Tech giants’ self-made AI energy crisis

For years tech giants have been helping climate catastrophists shut down reliable fossil fuel electricity. Now the grid they’ve helped gut cannot possibly supply their growing AI needs.

MAY 16

For years tech giants have been helping climate catastrophists shut down reliable fossil fuel electricity, falsely claiming they can be replaced by solar/wind.

Now the grid they’ve helped gut can’t supply their growing AI needs.¹

For the last decade, tech giants such as Apple, Microsoft, Meta, and Google have, through dedicated anti-fossil-fuel propaganda and political efforts, promoted the shutdown of reliable fossil fuel power plants in favor of unreliable solar and wind.
Tech giants have propagandized against reliable fossil fuel power plants by falsely claiming to be “100% renewable” and implying everyone could do it. In fact, they have just paid utilities to credit them for others’ solar and wind use and blame others for their coal and gas use.²
In addition to their “100% renewable” propaganda, tech giants directly endorsed people and policies who shut down reliable fossil fuel power plants.E.g., The RE100 coalition, including Google, Apple, Meta, and Microsoft, advocates for policies to “accelerate change towards zero carbon grids at scale by 2040.”³
Companies’ propaganda that solar/wind could rapidly replace fossil fuels has proven false.
Statewide blackouts in California (2020) and Texas (2021) were caused by the failure of solar/wind—which can go near zero at any time—to make up for lack of reliable fossil fuel capacity.
Thanks in significant part to tech giants’ advocacy, we have now shut down enough reliable power plants to be in a nationwide electricity crisis.
For example, most of North America is at elevated/high risk of electricity shortfalls between 2024-2028.⁴

The anti-fossil-fuel, pro-unreliable solar and wind political climate that tech giants have fostered is getting much worse, as the Administration has pledged to further reduce reliable electricity supply via power plant shutdowns and add artificial demand through EV mandates.

Biden’s EV mandate: a dictatorial attack on the American driver and the US grid

ALEX EPSTEIN

APR 22

Biden's EV mandate: a dictatorial attack on the American driver and the US grid

Biden’s de facto mandate of over 50% EVs by 2032 is a dictatorial attack on the American driver and the US grid that will 1. Force Americans to drive inferior cars. 2. Place massive new demand for reliable electricity on a grid that is declining in reliable electricity supply.

Read full story

While for years tech giants didn’t seem to have any concern about the electricity supply disaster their propaganda and policies were bringing about, they are now very interested because of the accelerating power requirements of computing, above all the hyper-competitive AI space.
To function at its potential, AI requires massive amounts of power. E.g., state-of-the-art data centers can require as much electricity as a large nuclear reactor.⁵
Electricity demand from US data centers already doubled between 2014 and 2023. Now with the fast growth of energy-hungry AI, demand from data centers could triple from 2.5% to 7.5% of our electricity use by 2030, according to Boston Consulting Group.⁶

In large part due to AI, nationwide electricity demand is projected to skyrocket. Official 10-year projections for the US have summer and winter peak demand rising by over 79 gigawatt and over 90 gigawatt. 90 gigawatt is equivalent to adding the entire power generating capacity of California (!)⁷

Given the woeful underpowered grid that AI giants have helped bring about, dramatically rising demand from AI will not only contribute to massive electricity shortages, but it will also destroy a lot of potential for AI to occur in the United States.
Limited and expensive electricity will force data centers to operate with higher cost or lower capacity within the US—or take a performance hit in the form of increased latency (which can drastically reduce the value of the product) by moving offshore.
Not only is offshoring data centers destructive from an economic standpoint, it also poses a substantial security risk. E.g., Building a data center in China—which we already depend on dangerously for critical minerals—gives the CCP physical power over more parts of our economy.
Economically, data centers are a gold mine of opportunities.Globally, data centers employed 2M people full-time in 2019, many in high-skill/high-pay jobs—and this number is forecast to increase nearly 300K by 2025.
Our gutted grid will cost many Americans these opportunities.⁸
In the face of woefully inadequate electricity supply for their AI goals, tech giant CEOs are finally speaking up about the lack of power.
E.g., Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in an interview that energy will be the #1 bottleneck to AI progress.

