Tackling Tech: The Need for Environmental Accountability and Regulation to Protect the Planet and its People

The Hidden Costs of the Cloud: Navigating the Environmental Impact of Data Centers

With the launch of ChatGPT a year and a half ago, the question of how to regulate artificial intelligence is now increasingly at the center of policy discussions. In the past year, AI-related lobbying has spiked as AI leaders, private and civil society organizations call on policymakers to critically asses the various risks generative AI poses for our society. Due to their complex nature, AI models require large amounts of data storage and computing power to process tasks – generating one image is said to require as much energy as charging a phone. As more data circulates the internet, and we store an ever-increasing amount in “the cloud”, the increased resources, i.e. electricity and water, necessary to sustain these advancements becomes a critical concern. In relation to this, the United States recently experienced a surge in national power use, distancing it from reaching its 2035 climate goals. 

Faced with the skyrocketing demand for data centers, Tech giants such as Microsoft, Google and Meta are investing billions of dollars into building new projects and expanding existing facilities. Standing at a critical point in time, policymakers have yet to adequately address the current developments and how to mitigate ensuing environmental consequences. 

The Thirsty Cloud

The "cloud" is not an ethereal concept; it is very much a physical reality. Data is stored in data centers all around the world, which operate 24/7. In 2021, more than 30 percent of the world’s data centers were located in the United States. While the U.S. had around 5,300 data centers in March 2024, the second most were located in Germany with a little over 500. In the U.S., data centers are scattered unequally across all states, with Virginia being home to the largest concentration in the world. These centers are resource-intensive facilities. They not only demand significant electricity, but also require vast quantities of water to cool the servers and prevent overheating. 

Up until recently, it was widely unclear just how much water data centers consume for their daily operations. Studies estimate a large data center may use up to 5 million gallons of water a day – enough to meet the water needs of 50,000 people. Under scrutiny for their large carbon footprints, large Tech companies have been working towards reducing those in the past years – what they have obscured in the process is the alarming rate at which their water footprint is growing in their place. Microsoft’s annual water consumption jumped by 60% between the year 2021 and 2023 and with it now at 7.8 million cubic meters, this number will only grow in the coming years. 

Competition for Water

The gravity of the issue lies in the fact that data centers, with their increasing water consumption, threaten the water supply in rural communities. In order to meet their own climate goals, large multinational companies choose to build data centers where electricity is cheap and low-carbon, hence, sourced from renewable energy. However, in places like Arizona and California where there is an abundance of solar and wind energy, water is scarce. In these arid, drought-prone areas data centers exacerbate local water shortages and have local communities competing with these facilities for potable water. This problem will only intensify in the next years as the country faces more intense heat waves and droughts caused by global warming.

Towns often turn a blind eye on these resource-hungry facilities because of the false expectation that these billion-dollar projects will significantly boost the local economy, creating jobs and bringing in investments. However, data centers provide limited benefits to local employment, as most of the jobs created are either temporary construction roles or high-skilled positions that tech companies typically fill by relocating their own experts. Most of the other jobs are bound to become automated in the coming years. The developmental effects are meager yet the environmental strain is high – exhausting local water and electricity supplies.

Communities demand Transparency

While data centers have become more energy-efficient over the years, the industry remains heavily reliant on water due to the lack of viable alternatives to current cooling systems. Many data centers do not openly disclose information on their water consumption, fearing backlash from local communities. However, awareness is growing in these areas, leading to resistance.

For example, in Los Lunas, New Mexico, farmers protested against Facebook’s water usage, arguing that “farmers need water, you can’t eat data,” which temporarily halted Facebook’s expansion plans. In The Dalles, Oregon, a local newspaper took legal action, forcing the city to reveal that Google was consuming 25% of the town's water supply. This scrutiny prompted Google to include water usage data in its 2024 environmental report for the first time, bringing attention to an issue previously overlooked. Similarly, in West Des Moines, Iowa, residents filed a lawsuit against Microsoft, uncovering that its data center cluster consumed 6% of the district’s water. Microsoft has since begun disclosing its water consumption, but such transparency remains rare within the industry. 

