The Data Center Frontier

The Natural History Museum – April 15, 2026

VIDEO | AUDIO | RECAP EN / ES / FR | ARCHIVE | PERMALINK

Speakers: Jordan B. Kinder - Métis Nation of Alberta and NYU; Krystal Two Bulls - Executive Director, Honor the Earth; Thea Riofrancos - Climate and Community Institute; Vivek Bharathan - No Desert Data Center Coalition and MediaJustice
Moderator: Steve Lyons - Director of Research, The Natural History Museum

Opening Framing: Natural History, Infrastructure, and Power

Beka Economopoulos opened the event by situating “The Data Center Frontier” within the Natural History Museum’s broader “Natural History from the Other Side” series, which interrogates the political and colonial histories embedded within natural history institutions and contemporary infrastructures. She argued that natural history has historically been tied to imperialist systems of classification, extraction, and control, and that today’s infrastructures — including AI data centers, detention facilities, and surveillance systems — continue those same logics under contemporary technological forms.

She emphasized that the rapid expansion of AI infrastructure is profoundly material rather than immaterial “cloud” technology. Data centers require massive quantities of electricity, water, land, minerals, pipelines, and power generation infrastructure, while also imposing local environmental and economic harms such as water depletion, light and noise pollution, rising utility costs, and land consolidation. At the same time, she highlighted the emergence of grassroots resistance movements connecting communities across geographic and political divides.

Defining the “Data Center Frontier”

Steve Lyons framed the discussion as an exploration of how AI data centers represent a new “frontier” tied to older histories of extraction and environmental conflict. He asked Jordan B. Kinder to explain why data centers have proliferated so rapidly and whether they should be understood as extensions of existing extractive infrastructure systems such as pipelines and fossil fuel development.

Jordan Kinder argued that the discourse around AI emphasizes novelty and futurism in ways that obscure the continuity between data centers and older extractive infrastructures. Drawing from his research on oil pipelines and Canadian tar sands politics, he suggested that data centers should themselves be understood as energy infrastructure because they require enormous resource inputs, speculative capital investment, land appropriation, and environmental transformation.

Kinder identified several similarities between pipelines and data centers:

• Both are highly capital-intensive rather than labor-intensive.

• Both generate environmental and social impacts while producing relatively few long-term jobs.

• Both rely on speculative investment and political promises.

• Both provoke coalition-based resistance movements involving Indigenous land defenders, local residents, and environmental activists.

At the same time, he identified important differences. Pipelines function as linear infrastructures, while data centers are distributed nodal infrastructures that can affect many more communities simultaneously. Data centers are also highly visible and difficult to conceal physically, more akin to refineries than buried pipelines. Kinder further argued that unlike fossil fuels, whose role in everyday life is widely recognized, data centers and AI systems are increasingly questioned as infrastructures serving unclear or socially unnecessary purposes.

He suggested that AI infrastructure intensifies broader questions about ownership, intellectual labor, and technological power, arguing that generative AI seeks to transform intellectual capacity itself into a commodified utility.

Indigenous Resistance and the “Death Cycle of AI”

Steve Lyons then invited Krystal Two Bulls to discuss Honor the Earth’s “No Data Centers on Native Land” campaign and the increasing targeting of Indigenous territories for hyperscale data center development.

Two Bulls explained that her community became involved after proposals emerged for small modular nuclear reactors connected directly to hyperscale AI data center development in Montana. Through research, organizers concluded that these facilities represented a much larger integrated infrastructure system supporting generative AI.

She outlined the interconnected infrastructure required to sustain AI expansion:

• Hyperscale data centers,

• Nuclear energy expansion,

• Continued coal and fracked gas extraction,

• Critical minerals mining,

• Uranium mining,

• Expanded surveillance systems,

• Militarized AI applications.

Honor the Earth began describing this system as the “death cycle of AI,” emphasizing that Indigenous lands are disproportionately targeted because they contain large land bases, water access, tax incentives, extractive histories, and communities facing structural poverty and weak legal protections.

Two Bulls described how data center corporations, energy developers, and even Native-owned energy firms have increasingly approached tribal governments with promises of jobs and economic development. At the same time, Indigenous communities are often excluded from broader anti-data-center organizing narratives despite being among the most heavily targeted populations.

Honor the Earth responded by building multiple coalitions:

• The “No Data Colonialism” coalition representing 39 Native Nations,

• Regional alliances in Montana, South Dakota, and Oklahoma linking ranchers, coal miners, farmers, and Indigenous organizers.

Two Bulls reported several early victories, including moratoriums, bans, and feasibility study requirements adopted by tribal governments facing data center proposals.

