Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The Untold Costs of AI: The West Is Paying for the Future That Hasn’t Arrived

The Untold Costs of AI: The West Is Paying for the Future That Hasn’t Arrived

robot, technology, future, futuristic, business, tree, symbol

Getty Images//Stock Photo

Artificial intelligence (AI) has been heralded as a technological revolution that will transform our world. From curing diseases to automating dangerous jobs to discovering new inventions, the possibilities are tantalizing. We’re told that AI could bring unprecedented good—if only we continue to invest in its development and allow labs to seize precious, finite natural resources.

Yet, despite these grand promises, most Americans haven’t experienced any meaningful benefits from AI. It’s yet to meaningfully address most health issues, and for many, It’s not significantly improving our everyday lives, excluding drafting emails and making bad memes. In fact, AI usage is still largely confined to a narrow segment of the population: highly educated professionals in tech hubs and urban centers. An August 2024 survey by the Federal Reserve and Harvard Kennedy School found that while 39.4% of U.S. adults aged 18-64 reported using generative AI, adoption rates vary significantly. Workers with a bachelor's degree or higher are twice as likely to use AI at work compared to those without a college degree (40% vs. 20%), and usage is highest in computer/mathematical occupations (49.6%) and management roles (49.0%).


For the majority of Americans, especially those in personal services (12.5% adoption) and blue-collar occupations (22.1% adoption), AI remains an abstraction, something that exists in the future rather than their present.

While the rewards of AI are still speculative, the costs are becoming increasingly tangible. And the people paying those costs are not the ones benefiting from AI today. In fact, much of the burden of AI’s development is falling squarely on the shoulders of the American West—both its people and its land. According to recent research, data centers in the United States are consuming an increasing share of the country's total electricity. These facilities, which are crucial for AI deployment, used about 3% of all U.S. electricity in 2022. By 2030, their share is estimated to grow to 9% of total U.S. electricity consumption.

This surge in energy demand is particularly significant for the Western United States, with its concentration of tech hubs and data centers. Moreover, the carbon dioxide emissions from data centers may more than double between 2022 and 2030, further intensifying the environmental impact on these regions.

Here’s why: developing and deploying AI requires enormous amounts of energy. Advanced machine learning models demand computing power on a scale that most people can barely comprehend. Recent International Energy Agency projections highlight the magnitude of this demand: global electricity consumption from data centers, cryptocurrencies, and AI is expected to reach between 620-1050 trillion watt hours (TWh) by 2026. To put that in perspective, 1,000 TWh could provide electricity to about 94.3 million American homes for an entire year.

All that energy has to come from somewhere. Increasingly, it’s coming from the West —the part of the country that has long been tapped to fuel the nation’s ambitions, from oil and gas to solar, wind, and hydropower.

This energy extraction is putting immense pressure on the West’s already strained resources. Land is being consumed, water is being diverted, and communities are being disrupted, all to keep the lights on in tech labs far removed from the realities of life on the ground. The irony is that the very regions making AI possible are the least likely to benefit from it.

The rush to ramp up energy production for AI feels eerily familiar. We’ve seen these “get rich quick” schemes before—industries that swoop into rural areas, extract valuable resources, and leave environmental and social destruction in their wake. The West has been exploited before by out-of-state interests with big promises and shallow commitments, and AI risks becoming the latest chapter in that story.

We need to have an honest conversation about the true costs of AI development—particularly when it comes to energy consumption. AI labs may talk about curing diseases and inventing new technologies, but until those breakthroughs become reality, the rest of us—especially those in the West—are left footing the bill. And right now, that bill is being paid in the form of depleted resources and communities that are being squeezed for the sake of a future that remains distant and uncertain.

The truth is, we can’t continue to deplete our resources in the hope that AI’s promises will eventually materialize. We must demand accountability and transparency from those developing AI. Where is the energy coming from? Who is being impacted? And most importantly, who will benefit?

