5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Community meeting at the Tucson Convention Center on August 4, 2025, a public forum to discuss pros and cons of "Project Blue," a massive data center installation proposed by Amazon Web Services, one of the largest economic development projects ever considered by the city and county.
(Photo by: Wild Horizons/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)
Let's Try Some Actual Intelligence for MLK Day
How about saving the money, energy, and water that data centers would consume for human use—at least until we know how to control them and the AI they’d serve?
Jan 19, 2026
As 2026 begins to hit its stride and we pray nourish our hopes for it, it might be wise to look around. In his December 8 column in the New York Times, Thomas Friedman addresses the war in Ukraine and how to end it. In his opening, he argues that a Munich-style truce, such as the one President Donald Trump has proposed, would be a disaster. Like the Munich Pact, it wouldn’t last. All the concessions would be on Ukraine’s side, it would leave Russian President Vladimir Putin free to resume the war at his pleasure, and it would continue the Ukrainian people’s suffering.
Any lasting peace, Friedman insists, will require tough, rigorous, careful negotiating; flexibility and concessions on both sides; and firm guarantees of Ukraine’s sovereignty. It won’t be pretty, and it won’t be perfect, but, as he phrases it, a dirty deal would be better than a filthy one.
So far, so good. Then he pokes fun at Putin: Why is Russia wasting resources on a slog of a war when it could develop artificial intelligence instead, and get in on the greatest technological revolution ever before it falls too far behind countries that are already in? Buried in the joke is the sly hint that the US might do the same by pulling back on its own military adventures, even though Trump has given the techies the order to go full speed ahead. Damn the environmental torpedoes!
That’s where Friedman’s argument goes off its track. Artificial intelligence is hugely capital, water, and energy intensive. Once running, the data centers will fry the planet, not to mention the higher electric bills and blackouts their voracious appetite will cause. How about some taxpayer subsidies and fossil fuel fire to keep those data centers going, scarecrow?
How about putting an end to our president’s flamboyant criminality, which he flaunted as he bombed Venezuela’s capital and kidnapped its president, while he continues to finance genocide in Gaza?
As he often does, Friedman has proposed a technological and entrepreneurial solution to a moral and political problem. All that does is further entrench the advantages of a military-plutocratic elite and worsen the socioeconomic and environmental damage which results. What’s more, the events of January 3 have made his proposal irrelevant.
We’ve already blown our chance to keep global warming below 1.5°C above preindustrial levels. Now that it’s 2026, we’ve got four more years to cut fossil fuel use enough to keep the planet below 2°C. Right now, fossil fuel use is still rising and the warming is headed toward 2.6°C.
Rather than artificial intelligence, how about some actual intelligence instead? New START expires next month. While that’s too short a time to get a new arms control pact, how about beginning the negotiations to get there? Or are the business opportunities from a breakneck arms race too tempting for the powers that be on all sides to resist?
How about saving the money, energy, and water that data centers would consume for human use—at least until we know how to control them and the AI they’d serve?
How about putting an end to our president’s flamboyant criminality, which he flaunted as he bombed Venezuela’s capital and kidnapped its president, while he continues to finance genocide in Gaza?
How about breaking our long-standing habit of overthrowing foreign governments whose leaders disagree with our policies?
How about providing enough decent food, pay, housing, clean energy, and affordable healthcare for everyone? Yes, everyone.
How about doing all we can to salvage the environment upon which all our planet’s life depends?
And how about doing all we can to make America safe for democracy?
That would be a proper way to offer homage to Martin Luther King’s birthday, the anniversary of which we observe today.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
John Raby is a retired history teacher and conscientious objector who is currently co-chair of Peace Action Maine. From 2014 to 2021, when he lived in New Hampshire, he was active with New Hampshire Peace Action and wrote the clean energy policy for New London, New Hampshire. He centers his activism around war and peace, environmental, and social justice issues.
As 2026 begins to hit its stride and we pray nourish our hopes for it, it might be wise to look around. In his December 8 column in the New York Times, Thomas Friedman addresses the war in Ukraine and how to end it. In his opening, he argues that a Munich-style truce, such as the one President Donald Trump has proposed, would be a disaster. Like the Munich Pact, it wouldn’t last. All the concessions would be on Ukraine’s side, it would leave Russian President Vladimir Putin free to resume the war at his pleasure, and it would continue the Ukrainian people’s suffering.
Any lasting peace, Friedman insists, will require tough, rigorous, careful negotiating; flexibility and concessions on both sides; and firm guarantees of Ukraine’s sovereignty. It won’t be pretty, and it won’t be perfect, but, as he phrases it, a dirty deal would be better than a filthy one.
So far, so good. Then he pokes fun at Putin: Why is Russia wasting resources on a slog of a war when it could develop artificial intelligence instead, and get in on the greatest technological revolution ever before it falls too far behind countries that are already in? Buried in the joke is the sly hint that the US might do the same by pulling back on its own military adventures, even though Trump has given the techies the order to go full speed ahead. Damn the environmental torpedoes!
That’s where Friedman’s argument goes off its track. Artificial intelligence is hugely capital, water, and energy intensive. Once running, the data centers will fry the planet, not to mention the higher electric bills and blackouts their voracious appetite will cause. How about some taxpayer subsidies and fossil fuel fire to keep those data centers going, scarecrow?