Project Blue and Resistance in Arizona

Steve Lyons next turned to Vivek Bharathan to discuss Arizona’s “Project Blue,” a major hyperscale data center proposal opposed by the No Desert Data Center Coalition.

Bharathan described how organizers first learned about the proposal only days before a county vote to sell 290 acres of desert land to Beale Infrastructure for hyperscale data center development. He recounted how local government processes heavily favored project proponents while limiting public opposition to brief comments during working hours.

The coalition organized around three central issues:

• Massive water consumption,

• Rising electricity costs passed onto consumers,

• Secret nondisclosure agreements obscuring the identity of project beneficiaries.

The coalition successfully pressured Tucson’s city council and mayor to unanimously reject the project because Tucson Water, as a public utility, would have been required to support the facility’s water needs. Bharathan described this as a major symbolic victory that inspired other communities nationally.

However, he explained that the developers later revised the proposal by shifting to air-cooling systems and partnering directly with private utilities, thereby bypassing municipal authority and securing state approval. At the time of the event, land clearing had already begun despite ongoing appeals and organizing efforts.

Bharathan emphasized that the coalition rejected “NIMBY” framing and instead connected data centers to what he called the “cruelty industry,” linking them to surveillance systems, deportation infrastructure, militarization, and unprecedented concentrations of wealth and power.

Extractivism, Colonialism, and Global Supply Chains

Steve Lyons then invited Thea Riofrancos to zoom out historically and globally to connect AI infrastructure to broader histories of extractivism, colonialism, and capitalism.

Riofrancos argued that contemporary AI infrastructure is part of a 500-year history of colonial extractivism and racial capitalism that concentrates benefits among global elites while imposing ecological and social harms on marginalized communities. She stressed that extractivism is simultaneously one of capitalism’s most durable systems and one of its most contested.

She described the present moment as one of simultaneous extractive expansion:

• Continued fossil fuel expansion,

• Massive renewable energy infrastructure build-outs,

• Increased critical minerals extraction,

• Growing militarized and AI-related technological demand.

Riofrancos emphasized that many minerals such as lithium serve multiple overlapping purposes:

• Public transit electrification,

• Luxury electric vehicles,

• Renewable energy storage,

• AI data center batteries,

• Military hardware and drone systems.

This convergence, she argued, intensifies extractive pressure on Indigenous, racialized, and impoverished communities globally while policymakers increasingly justify extraction under the language of “critical minerals” and national security.

At the same time, she highlighted how community resistance can transform extractive projects into stranded assets through sustained coalition organizing and investor pressure. Drawing on Latin American mining conflicts, she argued that data center struggles may similarly evolve through cycles of provisional victories and setbacks that reshape investment landscapes over time.

Lessons from Pipeline Resistance and Coalition Building

The discussion then shifted toward movement strategy and historical lessons from pipeline resistance movements such as Standing Rock and Keystone XL.

Krystal Two Bulls emphasized that coalition building remains the central strategic lesson. Successful movements connect grassroots local organizing with national and international advocacy simultaneously. She argued that Standing Rock became powerful because it transformed from a localized treaty-rights struggle into a global movement around water protection and Indigenous sovereignty.

She also argued that extraction industries are symptoms of deeper structural systems rooted in settler colonialism, white supremacy, militarism, and corporate governance. According to Two Bulls, movements must challenge those foundational systems rather than merely fighting one infrastructure project after another.

Thea Riofrancos added that strong community organization prior to project proposals often determines the success of resistance efforts. Communities with existing networks, leadership structures, and social trust are more capable of resisting multinational corporations and state-backed infrastructure projects.

She also emphasized the importance of articulating positive alternative futures rather than only oppositional politics. Resistance movements, she argued, often contain powerful visions of ecological democracy, collective ownership, mobility justice, and post-extractive economies.

Jordan Kinder connected this to AI futurism itself, arguing that generative AI narratives attempt to monopolize visions of the future by presenting technological expansion as inevitable. He stressed the importance of democratic deliberation about what technologies are actually socially useful and who benefits from them.

Political Education and “Connecting the Dots”

The panel spent significant time discussing political education and movement-building strategies. Bharathan described how Native Nations working groups in Arizona organized a “winter school” connecting data center expansion to settler colonialism and extractive history. These sessions became important sites of community learning and coalition development.

Two Bulls stressed the importance of “meeting people where they are” by organizing around whatever issue most directly affects each community:

• Jobs,

• Water access,

• Local control,

• Surveillance,

• Utility costs,

• Militarization.

However, she emphasized that organizers must consistently “connect the dots” between these local concerns and broader systems including AI infrastructure, nuclear power, militarism, critical minerals extraction, surveillance, and war.

