Country music stars unite against data centers spreading across rural America

Skye Jacobs

Posts: 2,182   +62
Staff
The big picture: A growing fight over data center development is pulling in an unexpected group of critics: country music stars. In the past few weeks, artists including Brad Paisley, Tanya Tucker, Gavin Adcock, and Willie Nelson have all spoken out against new projects. While their politics vary, their concerns overlap. They are pushing back on how these facilities are being placed in or near rural communities.

Paisley was among the first to draw attention to the issue, opposing a proposed data center in Nashville that would be located about 500 yards from the city's zoo. He criticized both the scale and the setting of the project. "It would be an enormous monstrosity, an absolute eyesore and detract in every way for not only that zoo, but also that area," Paisley wrote in a social media post urging people to sign a petition. Other artists quickly backed him, helping bring the issue into the wider spotlight

The conversation has since expanded beyond Tennessee. In Texas, where data center development is accelerating, Tanya Tucker warned about environmental strain tied to the projects. "It's going to hurt our health, our wildlife, our water table, our water resources," she posted. "It's going to scar our land forever." The scale of development is significant, with about 248 data centers planned across the state.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Brad Paisley (@bradpaisley)

Gavin Adcock, who often takes a more confrontational tone, focused on the impact on rural communities. In a video posted online, he argued that farmers and landowners are being forced to deal with the downsides of projects driven by outside investors. "These people are getting punished for living in the country," Adcock said, pointing to pressure on land, water, and local resources.

Willie Nelson made a similar case, tying the issue to broader concerns about rural identity and land use. Writing about potential development near his hometown of Abbott, Texas, he said, "The last thing we need is a loud, water-thieving, light-polluting, data center anywhere near our town (or any others for that matter)." He continued, "The strength of rural America has never come from big industrial footprints. It comes from generations of people, open spaces, local businesses, and a connection to the land… let's not allow our own demise or give up control over necessary resources in the US and especially in Abbott."

The debate centers on the real-world demands of modern data infrastructure. Facilities built to handle AI workloads require large amounts of electricity, dense server capacity, and extensive cooling systems. Those cooling systems often rely heavily on water, which has become a major sticking point in areas already dealing with resource constraints.

Public opinion appears to be lining up with that concern. A Gallup poll in May found that only 7% of Americans strongly support building data centers in their communities.

Researchers say the resistance is less about rejecting technology and more about how it is being implemented. "Amid so much partisan division, opposition to data centers seems to be the thing that unites Americans right now," Megan Mullin of the UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation told Rolling Stone. "It's tempting to attribute this resistance to a growing wariness about technology and the titans who control it, but in reality it's rooted in the one thing that has always united Americans: our deep affinity for where we live."

For some artists, the issue also ties back to AI itself. Paisley tied the issue to broader concerns in the music industry, saying AI is already affecting artists and rights holders without their approval. He argued that the same lack of consent applies to the proposed data center near the zoo, where he said the people most affected were not being given a real say.

Not everyone in the industry has taken a clear position. John Rich, who was recently appointed "Special Envoy for American Landowners" by President Trump, suggested there may be a middle ground. He echoed a line he attributed to Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, saying there is a proper way to build a data center and an improper way to do it, while suggesting that more guidance from Washington may be coming soon.

Permalink to story:

 
There are two paths to the future only: one in which the US maintains it lead in the defining industry of the 21st Century, or the other in which the US economy is based on selling soybeans and pork bellies to the #1 world superpower of China, which beats the drum the rest of us must march to.
 
Don't like Data Centers? Stop using TikTok, youtube, Facebook, Google search, your banking website, your ATM card, Tinder, Bumble, Grindr. Stop paying bills online. Stop using Gmail. Delete all the accounts.

Do all that, then send me a USPS letter and we can talk about your position and concerns. But don't buy the stamps online.
 
I'm pretty sure geothermal cooling has been discussed. If the U.S. cannot keep our data here, then we already know where it will be kept. Far, far away.
 
With most data centers built on areas which already has water shortage,
You were gullibly gaslit again by bad reporting. The THG report was lifted from The Guardian, which used the NOAA category of "moderate drought" for the past year in compiling those figures. "Moderate drought", however, happens on average everywhere on the planet once every 5-10 years, and is defined by a percentage dip in rainfall .. no matter how high that rainfall is. According to this, the rainiest states in the country -- like Florida and Oregon, are in drought conditions.

