Environmental and social impacts matter, but maybe not as much as transparency
I’ve been reading The Economist (well, technically, I listen to the digital version) for 20-plus years. I prefer to get some of my news of America from a foreign source because it’s not so shout-y. It also helps me put things in perspective to know when some events or trends have international impact versus when they are mostly domestic. I always learn something from their opinion pieces; I often agree with them, but sometimes they don’t sit right.
And on this last point, consider data centers.
The newspaper’s general outlook seems to be that data centers are necessary. That there are legitimate concerns about where the electricity to support them will come from. And that the concerns about their impact on water systems are anecdotal and exaggerated.1 Something for everyone to love/hate.
So, you’d be forgiven if you thought that their opinion doesn’t sit right with me because I’m on one side of the data center divide or the other. But that’s not it. It doesn’t sit right with me because it leaves out a critical part of the puzzle that has little to do with the merits of any one merit or strike against data centers.
What The Economist fails to understand — or omits — is how much of the backlash to data centers is grounded in citizen anger over the way the projects are presented to the public. Perhaps the better word is “sprung.”
A lot of people — I mean, a lot — don’t like data centers because they have no say, no warning, no chance to voice their support or opposition. Because they are kept in the dark until the ink has already dried on the agreement.
Case in point: Cardinal News ran a story last week about the Western Virginia Regional Industrial Facility Authority voting to approve a land sale but refusing to say to whom or for what. Many speculated that it is for a data center, but there’s been no confirmation or denial, which prompted one resident to lament, “The fact that you guys have all of the details and you’re ready to approve this thing and none of us have any of that information is really maddening. It does not have to be this way.”
Feeling left out, locals have resorted to filing FOIA requests to get information about projects going up, literally, in their backyards. Feeling duped, voters have packed meeting rooms to voice their concerns and complaints.
Rural/Urban. Republican/Democrat. Young/Old. Blue collar/White collar.
For national and international news outlets to attribute disquiet on faulty water usage data, unlikely job numbers or inflated tax revenue estimates lets the government decision-makers off the hook for excluding the public from what can quite literally be a life-changing decision.
Social media as real life
Before some of our state media folks get too smug about the shortcomings of the U.S. and global media, I’d note that some of them could do better, too.
I listened to a podcast the other day where the guests were discussing whether the backlash to data centers was real or whether it was ginned-up social media outrage.
It was quickly clear that some of them have not been following the headlines of local newspapers or TV outlets. If they had, they would have seen story after story about those packed meeting rooms, where neighbors sit shoulder to shoulder in hopes of getting answers or explanations, and waiting their turn to give voice to what has been keeping them up at night. They would have seen stories about public hearings, closed meetings and the way some elected boards have fractured under the weight of intractable disagreement.
Plus, I would argue that outrage spun out on social media shouldn’t be discounted. Kept in perspective (there’s that word again), perhaps, but not discounted. For example, yelling in the public comment section of an online news story is different from the comments entered on the YouTube livestream broadcast of a locality’s public meeting. A Facebook community group will draw in people who know each other and are going to be directly impacted. Not everything they say is going to be grounded in fact, and there are plenty of people who shout louder than others. But the variety of platforms and contexts should be important for measuring the level of engagement.
I measure the level of engagement from the number of calls and emails I get from people about data centers. They’ve tried to get records but been stymied. They’ve seen their local officials zip their lips because they’ve signed non-disclosure agreements. They’ve seen the rules for the comment period during meetings cut back to further limit the limited time they had to begin with. I get more of these questions from more places around the state than I have for any other issue I can remember (rules for meetings during Covid being a fairly close second).
Now, I’m reading about the backlash to the backlash. Supporters are touting the financial benefits of data centers. They’re championing the money that schools will get, the jobs that will be created. And they’re explaining how the facility will have less impact on the electricity grid or the water system than is feared.
All of that may be true. Whether a data center belongs in any given locality is not my place to say. But every single argument being made now is one that should be made when a project is in its infancy, not when it is approaching maturity.2
It’s always been confounding to me that public bodies miss the PR benefit of transparency. With openness, you get buy-in. Maybe not 100% agreement, but understanding. Without openness, you get mistrust, skepticism and anger. The former lets you lead; the latter makes you react. And sometimes react badly.
It’s not too late to repair the damage. A chart in The Economist on the number of proposed data centers lists Virginia as having just under 500 operational or under construction, with another 548 announced. Who knows how many more are currently the gleam in the eye of technology companies and local government officials around the state. There are many more possible opportunities for proponents to show their work, listen to their constituents and to treat the public as equals, not afterthoughts.
“Many of these concerns are overblown,” The Economist, “Not in My Backyard,” September 5–11, 2026.
From the same article in Footnote 1: “Another poll, by the University of Virginia, found that most people would accept a few thousand dollars to support a local data centre.”