What resistance to data centres actually achieves

From Beringen to Virginia, protest against data centres is taking shape. Look at the cases soberly and one thing stands out: visible protest puts the issue on the map — reliable impact tends to come only where it plugs early into planning, permitting and participation procedures.

In Beringen, in the canton of Schaffhausen, the company STACK Infrastructure is building the ZUR02 data centre — up to 36 MW of IT capacity, according to the operator. In January 2026, EnergieSchweiz listed the construction phase and an expected water use of 55,000 m³ per year — a planning figure, not a measured operating value. The facility rents computing space to third parties; which companies will use it was, according to EnergieSchweiz, still open. In early July 2026, police cleared a protest camp by the group «Aufstände der Allmende» in Benken (canton Zürich) for lack of a permit; the action continued in Tengen, Germany.

I work with new technologies and AI every day, and I have little time for reflexive tech scepticism. Still, this movement doesn't leave me cold — it aims at the very infrastructure my own work runs on. Rather than pick a side, I followed a sober question: what does such resistance actually change? The answer, and I flag it as interpretation, has less to do with loud images than with deadlines, procedures and the question of who decides.

What the polls show — and what they don't

The robust survey data come almost entirely from the US, and there opposition is broad. In March 2026 Gallup found that 71 per cent of adults surveyed opposed an AI data centre in their area (1,000 respondents, margin of error ±4 points), with majorities across all major party groups. A survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center put opposition at 61 per cent in June/July 2026 — 69 per cent among Democrats, 54 per cent among Republicans, 53 per cent among independents. So the issue doesn't sort neatly by camp.

For Switzerland and Europe, comparable representative surveys are lacking, as far as I can see. The European picture rests not on opinion figures but on individual cases, protests, litigation and regulation — Beringen, the halted Meta project in Zeewolde in the Netherlands, the Irish grid conditions, resistance in France and in Kronstorf, Austria. The US numbers are a signal, but not a one-to-one template for Switzerland.

Two more things belong here. Polls measure attitudes, not a concrete local vote forecast. And broad opposition on its own says nothing about whether a single project is stopped, delayed or made subject to conditions. Two questions arise: why is opposition so broad — and where can it actually move something?

Why the fight is bigger than the building

One thought won't let go of me, and the research supports it — with a caveat. It is striking how little the protest depends on actually being affected. A survey by the consultancy Milltown Partners found that only a small share of those opposing data centres live anywhere near such a project. And according to a survey by Echelon Insights, an AI data centre in the neighbourhood scores worse than a coal or nuclear plant, even though their local risks are objectively higher. Add the resonance chamber: according to Pew Research, in 2026 about 52 per cent of US adults were more concerned than excited about AI in everyday life, only 9 per cent the other way round; among 18-to-29-year-olds concern rose to 55 per cent, driven above all by job fears.

From this I read an interpretation, not a proven fact: the data centre has become the tangible target of a diffuse unease about AI. The abstract AI is hard to fight — not using it is a non-action with limited effect, while the world around you changes anyway. The building, by contrast, has an address, a permitting procedure, a municipal council. The entrepreneur Mark Cuban therefore called the fight a proxy for anger at AI and the concentration of power in a few tech corporations; the Brookings Institution describes the data centre as a symbol of citizens' frustration with AI.

The limit of this reading matters. The hard version — that it isn't about the data centres at all — distorts residents' reality. Gallup shows that opponents cite very concrete reasons: water, electricity prices, noise, little local value. These burdens are documented, not a pretext. A two-stage picture fits best: the concrete local costs are the spark, the broad AI and Big-Tech scepticism the catalyst that turns a single building application into a cross-party movement.

Where resistance actually worked

The most telling cases show which formal lever bit each time.

In Virginia, an appeals court confirmed on 31 March 2026 that the rezonings for the huge «Digital Gateway» project were void — because of defects in the public notice within the procedure. The developer QTS withdrew its challenge on 2 July 2026; after a court order of 29 July 2026 the original zoning returned. It wasn't outrage that decided, but a procedural flaw.

In Monterey Park, California, opponents anchored their cause in a binding ballot. The result of 26 June 2026: 10,388 yes (88.33 per cent) against 1,372 no — a citywide ban on data centres.

In Maine, the bill L.D. 307 would have suspended permits for data centres of 20 MW or more until 1 November 2027. Governor Janet Mills vetoed it because it made no exception for a locally supported redevelopment project on the former Androscoggin Mill site in Jay. The case is a reminder that a structurally weak town can actively want a data centre.

By contrast, Beringen reads as a lesson in the procedural gap. By the time the protest became visible, the project was long approved. A camp then draws attention, but an issued building permit is hard to stop.

Regulation, not prohibition

Beyond spectacular individual cases, the conflict runs mostly through rules. The Netherlands restrict particularly large new data centres in space — not automatically all of them, and with explicitly named exceptions in parts of Het Hogeland and Hollands Kroon. Since a decision by the energy regulator in December 2025, Ireland requires new data centres to provide their own generation or storage matching the requested connection, plus at least 80 per cent additional renewable annual energy generated in Ireland, with a six-year implementation path. At EU level, the Energy Efficiency Directive establishes a monitoring and reporting system; the EU database publishes figures on the energy and water footprint of larger facilities. That is a transparency obligation, not a ban.

