Why are you paying to build pornographic storage data centers powered by dirty fracked gas?

Language is the key to winning the political debate. Unfortunately, as climate activists build fact sheets on data centers, we have failed to learn the lessons of language and framing from conservatives. Do you know these three communication tactics? They will help us win… when we use them. Here’s how.

Let’s start with a classic frame example from the right, “voter fraud.” Conservatives, often in the minority and looking to change who could vote, began by changing the language of the public debate from the “right-to-vote” or “one man, one vote” to fraud. Voter fraud is a frame. It is based on the neural connections and associations of the word “fraud.” Fraud is bad. Never mind that there is very little evidence of any actual fraud taking place. They appealed to our sense of violation of two values; security and fairness. Next, they asked the question, “Why are we allowing voter fraud?” This question set the terms for the public debate centering it around fraud, rather than fairness or ability for all citizens to vote.

The question they asked established the public debate, then language provided the framing and reinforced the neural connections between voting and fraud. Finally, they just repeated the frame over and over until it stuck, regardless of the truth. Ironically, well-meaning progressives and liberals picked up the gauntlet and argued that there was no voter fraud. We did this over and over, each time helping entrench the concept that there must be something called voter fraud. We failed to realize that we feed what we fight. We did it again when we tried to fight “rigged” elections.

It’s time we, as climate activists, stopped reacting and started setting the public debate that we want. This is a process that requires goals, assessments, campaign strategies, and tactics. These should be addressed first. But the rapid growth of data centers is one issue where the public debate is immature and hasn’t evolved. There are dozens of “reasons” data centers are likely to damage our clean energy transition, not the least of which is the huge amounts of dirty energy required to run them. But the reasons and facts won’t help us win the public debate.

First we need to ask what our public campaign positions should be with respect to data centers?

  • Don’t build them. We don’t need more “data centers.” They are energy black holes.
  • The public shouldn’t have to pay for data centers. If rich crypto and AI companies want to build more data centers, they should pay for the added energy infrastructure, burden, and pollution. (Pollution from them should be zero.)
  • Any data centers built must use clean energy above and beyond what would normally be built in that state. (Data center energy must be local.)
  • Your Public Service Commission and legislature are about to shirk their regulatory duty, allow more unregulated data centers to be built, and raise our rates unless we stop them

If we want to achieve these goals,  we need to set the subject of the public debate. Our job is not to argue, but to set and frame the debate. It is simply about creating moral feelings of right and wrong. We begin by asking three questions. For example:

  1. Why do consumers have to pay higher power bills for data centers that don’t serve them? (Value violation activated – fairness)
  2. Why are data centers polluting our air by using dirty fracked-gas to power them? (Value violation activated- fairness and empathy for others)
  3. Why are we giving tax cuts and incentives to build pornographic data centers in our state? (Value violation activated – fairness and decency)

By asking these questions, we force the data center and utility industries, as well as regulatory agencies and legislators, to respond to us. The debate becomes about who pays, pollution, and who benefits. Next, let’s frame the debate with language that reinforces the existing neural connections we want in our brains with respect to our position.

A framing tactic would be to change the feelings we might have about data centers from neutral and slightly positive to negative and morally wrong, through language we use. This can be done in several ways. First by associating negative adjectives that activate neural circuits we already possess, and second by changing the term data center itself.

Adding a negative adjective to modify data centers might sound like this: dirty data centers, fracked-gas or methane sucking data centers, or burning data centers (alternatively, cancerous data centers). The word dirty activates uncleanliness and helps frame data centers as polluters. Likewise, fracked-gas and methane have negative connotations. The word burning or cancerous activate frames of uncontrolled growth and death. If we are burned, it hurts like hell. We know and feel the pain of burning. Burning causes suffocating smoke. Burning destroys. Our homes burn down, our forests are on fire, our world is burning. Cancer connects uncontrolled growth and counters protest that data centers provide good growth or more jobs. These words can pepper our communications. For example, “Don’t let Georgia get burned by dirty data centers,” or “Don’t let the PSC burn our families’ hard earned money by making you pay for dirty data centers.” “Don’t let cancerous data centers destroy our children’s future.”

There is no reason why must we use the term data center? We can change it. The word data is neutral, but could be changed to “crypto-mining center.” Crypto has little public meaning but sounds like creepy or klepto (maniac). Or even perhaps pornography storage centers. (i.e. estimates are up to 30% of internet traffic is pornography. Ick.) As outrageous as this framing seems, the response by the data center industry must be to deny that they are storing pornography. Can they prove that there is zero pornography in their data centers? This is like climate activists trying to prove climate change is real in response to the “prove it” demand by climate deniers and deceivers.

These are examples and all examples should be tested for effectiveness. Some might feel like this type of language is too severe, or that facts and reasons should prevail. We are not attacking people, we are attacking bad policy and bad ideas. Facts and reasons are important, but they don’t work in a system that is out of balance in terms of money and power. We don’t have the luxury of simply vomiting facts and arguing for the next 30 years… because our world is burning!

Feelings are created through the use of language. You get the idea. How do you feel about paying for dirty data cinders (not a typo)?

Give me a call if you’d like help developing your campaigns. Thanks for all you do.

We are all connected. Savor the Earth!’™

– Hobie,
L. Hobart Stocking
651-357-0110
SkyWaterEarth.com
hobart@skywaterearth.com