It is not enough for tech giants to warn us about the lack of reliable power. They need to take responsibility for their anti-fossil-fuel advocacy that helped caused it. And they need to support energy freedom policies that allow all fuels to compete to provide reliable power.

End preferences for unreliable electricity

ALEX EPSTEIN

DECEMBER 14, 2022

End preferences for unreliable electricity

Today’s grids are being ruined by systemic preferences for unreliable electricity: 1) no price penalty for being unreliable 2) huge subsidies for unreliables 3) mandates for unreliables Congress should end these now. The Opportunity America, given its combination of abundant domestic energy resources, technological ingenuity, and free-market competition, has …

Read full story

An example of a tech giant influencer not taking any responsibility for causing the electricity crisis is BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, who pushed companies and governments to adopt “net-zero” policies using mostly solar/wind, but now admits they can’t power AI data centers!
A better attitude toward electricity was expressed by OpenAI CEO Sam Altman: “There will always be people who wait and sit around and say ‘we shouldn’t do AI because we may burn a little more carbon’… the anti-progress streak” and this “is something that we can all fight against.”⁹
America faces a choice. We can either continue our current trajectory, descend into a Third World grid, and become totally inhospitable for AI, or we can adopt energy freedom policies and become a world leader in both AI and electricity.
Share this article with tech giant CEOs and tell them to publicly apologize for damaging our grid and to commit to energy freedom policies.Google: @sundarpichai ([email protected])
Apple: @tim_cook ([email protected])
Meta: @finkd ([email protected])
Microsoft: @satyanadella ([email protected])

Michelle Hung contributed to this piece.

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Maduro says he’s “ready” to talk

International / 4 hours ago

LOCKED AND LOADED: Trump threatens U.S. response if Iran slaughters protesters

Energy / 4 hours ago

Rulings could affect energy prices everywhere: Climate activists v. the energy industry in 2026

Energy

Rulings could affect energy prices everywhere: Climate activists v. the energy industry in 2026

Published on January 2, 2026

Todayville

From The Center Square

By Andrew Rice

Anti-oil and gas advocates across the country have pursued litigation in recent years attempting to force the fossil fuel industry to pay for decades of financial damages the advocates claim were caused by climate change.

Several cases have been dismissed while others advanced through court systems, with some being considered before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2026. Critics of the litigation call it “woke lawfare” and an attempt to force progressive political policies via the judicial system.

Critics also argue the lawsuits threaten U.S. energy independence and, depending on outcomes, will have sweeping impacts on every American.

Here are some of those cases.

Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana

On Jan. 12, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, vs. Chevron USA Inc. The case questions to what extent a state court can litigate against an oil company for its production of oil even if it obtained federal permits to produce the oil.

The litigation challenges activities of the oil companies dating back to World War II in some cases. Chevron argued the lawsuit was flawed, claiming that the activities in question were permitted, legal, and often conducted under federal direction – particularly those tied to national security during World War II.

A Plaquemines Parish jury in April ordered Chevron to pay $744 million in damages for its role in the degradation of the state’s coastal wetlands. Environmental activists celebrated the verdict. It was the first of 42 lawsuits filed since 2013 by parishes across coastal Louisiana to go to trial.

The Trump administration’s Justice Department stepped in on Chevron’s side, urging the Supreme Court to move the case from state court to federal court.

Business groups and energy advocates warned the verdict will drive jobs and investment out of Louisiana. The Louisiana Association of Business and Industry called the decision “shortsighted,” saying it would “brand Louisiana as a state that will extort the most recognizable companies on earth for billions of dollars, decades later.”

O.H. Skinner, executive director of Alliance for Consumers, told the Center Square the case seeks to score large settlements from the energy industry and stop oil production.

“The case arises from a broader campaign of woke lawfare in which activists and municipal governments seek to use courtrooms to determine what companies are allowed to produce and what consumers can buy,” Skinner said.

Suncor Energy Inc. v. Boulder

The nation’s highest court is still deciding whether it will hear arguments in Suncor Energy Inc. v. Boulder; a case to decide whether state and local governments can use nuisance laws to sue energy companies for activities that may cause climate change.