In the US too, the legal effect is narrower than headlines suggest. New York's Executive Order 62 of 14 July 2026 holds back certain not-yet-completed state environmental permits for data centres of 50 MW or more until a higher-level environmental review is in place — local approvals are expressly excluded. That is not a general construction halt. The common denominator: the effective lever is usually the condition and the transparency, not a simple yes or no.

What this means for Switzerland

Three cautious principles follow — as interpretation, not a guarantee of success.

• Start early. The effective moment lies in the planning and permitting procedure, not after it. Those who only mobilise once construction begins have usually missed the decisive moment.
• Clarify responsibility and deadlines. Who approves, in which procedure, with what deadline? Depending on the municipality and canton, a popular initiative, referendum, petition or objections within the planning and building-permit procedure come into play. Which instrument is available depends on cantonal and municipal law.
• State figures honestly. Forecast and planning values — such as the «up to 75 per cent» of the canton's electricity that EnergieSchweiz cited for Beringen's maximum case, or the expected 55,000 m³ of water — belong labelled as such, not as measured operating values. A campaign that stays clean here survives the first fact-check.

Fairness demands the counter-calculation. Data centres also bring revenue: in Loudoun County, Virginia, nearly half of property-tax income comes from such facilities, according to the county, and tax rates fell. Whether individual households end up paying less, however, also depends on rising property values — so relief is not a given.

In closing

Whether one kilowatt less is built in Beringen in the end, I don't know; construction is under way. But the cases in Virginia, California and Maine show that procedures, ballots and conditions can genuinely shift something — sometimes for, sometimes against a project. The movement is young, its record open. Those who want a say do so most effectively where decisions are made: early, in the procedure, with figures cleanly labelled.

Sources & methodological notes

As of 1 September 2026. Forecast and planning values as well as surveys are marked as such.

• STACK Infrastructure, ZUR02 Zurich/Beringen (up to 36 MW IT) — stackinfra.com
• EnergieSchweiz / Swiss Federal Office of Energy, Beringen (construction phase, 36 MW max build-out, expected 55,000 m³/yr water, rented to third parties, «up to 75 %» of cantonal electricity as a forecast), January 2026 — pubdb.bfe.admin.ch
• Keystone-SDA via SWI swissinfo.ch, clearance of the Benken camp / relocation to Tengen, 3–4 July 2026 — swissinfo.ch
• Gallup (US), 71 % opposition (March 2026, n=1,000, ±4) — news.gallup.com · survey
• Annenberg Public Policy Center (US), 61 % opposition (June/July 2026; Dem 69 %, Rep 54 %, Ind 53 %) — annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org · survey
• Europe/Switzerland: no comparable population survey found; case-based tracking of resistance, litigation and regulation — European Data Centre Monitor (eudcmonitor.com)
• Brookings, data centre as «symbol»/proxy for AI frustration and the power question, 3 Aug 2026 — brookings.edu · analysis
• Pew Research, AI concern (2026: ~52 % more concerned than excited, 9 % the reverse; 18–29: 55 %; job fears) — pewresearch.org · survey
• Milltown Partners / Echelon Insights (opponents mostly don't live nearby; data centre less popular than a coal/nuclear plant), via reporting, June 2026 — axios.com · survey, secondary
• Mark Cuban, data-centre fight as a «proxy» for anger at AI / concentration of power, June 2026 — barchart.com · quote/opinion
• Vox, «Americans don't know how to fight AI, so they're fighting data centers», 1 Sep 2026 — vox.com · analysis
• Prince William County / WTOP, «Digital Gateway»: rezonings void (31 Mar 2026), QTS withdrawal (2 Jul 2026), return to zoning (29 Jul 2026) — pwcva.gov · wtop.com
• City of Monterey Park / LA County Registrar, Measure NDC: 10,388 yes (88.33 %) / 1,372 no, 26 Jun 2026 — montereypark.ca.gov · results.lavote.gov
• Office of Governor Janet Mills, veto of L.D. 307 (data centres ≥20 MW, exception for Jay), 24 April 2026 — maine.gov
• New York State, Executive Order 62 (state permits ≥50 MW, local approvals excluded), 14 July 2026 — governor.ny.gov
• Rijksoverheid, spatial restriction of large new data centres (with exceptions) — rijksoverheid.nl
• Commission for Regulation of Utilities (Ireland), new connection policy (generation/storage + 80 % additional renewables), December 2025 — cru.ie
• European Commission, Energy performance of data centres (transparency/reporting obligation) — energy.ec.europa.eu
• Loudoun County, Data Centers (share of property tax, falling rates) — loudoun.gov
• Swiss instruments depending on municipality/canton — ch.ch

This post was created with partial use of AI tools (including for research and fact-checking). All content has been carefully reviewed, revised and is my own responsibility.