Labour has rejected Zack Polanski’s call for a freeze on the construction of major new data centres in England, warning the Green Party leader’s proposal would be a “disaster for jobs and national security”.
Polanski has called on the government to “slam the brakes” on what he described as “energy-guzzling, water-guzzling data centres”, amid concerns about the resources required to support Britain’s rapidly expanding artificial intelligence industry.
The Green leader wants a moratorium on new large-scale data centres, while allowing smaller facilities serving local communities to continue.
His intervention opens up another potentially significant dividing line between Labour and the Greens, this time over how far Britain should go in its attempt to compete in the global AI race.
Andy Burnham’s government has made expanding Britain’s AI infrastructure an economic priority and regards domestic computing capacity as increasingly important for national security.
Polanski argues the environmental consequences are not receiving enough attention.
“We need to slam the brakes on these energy-guzzling, water-guzzling data centres,” he said during a visit to the site of a proposed facility in east London.
“Essentially, we need basically a moratorium, other than local-scale data centres for the local community.”
He added: “At a time when three-quarters of the country are in drought, it is outrageous that these are being considered critical infrastructure.”
The Greens also want stricter environmental requirements for future projects and greater involvement for communities affected by proposed developments.
Labour warns of jobs and security risk
The government has strongly rejected Polanski’s proposal.
A spokesperson warned that stopping major data centre construction would drive investment overseas while increasing Britain’s dependence on foreign computing infrastructure.
“A pause on building new data centres would simply send investment and good jobs abroad, while leaving Britain dependent on overseas computing for the processing of sensitive health and defence data,” the spokesperson said.
“Put simply: it would be a disaster for jobs and national security.”
The government insisted its support for expanding data centres did not amount to giving technology companies unrestricted permission to build wherever they wanted.
“This does not mean a blank cheque for Big Tech or that every data centre should be approved,” the spokesperson added.
Developers would be expected to use water responsibly, prioritise clean energy, support British supply chains and provide investment to communities hosting their facilities.
The row highlights the difficult trade-offs facing governments as artificial intelligence requires rapidly increasing amounts of computing power.
Data centres house the servers and specialist processors required to train and operate AI systems, alongside more conventional cloud computing and internet services.
Their electricity requirements are substantial.
Data centres currently account for around 2.5% of Britain’s electricity consumption, according to figures reported by The Guardian, but demand is forecast to increase fourfold by 2030.
Water is another source of controversy because some facilities use it extensively for cooling.
The exact amount varies significantly depending on the technology and cooling system being used.
Government figures suggest data centres currently account for less than 1% of non-household water consumption in England.
However, individual projects can require much larger supplies.
Affinity Water told Parliament earlier this year that requests from proposed data centres could range dramatically, with one facility seeking enough water to meet the needs of around 147,000 people.
That has become increasingly politically sensitive following one of Britain’s worst periods of drought in years.
Polanski challenges ‘critical infrastructure’ status
A particular target for Polanski is Labour’s decision to designate data centres as critical national infrastructure.
The designation puts the sector alongside areas including energy, water, transport and communications in terms of government resilience planning.
Polanski described that decision as “outrageous”.
“To most people critical infrastructure means hospitals, water, electricity,” he said.
“It doesn’t mean artificial intelligence.”
He accused the government of putting the demands of major technology companies ahead of communities concerned about water supplies and energy consumption.
Labour disputes suggestions that critical infrastructure status means data centres automatically receive priority over households for electricity or water during shortages.
The government argues Britain needs substantial domestic computing infrastructure precisely because increasingly important information, including health and defence data, should not be entirely dependent on facilities located overseas.
AI minister Kanishka Narayan has also linked Britain’s data centre capacity directly to national security.
He argued earlier this month that Britain needed “sovereign” computing capacity rather than allowing infrastructure important to everyday life to be controlled entirely by foreign companies.
Political battle over AI is growing
The argument is increasingly moving beyond Westminster.
Communities across Britain have begun opposing major data centre developments because of concerns ranging from electricity and water consumption to noise, traffic and the effect on surrounding areas.
Disputes have emerged in areas including Devon, Buckinghamshire, Cardiff and Fife.
Scotland could go further.
The SNP government has faced growing pressure to consider restrictions on new projects, with opposition to some developments becoming increasingly organised.
The Greens believe that concern could become a significant political issue as the AI industry expands.
Polanski’s intervention also gives his party another opportunity to challenge Labour from the left on climate and environmental policy.
Labour, however, appears equally determined to portray restrictions on AI infrastructure as a threat to investment and Britain’s ability to compete with the United States, China and other countries pouring billions into artificial intelligence.
That leaves the two parties with sharply different answers to a question likely to become increasingly important: how much energy, water and land should Britain be prepared to devote to the AI boom?
Leave a Reply