Troubled Future: Data Centers, Crypto, and EPA Downsizing

The environmental costs of digital infrastructure and financial speculation are rising rapidly, while federal oversight remains inconsistent and under-resourced. Data centers and cryptocurrency mining now consume vast amounts of electricity and water across the United States, yet much of this resource use is poorly tracked or omitted from public emissions reporting. At the same time, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has seen significant staffing losses, rule reversals, and new threats to its institutional survival.

These trends are not isolated. Together, they reflect a shift toward energy-intensive technologies, deregulation of high-polluting industries, and a weakened capacity to respond to environmental harm. The long-term consequences will be difficult to reverse.

The Energy and Water Demands of Data Centers

Data centers are expanding to meet demand for cloud computing, artificial intelligence, and digital storage. These facilities rely heavily on continuous electricity and water for cooling. Some consume millions of gallons of water per day, and projections show their electricity use may double in the next few years. Many are located in areas already under water stress.

The environmental impact of data centers goes beyond their daily operations. Construction materials, server manufacturing, and on-site diesel backup generators all contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. Yet these emissions are often excluded from formal greenhouse gas inventories, especially when they occur outside the facility’s geographic or corporate boundaries.

Crypto Mining as an Unregulated Energy Sector

Cryptocurrency mining, especially Bitcoin, requires massive computing power. These operations have migrated to U.S. states with low energy prices and minimal regulatory oversight. Bitcoin mining alone now consumes more electricity annually than many countries.

The emissions from crypto mining are significant, but they are not consistently tracked. Facilities often operate below emissions reporting thresholds or through decentralized networks that fall outside EPA scrutiny. In many cases, power is sourced from fossil fuels, and companies are not required to disclose their energy mix or carbon footprint.

Residents living near crypto facilities have reported noise, pollution, and local grid strain. Yet enforcement is limited or nonexistent in most jurisdictions.

The Shrinking Capacity of the EPA

The Environmental Protection Agency has lost hundreds of experienced staff since 2017, including scientists and enforcement personnel. Budget cuts, political pressure, and legal constraints have made it difficult for the agency to maintain oversight of fast-growing industries like digital infrastructure and blockchain technology.

Many environmental rules were rolled back between 2017 and 2020, increasing overall emissions and reducing safeguards for air and water. Although some regulations have been restored, the agency remains under political threat. Proposals to reorganize or dismantle the EPA altogether have resurfaced, potentially removing the last federal layer of accountability in many regions.

Greenhouse gas reporting systems still rely heavily on corporate self-reporting. Emerging sectors such as AI, crypto, and hyperscale data storage are not fully integrated into federal carbon inventories, and indirect emissions—such as those from supply chains and off-site electricity generation—are often omitted entirely.

A Delayed and Unequal Cost

The consequences of these developments will accumulate slowly but with increasing severity. Emissions released today will remain in the atmosphere for decades. Water used to cool servers will not be available to communities experiencing drought or contamination.

Those who profit from these trends—tech corporations, crypto investors, and political donors—will not be the ones facing the costs. The burden will fall on future generations, frontline communities, and the global South.

Institutions of higher education, many of which depend on cloud platforms, server farms, and AI applications, are deeply connected to this digital growth. They also have an opportunity—and arguably a responsibility—to examine the long-term impacts of these systems and hold corporate partners accountable.

Technological advancement has material consequences. The energy and water behind our digital lives are not virtual, and the lack of environmental regulation only increases the harm. Without accurate measurement and stronger enforcement, damage will continue without acknowledgement—and without remedy.

