
Astrid Wynne, head of public sector and sustainability at Techbuyer, chaired the discussion at the Data Centre World expo, and was joined by Sarah Krisht, nature risk lead at NatureFinance, Oliver Cronk, head of sustainable technology at Scott Logic, and IEMA Fellow, Laila Takeh.
Completing the panel was Deborah Andrews, professor of design for sustainability and circularity at London South Bank University, who warned that life-cycle assessments for data centres often fail to consider the vast array of impacts on nature.
“Anything, until comparatively recently, to do with sustainability has been focused on operational energy efficiency, and that’s really missing a trick, because electronics have materials with lots of impacts,” she continued.
“If you are just looking at carbon, you are excluding a whole load of aspects that could adversely affect the natural world, such as the extraction of materials through mining, and production of toxic substances. The ratio of operational to embodied impacts is around 50:50 for data centres, so we really need to adopt a holistic approach to impact assessment if we are going to consider nature.”
This sentiment was echoed by Krisht, whose organisation’s study of 8,000 data centres worldwide found that 45% are located in areas where there is a high risk to the availability of water – which is crucial for cooling these centres – while over 50% are in areas where there is a risk of drought.
“On assessing nature, there is guidance out there, but none of it is specific to the AI sector and the nuances that exist,” she continued.
“Most of the regulations are in the EU, but they tend to focus on single topics such as energy or water – they are not holistic.
"We argue there is a need for a more holistic framework in terms of governance, something that makes data centre managers report and manage their risks.”
Takeh – who is conducting research for IEMA’s State of the Profession Survey – went on to explain how businesses are showing an increased interest in reporting nature risks following the launch of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD).
“Within financial institutions, they already have $17.7trn in assets covered by TNFD reporting,” she said. “While nature is being dwarfed by the attention on GHG emissions and carbon, we are seeing businesses starting to grapple with this issue because of their reporting expectations.”
However, concerns were raised around greenwashing by data centre companies, with Cronk arguing that sometimes, less is more.
“When you walk around this conference, there’s a huge amount of claims about sustainability, but unfortunately in a lot of cases, when you scratch the surface there’s not a lot of substance,” he said.
“Do we need to follow the US model of ‘big is better and let’s build loads of massive data centres’, or actually, should we look more at the devices we already have?
"I think the technology profession needs to take a step back and ask where it really adds value, and if there are other existing approaches that are more efficient and robust.”
The discussion turned to where data centres should actually be located, with companies like Google now building on the edge of the Arctic Circle to save energy on cooling.
Takeh spoke about the need to consider “co-benefits”, adding: “Heat recovery, job creation, social value, surplus energy generation, and biodiversity gains are all benefits that the physical asset could generate.”
Reflecting on the challenges with data centres and AI, the panel agreed that there are also huge sustainability opportunities on offer, but that we should not rely on the technology to solve all our problems.
“AI can be an enabler when it comes to actually assessing nature, so you can look at the state of nature using earth observation data, which is converted using machine learning and feeds into you nature assessment,” Krisht added. “Be cautious and use it when it makes sense.”