How about putting an end to our president’s flamboyant criminality, which he flaunted as he bombed Venezuela’s capital and kidnapped its president, while he continues to finance genocide in Gaza?
As he often does, Friedman has proposed a technological and entrepreneurial solution to a moral and political problem. All that does is further entrench the advantages of a military-plutocratic elite and worsen the socioeconomic and environmental damage which results. What’s more, the events of January 3 have made his proposal irrelevant.
We’ve already blown our chance to keep global warming below 1.5°C above preindustrial levels. Now that it’s 2026, we’ve got four more years to cut fossil fuel use enough to keep the planet below 2°C. Right now, fossil fuel use is still rising and the warming is headed toward 2.6°C.
Rather than artificial intelligence, how about some actual intelligence instead? New START expires next month. While that’s too short a time to get a new arms control pact, how about beginning the negotiations to get there? Or are the business opportunities from a breakneck arms race too tempting for the powers that be on all sides to resist?
How about saving the money, energy, and water that data centers would consume for human use—at least until we know how to control them and the AI they’d serve?
How about putting an end to our president’s flamboyant criminality, which he flaunted as he bombed Venezuela’s capital and kidnapped its president, while he continues to finance genocide in Gaza?
How about breaking our long-standing habit of overthrowing foreign governments whose leaders disagree with our policies?
How about providing enough decent food, pay, housing, clean energy, and affordable healthcare for everyone? Yes, everyone.
How about doing all we can to salvage the environment upon which all our planet’s life depends?
And how about doing all we can to make America safe for democracy?
That would be a proper way to offer homage to Martin Luther King’s birthday, the anniversary of which we observe today.
John Raby is a retired history teacher and conscientious objector who is currently co-chair of Peace Action Maine. From 2014 to 2021, when he lived in New Hampshire, he was active with New Hampshire Peace Action and wrote the clean energy policy for New London, New Hampshire. He centers his activism around war and peace, environmental, and social justice issues.
As 2026 begins to hit its stride and we pray nourish our hopes for it, it might be wise to look around. In his December 8 column in the New York Times, Thomas Friedman addresses the war in Ukraine and how to end it. In his opening, he argues that a Munich-style truce, such as the one President Donald Trump has proposed, would be a disaster. Like the Munich Pact, it wouldn’t last. All the concessions would be on Ukraine’s side, it would leave Russian President Vladimir Putin free to resume the war at his pleasure, and it would continue the Ukrainian people’s suffering.
Any lasting peace, Friedman insists, will require tough, rigorous, careful negotiating; flexibility and concessions on both sides; and firm guarantees of Ukraine’s sovereignty. It won’t be pretty, and it won’t be perfect, but, as he phrases it, a dirty deal would be better than a filthy one.
So far, so good. Then he pokes fun at Putin: Why is Russia wasting resources on a slog of a war when it could develop artificial intelligence instead, and get in on the greatest technological revolution ever before it falls too far behind countries that are already in? Buried in the joke is the sly hint that the US might do the same by pulling back on its own military adventures, even though Trump has given the techies the order to go full speed ahead. Damn the environmental torpedoes!
That’s where Friedman’s argument goes off its track. Artificial intelligence is hugely capital, water, and energy intensive. Once running, the data centers will fry the planet, not to mention the higher electric bills and blackouts their voracious appetite will cause. How about some taxpayer subsidies and fossil fuel fire to keep those data centers going, scarecrow?
How about putting an end to our president’s flamboyant criminality, which he flaunted as he bombed Venezuela’s capital and kidnapped its president, while he continues to finance genocide in Gaza?
As he often does, Friedman has proposed a technological and entrepreneurial solution to a moral and political problem. All that does is further entrench the advantages of a military-plutocratic elite and worsen the socioeconomic and environmental damage which results. What’s more, the events of January 3 have made his proposal irrelevant.
We’ve already blown our chance to keep global warming below 1.5°C above preindustrial levels. Now that it’s 2026, we’ve got four more years to cut fossil fuel use enough to keep the planet below 2°C. Right now, fossil fuel use is still rising and the warming is headed toward 2.6°C.
Rather than artificial intelligence, how about some actual intelligence instead? New START expires next month. While that’s too short a time to get a new arms control pact, how about beginning the negotiations to get there? Or are the business opportunities from a breakneck arms race too tempting for the powers that be on all sides to resist?
How about saving the money, energy, and water that data centers would consume for human use—at least until we know how to control them and the AI they’d serve?
How about putting an end to our president’s flamboyant criminality, which he flaunted as he bombed Venezuela’s capital and kidnapped its president, while he continues to finance genocide in Gaza?
How about breaking our long-standing habit of overthrowing foreign governments whose leaders disagree with our policies?
How about providing enough decent food, pay, housing, clean energy, and affordable healthcare for everyone? Yes, everyone.
How about doing all we can to salvage the environment upon which all our planet’s life depends?
And how about doing all we can to make America safe for democracy?
That would be a proper way to offer homage to Martin Luther King’s birthday, the anniversary of which we observe today.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.