Google’s commitment to water stewardship and climate-conscious cooling is an example of how large multinational companies can be pressured into optimizing their water consumption and finding innovative solutions. Microsoft has also pledged to replenish more water than it uses globally by 2030, indicating a shift towards greater corporate social responsibility. However, these attempts at addressing their environmental impacts are still far from perfect. What may help these companies achieve water-positive or carbon-negative results on paper, does not necessarily off-set the negative effects on specific, impacted communities. 

Regulatory efforts on a local and international level

In the absence of federal action, some states and local governments are starting to apply regulatory pressure on companies. For instance, Chandler, Arizona passed a law in 2015 restricting water-intensive businesses that do not align with the city’s economic development plans from establishing in the city. In Virginia, concerned legislators have made repeated attempts to pass bills aimed at mitigating environmental consequences, though these have consistently been defeated in the House and Senate. 

On a broader scale, in the past year, the EU has taken several steps toward filling the regulatory vacuum. The EU Commission released a European Code of Conduct for Energy Efficiency encouraging data centers to adopt best practices for more sustainable and efficient use of water and electricity. In March, the European Commission adopted a delegated act, that requires data centers to report their key performance indicators to a European database by September this year. The public disclosure of energy and water consumption data is intended to pave the way for a European rating system for sustainability. While this regulation applies to data centers within the EU, it could also pressure international companies seeking to provide cloud or web-based services to EU residents to increase their transparency. Thus, the EU’s legislation could have ripple effects around the world, including in the U.S., justifying regulatory harmonization.

Given these developments, it is more crucial than ever for policymakers to consider how to incentivize greater responsibility and transparency from data center companies. This is essential to prevent the exhaustion of natural resources and to mitigate the negative impacts on affected communities.

The E-Waste Crisis and the Right to Repair

In our fast-paced society with rapid technological advancements, consumers are always buying the latest devices. The consumption habits of the developed world follow a linear economic model of buying, using, then throwing products away. Relentless consumption generates significant waste, as consumers discard the old to make way for the new. This is especially true for electronic devices, with Americans discarding an estimated 150 million cell phones each year—over 400,000 daily. As a result, electronic waste, or e-waste, has become the fastest-growing waste stream globally, increasing at an annual rate of 3%.

Companies and policymakers need to address the lack of adequate recycling and repurposing of this waste, while also prioritizing product repair to prevent the problem from escalating further.

The E-waste Problem

In 2022, an estimated 5 billion phones worldwide were expected to be discarded or left unused in drawers, without proper disposal. When these unwanted devices are not repaired or repurposed, they accumulate in landfills across the globe, releasing harmful contaminants like lead and mercury into the environment, which pose significant health risks to local communities. Despite being illegal in most countries, American companies continue to export their electronic scraps to less developed countries, burdening vulnerable communities with waste they did not create and lack the resources to manage safely. The problem has intensified because marketing strategies push consumers to abandon perfectly functional devices in favor of the latest upgrades. At the same time, tech companies have made minimal efforts to address what happens to products once they become obsolete or break.

Barrier to Repairs 

A 2021 study reveals that most consumers prefer replacing their electronic devices rather than repairing them. Only 16% of American users opted to repair their broken smartphones, while 57% chose to replace them without considering repairs.The high barriers to repairing electronics contribute to this trend. Modern devices are designed with increasing complexity, making home repairs more difficult than in the past. Commonly broken parts, like the screen and batteries, are often glued into the phone, making them hard to swap out. Additionally, repairs are typically only carried out by the original manufacturers or their approved service providers, which can require long drives, particularly for rural consumers, and come at a high cost. Consequently, the expense and inconvenience of repairing devices lead users to purchase new ones instead of maintaining their current ones.

In recent years, companies have faced increased scrutiny for their role in perpetuating the problem of product replacement and repair difficulty. Critics, including consumers and advocacy groups, accuse tech companies of intentionally designing products with short lifecycles to drive repeated purchases and boost profits. For instance, Apple was found guilty in a $500 million lawsuit for deliberately slowing down older iPhones with each iOS update. Planned obsolescence not only harms the planet and the rights of the consumer but also undermines the sustainability of the tech industry itself. Without laws to curb such practices, valuable resources are wasted, functional devices are discarded, and consumers face unnecessary financial burden.