The case, originating in Colorado, centers around a City of Boulder and Boulder County lawsuit in state court against Suncor Energy claiming it misled the public in its activities that the local governments claim led to climate change effects.

Lawyers for Suncor Energy argue that allowing a case like this one to play out goes against protections in the Clean Air Act that prevent lawsuits from occurring against emitters from across state lines.

“Public nuisance can’t be used for global problems. It can be used for local problems,” Skinner told The Center Square. “That’s what it’s supposed to be used for.”

However, Skinner said many organizations that are pursuing climate change litigation are seeking to bankrupt energy companies with large monetary settlements. He said litigants will likely attempt to drain energy companies of their resources and use the funds to advocate certain ideological causes.

“These are highly ideological dark-money-funded, multi-faceted legal campaigns to bankrupt an entire industry and confiscate it for ideological reasons,” Skinner said.

City and County of Honolulu v. Sunoco

Similarly, in 2020, City and County of Honolulu v. Sunoco was one of the first examples of public nuisance lawsuits pursued in a state court. The city and county of Honolulu filed a lawsuit in 2020 accusing oil and gas companies, including Sunoco, Exxon Mobil, BP, Chevron and Shell, of misleading the public for decades about the dangers of climate change induced by burning fossil fuels.

The companies asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in the case, but the court, without ruling on the merits, declined to do so in January.

While the case is based in Hawaii, Skinner said litigants there hope it will have far-reaching effects across the country.

“They’re not trying to stop behavior just in those states,” Skinner said. ”The thing that really freaks me out is how people in regular, everyday, real America are going to potentially be affected.”

The People of the State of California v. Exxon Mobil Corporation

Going a step further than Boulder and Honolulu, California Democrat Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a complaint against ExxonMobil in 2024 for what he says are its contributions to “the deluge of plastic pollution” affecting the state.

Exxon countersued, alleging “Bonta and the US Proxies – the former for political gain and the latter pawns for the Foreign Interests – have engaged in a deliberate smear campaign against ExxonMobil, falsely claiming that ExxonMobil’s effective and innovative advanced recycling technology is a ‘false promise’ and ‘not based on truth.,” American Tort Reform Foundation reported.

One of the foreign interests is IEJF, an Australian nonprofit that’s connected to an Australian mining conmpany “that competes with ExxonMobil in the low carbon solutions and energy transition markets, ATRF reported.

Skinner said the litigants in this case are attempting to significantly reduce plastic use throughout the state of California and potentially beyond.

“That’ll make your average person’s life dramatically harder, and it’ll make a lot of things a lot more expensive, and it’ll make having kids, like, brutal,” Skinner said.

Leon v. Exxon Mobil Corp.

Aside from monetary settlements, petitioners in this case also are seeking wrongful death claims against energy companies for their contributions to climate change. The case stems from a woman in Washington state who said her mother died from heat-related illness due to the exacerbated effects of climate change.

She is suing energy companies for their alleged creation of conditions over a period of decades that led to increased temperatures on the day her mother died.

Skinner told The Center Square this case is one of the more blatant examples of ideology affecting the way a litigant pursues cases.

“I think they care because a death is worth a lot of money,” Skinner said. “The climate homicide cases are one of the more far-fetched legal theories I’ve ever seen, because you’re leveling this incredibly staggering charge.”

Climate cases will continue to move through the court system, with one to be heard before the U.S. Supreme Court in early 2026.

Skinner is urging the U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts to rule in favor of energy companies across the country.

“We want the energy companies to win, not because they are perfect actors, but because the alternative is that our lives are governed day in and day out by woke trial lawyers, woke [nongovernmental organizations] and local governments,” Skinner said.

Andrew Rice

Energy

Why Japan wants Western Canadian LNG

Published on December 31, 2025

Todayville

From Resource Works

By Ian Biana

In a Dec. 22, 2025 article, influential Japanese newspaper Asahi Shimbun laid out why Japan is placing growing strategic weight on liquefied natural gas exports from Western Canada – and why the start of full-scale operations at LNG Canada marks a significant shift in Japan’s energy-security calculus.

The article, written by staff writer Shiki Iwasawa, approaches Canadian LNG not as a climate story or an industrial milestone, but as a response to the vulnerabilities Japan has experienced since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine upended global gas markets.