Sources
International Energy Agency, Electricity 2024
U.S. Department of Energy, Quadrennial Technology Review, 2023
Ma, J. et al., “The Water Footprint of Data Centers,” Nature Communications, 2023
Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index, 2023
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Crypto-Assets Report, 2022
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 2024
Government Accountability Office, EPA Workforce Report, 2021
Brookings Institution, Deregulation Tracker, 2020
Greenpeace USA, Poisoned by Pollution: Crypto Mining’s Environmental Toll, 2022
ProPublica, The Real Cost of the Cloud, 2023

When Technology Can’t Outrun Environmental Collapse: The High Cost of Crypto and Other Energy-Hungry Innovations

There is a persistent narrative that technology will save humanity from the mounting environmental crises—climate change, resource depletion, and pollution—that threaten the planet. From clean energy breakthroughs to smart agriculture, the promise is that innovation will outpace destruction. But this optimism overlooks a harsh reality: many of today’s most advanced technologies, especially those that consume vast amounts of energy like cryptocurrencies, exacerbate environmental harm instead of reducing it. The earth’s ecological limits are too strict and immediate for technology alone to fix.

A key factor missing from many discussions is the concept of externalities—costs or damages that are not reflected in the market price of goods or services. Both economic and environmental externalities mean that the true price of technologies is often hidden from consumers, producers, and policymakers alike. When a technology harms the environment but doesn’t pay for that damage, the costs are effectively “externalized” to society and future generations.

Cryptocurrency Mining: An Externality Nightmare

Take cryptocurrency mining, especially Bitcoin, as a striking example. Bitcoin’s “proof of work” system demands enormous computing power, consuming electricity on the scale of entire countries such as Argentina or the Netherlands. However, the market price of Bitcoin does not include the environmental cost of that energy use—carbon emissions, air pollution, and water resource depletion are externalities borne by the planet, not the miners or investors.

Many crypto mining operations cluster in regions with cheap, carbon-intensive electricity. The associated greenhouse gas emissions accelerate climate change, but these environmental costs remain unaccounted for in economic transactions. Similarly, the rapid turnover of specialized mining hardware produces vast amounts of electronic waste that is seldom recycled properly, leaking toxins into ecosystems. These negative externalities are seldom reflected in the price of cryptocurrencies or factored into regulatory frameworks.

Other Technologies and Their Hidden Costs

It’s not only crypto. Artificial intelligence training requires massive computational resources that consume significant electricity, often generated by fossil fuels. Streaming services, cloud data centers, and the explosion of connected devices—collectively the “Internet of Things”—demand continuous power, driving emissions that are not typically included in consumer bills or corporate balance sheets.

The production of smartphones, laptops, and other electronics relies on mining scarce and environmentally damaging materials like lithium, cobalt, and rare earth elements. The social and ecological externalities here include habitat destruction, water pollution, and labor exploitation in vulnerable communities.

Even as companies promote efficiency gains, the rebound effect—where increased efficiency lowers costs and leads to increased consumption—means that total resource use continues to grow, magnifying external environmental harm.

Why Externalities Matter

Externalities are a core reason why technological innovation alone cannot save the environment. Without mechanisms to internalize these costs—through regulations, taxes, or market reforms—businesses and consumers have little incentive to change behavior. Technologies that appear profitable on paper may, in reality, impose devastating costs on ecosystems, human health, and climate stability.

Economic externalities can also distort investment priorities, leading to overinvestment in high-energy, resource-intensive technologies while underfunding sustainable alternatives that carry less hidden damage.

Toward a Holistic Solution

Addressing environmental destruction demands recognizing and correcting these externalities. Policies that tax carbon emissions, regulate electronic waste, and require transparency in supply chains can help internalize the true costs of technologies. Public awareness and ethical consumer choices also play a role in pressuring companies and governments.

Higher education institutions must contribute by researching externalities associated with emerging technologies and educating future leaders about sustainability challenges. Only by confronting the real costs behind innovation can society make wiser choices.

The Tech Future 

Technology is neither a guaranteed savior nor an inherent villain. It reflects the values and systems that shape its creation and deployment. Without reckoning with economic and environmental externalities, technological advances risk deepening rather than alleviating ecological crises. A sustainable future requires systemic change that prioritizes ecological limits and social justice—not just faster chips and smarter algorithms.