The Policy Solution - the Right to Repair 

In response to this issue, the right to repair movement advocates for consumers' ability to repair their own products and access repair services. The movement pushes for legislation that incentivizes and mandates companies to design products that are more repairable and durable. Moreover, advocates call for manufacturers to disclose repair information and provide access to spare parts. Once implemented, right-to-repair policies can significantly reduce the amount of electronics discarded by consumers - ultimately slowing down the accumulation of toxic e-waste and promoting a more sustainable, circular economy. The right to repair movement has gained significant momentum in the US, with estimates suggesting that a federal bill could greatly slow the growth of e-waste, as the U.S. is one of the greatest producers of e-waste globally. 

State-level Legislative Developments

In the absence of national legislation, Massachusetts has led the way with its 2012 law addressing automotive repairs. By 2023, four states had enacted right-to-repair laws, and 33 states had considered various related legislation, with Colorado, California, New York, and Minnesota successfully passing laws. Notably, New York became the first state to pass a right-to-repair law for electronics with the Digital Fair Repair Act at the end of 2022. Minnesota recently followed with its own Digital Fair Repair Act, effective July this year. These developments highlight a growing consensus on the importance of the right to repair and underscore the need to address the legislative gap on this issue.

Many tech companies pose obstacles to right-to-repair legislation, often citing concerns about unauthorized repairs compromising device security. Yet, some companies, like Fairphone and Shift, have embraced repairability by designing products that are easy to fix, demonstrating that a more circular approach is possible. Local governments could encourage innovative approaches like these and give companies positive incentives to boost the repairability of the products they sell.

International Perspectives

On the global level, there are various initiatives that aim to promote corporate responsibility and align industries with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Private-public initiatives such as the UN’s Global Compact are however voluntary and thus lack the enforcement mechanisms that national legislation could provide. For the latter, the EU is taking significant steps forward: In May this year, the European Council adopted a right-to-repair directive, which promotes the circularity of product manufacturing by making repairs more accessible and appealing. 

The directive requires manufacturers to repair products deemed repairable under EU law and extend the legal warranty by 12 months if consumers choose repair over replacement. Additionally, it mandates member states to set up online platforms on which consumers can find repair services more easily. A European Repair Information Form will be made available for products covered by the right to repair, detailing the price of repairs and repair conditions. Member states have 24 months to integrate this directive into their national legislation. In the long-term, the EU directive is designed to incentivize companies to produce more sustainable, durable, and repairable products, while also encouraging consumers to make more environmentally friendly choices. For American companies, aligning with this policy will not only be strategically smart but also necessary to access the European consumer market in the future. 

While regulatory efforts in the U.S. are advancing, policymakers need to fully recognize their role in the global e-waste crisis. Implementing right-to-repair policies is not just about benefiting domestic consumers and conserving resources; it also has the potential to enhance the well-being of vulnerable communities abroad and positively impact the environment on a global scale.

The Case for Urban Mining: Securing Critical Raw Materials

With rising temperatures and increasingly frequent climate catastrophes, the shift to renewable energy sources is driving a surge in global demand for certain raw materials and rare earth minerals. These critical raw materials (CRMs) are essential for producing green technologies like solar and wind power, making their secure sourcing a matter of national security for the United States and other countries aiming to meet climate goals. To achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, the world will need six times the current amount of CRMs by 2040. Meeting this demand will necessitate a substantial buildout of the mining industry. However, policymakers have largely overlooked urban mining—reclaiming materials from discarded waste such as e-waste—as a viable solution to address the rising demand for CRMs while reducing the environmental and social costs associated with traditional mining.

The Supply Issue

Currently, a significant portion of CRM mining occurs in the Global South. For example, the Democratic Republic of Congo supplies 63% of the world's cobalt, which is essential for modern batteries and electric vehicles. Meanwhile, China processes 90% of the world’s rare earth minerals and is the sole global supplier of nine out of seventeen rare earth elements, making it a dominant player in the CRM market.

