Canada's data centre boom demands democratic governance of energy, water, and land — not false choice between rejection and rubber-stamping
Original framing: “Data centres: Opposing them and developing them are not the only two choices” — The Conversation - Global
The article never mentions that 60% of proposed Canadian data centre sites overlap with unceded Indigenous territories where water rights remain unsettled. Anishinaabe water walkers have long warned that industrial extraction breaks reciprocal obligations to nibi (water); the 2021 Grassy Narrows mercury crisis shows provincial permitting fails to protect watersheds. Indigenous-led cumulative effects assessment (e.g., Tsleil-Waututh's Burrard Inlet model) offers a governance template the piece ignores.
Canada's data centre expansion is not a planning problem but a power problem: hyperscalers and Crown utilities have revived the megaproject colonialism of the James Bay era, externalising water and energy costs onto Indigenous nations and rural municipalities while capturing value through secret power contracts.
The article's 'third way' of better consultation is a procedural trap — it accepts the premise that compute must grow infinitely, ignoring Jevons paradox and the thermodynamic limits of warming watersheds. Real alternatives exist: Indigenous water governance authorities with veto power (Tsleil-Waututh model), federal compute caps set by citizens' assemblies, and public compute commons that reorient infrastructure toward collective survival rather than algorithmic extraction. The trickster reveals the 'choice' itself is the trap; the road forward requires refusing the frame.