20260609_usdm.png


Datacenters built in areas which actually are short of water almost invariably use closed-loop systems, and thus little water. And that aside, golf courses alone in the US consume several times as much water as do datacenters.
 
So what happened to all the concern about global warming? I guess the Big Tech apologists have no answer for that, because these data centers will be putting massive heat back into the water supply. Most do NOT use closed-loop cooling as some liars have posted.
 
Why don't they build these data centers on any of the innumerable industrial parks full of decaying ruins of old buildings, instead of tearing up farmland and destroying rural communities?
Sometimes they do build on top of old industrial parks. As an example, xAI's big Memphis facility is being built at the Frank C. Pidgeon Industrial Park, which has been all industrial stuff since 1967.
And sometimes they try, but the local community decided they would rather have a decaying industrial ruin than a working data center, or the land prices are way higher than they should be for an industrial ruin, or the local government wants to milk things in regards to taxes and such, so the datacenter companies end up looking elsewhere. I fully agree that it would make the most sense to just put the data centers on top of abandoned industrial buildings, particularly in the rust belt area near the Great Lakes, or in the rainy parts of the South East, you just need to convince the local governments in those areas to not block the datacenters or try tax them more than other industrial operations.
 
So what happened to all the concern about global warming? I guess the Big Tech apologists have no answer for that, because these data centers will be putting massive heat back into the water supply. Most do NOT use closed-loop cooling as some liars have posted.
When it comes to waste heat, it does not matter in the slightest what sort of cooling system is used, it will all end up back in the environment; the cooling system used just changes what specific part of the environment the heat ends up in. (Which can cause local issues). But in the long run, direct waste heat of any sort is trivial as a global concern; energy used by humans is a rounding the error compared to what hits us from the sun. The concern is that certain industrial waste gases, like Co2, will cause more of that solar energy to be trapped on Earth rather than radiating away at night. So with datacenters, the global warming related concern would due to the co2 released by the natural gas/coal power plants used to power them, not their waste heat.

That said, it is plainly obvious that the wealthy and powerful do not seem particularly concerned about that potential CO2 related heating effect; for most of the powerful global warming is simply a tool to milk government grants, an excuse to raise taxes, perhaps a way to sneak in sumptuary laws back into existence. They will toss any global warming related concern they feign aside when they see potential profit to be made, or a nice coastal house to purchase.
 
> Tanya Tucker warned about environmental strain tied to the projects.

Is she gonna talk about toxic farmland runoff that's making municipal water unsafe too, or are the "big city" datacenter guys just easy targets?
Why then farmers are allowed to use a toxic stuff? I guess you don't care what you eat enough to change it.
 
This seems like, this is the country these people voted for?
I know it seems a bit prejudice, but c'mon.
We all know where the country music vote goes.
 
Why don't they build these data centers on any of the innumerable industrial parks full of decaying ruins of old buildings, instead of tearing up farmland and destroying rural communities?
These drama-queen histrionics are the hallmarks of propaganda, not rationale debate. The only thing destroying "rural communities" is the growth of massive commercial agribusiness against which smaller farmers can't compete. And the US has a massive excess of farmland at present due to exponentially increasing crop yields -- we actually feed 350 million today better and on much less acres than we fed 100 million people in the year 1900.

I know it seems a bit prejudice, but c'mon.
We all know where the country music vote goes.
Country music stars are no different than any other music star: they all have the collective IQ of a bowl of stewed carrots. I suggest not using them as a reference for your political views.
 
There are two paths to the future only: one in which the US maintains it lead in the defining industry of the 21st Century, or the other in which the US economy is based on selling soybeans and pork bellies to the #1 world superpower of China, which beats the drum the rest of us must march to.
Yes. And sadly I think we are on the second path. Given that the current administration has decided to defund our scientific base, our scientific lead is already degrading rapidly, and our tech lead will follow unless this is reversed. We've lost 15,000 scientists already.

 
Yes. And sadly I think we are on the second path. Given that the current administration has decided to defund our scientific base, our scientific lead is already degrading rapidly,
It's not being defunded, it's being redirected to more appropriate ends:

"..U.S. science funding is undergoing a major shift as the White House redirects billions from traditional academic institutions toward artificial intelligence and individual researchers...."

Spending billions a year on "scientific studies" like the effects of leaf blowers on tree-climbing lizards or cocaine addiction of canines doesn't help us maintain our technological lead. AI research, however, does.
 
