The UK government lacks information regarding the purposes of the nation’s datacentres, despite rising concerns about the environmental repercussions associated with the burgeoning AI sector.
In response to a freedom of information (FoI) inquiry regarding the users of the largest datacentres and their activities, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology stated that it “does not hold the requested information.” This department has since been dissolved.
Amid hundreds of datacentres awaiting planning approvals and 315 seeking connections to the National Grid, there is increasing anxiety about the transparency and justification of these projects, especially considering their environmental footprint.
In January, ministers unveiled a plan allowing qualifying datacentres to participate in the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project scheme. This initiative enables developments to circumvent local planning committees by obtaining government approval. Advocates for transparency argue that this framework effectively shields datacentres from local oversight.
Zack Polanski, the leader of the Green party in England and Wales, expressed concerns, stating, “The government intends to override local opposition to facilitate private companies in establishing these facilities—yet they cannot clarify the benefits and who is actually gaining from them.”
Datacentres consume significant resources. A report from The Guardian last month highlighted that two proposed sites would generate carbon emissions surpassing those of ExxonMobil in the UK, raising alarms about their alignment with the nation’s carbon reduction goals.
In 2024, the government classified datacentres as critical national infrastructure, which has led to fears that these water-intensive facilities may be prioritized over residential needs during drought conditions. Water UK, the trade association for water companies in Britain and Northern Ireland, cautioned in July that the UK lacks sufficient water resources to support the ongoing expansion of datacentres.
Polanski questioned, “What could be more ‘critical’ than ensuring people have access to water? What is more ‘critical’ than our imperative to transition to a low-energy, low-pollution future to mitigate climate extremes?”
While there is a general agreement on the essential services that datacentres can provide, there are worries that projects with significant environmental implications and local resistance are being prioritized, irrespective of their utility.
Oliver Hayes from Global Action Plan, the environmental charity that filed the FoI request, commented, “It is highly probable that datacentres will receive preferential treatment regarding resources, potentially facilitating activities that are trivial and wasteful.”
He further noted, “On a more serious note, these datacentres could power chatbots that enable harmful actions, like violating the consent of minors, among other serious issues.”
With reports suggesting that the Scottish government is considering a moratorium on new datacentres, there is mounting pressure for the UK government to adopt similar measures.
Friends of the Earth has called for a halt on new datacentre constructions until environmental safeguards are established. The advocacy group is urging the government to publish definitive environmental regulations for both new and existing datacentres, including mandates for 100% additional renewable energy generation for new projects.
Anisah Khan, the campaigns manager at Global Action Plan, stated, “When people nationwide face hosepipe bans and essential housing developments are stalled due to datacentres consuming grid connections, the last thing we need is more chatbots at any expense.”
The government did not respond to inquiries regarding its lack of information on the operations of large datacentres.
A spokesperson remarked, “Halting the construction of new datacentres would merely divert investment and quality jobs to other countries while leaving the UK reliant on foreign entities for processing sensitive health and defense data. In short, it would be detrimental to both employment and national security.”
