Data Centers Fuel Techlash as Electricity Costs Skyrocket – 조선일보

Report on the Socio-Economic and Environmental Impacts of Data Center Expansion

Introduction: “Techlash” and its Conflict with Sustainable Development Goals

A significant public backlash against major technology corporations, termed “techlash,” is intensifying in the United States. This phenomenon is primarily driven by the rapid proliferation of data centers required to support the expansion of Artificial Intelligence (AI). The subsequent strain on local infrastructure and resources presents a direct challenge to several of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This report analyzes the core issues of this trend, focusing on its implications for energy affordability, community sustainability, and responsible industrial innovation.

Energy Consumption and its Contradiction with SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy)

Escalating Energy Costs and the Threat to Energy Affordability

The most immediate cause of public discontent is the sharp rise in residential electricity prices in regions with a high concentration of data centers. This trend directly undermines the objective of SDG 7, which aims to ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all. The increased demand from data centers operated by corporations such as Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Meta has led to significant price hikes for local communities.

• Virginia: Home to 666 data centers, the state saw a 13% increase in electricity costs as of August this year compared to the previous year.
• Illinois: With 244 data centers, residents experienced a 15.8% rise in electricity rates.
• Ohio: Hosting 193 data centers, the state registered a 12% increase.

These regional increases are two to three times the national annual average of 5.1%, placing a disproportionate financial burden on local populations and compromising energy affordability.

Future Projections and Challenges to Sustainable Energy

The conflict with SDG 7 is projected to worsen as technology companies plan further expansion. Future projects, such as Meta’s proposed 1-gigawatt (GW) “Prometheus” data center in Ohio, exemplify the scale of the challenge. A single 1GW facility consumes an amount of power equivalent to that of a nuclear power plant, capable of supplying approximately one million homes. This escalating demand for energy not only threatens affordability but also poses a significant challenge to SDG 13 (Climate Action) by increasing pressure on energy grids, which may rely on fossil fuels to meet the surge in consumption.

Broader Implications for Sustainable Development

Impact on SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities)

The “techlash” phenomenon extends beyond energy costs and reflects a broader challenge to SDG 11, which focuses on making cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable. The strain on public utilities and the rising cost of living driven by the tech sector can render communities less sustainable for existing residents. Historical precedents include:

1. Public protests in Silicon Valley over soaring real estate prices linked to high tech-sector salaries.
2. Community opposition in Germany to wind farm and power line expansions due to concerns over landscape and health impacts.

Re-evaluating SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure)

While data centers represent critical infrastructure essential for innovation under SDG 9, their current implementation raises questions about sustainability. The goal calls for building resilient infrastructure, promoting inclusive and sustainable industrialization, and fostering innovation. However, when this infrastructure imposes severe negative externalities on local communities and the environment, its alignment with the principles of sustainable development must be critically re-evaluated.

Global Perspectives and Corporate Responsibility

The Situation in South Korea

The sentiment of “techlash” is not confined to the United States. In South Korea, public and governmental scrutiny of the technology industry is also growing. Recent government audits have brought the leadership of major domestic tech firms to account for a range of issues, highlighting a need for greater corporate responsibility in line with the SDGs. Key areas of concern include:

• AI training data and associated ethical considerations.
• Platform advertising practices and market power.
• Labor issues within the tech industry.

Experts advise that technology companies must address the “scarring effect”—the adverse social and economic consequences for populations marginalized by technological innovation. This directly relates to achieving SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) by ensuring that the benefits of progress are distributed equitably.

Analysis of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy

  The article directly addresses the affordability of energy. It highlights that the massive electricity consumption by data centers is causing a sharp increase in electricity prices for residents in states like Virginia, Illinois, and Ohio, making energy less affordable for households.

• SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure

  The core issue revolves around the infrastructure (data centers) supporting technological innovation (AI). The article points out that the current model of this infrastructure is unsustainable due to its immense energy demand, creating negative social and economic consequences.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The article discusses how the tech industry’s growth creates inequalities. This is shown through rising utility costs that burden local populations and the example of Silicon Valley, where high tech salaries led to soaring real estate prices, displacing long-term residents. The concept of a “scarring effect” on those left behind by innovation also points to this goal.

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

  The impact on local communities is a central theme. The surge in electricity prices directly affects the affordability of basic services for residents. Furthermore, the concentration of energy-intensive data centers places a strain on local resources and infrastructure, challenging the sustainability of these communities.

• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

  The article highlights an unsustainable pattern of consumption by the tech industry. The enormous amount of electricity consumed by data centers represents an inefficient use of natural resources (energy), which is a key concern of this SDG.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 7.1: Ensure universal access to affordable, reliable and modern energy services.

  The article demonstrates a threat to this target. The electricity rate hikes of 13% in Virginia, 15.8% in Illinois, and 12% in Ohio, driven by data center demand, directly challenge the affordability of energy services for local residents.

• Target 9.4: Upgrade infrastructure and retrofit industries to make them sustainable, with increased resource-use efficiency.

  The problem described in the article—that a single 1GW data center consumes as much power as a nuclear plant—underscores the urgent need for more sustainable and energy-efficient infrastructure as called for in this target.

• Target 11.1: Ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services.

  This target is relevant in two ways. First, the rising electricity costs threaten access to affordable “basic services.” Second, the mention of Silicon Valley’s soaring real estate prices due to the tech boom directly relates to the challenge of ensuring “affordable housing.”

• Target 12.2: Achieve the sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources.

  The article’s focus on the massive energy consumption by data centers is a clear example of the inefficient use of a natural resource (energy). The scale of this consumption points to the need for better management and efficiency, as outlined in this target.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Percentage increase in household electricity rates:

  The article explicitly states the year-over-year electricity rate increases in Virginia (13%), Illinois (15.8%), and Ohio (12%), comparing them to the national average (5.1%). This is a direct indicator for measuring energy affordability (Target 7.1).

• Energy consumption of data center infrastructure:

  The article provides a powerful metric: “a 1GW large-scale data center consumes the same amount of electricity as a nuclear power plant, enough for about 1 million households.” This serves as an indicator of the resource intensity and (in)efficiency of current digital infrastructure (Targets 9.4 and 12.2).

• Change in regional real estate prices:

  The article implies this indicator by mentioning that in Silicon Valley, “regional real estate prices soared” due to high salaries in the tech sector. This can be used to measure housing affordability (Target 11.1).

• Incidence of public protests and social backlash:

  The article describes the “techlash” phenomenon, including citizens forming protest groups, blocking roads, and attacking commuter buses in Silicon Valley. This serves as a qualitative indicator of social unsustainability and community dissatisfaction with the negative impacts of industrial and infrastructure development (Target 11.1).

Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: v.daum.net