---

Sources:

• University of Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index (2025)

• Strubell, Emma, et al. “Energy and Policy Considerations for Deep Learning in NLP.” ACL 2019

• Carlson, Shawn. “Bitcoin’s Energy Consumption Is a Problem—But It’s Not the Whole Problem.” Scientific American, 2022

• International Energy Agency (IEA). “Data Centres and Data Transmission Networks,” 2023

• Ghisellini, Patrizia, et al. “Environmental Sustainability of Rare Earth Elements: A Review.” Journal of Cleaner Production, 2024

• The Shift Project. “Lean ICT: Towards Digital Sobriety,” 2019

• Pigou, Arthur C. The Economics of Welfare (1920) — foundational theory on externalities

'Soon We're Going Into Education': Trump Previews Elon Musk's Next DOGE Targets (Forbes Breaking News)

The Higher Education Inquirer continues to document the DOGE takeover of the US Department of Education. 

While some Democratic officials in Congress have protested this action by DOGE, there has been little resistance otherwise. 

DOGE consists of Elon Musk and several young men who have been tasked to reduce the federal budget by at least $1 Trillion. The US Senate has oversight of the Department of Education through the HELP (Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions) Committee, but Republicans, who are led by President Trump, control the Senate, and appear to be supporting these aggressive measures. 

While Mr. Musk has claimed that the Department of Education no longer exists, its website is still operating. 

DOGE also promotes the buying and selling of cryptocurrency.  

The Business Plots, Then and Now

In 1933, a group of American businessman planned a coup to take down the new President, Franklin Roosevelt. In this scheme, General Smedley Butler would be tasked with orchestrating the overthrow. This attempted coup was called the Business Plot.  

College students today may ask, so what's so important about this moment in history?  The point is that we have entered an era again where big business has a dominating influence over American politics. In the case of the 1933 moment, the coup was reactive. American business had failed, a Great Depression was in progress, and businessmen were fighting to maintain control, a control that they were used to having under Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover. The man tasked to lead the plot, General Butler, squashed it before it happened. And the story largely faded away. 

Eight years later, in 1941, the US would be fighting a world war against global fascism and imperialism.  In the aftermath of the war, a stronger nation would arise. Today, we are also a nation facing intense competition and conflict, this time against China, Russia, India and other nations, with global climate change being a factor that wasn't apparent back then. 

In 2024, US business people, some of the richest people in the world, did something similar, but more proactive and less controversial. Today, folks, in general are OK with American businessmen pulling the strings. The most wealthy man have succeeded where big banks and big business failed before. And they have elected a friend. Today, cryptocurrency is booming. The stock market is booming for now. Unemployment is at record lows--for now. Big business has managed to gain greater control of the US government with little or no uproar. 

 

Tech Investor Cathie Wood Bets Big on Crypto

Cathie Wood, once the largest shareholder in 2U with ARK Invest, is also a major crypto investor. Wood believes that Bitcoin could top $1M by 2030. With US government guardrails weakened in the coming months, it should be interesting to watch the crypto boom and what happens after that, not just in the economy, but in society. Schools like the Kellogg Institute at Notre Dame have written positively about the use of crypto, discussing the downsides as an afterthought. The Wharton school has been accepting crypto since 2021. 

The Roaring 2020s and America's Move to the Right

In December 2024, the Roaring 2020s are already here. The stock market is near an all-time high and Bitcoin has gained enormous value, waiting for Donald J. Trump to become President again, to make America Great Again. 

In 2025 US citizens should expect markets to continue growing, and the costly war in the Ukraine to be settled. Deregulation, interest rate cuts, and tax cuts, which provide economic stimulus, will be at the heart of the new Trump Administration, good enough to pump up the economy for years. Threats to raise tariffs on China and other nations (which are costly to consumers) may only be threats.  

Mr. Trump promises a new Golden Age. And many of those who are clever enough and ambitious enough should expect to get rich. But those who do not agree with President Trump may face increased scrutiny, harkening back to a century ago.  

Let's see how long this new era lasts, how it is remembered by different people, and how it is retold in history books.