Irish Examiner view: Data centres' energy use points to a core contradiction of modern life

We may have to make a choice between growth and carbon emissions 

The amount of energy used by Irish data centres leapt by over 30% last year and now equals the energy use of all urban homes in Ireland. Stock picture

Some of the core contradictions of modern society were neatly encapsulated yesterday, when a few 21st-century issues cut across each other in the public consciousness.

First, we learned from the Central Statistics Office that 18% of metered electricity last year was used by data centres. This is the same percentage as urban homes. This means that data centre electricity usage jumped by over 30% last year compared to the previous year.

This is not encouraging in and of itself, as data centres are regarded with deep suspicion because of their environmental impact. Four years ago it was alleged they had the the same carbon footprint as the aviation industry, while they also consume vast amounts of water and are linked to pollution in the form of electronic waste.

At the same time, we learned that Eirgrid was warning of potential energy supply issues for the Irish network, with one of the contributing factors the low availability of renewable energy.

Here we have a clear tension — data centres continue to use a huge amount of the power being supplied within the country, but simultaneously it is clear that making the same power supply as environmentally friendly as possible is a challenge all its own.

To complicate matters further, Tánaiste Micheál Martin also expressed strong views on data centres yesterday — that Ireland is a technology-centred economy, one which needs more data centres.

Here the contradictions come together in the form of a stark question raised by Paul Deane of UCC when he asked whether we are prioritising emissions reduction or economic growth.

This is a classic case of intangible, medium-term benefit versus obvious and immediate dividend: Reducing emissions is a slow and incremental process which may have no visible effect in the short term, while jobs and employment carry an immediate and positive charge.

Yet, at the same time, this is surely not a question at all. Put plainly, what possible use is any form of economic growth if those emissions are not reduced?