Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Wood-burning stoves to face partial ban in Labour’s updated environment plan

News Feed
Monday, December 1, 2025

Wood-burning stoves are likely to face tighter restrictions in England under new pollution targets set as part of an updated environmental plan released by ministers on Monday.Speaking to the Guardian before the publication of the updated environmental improvement plan (EIP), the environment secretary, Emma Reynolds, said it would boost nature recovery in a number of areas, replacing an EIP under the last government she said was “not credible”.Reynolds said efforts to restore nature would now take place on “a strategic level” rather than a previously piecemeal approach, arguing this meant the government’s push to build housing and infrastructure could still come with a net gain in habitats.One element of the new EIP will see the targets for concentrations of PM2.5 particulate pollutants tightened to match current EU targets, something that was not part of the previous plan, published in 2023 under the Conservatives.According to sources in Reynolds’ department, this will involve a consultation on possible measures to reduce PM2.5 pollution, including those from wood-burning stoves and fireplaces.This could involve pollution limits being tightened in smoke control areas, which already limit what fuels can be burned: for example, setting out that wood can be burned only in approved types of stoves or burners, not in fireplaces.It could mean an effective ban on older appliances and that, in some places, it will not be possible to use a wood-burning stove at all.The current annual PM2.5 limit is 25ug/m3 (micrograms per cubic metre), with an aim to meet 10ug/m3 by 2040. The EU’s standards are stricter, with a new directive passed last year asking member states to meet 10ug/m3 by 2030.The World Health Organization recommends an annual limit of 5ug/m3. It is understood the EIP will bring the UK’s standards in line with the EU, with an aim to eventually meet WHO targets.Exposure to PM2.5s, which bury deep into the lungs, is linked to numerous health conditions including asthma, lung disease, heart disease, cancer and strokes. Domestic combustion accounted for 20% of PM2.5 emissions in 2023 and has been found to produce more pollution than traffic.Elsewhere in the EIP, Reynolds will set out that £500m of existing departmental money is to be allocated to landscape recovery projects, larger-scale attempts to restore landscapes and ecosystems, often working with farmers and other landowners.This will include a specific target to restore or create 250,000 hectares (618,000 acres) of wildlife-rich habitats by 2030.The EIP is required under the Environment Act, with the intention that it should put into action a more general commitment to improve the environment within a generation.For the first time, as part of the new EIP, the government will publish detailed Environment Act target delivery plans, which set out how actions will contribute to its aims and help to measure progress.Such moves, Reynolds argued, should mitigate fears about nature depletion owing to housebuilding and other projects, after fears were raised the government’s planning and infrastructure bill could reduce protections and see green spaces lost.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotion“What we’re talking about is restoring nature, not house by house, but at a more strategic level. We can be both pro-development and pro-home-ownership and pro-nature,” she said.“The last EIP, under the previous Tory administration, wasn’t credible. I’m confident that our EIP is credible, because it’s got these delivery plans built in. You can’t just set the targets. You’ve got to explain how you’re going to achieve those targets. And that’s exactly what we’ve done.”The new EIP is also expected to include a commitment from the previous plan for every household to be within a 15-minute walk of green space or a waterway.Other measures to be announced on Monday include a new plan for “forever chemicals”, to reduce the amount of PFAS in the environment, and a crackdown on illegal waste dumping.Ruth Chambers, from the Green Alliance thinktank, said the new EIP was “an important milestone and an opportunity to harness the government’s collective clout to deliver better for nature”.She said: “It must now be converted swiftly into the sustained action needed to restore nature, clean up our rivers and air, create a circular economy and help people reconnect with the natural world.”

Exclusive: Pollution targets set out alongside nature recovery projects to allay concerns over housebuildingWood-burning stoves are likely to face tighter restrictions in England under new pollution targets set as part of an updated environmental plan released by ministers on Monday.Speaking to the Guardian before the publication of the updated environmental improvement plan (EIP), the environment secretary, Emma Reynolds, said it would boost nature recovery in a number of areas, replacing an EIP under the last government she said was “not credible”. Continue reading...