AI’s future may hold incredible potential, but we must make sure that we’re not sacrificing the West’s present for a future that may never arrive. If AI is going to reshape our world, it must do so in a way that lifts up all Americans, not just a select few. Until then, we need to be clear-eyed about the costs—and demand better.

Frazier is an adjunct professor of Delaware Law and an affiliated scholar of emerging technology and constitutional law at St. Thomas University College of Law.

Read More

Mary Kenion on Homelessness: Policy, Principles, and Solutions
man lying on brown cardboard box
Photo by Jon Tyson on Unsplash

Mary Kenion on Homelessness: Policy, Principles, and Solutions

I had the opportunity to speak with Mary Kenion, the Chief Equity Officer at the National Alliance to End Homelessness. The NAEH, in her words, is a non-profit organization with a “deceptively simple mission; to end homelessness in America.” We discussed the trends in policy that potentially could worsen the crisis, in relation to Medicaid, and the recent Executive Order regarding vagrancy and the mentally ill, and, finally, why this should matter as practical policy and how this reflects our national character and moral principles.

The NAEH cooperates with specialists to guide research efforts and serve in leadership roles; they also have a team of “lived experience advisors.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Princeton Gerrymandering Project Gives California Prop 50 an ‘F’
Independent Voter News

Princeton Gerrymandering Project Gives California Prop 50 an ‘F’

The special election for California Prop 50 wraps up November 4 and recent polling shows the odds strongly favor its passage. The measure suspends the state’s independent congressional map for a legislative gerrymander that Princeton grades as one of the worst in the nation.

The Princeton Gerrymandering Project developed a “Redistricting Report Card” that takes metrics of partisan and racial performance data in all 50 states and converts it into a grade for partisan fairness, competitiveness, and geographic features.

Keep ReadingShow less
A teacher passing out papers to students in a classroom.

California’s teacher shortage highlights inequities in teacher education. Supporting and retaining teachers of color starts with racially just TEPs.

Getty Images, Maskot

There’s a Shortage of Teachers of Color—Support Begins in Preservice Education

The LAist reported a shortage of teachers in Southern California, and especially a shortage of teachers of color. In California, almost 80% of public school students are students of color, while 64.4% of teachers are white. (Nationally, 80% of teachers are white, and over 50% of public school students are of color.) The article suggests that to support and retain teachers requires an investment in teacher candidates (TCs), mostly through full funding given that many teachers can’t afford such costly fast paced teacher education programs (TEPs), where they have no time to work for extra income. Ensuring affordability for these programs to recruit and sustain teachers, and especially teachers of color, is absolutely critical, but TEPs must consider additional supports, including culturally relevant curriculum, faculty of color they can trust and space for them to build community among themselves.

Hundreds of thousands of aspiring teachers enroll in TEPs, yet preservice teachers of color are a clear minority. A study revealed that 48 U.S. states and Washington, D.C have higher percentages of white TCs than they do white public-school students. Furthermore, in 35 of the programs that had enrollment of 400 or more, 90% of enrollees were white. Scholar Christine Sleeter declared an “overwhelming presence of whiteness” in teacher education and expert Cheryl Matias discussed how TEPs generate “emotionalities of whiteness,” meaning feelings such as guilt and defensiveness in white people, might result in people of color protecting white comfort instead of addressing the root issues and manifestations of racism.

Keep ReadingShow less
An illustration of a megaphone with a speech bubble.

As threats to democracy rise, Amherst College faculty show how collective action and courage within institutions can defend freedom and the rule of law.

Getty Images, Richard Drury

A Small College Faculty Takes Unprecedented Action to Stand Up for Democracy

In the Trump era, most of the attention on higher education has focused on presidents and what they will or won't do to protect their institutions from threats to academic freedom and institutional independence. Leadership matters, but it's time for the rank-and-file in the academy — and in business and other institutions — to fulfill their own obligations to protect democracy.

With a few exceptions, neither the rank and file nor their leaders in the academy have stood up for democracy and the rule of law in the world beyond their organizations. They have had little to say about the administration’s mounting lawlessness, corruption, and abuse of power.

Keep ReadingShow less