1. Shorter distance and faster delivery

The most immediate advantage identified is geography. LNG shipped from British Columbia’s Pacific coast reaches Japan in about 10 days, roughly half the time required for cargoes originating in the Middle East or the U.S. Southeast, which can take 16 to 30 days.

For Japan – the world’s largest LNG importer – shorter voyages mean lower transportation costs, tighter inventory management, and reduced exposure to disruptions while cargoes are at sea.

2. Avoidance of global maritime choke points

Just as important, Canadian LNG avoids the world’s most precarious shipping bottlenecks.

The Asahi report emphasizes that shipments from B.C. do not pass through either:

the Strait of Hormuz, increasingly volatile amid Middle East conflict, or
the Panama Canal, where climate-driven water shortages have already led to passage restrictions.

Japanese officials explicitly frame these routes as strategic liabilities. As one senior government official responsible for energy security told the newspaper: “We, the government, have high hopes. It means a lot not having to go through the choke points.”

From Japan’s perspective, Canada’s Pacific-facing terminals offer a rare combination of proximity and route resilience.

3. Political reliability and allied status

The article contrasts Canada sharply with Russia, once a significant LNG supplier to Japan through the Sakhalin-2 project.

Before the Ukraine war, Russia accounted for about 10 per cent of Japan’s LNG imports. When Japan joined international sanctions, Moscow responded by restructuring the project’s ownership – a move that underscored how energy supplies can be weaponized.

A government source reflected on that experience bluntly: “We had thought it would be OK if we diversified procurement sources, but we were at risk of power outages even if only 10 percent (of LNG) didn’t reach Japan.”

Canada, by contrast, is described as a friendly and politically stable nation, free from sanctions risk and viewed as a long-term, rules-based partner.

4. Scale, certainty, and investment momentum

The Asahi article devotes considerable attention to the fundamentals of LNG Canada itself.

Key features highlighted include:

approximately $14 billion in total development costs,
14 million tonnes per year of production capacity,
two liquefaction trains already operating,
natural gas sourced from inland Canada and transported via a 670-kilometre pipeline to the coast,
and the successful shipment of first cargoes in mid-2025.

Mitsubishi Corp., which holds a 15 per cent stake, has rights to market 2.1 million tonnes annually to Japan and other Asian buyers. Mitsubishi expects the project to generate tens of billions of yen in annual profits starting in the fiscal year beginning April 2026.

At a Nov. 4 news conference, Mitsubishi president Katsuya Nakanishi said the company is actively considering additional investment to expand capacity, with internal sources indicating output could eventually double.

5. LNG’s continuing role in Japan’s energy system

The article situates Canadian LNG within Japan’s broader energy strategy. Under Japan’s Economic Security Promotion Law, LNG is designated a “specified critical product.” The government maintains dedicated funds to secure supply during emergencies.

While nuclear power remains central to long-term planning, officials acknowledge LNG’s indispensable role. A senior economy ministry official told Asahi: “Nuclear power is the key player in the spotlight, but thermal power (mainly fueled by LNG) is the key player behind the scenes.”

Japan’s latest Basic Energy Plan projects LNG imports rising to 74 million tonnes by 2040, roughly 10 per cent higher than today, underscoring why secure, politically insulated suppliers matter.

What Japan’s view tells Canada

In a recent Canada-Japan leaders’ meeting on the sidelines of APEC, Prime Minister Mark Carney and Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi discussed expanding economic ties, with energy cooperation specifically highlighted around the LNG Canada project as a key element of their bilateral relationship. While Takaichi didn’t make a detailed public statement about Canadian LNG itself, the joint statement underscored Japan’s interest in stable and diversified LNG supplies—of which Canadian exports are a part of the broader Indo-Pacific energy security context.

What emerges from Asahi Shimbun’s reporting is a pragmatic assessment shaped by recent shocks. Japan values Canadian LNG because it is closer, less exposed to conflict-prone routes, backed by a stable political system, and already delivering cargoes at scale.

For Canadian readers, the message is unambiguous: Western Canadian LNG is not being embraced because of rhetoric or aspiration, but because it aligns with the operational, geopolitical, and economic priorities of one of the world’s most energy-dependent nations.