Artificial intelligence (AI) is one of the top priorities of Lee Zeldin, former congressional representative for New York and newly appointed head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by newly elected President Donald Trump. In a recent post on X (formerly Twitter), Zeldin announced his intent to “liberate US energy dominance” and transform the country into the “AI capital of the world.” The EPA plays a critical role in regulating emissions that affect climate change and air quality. However, with Zeldin at the top, it appears the agency’s priorities will shift toward deregulation aimed at boosting industrial activities, particularly the growth of AI data centers, known for their high energy consumption.
I look forward to getting to work now as part of President Trump’s Cabinet to liberate America’s energy dominance, make America the AI capital of the world, bring back American auto jobs, and much more more. pic.twitter.com/zGGLIRMrd6
— Lee Zeldin (@leezeldin) November 12, 2024
Environmental organizations such as the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) have expressed concerns about Zeldin’s appointment. Manish Bapna, president of the NRDC, commented: “We can meet the demand for data centers without eliminating environmental regulations that reduce pollution from power plants.” Environmental organizations fear that the EPA under Zeldin’s leadership will relax environmental regulations to benefit the energy and technology sectors, to the detriment of public health. Trump’s last term in the White House was characterized by the reversal of more than one hundred environmental regulations, with a government team geared towards aggressive deregulation. With Zeldin at the helm of the EPA, many expect the agency to further reduce regulations to accelerate economic growth while still ensuring a minimum of environmental standards, as Trump reported on Truth Social.
Zeldin is no stranger to clashes with environmental groups. The League of Conservation Voters (LCV), which evaluates legislators based on their environmental choices, gave Zeldin a very low score, just 14%. During his political career, Zeldin has received substantial funding from the oil and real estate industries, which represent sectors closely linked to Trump’s policies. Seth Gladstone, director of public affairs at Food & Water Watch, underlined how Zeldin’s past highlights a strong alignment with Trump’s policies, deemed “anti-science and pro-polluters”. However, some activists hope that Zeldin can find a balance. Julie Tighe, president of the New York League of Conservation Voters, pointed to her opposition to offshore drilling as an example of a possible rallying point on issues of common concern.
Data centers, essential for training AI models, require massive amounts of energy. Recent studies indicate that data center energy demand could increase 160% by 2030. Although many technology companies are investing in renewable sources, the growing demand for fossil fuel energy remains a significant challenge for the EPA. The previous Trump administration had already eliminated some environmental regulations, such as Obama’s plan to reduce emissions from power plants. Although the Biden administration has sought to reintroduce tougher standards for coal plants, Trump’s re-election could mean a reversal of these policies.
“Trump has already tried to weaken the EPA and now he is asking Zeldin to roll back dozens of regulations that protect clean air and water,” said Jeremy Symons, a former EPA adviser. Environmentalists’ concerns include the possibility of seeing the collapse of long-standing environmental regulations, although many hope that Zeldin can recognize the importance of a balanced approach to ensuring both economic development and the protection of public health and the environment. With Trump’s new mandate and Zeldin’s approach to leading the EPA, the country may find itself having to choose between deregulation in the name of economic competitiveness and the protection of natural resources, essential for the quality of life and health of its citizens. American citizens.
Interview Between Time.news Editor and Dr. Emily Carter, Environmental Policy Expert
Time.news Editor: Good afternoon, Dr. Carter. Thank you for joining us today. With Lee Zeldin’s recent appointment as the head of the EPA under President Trump, there has been a lot of talk regarding his plans to prioritize artificial intelligence and tackle energy consumption. What’s your initial reaction to this development?
Dr. Emily Carter: Thank you for having me! My initial reaction is one of concern. While the ambition to make the U.S. the “AI capital of the world” by leveraging energy dominance is certainly appealing, it raises significant questions about the environmental impact of such an approach, especially considering AI data centers are notoriously energy-intensive.
Time.news Editor: Zeldin has stated his intent to “liberate US energy dominance.” Can you elaborate on what that might mean for the regulation of emissions and the balance between economic growth and environmental protection?
Dr. Emily Carter: “Liberating energy dominance” often translates to deregulation, which can be problematic. When we loosen regulations designed to limit emissions from power plants, it could pave the way for increased pollution, especially from industries that contribute heavily to AI infrastructure. Striking a balance is crucial; we need economic growth, but it should not come at the expense of public health and the environment.
Time.news Editor: Environmental organizations like the NRDC and the League of Conservation Voters have raised serious concerns. What specific environmental safeguards do you think could be at risk with Zeldin’s leadership?
Dr. Emily Carter: Under Zeldin, we might see a rollback of critical safeguards such as the Clean Air Act and various emissions limits. These regulations are not just bureaucratic red tape; they’re essential for controlling pollution levels that can affect air quality and consequently, public health. If the focus shifts too heavily toward supporting the energy and tech sectors without regard for these protections, the ramifications could be severe.
Time.news Editor: It’s interesting to note that Zeldin has received significant funding from the oil and real estate industries. How do you see this influencing his decisions at the EPA?
Dr. Emily Carter: Funding from these sectors could create conflicts of interest. Given his historical voting record and low environmental score from organizations like the LCV, it suggests a tendency to align with pro-pollution policies. This alignment may lead to prioritizing industrial growth over environmental health, further reinforcing an “anti-science” approach that some critics have labeled his political tenure with.
Time.news Editor: Considering all this, is there any hope that Zeldin could carve out a middle ground, as some activists suggest?
Dr. Emily Carter: I think the possibility exists, albeit hopefully with pressure from both the public and environmental organizations. Activists like Julie Tighe are right to call for balance. If stakeholders collaborate to find solutions that satisfy both economic objectives and environmental needs, there might be a pathway forward. However, such efforts would require an unprecedented commitment to seriously integrating sustainability into tech and energy strategies.
Time.news Editor: Thank you, Dr. Carter, for your insights. It’s clear that while the potential for innovation is exciting, the implications for our environment cannot be ignored. We’ll be watching closely as this situation develops.
Dr. Emily Carter: My pleasure, and I appreciate the platform to share these concerns. The conversation about AI and environmental sustainability is crucial as we move forward.