Riofrancos similarly argued that supply chains create material links between struggles that may appear geographically disconnected. Campaigns for public transit, housing justice, labor rights, and climate justice all affect extractive demand patterns and therefore shape mining and data center expansion indirectly.

Kinder noted that data centers expose contradictions within AI expansion particularly clearly because their social utility often appears weak compared to their massive ecological and infrastructural costs.

Geopolitics, Militarization, and “Critical Infrastructure”

The conversation later turned toward the geopolitical role of data centers amid escalating international conflict. Steve Lyons referenced recent attacks involving data center infrastructure during conflicts involving Iran, Israel, and Gulf states, as well as emerging proposals to classify data centers as “critical infrastructure.”

Thea Riofrancos argued that the targeting of data centers in geopolitical conflict demonstrates their growing strategic significance within global capitalism. She also connected AI supply chains to wartime geopolitics through materials such as aluminum, sulfuric acid, and critical minerals moving through contested regions such as the Strait of Hormuz.

She traced the language of “critical minerals” to pre-World War II military planning and argued that contemporary definitions remain deeply tied to national security and imperial power. Riofrancos also connected modern extractive law directly to colonial dispossession, noting that the United States still governs mining on federal lands under the 1872 General Mining Act.

Both Riofrancos and Two Bulls warned that labeling infrastructure “critical” often serves to criminalize protest and intensify state repression against activists through anti-protest laws, RICO prosecutions, and expanded policing powers.

Two Bulls described AI expansion as part of a broader “techno-feudal” system increasingly tied to militarism, surveillance, and automated warfare. She argued that AI normalization across everyday platforms effectively turns society into a testing ground for future systems of control and war-making.

Jordan Kinder added that once private infrastructure is designated “critical,” state resources become mobilized to defend corporate assets while the benefits remain privatized. He also emphasized the unprecedented scale of wealth concentration associated with AI and data center expansion.

Data Centers, Resource Consumption, and Financial Speculation

Audience questions prompted further discussion about how data centers physically operate and how they generate profit.

Kinder explained that data centers primarily consume electricity and generate enormous amounts of heat, requiring intensive cooling systems that rely on either water or air cooling. He described how data centers increasingly integrate directly with energy production systems, citing proposals such as Kevin O’Leary’s “Wonder Valley” project in Alberta, which would sit atop massive natural gas reserves to power AI infrastructure directly.

He also acknowledged that the AI sector remains highly speculative financially. Many generative AI systems are not yet profitable, and the sector currently operates largely through speculative investment and infrastructure leasing models.

Thea Riofrancos cautioned against assuming that an eventual AI financial “bubble burst” would automatically weaken extractive capitalism. Drawing parallels to past oil, gas, and dot-com crashes, she argued that bust cycles often produce greater corporate concentration rather than systemic transformation.

She further warned that abandoned projects and failed investments can leave behind long-term environmental harms, including contaminated infrastructure and e-waste, unless movements successfully demand remediation and accountability.

Closing Reflections

In closing, Beka Economopoulos reflected on the unprecedented momentum building around infrastructure struggles globally. She suggested that these converging movements may create the durable solidarities necessary to confront extractive capitalism beyond any single project or sector.

She thanked the panelists and audience and reiterated the Natural History Museum’s role as “a traveling and online museum for the movement,” dedicated to supporting struggles against extractive infrastructures and imagining alternative futures.

RESOURCES

• Honor the Earth — Indigenous-led environmental justice organization leading the No Data Center Coalition, discussed by Krystal Two Bulls

• No Desert Data Center Coalition — Tucson-based coalition fighting Project Blue, represented by Vivek Bharathan

• MediaJustice — organization building national resistance to corporate control of digital infrastructure

• Climate and Community Institute — Thea Riofrancos’s research home; publisher of More Mobility, Less Mining

• Extraction: The Frontiers of Green Capitalism — Thea Riofrancos’s 2025 book on lithium and the green transition (W.W. Norton)

• Petroturfing: Refining Canadian Oil through Social Media — Jordan B. Kinder’s 2024 book on the Canadian pro-oil movement (University of Minnesota Press)

• More Mobility, Less Mining — CCI report quantifying how public transit reduces mining demand

• The Natural History Museum — host of the Data Center Frontier series, directed by Beka Economopoulos and Steve Lyons

• SUN SiNG Collective — Virginia musicians whose “Which Side Are You On?” rendition opened and closed the event

• Unlikely Alliances — Zoltán Grossman’s book on rancher–tribal coalitions against pipelines, referenced by Krystal Two Bulls