Lombardy increases charges for the construction of data centres in green areas • Hacker News Board

Re: Lombardy increases charges for the construction of data centres in green areas

#181

Post by ianm218 » Wed, May 27, 2026, 4:45 PM UTC

notrealyme123 wrote: post #106

ianm218 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Italian farmers pay effectively 0% taxes on land and the areas are quite poor. Data centers on the other hand pay lots of taxes. Why would they ban productive uses of land?

That's very black and white. They don't pay "lots" of taxes. They pay taxes for the two engineers and 8 janitors working there.

I can't say I'm overly familiar with Italy's tax regime (besides googling and confirming they effectively don't tax agricultural land) but the large Meta data center is paying >$22 million in taxes to a county with ~2,000 people[1]. In Northern Virginia they re collecting over a billion dollars a year in taxes from data centers [2]. Allegedly that reduces household tax burden by ~$6k per year.

I have no relation to the data center industry at all, it is just weird to see the discourse around it be so divorced from reality. There is a commenter below me saying that land ownership is illegitimate in the first place in order to justify banning data centers.

Is your understanding that the only tax burden on data centers is via income to local employees?

[1]. https://www.shreveportbossieradvocate.com/business/meta-data... [2]. https://progresschamber.org/insights/data-centers-cut-proper...

Re: Lombardy increases charges for the construction of data centres in green areas

#182

Post by amluto » Wed, May 27, 2026, 4:51 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #160

amluto wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sure there is real data and real math available. For heating: imagine a 1km^2 campus. That’s 1e6 m^2, and peak daylight is around 1kW/m^2. So peak daylight on the campus is about 1GW. (Wow, just covering the whole campus with solar panels would be pretty awesome!) If you put a 1GW datacenter there, that is equivalent to full daylight, with zero albedo, 24/7. Hmm, I’d rather live at a considerable distance from ju…

> If you put a 1GW datacenter there, that is equivalent to full daylight, with zero albedo, 24/7. Hmm, I’d rather live at a considerable distance from just the dissipated heat. Doesn't this comparison fall apart when you consider that the heat is going to be dissipated across a large area? The reason why stuff gets so hot during the day is that the surrounding areas also get heated, so there's nowhere for the heat to…

Yes, absolutely, but it will depend on where one is, the surrounding geography, etc.

A hairdryer pointed at me from 1m away running 24/7 will make me notably warmer. A hairdryer 20m away is probably unnoticeable. A 1GW datacenter is a lot of hairdryers. At some scale, there is probably a buoyancy effect such that cooler air will be drawn in near the surface, get heated, and convect upwards, so I could even believe that a monster datacenter would cool some surrounding areas. (The sun inland from the west coast in the US has this effect during certain seasons, and AIUI this is a good part of the reason that the areas very near the coast tend to be dramatically cooler than inland areas in the spring and early summer.)

Re: Lombardy increases charges for the construction of data centres in green areas

#183

Post by myrmidon » Wed, May 27, 2026, 4:52 PM UTC

pfdietz wrote: post #148

toasty228 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. The EU spends enormous sums subsidising farmers. As if it was a charity lmao, this is a top priority, before defense even, food security will become more and more of a problem, that and water

It shows free trade was a hypocritical charade even before Trump. Europe spent years inventing reasons why US grain and soybeans had to be excluded. GMO witch hunting, for example.

I think there is really good reason to throw tax money at agriculture just to keep it local. Depending on foreigners for food is bound to get you into iffy situations, and every industrialized nation acts similarly here (as many subsidies as necessary to preserve independence).

I don't think its fair to characterize GMO witchhunting as shrewd nationalistic maneuvring to circumvent free trade; my view is that this was driven mainly by genuinely convicted (idealistic instead of pragmatic) environmentalist/anti-corporate activists (similar and overlapping with anti-nuclear sentiment).

Re: Lombardy increases charges for the construction of data centres in green areas

#184

Post by amluto » Wed, May 27, 2026, 4:52 PM UTC

sieve wrote: post #136

amluto wrote: post #60

To me, datacenters, especially for AI (which tolerates an extra hundred ms of latency quite well) seem like an unusual form of development. Many forms of development have similar downsides: they destroy green space, they can be noisy, they compete for energy resources [0], etc. On the flip side, though, most new developments add substantial value: jobs, tax revenue, increased industry around them, local availability…

> Datacenters are weird In the same way that most public utilities are: train stations, railway lines, airports, garbage dumps, sewage treatment plants, military bases and a hundred other things. The negatives are concentrated to the locality and everyone else reaps the benefits. I get it if you wish to put a 99% self-sufficiency condition (water/power etc) but everything else reeks of luddism and nimbyism.

I think you're missing my point.

A sewage treatment plant may or may not be stinky, but I very much want to live in range of one so that my sewage gets treated. Similarly, living near a railway line means I can ride the train. Living near a landfill means that my trash can be managed at reasonable expense. Living near a military base adds huge potential economic value and nominally keeps me safe. Living near a giant AI inference or training facility? Meh -- I could use its services just as easily if it were 1000 miles away.

Re: Lombardy increases charges for the construction of data centres in green areas

#185

Post by manuelmoreale » Wed, May 27, 2026, 4:54 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #168

notarobot123 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that most utilities like transport infrastructure and sewage treatment benefit local residents and the broader society directly. Datacenters are not utilities in the same way and have a much narrower social impact.

>Datacenters are not utilities in the same way and have a much narrower social impact. chatgpt has 900M weekly active users, so a significant fraction of the world population. Given that the user base probably skews towards rich countries, its proportion among the local population is probably even higher. On the other hand what do you think is the proportion of people who take trains, especially in the US? What about…

A significant % of the population in rich countries, probably close to > 100%, benefits from transport infrastructure and sewage treatment and many other vital services. I don't see why 900M of free users on chatgpt is a relevant argument.