Last edited:
It's not being defunded, it's being redirected to more appropriate ends:

"..U.S. science funding is undergoing a major shift as the White House redirects billions from traditional academic institutions toward artificial intelligence and individual researchers...."

Spending billions a year on "scientific studies" like the effects of leaf blowers on tree-climbing lizards or cocaine addiction of canines doesn't help us maintain our technological lead. AI research, however, does.
Those tree-climbing lizards gave us GLP-1 medications (well lizards anyways, no idea if they climb trees). As stated in the shared video (starting timestamp 5:05), you have no idea the connections that will be made on the scientific frontier, or how that connects back to our health, wealth, or security.
 
Those tree-climbing lizards gave us GLP-1 medications
Oops! GLP-1 medications were discovered and developed by medical researchers, not the climate scientists who were paid by the federal government to blow tiny anole lizards off trees with leaf blowers to "study the effects of climate change".


Nor was the study that spent $400K to give Swedish massages to rabbits, or one to determine the exact definition of "Queer Foods", or one which focused on how best to "Decolonize the writings of William Shakespeare", or an NSF study to determine if mountain lions could be trained to walk on treadmills ... or ten thousand other absurd wastes of taxpayer dollars. And, as the Hoover Institute reported over a decade ago, a large percentage of these federal dollars don't even go into bad research like this, but into the pockets of private "consultants", public-relations firms, and other ancillary causes.

we have no idea the connections that will be made on the scientific frontier, or how that connects back to our health, wealth, or security.
Exactly, which is why we should devote our tax dollars to those scientific and technological studies most likely to produce actual real-world benefits ... which is what is being done here.
 
Oops! GLP-1 medications were discovered and developed by medical researchers, not the climate scientists who were paid by the federal government to blow tiny anole lizards off trees with leaf blowers to "study the effects of climate change".


Nor was the study that spent $400K to give Swedish massages to rabbits, or one to determine the exact definition of "Queer Foods", or one which focused on how best to "Decolonize the writings of William Shakespeare", or an NSF study to determine if mountain lions could be trained to walk on treadmills ... or ten thousand other absurd wastes of taxpayer dollars. And, as the Hoover Institute reported over a decade ago, a large percentage of these federal dollars don't even go into bad research like this, but into the pockets of private "consultants", public-relations firms, and other ancillary causes.


Exactly, which is why we should devote our tax dollars to those scientific and technological studies most likely to produce actual real-world benefits ... which is what is being done here.
We're talking about different studies, I'm talking about the Gila monster (a lizard, the venom of which is why we have GLP-1 medication). And no, we don't know in advance which studies are most likely to produce actual real-world benefits. Nobody in the 1920s was saying we should study quantum mechanics to develop personal computers, it took decades for that fruit to bear out.

The brain drain is real, America is not the center of innovation, nor will it be now that Europe and China are poaching our talent.
 
The LAST thing we need is a bunch of low-IQ musicians/celebrities lecturing us. These are the generally the dumbest and least educated folks on earth.
 
You were gullibly gaslit again by bad reporting. The THG report was lifted from The Guardian, which used the NOAA category of "moderate drought" for the past year in compiling those figures. "Moderate drought", however, happens on average everywhere on the planet once every 5-10 years, and is defined by a percentage dip in rainfall .. no matter how high that rainfall is. According to this, the rainiest states in the country -- like Florida and Oregon, are in drought conditions.

I live in one of those rainy places you mentioned, Oregon. There are a couple of points I'd like to add some context.

1. It's a pretty common misapprehension that it rains all the time in Oregon. Oregon is a big state, size wise, and has a variety of biomes. It's actually about half desert. The areas where it's green and there is significant rainfall are the western side of the state.

2. Because of the high amount of rainfall western Oregon has had historically, our flora is adapted for it. It depends on that rainfall. We have tremendous numbers of water hungry trees in the thousands of acres of forests here. Know what happens when, despite our relatively high rainfall numbers, there's a NOAA declared drought, and they don't get enough? Those trees become stressed, vulnerable to disease, insects, and fire. Wildfires happen all the time in Eastern Oregon, in the arid and desert areas. Never thought I'd see one in the Willamette Valley, but people not ten miles from me were under level 3 evacuation orders. The sky rained ash for days.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Oregon_wildfires

Water usage is and should be a concern in rainy places, too. Rainfall is not a guarantee of water availability. A better predictor in Oregon is probably the Cascade snow pack levels.
 
Back