he told Kennedy: “You can work on food, you can work on anything you want” except oil policy.
“He wants health, he wants women’s health, he wants men’s health, he wants kids, he wants everything,” Trump added.