Wood-burning stoves are likely to face tighter restrictions in England under new pollution targets set as part of an updated environmental plan released by ministers on Monday.

Speaking to the Guardian before the publication of the updated environmental improvement plan (EIP), the environment secretary, Emma Reynolds, said it would boost nature recovery in a number of areas, replacing an EIP under the last government she said was “not credible”.

Reynolds said efforts to restore nature would now take place on “a strategic level” rather than a previously piecemeal approach, arguing this meant the government’s push to build housing and infrastructure could still come with a net gain in habitats.

One element of the new EIP will see the targets for concentrations of PM2.5 particulate pollutants tightened to match current EU targets, something that was not part of the previous plan, published in 2023 under the Conservatives.

According to sources in Reynolds’ department, this will involve a consultation on possible measures to reduce PM2.5 pollution, including those from wood-burning stoves and fireplaces.

This could involve pollution limits being tightened in smoke control areas, which already limit what fuels can be burned: for example, setting out that wood can be burned only in approved types of stoves or burners, not in fireplaces.

It could mean an effective ban on older appliances and that, in some places, it will not be possible to use a wood-burning stove at all.

The current annual PM2.5 limit is 25ug/m3 (micrograms per cubic metre), with an aim to meet 10ug/m3 by 2040. The EU’s standards are stricter, with a new directive passed last year asking member states to meet 10ug/m3 by 2030.

The World Health Organization recommends an annual limit of 5ug/m3. It is understood the EIP will bring the UK’s standards in line with the EU, with an aim to eventually meet WHO targets.

Exposure to PM2.5s, which bury deep into the lungs, is linked to numerous health conditions including asthma, lung disease, heart disease, cancer and strokes. Domestic combustion accounted for 20% of PM2.5 emissions in 2023 and has been found to produce more pollution than traffic.

Elsewhere in the EIP, Reynolds will set out that £500m of existing departmental money is to be allocated to landscape recovery projects, larger-scale attempts to restore landscapes and ecosystems, often working with farmers and other landowners.

This will include a specific target to restore or create 250,000 hectares (618,000 acres) of wildlife-rich habitats by 2030.

The EIP is required under the Environment Act, with the intention that it should put into action a more general commitment to improve the environment within a generation.

For the first time, as part of the new EIP, the government will publish detailed Environment Act target delivery plans, which set out how actions will contribute to its aims and help to measure progress.

Such moves, Reynolds argued, should mitigate fears about nature depletion owing to housebuilding and other projects, after fears were raised the government’s planning and infrastructure bill could reduce protections and see green spaces lost.

skip past newsletter promotion

after newsletter promotion

“What we’re talking about is restoring nature, not house by house, but at a more strategic level. We can be both pro-development and pro-home-ownership and pro-nature,” she said.

“The last EIP, under the previous Tory administration, wasn’t credible. I’m confident that our EIP is credible, because it’s got these delivery plans built in. You can’t just set the targets. You’ve got to explain how you’re going to achieve those targets. And that’s exactly what we’ve done.”

The new EIP is also expected to include a commitment from the previous plan for every household to be within a 15-minute walk of green space or a waterway.

Other measures to be announced on Monday include a new plan for “forever chemicals”, to reduce the amount of PFAS in the environment, and a crackdown on illegal waste dumping.

Ruth Chambers, from the Green Alliance thinktank, said the new EIP was “an important milestone and an opportunity to harness the government’s collective clout to deliver better for nature”.

She said: “It must now be converted swiftly into the sustained action needed to restore nature, clean up our rivers and air, create a circular economy and help people reconnect with the natural world.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Simpler regulations spearhead UK taskforce plan to get new nuclear reactors built

Panel’s final report outlines planning and environmental changes to get plants built faster and cheaperA government taskforce has finalised its plans to speed up and lower the cost of rolling out a new generation of nuclear reactors by streamlining UK regulation.The nuclear regulatory taskforce was set up by the prime minister, Keir Starmer, in February after the government promised to rip up “archaic rules” and slash regulations to “get Britain building”. Continue reading...

