A TechUK report that claimed datacentres in England use less water than previously thought has been accused of containing “methodological flaws” designed to appease tech lobbying in the UK.
Foxglove, a non-profit organisation that campaigns for fairness in technology and the protection of local communities, described the study as “dodgy and misleading”, arguing that its conclusions are not supported by the evidence.
The report, previously covered by Computer Weekly, suggested that commercial datacentres in England are more efficient and less water-intensive than expected, largely thanks to advances in cooling techniques. Conducted in collaboration with the Environment Agency, the survey set out to assess the environmental resources consumed by the industry.
Tim Squirrel, head of strategy at Foxglove, criticised what he called “methodological flaws” in the survey. He argued that TechUK’s conclusions cannot be applied across the sector given the limited and self-selecting nature of the data sample.
“I was quite disturbed by the methodology they had employed, not because of the sample size, but in order to get a sample that is representative of the whole you need to guarantee that it is in some way representative,” Squirrel told Computer Weekly. “Unfortunately, they did not do that.”
TechUK’s study was based on 73 sites across England, all of which submitted information voluntarily and anonymously.
Operators self-reported their water usage, but no independent verification was carried out. While TechUK concluded based on this report that datacentres in England consumed less water than previously thought, no details were provided about the size or functions of the facilities surveyed. “There was no independent verification,” he said. “We have no idea whether the datacentres [that] reported their water usage are telling the truth or are representative of the industry as a whole in the UK. This is disturbing, because they’re making some quite significant claims on the back of that. This is not a conclusion you can draw from that methodology.”
‘Self-selection bias’
TechUK acknowledged limitations in its report, noting the possibility of “self-selection bias” due to the anonymous, voluntary nature of the data and admitting that the absence of external evaluation was a shortcoming.
When contacted by Computer Weekly, TechUK defended the study. “Datacentres are the backbone of the UK’s digital economy, and will be central to delivering our AI and innovation ambitions,” it said. “Our report shows that, contrary to some public perceptions, most commercial datacentres are actively innovating to use minimal water.
“But as demand for compute grows, we must plan ahead. In the report, which is the first step of a broader project to measure datacentres’ water usage, we call for smart policies, resilient infrastructure and stronger data to ensure digital and environmental resilience go hand in hand.”
Squirrel remained unconvinced, arguing that TechUK had a clear “agenda” in producing the report. “They wanted to show that water usage was less than reported in the media,” he said. “I can understand that from their perspective, they are a tech lobby group, but what was concerning for us was also seeing the imprimatur of the Environment Agency giving it validity.”
The Environment Agency is a non-governmental public body responsible for regulating and protecting the environment, as well as being committed to balancing growth and sustainability. “I have generally found the Environment Agency reasonably rigorous in the things that they will put their name behind,” said Squirrel. “It was really surprising to see them take this stance on this paper. They talk about the datacentre industry as a whole and the need to ensure the balance between innovation and environmental impact.”
In response, an Environment Agency spokesperson told Computer Weekly: “The environment and sustainable development go hand in hand, and we are playing our part in helping unlock growth. We are working with the technology sector to understand their water needs and develop sustainable solutions, allowing important infrastructure, such as datacentres, to be supported.
“It’s vital we ensure there is a reliable, clean and plentiful water supply for future generations, and we have set out our plans to transform the way we use and look after England’s water supplies through our National framework for water resources,” they added.
The agency said it aims to work with the sector to understand the pressures it may place on water resources, pointing to its National framework, which outlines both current and future challenges and sets out actions for government, regulators, regional groups, water companies and industry.
But Foxglove doubts these goals can be met without greater transparency from the industry and stronger regulation from the government.
“[The government is] desperate for economic growth, and they consider that this might be one mechanism by which they can achieve that,” said Squirrel. “What’s concerning is the thinking around growth and datacentres, because a datacentre, once it’s built, doesn’t actually require many people to operate. Most work can be done as remote jobs. The datacentre, once built, will not provide many high-skilled tech jobs in the community.”
Foxglove is calling for the government to impose stricter regulation on the sector to ensure clarity and transparency around datacentre water and energy usage, where this is sourced from, and the levels of renewable energy being utilised.
“Currently, the developer will say that an operator who is secret has made commitments to particular net-zero targets without any kind of binding commitment from the eventual operator, who we don’t know the identity of,” said Squirrel. “There needs to be more rigorous regulation of transparency at the earliest stage, and for those commitments around climate targets and sustainability to be binding.”
Foxglove recently made headlines for being part of a joint legal challenge against the government for granting permission for a hyperscale datacentre to be built in Iver, Buckinghamshire, without any assessment of the environmental impact of the project taking place first.
Source link