Re: Lombardy increases charges for the construction of data centres in green areas

#186

Post by gruez » Wed, May 27, 2026, 5:07 PM UTC

manuelmoreale wrote: post #185

gruez wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Datacenters are not utilities in the same way and have a much narrower social impact. chatgpt has 900M weekly active users, so a significant fraction of the world population. Given that the user base probably skews towards rich countries, its proportion among the local population is probably even higher. On the other hand what do you think is the proportion of people who take trains, especially in the US? What about…

A significant % of the population in rich countries, probably close to > 100%, benefits from transport infrastructure and sewage treatment and many other vital services. I don't see why 900M of free users on chatgpt is a relevant argument.

>benefits from transport infrastructure

So if I drive to work then it's fair game to be NIMBY when they want to build a light rail station? You might say "but even if you don't use it, it's reducing traffic so you're still benefiting!", but if those kind of arguments are allowed, you can make similar arguments about how AI will make the whole country richer because of increased productivity or whatever.

Re: Lombardy increases charges for the construction of data centres in green areas

#187

Post by jlebar » Wed, May 27, 2026, 5:22 PM UTC

bigmadshoe wrote: post #179

jlebar wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OOC, which past exactly do you want to go back to (and presumably stay at)?

I don’t want to go back to the past, I want to go toward a future that looks good and fair for regular people. Technology doesn’t provide some divine mandate to build whatever will make the owners more money with no regard for people or the planet.

> I want to go toward a future that looks good and fair for regular people.

Do we agree that moving towards a future that's somehow "more advanced" as compared to the present (i.e. isn't going back to the past) would likely require giving up some land, water, and energy? That is, that progress is always a trade-off?

We don't have to agree that an AI-powered future specifically is "more advanced". For example, transitioning from fossil fuels to renewables is IMO a future that looks "good and fair for regular people". But building solar panels requires energy and water, placing them requires lots of land, building batteries requires mining lithium which is bad for the local environment, building hydro power destroys ecosystems, etc.

I imagine you don't oppose this because it's overall better for humans and the planet. I'm just making the point that there are nontrivial trade-offs, and building anything requires the use of resources such as land, water, and energy.

If we're in agreement so far, then I think the main thing we're in disagreement about is whether AI is actually worth the cost. ("What does this 'future' do for us besides take our jobs?")

And to this I'd ask, how should we handle such disagreements in a free society? I may think that Mr. Beast recreating Squid Game was a profligate waste of human and non-human capital, just to make a buck. Or more seriously, I'm a vegetarian. Worldwide, meat and dairy production accounts for (very roughly) 80% of agricultural land use [1], 30% of agriculture's water use [2], and 15% of total human GHG emissions [3]. I don't think the benefit is worth the extreme cost.

People disagree with me about Mr. Beast and beef, though. They think that these are worth the cost to land, water, energy, and the planet overall.

My question is, how should we resolve disagreements of this kind, where one person thinks another person's actions are spending resources in a way that is not worth the return? It seems much larger than AI.

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture [2] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10021-011-9517-8 [3] https://www.fao.org/family-farming/detail/en/c/1634679

Re: Lombardy increases charges for the construction of data centres in green areas

#188

Post by GeoAtreides » Wed, May 27, 2026, 5:24 PM UTC

Aurornis wrote: post #152

agentultra wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Luddite movement wasn’t opposed to progress or technology. They were demanding protections from exploitation by the capital class: abolishment of child labour, fair wages, social protection from job loss, etc. There was no labour law at the time. Destroying the machines was a way to gain leverage, nothing more. Ultimately the capitalists won that conflict. Many Luddites were murdered or jailed. And the history th…

I agree that the original Luddite movement has been mischaracterized, but you're also leaning toward mischaracterizing them in too friendly of a light. The Luddites were also guilty of violent acts and they were afraid to threaten or use violence to protect their interests. It wasn't a simple disagreement of evil capitalists versus saintly laborers. They cared more about protectionism for their personal businesses. T…

OP: They were demanding protections from exploitation by the capital class: abolishment of child labour, fair wages, social protection from job loss, etc. [...] Destroying the machines was a way to gain leverage, nothing more.

You: They were also very clearly on the wrong side of history.We would not be better off if the Luddites had won and forced us all to be doing manual labor all day without the help of those evil machines they were destroying.

HN sophistry of the highest level. It's shit like this that made the sophists deeply hated back in the days (today too, i would add)

Re: Lombardy increases charges for the construction of data centres in green areas

#189

Post by vrganj » Wed, May 27, 2026, 5:48 PM UTC

joe_mamba wrote: post #180

vrganj wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. But what's that got to do with data centers?

Was your comment on "will of the people" only about data centers or in general?

So of course you cannot decide how others will act, but you _can_ decide how you will prepare - that is how the future is shaped.

In your examples, that'd be by increasing deterrence. Just like these taxes do.

Re: Lombardy increases charges for the construction of data centres in green areas

#190

Post by vrganj » Wed, May 27, 2026, 5:50 PM UTC

jlebar wrote: post #187

bigmadshoe wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t want to go back to the past, I want to go toward a future that looks good and fair for regular people. Technology doesn’t provide some divine mandate to build whatever will make the owners more money with no regard for people or the planet.

> I want to go toward a future that looks good and fair for regular people. Do we agree that moving towards a future that's somehow "more advanced" as compared to the present (i.e. isn't going back to the past) would likely require giving up some land, water, and energy? That is, that progress is always a trade-off? We don't have to agree that an AI-powered future specifically is "more advanced". For example, transit…

The answer is, through elections and picking officials that get to decide these things. Like they did here!