A government taskforce has finalised its plans to speed up and lower the cost of rolling out a new generation of nuclear reactors by streamlining UK regulation.The nuclear regulatory taskforce was set up by the prime minister, Keir Starmer, in February after the government promised to rip up “archaic rules” and slash regulations to “get Britain building”.It published its interim report in August, which led a coalition of 25 civil society groups to warn of the dangers of cutting nuclear safety regulations. It said the proposals lacked “credibility and rigour”.The taskforce was led by John Fingleton, the former head of the Office of Fair Trading. He said of the final report: “Our solutions are radical, but necessary. By simplifying regulation, we can maintain or enhance safety standards while finally delivering nuclear capacity safely, quickly, and affordably.”The recommendations include restructuring the nuclear industry’s regulatory bodies to create a single commission for nuclear regulation, and changing environmental and planning regimes “to enhance nature and deliver projects quicker”.Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, said the new rules would form a crucial part of delivering the changes needed to drive new nuclear “in a safe, affordable way”.The report was welcomed by Tom Greatrex, the chief executive of the Nuclear Industry Association. He said the report represented an “unprecedented opportunity to make nuclear regulation more coherent, transparent and efficient” that could make projects “faster and less expensive to deliver”.“Too often, costly and bureaucratic processes have stood in the way of our energy security, the fight against the climate crisis, and protecting the natural environment, to which nuclear is essential,” he added.Sam Richards, the chief executive of pro-nuclear campaign group Britain Remade, said it could mark “a watershed moment for cutting the cost of new nuclear in Britain”.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Business TodayGet set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morningPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotion“The findings of the taskforce lay bare the litany of regulations that make Britain the most expensive place in the world to build nuclear power stations,” Richards said.“At a time when Britain’s electricity bills are among the world’s highest, our regulatory system forced EDF to spend nearly £280,000 per fish protected. This is indefensible. These types of modifications have added years in construction and billions in costs; costs that ultimately get passed on to consumers in higher bills.”Fingleton added: “This is a once in a generation opportunity. The problems are systemic, rooted in unnecessary complexity, and a mindset that favours process over outcome.”

Labor pledges to pass long-awaited nature laws this week as Greens demand more concessions

The government has offered to make changes to the bill to both the Greens and the Liberals hoping to reach a deal on legislation that can pass the SenateGet our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcastYears of debate about environmental law reform have come down to a tense standoff in the final sitting week of federal parliament for the year, with Labor claiming it can do a deal that will pass the Senate by Thursday.The government is still pushing to pass its major changes, despite not yet having reached an agreement with either the Greens or the Coalition. Continue reading...