As the U.S. relies greatly on imports from China and other third countries, recent geopolitical events—including the Russian invasion of Ukraine and supply chain disruptions from the pandemic—have underlined the need to reduce dependencies on these countries for security reasons. In response, the U.S. has joined forces with the European Union, Canada, Australia, India, Norway, Japan, and the Republic of Korea to establish the Mineral Security Partnership (MSP) in 2022. This initiative aims to secure a sustainable supply of CRMs by increasing production in democratic countries, sourcing new mining projects, and funding research into potential mining sites. 

Critical and costly

Since its establishment, the primary focus of the MSP has been on identifying new mining projects, with a significant emphasis on expanding the mining industry. Out of the 23 projects identified by the MSP, only a small fraction address the recycling and recovery of minerals. However, traditional mining carries substantial environmental and social costs.

Mining is a carbon- and water-intensive process which can devastate local ecosystems, causing deforestation, air pollution and biodiversity loss of surrounding habitats. The extraction of rare earth minerals is particularly damaging due to energy-intensive open-pit mining methods, which generate radioactive waste that contaminates nearby waterways. Furthermore, the mining industry often exacerbates conflicts in resource-rich regions with poor management practices. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, illegal mineral smuggling is linked to the funding of armed conflict. Additionally, the industry is plagued by human rights violations, including child labor and hazardous working conditions.

An Overlooked Opportunity

Despite the growing interest in CRMs, urban mining has received relatively little attention. Currently, less than 20% of global e-waste and only 1% of rare earth minerals are formally recycled. 

Recycling e-waste and extracting CRMs for reuse offer numerous advantages. For one, urban mining presents an untapped source of CRMs beyond that of traditional mining, diminishing the demand for "conflict minerals." It enhances national security by reducing reliance on foreign supply chains. Moreover, research suggests that traditional mining alone cannot meet the rising demand for these materials, making urban mining a future necessity.

Moreover, urban mining addresses the problem of e-waste accumulation. The U.S. generates vast amounts of e-waste annually, and managing this waste has been a persistent issue. As the only signatory country that has yet to ratify the Basel Convention—which limits the export of hazardous waste—the U.S. continues to export much of its electronic waste to developing nations, where toxic landfills contaminate local environments. Recycling these discarded electronics domestically would recover valuable minerals and prevent environmental harm.

Investing in e-waste recycling also creates jobs in the domestic recycling sector and supports the transition to a circular economy. Additionally, urban mining has a significantly lower environmental impact compared to traditional mining and garners greater public support. Overall, it benefits the national economy, enhances national security, and is better for the environment. 

Advancements in Recycling Technology

Studies have shown that urban mining of e-waste is becoming as cost-efficient as traditional mining. Previously, recycling critical minerals from e-waste was very costly due to the complexity of the extracting process. Electronic devices often contain only small amounts of valuable minerals, and their intricate assembly made recycling both challenging and costly. However, recent advancements in recycling technology have made this process more efficient and environmentally friendly. For instance, an innovative method uses bacteria and other microbes to separate rare earth materials without producing harmful byproducts. These advancements not only reduce the cost of urban mining, but also make it a more sustainable alternative to traditional mining. 

Existing Legislation

Despite advancements in recycling technology, low e-waste recycling rates often stem from inadequate collection systems. Governments have a crucial role to play in enhancing urban mining and recycling by incentivizing proper e-waste disposal, collection, and separation. While there is no federal mandate for e-waste recycling in the U.S., 25 states and the District of Columbia have implemented laws to promote e-waste recycling and disposal. However, despite the availability of drop-off locations in many states, public awareness about these options remains insufficient. 

The EU's Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) directive establishes clear collection and recycling targets for e-waste – member states are required to collect 85 percent of WEEE created. By placing the financial responsibility for e-waste collection and recycling on manufacturers, the directive incentivizes better product design and promotes sustainable practices. It also ensures that consumers can return their old electronics at no cost, which encourages higher recycling rates. The ambitious goals could serve as a model for other regions to emulate, though its effectiveness can only be assessed in the coming years.

Given that the U.S. and EU are already collaborating on CRM strategies through the Mineral Security Partnership, it would be advantageous for all member countries to place greater emphasis on recycling and repurposing materials. This approach can help mitigate the environmental impacts associated with the green transition. While urban mining alone will not eliminate the need for traditional mining, it could gradually reduce U.S. reliance on foreign sources for CRMs and contribute to a more sustainable and self-sufficient supply chain.