Quote from: Zlantann on Today at 07:52:44 AM

Quote from: slapper on July 21, 2025, 08:02:11 PM

I read all the hype about clean tech and AI for good, but when you dig a little deeper, it is just as you described: most data centers are still run on coal and gas, and they consume massive quantities of water. It is a dirty secret. The tech giants talk about renewables, but their growth is so fast that clean energy just can’t keep up. The difference between what they promise and what is the reality is growing

You are also right that, if we would started the transition 20+ years ago, maybe we would be living in a different world now. We are stuck cleaning up a mess we did not make, and no matter how much tech we throw at it, the system is running out of time. On the second problem, you can see that the pattern is old: big companies take, pay little, move profits overseas, and leave the local people with scraps. It is easy for outsiders to say "just don't sell", but when you are facing poverty or a corrupt government, that is not much of a choice

This discussion reminds me of an article in BBC about how the rise of green tech is feeding another environmental crisis. Lithium mining companies' activities are causing the death of microorganisms, plants, and others, thereby affecting the food chain of living things in the area. Water levels are dropping in many locations because mining companies are using excessive water from a planet that is fighting climate change.

The inhabitants of these areas benefit little or nothing from these explorations, while the owners of these multinational companies and top government officials reap the benefits. Meanwhile, these locals bear the consequences of these mining processes, which are slowly destroying their means of survival.

I have heard those tales as well: rivers running dry, scenery destroyed, the locals displaced as the "green" technology is awarded a new badge in the headlines. It is a shot in the stomach . and we cannot shut our eyes on it. It is frustrating how the story repeats: a company promises "progress" and "sustainability , but the people actually living near the mine pay the highest price. They end up with a couple of temporary jobs or handouts and someone in a far-off office tallies the actual profits

What really hits home for me is the double standard. We say we want a clean future, but we are willing to "outsource" the mess to places we do not see on TV, like deserts in Chile or villages in Africa. And when the water has gone, or the food chain has broken, it is not the CEOs or shareholders who suffer

The big question is, I suppose, how do we ensure that the communities, who are on the front line, get more than the leftovers? I do not mean money, but real control over what goes on their land and water. Perhaps data and technology might even be useful in this case, such as allowing locals to monitor what is going on, report abuses, or even insist on a fair share in some form of a resource contract on the blockchain. However, only when they are really in control, not merely observed

You are right to point this out. If we keep repeating the same mistakes, “green” tech is just another color for the same old story. So, what do you think would be a fair way to balance what the world needs and what these communities deserve?