Years of debate about environmental law reform have come down to a tense standoff in the final sitting week of federal parliament for the year, with Labor claiming it can do a deal that will pass the Senate by Thursday.The government is still pushing to pass its major changes, despite not yet having reached an agreement with either the Greens or the Coalition.The Greens appear to be inching closer to a deal on updating the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, with the Coalition still refusing to back the changes. But the Minerals Council has joined other peak business groups in urging the Liberals and Nationals to back the changes, with environment minister, Murray Watt, pledging to make a deal with whoever will come to the table first.Sign up: AU Breaking News email“We will pass these reforms this week with whichever of the Coalition and the Greens is willing to work with us to deliver that balanced package,” Watt said on Sunday.Greens and Labor sources said they expected the two parties could come to an agreement later in the week, ahead of parliament rising on Thursday afternoon, but the Greens environment spokesperson, Sarah Hanson-Young, wanted more limits on fossil fuel developments before signing up.“We also want to make sure we’re not seeing coal and gas fossil fuel projects accelerated,” she told the ABC’s Insiders.“I think it’s crazy in 2025, you’re talking about a new set of environment laws and it doesn’t even consider the climate pollution that a coal or gas mine makes?”Despite the 1,500 pages of environmental law reform still being examined by a Senate committee, due to report in March 2026, the government says it wants to ram the bill through parliament by year’s end because it would improve approvals and build times for major parts of its agenda including housing construction, critical minerals sites and green energy projects.But the Greens and Coalition say they are not convinced of the bill’s urgency. Despite not ruling out a deal later in the week, Greens sources said they didn’t see the need for rushing, noting the ongoing Senate inquiry, and their concerns that the bill could help fast-track approval of coal and gas projects.Labor, in turn, is pressuring the Greens. Watt held a press conference on Sunday in the Brisbane electorate of Ryan, the last Greens-held seat in the country after the party lost three seats at the May election.“We saw at the last federal election that the Greens party paid a very big political price for being seen by the Australian people to be blocking progress on important things like housing and environmental law reform,” Watt said.“There’s a real opportunity for the Greens this week to demonstrate that they have heard the message from the Australian people, that they’re not going to keep blocking progress, that they’re not going to make the perfect the enemy of the good.”The Liberal party’s finance spokesperson, James Paterson, said on Sunday: “where it stands today, we certainly couldn’t support the proposed legislation.”He claimed the laws were “deficient” and that the opposition would stick to its earlier demands, daring the government to “do a deal with the Greens and they will wear the consequences of that.”skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Breaking News AustraliaGet the most important news as it breaksPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionWatt has offered concessions to both Greens and Coalition demands.To the Coalition, Watt has conceded amendments to tighten rules around the National Environmental Protection Agency’s powers, while for the Greens, Labor has offered limits on the “national interest” test being used to approve fossil fuel projects.On Sunday, Watt extended another olive branch to the Greens, offering to force native forestry projects to comply with national environmental standards within three years. But Hanson-Young wanted more for their support, saying a three-year phase-in was not fast enough.“It’s 2025 and it’s time we ended native forest logging,” she said.Corporate groups like the Business Council of Australia have urged the Coalition to back the EPBC changes. The Minerals Council CEO, Tania Constable, added her voice on Sunday, calling for a “sensible compromise by both sides”.“This will allow our industry to deliver investment, jobs and regional benefits faster,” she said.

Sicily deserves better than the looming prospect of a giant bridge that will never get built | Jamie Mackay

Troubled waters over the world’s longest suspension bridge are no surprise. The Italian government should be funding public servicesA dozen or so times each day, as Italy’s southbound Intercity rail service arrives in the Calabrian town of Villa San Giovanni, the journey comes to a dramatic halt. The train is decoupled from its tracks, carefully loaded on to the deck of a ferry, and secured in place. The entire cargo then eases out into the Strait of Messina en route to Sicily. Invariably, this 25-minute crossing becomes an impromptu community moment. Passengers abandon their carriages, flocking to the ship’s top-deck snack bar to share freshly fried arancini, trade anecdotes, and admire the vista over Mount Etna’s distant peak, before returning to continue their journey by rail.For tourists and itinerant visitors like myself, the ferry crossing is a charming novelty. For local people, however, it has long been a defining part of their identity. In his 1941 novel, Conversations in Sicily, the writer Elio Vittorini describes a group of fruit pickers congregating on the boat’s deck, feasting on large chunks of local cheese and enjoying the view. As the narrator joins them, he is transported to “being a boy; feeling the wind devouring the sea”, while gazing out at “the ruins along the two coasts”, separated, poetically, across the water.Jamie Mackay is a writer and translator based in Florence Continue reading...

A dozen or so times each day, as Italy’s southbound Intercity rail service arrives in the Calabrian town of Villa San Giovanni, the journey comes to a dramatic halt. The train is decoupled from its tracks, carefully loaded on to the deck of a ferry, and secured in place. The entire cargo then eases out into the Strait of Messina en route to Sicily. Invariably, this 25-minute crossing becomes an impromptu community moment. Passengers abandon their carriages, flocking to the ship’s top-deck snack bar to share freshly fried arancini, trade anecdotes, and admire the vista over Mount Etna’s distant peak, before returning to continue their journey by rail.For tourists and itinerant visitors like myself, the ferry crossing is a charming novelty. For local people, however, it has long been a defining part of their identity. In his 1941 novel, Conversations in Sicily, the writer Elio Vittorini describes a group of fruit pickers congregating on the boat’s deck, feasting on large chunks of local cheese and enjoying the view. As the narrator joins them, he is transported to “being a boy; feeling the wind devouring the sea”, while gazing out at “the ruins along the two coasts”, separated, poetically, across the water.Soon, though, this sentimental voyage may become a relic of the past. For the past few months, Italian officials have been in advanced talks to sign off on a new bridge connecting Sicily to the mainland. In August, the Italian government confirmed it will invest €13.5bn and commission the Webuild Group to begin construction. If it is ever built, it will be the longest single-span bridge in the world.The Sicilians I know are sceptical. After all, this is not the first time the Messina Bridge has been mooted, only to be shelved. While plans for the crossing date back to Roman times, the modern saga truly began in the late 1960s, when successive Italian governments championed the project as crucial for tackling regional inequalities. For the original architects, the bridge offered an obvious solution to the glaring infrastructure gap between the industrial north and the agricultural south. By closing that space, they reasoned, Sicily could finally attract the kind of international investment that other parts of Italy had long enjoyed.But the bridge has never materialised. Over the decades, hurdles such as seismic viability, environmental concerns, and the pervasive risk of mafia fraud have repeatedly halted the plans, making it seem impossible. Even a few months ago, when the government announced its “final” approval, my Sicilian friends told me they’d believe it when they saw it. They were right. Last month, Italy’s court of auditors blocked the project due to concerns about the legality of the financing, and at the time of writing, the project is frozen once again.In the meantime, an old public debate is re-emerging, which reveals a lot about Italian politics today. On one side are the pro-bridge advocates, who see the project as key to the future, pointing out that it would provide as many as 120,000 new local jobs per year and improve prospects for growth. On the other side are the protesters, from across the political spectrum, who dismiss pro-bridge advocates as nefarious opportunists concerned only with profit. For them, the bridge is synonymous with the shortsighted exploitation of the island.If you’ve ever been to Messina, you’ll know these vague ideological stances quickly rub up against reality. While the city’s life and culture are as exciting as anywhere on the island, Messina is unfortunately afflicted by some of the worst social problems in Italy. The local municipality is infamous for its financial mismanagement, characterised by mysterious losses of public funds and active criminal and civil court cases ongoing against various politicians, including two former mayors. Organised crime is prevalent, and cases of infrastructure-related fraud are already common among businesses, including those with interests in the Strait. Poverty is a huge problem. The health service is on its knees, and the school system is on the verge of collapse, suffering from some of the worst drop-out rates in the country.This reality makes the rhetoric of political proponents hard to swallow. Recently, Italy’s transport minister, Matteo Salvini, called the bridge “the most important public work in the world”, but he didn’t always feel this way. A decade ago, in fact, he was arguing the exact opposite. In a 2016 TV interview, which is now being widely reshared online in Italy, he judged the bridge unfeasible from an engineering standpoint and argued that regular closures due to the notoriously strong winds would render it useless. Given the state of public services in Sicily, he argued, spending billions on such a project would be a waste of money, and it would be better to dedicate such limited funds to bolstering local services.Ironically, the very arguments Salvini made in 2016 have only gained greater relevance as the effects of the climate crisis intensify. Over my years of taking the ferry, I’ve witnessed first-hand how the annual wildfires are getting worse. I’ve made small talk with local farmers on the ferry’s top-deck bar, watching flames lick the sky, illuminating the charred hillsides. I’ve heard accounts of the fatal spring and summer of 2024, when the province of Messina experienced its worst drought in decades. Crops failed, livestock died. Reservoirs ran empty and aqueducts began to fail. In some areas, tap water failed to arrive for days on end.Webuild presents the Messina Bridge as a historic opportunity. Residents, though, don’t seem to see it that way, and a recent survey indicates 70% are against the project. And you can see why: if you were living in a drought zone, would the prospect of having an estimated 15-20% of your local water supply diverted towards the project really seem like an opportunity? If you lived near the seafront, would you want years of noise, wildlife destruction and pollution, all for the eventual aim of a giant public work that is not guaranteed to benefit you? If you were one of the 4,000 people on either side of the Strait who would be forced to abandon their homes to demolition, would you be ready to pack your bags?skip past newsletter promotionSign up to This is EuropeThe most pressing stories and debates for Europeans – from identity to economics to the environmentPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionSalvini has promised to respond to the court’s concerns and claims the government can still get construction started by February 2026. I, for one, hope he backs down. At a moment when the climate crisis is creating new emergencies and worsening an already dire economic situation, the bridge is simply not a priority. Sicilians are desperately in need of political investment in public services, of leaders who can inspire collective action to ensure government funds are properly spent. Until then, Sicilians remain defiant and continue to enjoy one of the world’s most spectacular ferry crossings: preferring conviviality and arancini to a costly steel panacea.

Data centers meet resistance over environmental concerns as AI boom spreads in Latin America

An expert describes how communities in some of the world’s driest areas are demanding transparency as secretive governments court billions in foreign investmentThis Q&A originally appeared as part of The Guardian’s TechScape newsletter. Sign up for this weekly newsletter here.The data centers that power the artificial intelligence boom are beyond enormous. Their financials, their physical scale, and the amount of information contained within are so massive that the idea of stopping their construction can seem like opposing an avalanche in progress. Continue reading...

This Q&A originally appeared as part of The Guardian’s TechScape newsletter. Sign up for this weekly newsletter here.The data centers that power the artificial intelligence boom are beyond enormous. Their financials, their physical scale, and the amount of information contained within are so massive that the idea of stopping their construction can seem like opposing an avalanche in progress.Despite the scale and momentum of the explosion of data centers, resistance is mounting in the United States, in the United Kingdom, and in Latin America, where data centers have been built in some of the world’s driest areas. Local opposition in all three regions has often focused on the environmental impacts and resource consumption of the gargantuan structures.Paz Peña is a researcher and fellow with the Mozilla Foundation who studies the social and environmental impact of technology, particularly data centers and particularly in Latin America. She spoke to the Guardian at the Mozilla festival in Barcelona about how communities in Latin America are going to court to pry information away from governments and corporations that would much rather keep it secret.The Guardian: Could you describe your research?Paz Peña: Basically, my research is about the positions of governments on data centers and what the promises are behind them. What are the relationships that governments today in Latin America have with big tech? There’s a lot of lobbying activities around infrastructure and data centers from big tech to governments in Latin America.Chile and Brazil are the two top countries working on data centers today in Latin America, and Chile is one of the countries in Latin America that has a lot of resistance against data centers.What the governments are doing – I’m talking about leftwing governments … what they are looking for is foreign investment for data centers in their countries. The amounts are great. It’s a public policy to attract [data centers] with what they call national investment plans. They’re doing tax exemptions, for example, in Brazil, which is a huge controversy back there.In the case of Chile, what they’re doing is actually trying to deregulate the environmental assessments that data centers are going through.Carving out an exception for them?Peña: Exactly. There’s no specific category of environmental impact assessment for data centers in Latin America. In the case of Chile right now, they are assessed on the diesel that they use, because they use diesel generators for energy. It’s huge amounts of diesel.The government actually made an administrative change in the environmental system evaluation, where the threshold that data centers need to achieve on diesel to pass an environmental assessment changed. Magically, that means that data centers are not going through environmental impact assessments in Chile any more, which was the reason why communities understood what were the impacts of data centers. They don’t have that information right now.What we’re seeing is that governments are creating opportunities for investments but not creating rules and regulations for the environmental impacts of data centers, rules about diesel use, energy, and water.Without that information on data centers, do you see that the opposition to them is confused or hobbled because they don’t know what it is they’re opposing? Or does it incite more opposition because of the feeling of not being told what’s really going on?In the case of Chile, I would say that the local activism is quite angry with the leftwing government. The promises of this government was to be an environmental, sustainable exercise of power, right? President [Gabriel] Boric actually said this, that he would form an ecological government. Nobody really believes that. But they put that in the discourse. So you have to pay your words, right?People are really mad. I would say for two reasons. One is that they don’t have the transparency to understand what is going on in their neighborhoods. The second thing is they are super mad about it because the national data center plan, which is, again, a foreign investment plan, is presented for companies – but not necessarily for communities. When they actually publicly presented this plan, which was about two months ago, all the industry was present, but super few people from communities. Communities felt like they were being left out of the conversation.If there’s a data center planned for my neighborhood and I oppose it, what should I do?In a community, you will find people that understand what a data center is and some people will not have an idea of what it is. So when they have heard, they probably heard by two sources: a government’s evaluation system or the media. So once they have heard about this, the main problem they have is, again, transparency. Because corporate secrecy is still super present around the resources that these data centers need – energy, water, et cetera.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe problem that we have seen this in Latin America – there’s an incredible example in Uruguay about this – is that governments actually agree with this corporate secrecy. When a community asks for more information, the government is saying: it’s corporate secrecy. We cannot give you that information. So in general, what we are seeing is that communities are considering going to court to actually ask for that information. Because in Latin America, there is an inter-American agreement called the Escazu agreement, which is an environmental agreement about transparency, saying that a government cannot hide this incredibly important information for people.In the case of Uruguay, they went to court, because there was a Google data center being built in Uruguay in Montevideo, the capital. A couple of years ago, they’re going through an incredible drought where the people in Montevideo had to shower with buckets of water.Meanwhile, the government announced that this Google data center, where the amounts of water needed would be immense. So people were asking if this water, this very scarce resource, should be going to Google or to people. This is a fair question.They didn’t know exactly how much water Google would need. So they asked the government. The government said no. The environmental minister said: no, you cannot have that information because it’s corporate secrecy by Google. So they went to court, and they won, actually. The court quoted the Eskasu agreement.When a community takes a public stance saying we want more information about this and that, and social and environmental impacts, the impression is that they are opposing progress, technological progress, economic progress. Corporations, and I will say, sadly, governments – they see communities as a kind of roadblock.The first thing people need is information, and the first hurdle that they confront is the lack of information. So I would say that the first step they need to take is to find any source of information, and sometimes go to court. The majority of these actions are not successful, but they are sometimes the only way that corporations but also, sadly, governments give the information to the people.If you lose the fight, what should you do then if you’re a member of this community?For some communities in Chile that I interviewed, big tech companies weren’t actually the enemy, which is very interesting. Data center plans were seen as sort of an opportunity to raise the bar of environmental measures, because the people in those communities are surrounded by so many bad corporate actors who pollute a lot and don’t even care. It’s not necessarily a movement against big tech. Not yet, I would say. Maybe later.For now, these communities see a tech company planning a data center as not as a bad actor, actually as a strategic opportunity to raise the bar of environmental care and measures in their own neighborhoods. Big tech companies have this necessity of being the good player in the world, or at least being seen that way, so there is an opportunity for people to say, ‘Big tech has raised the bar of environmental care. So let’s try to put some sort of pressure to the other bad actors.’The enormous amounts of money and the physical scale of these things are so huge. They seem to operate on this inhumanly large level. How do people believe in their own opposition to these projects? They’re so massive that it kind of seems like you’re just saying no to an earthquake.In general, people who are working against data centers are people who have a background working on environmental issues. It’s people really used to the big fight. It’s people that really understand how difficult it is to deal with corporations and with governments.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.