If we're not careful, an actual policy discussion might break out amid the political absurdity saturating our news feeds. 

Considering the crazed, unhinged and outrageous state of modern politics, the fact that data centers — and the nuanced public policy surrounding them — have somehow taken center stage in Nevada's gubernatorial race is actually quite refreshing. 

To be sure, not all the rhetoric surrounding this issue is as well thought out as it should be. For example, there seems to be a growing contingent of voters (and lawmakers) who seemingly want every planned data center project to be permanently banned from now until the end of time throughout the known universe and beyond. Others simply don't want them anywhere near their homes. 

However, such NIMBY prohibitionist attitudes probably aren't practical in the long run — at least not if we want to carry on happily in our wondrous age of technological advancement.

The truth is that data centers are like any other major infrastructure project. From giant dams built to contain seasonal floods to power lines that keep electricity flowing to our homes, they're merely a component of what it takes to keep our civilized society moving forward. 

Far from merely being a way to power AI slop, these centers power the technological world most of us take for granted. 

Uploading a picture to your Google Drive? Listening to a song on Spotify? Maybe OneDrive just backed up that project you're completing for a client. All these things depend on data centers to perform the marvel of modern cloud computing — which means virtually everything we do online or on most of our smartphones requires some warehouse to be built somewhere full of RAM to keep our digital era functioning well. 

The question isn't whether we should build them, because at the end of the day we have to. Instead, the questions should be where do we build them and what guardrails should be erected to make sure they are not a net drain on a local community's resources. 

And the answer to these questions largely depends on the details of any specific project. 

As The Nevada Independent recently explained, not all data centers are created equal. Some use massive amounts of water to feed their evaporative cooling systems — cooling systems that the Southern Nevada Water Authority has recently banned. More efficient closed-loop systems are better, but they do still consume scarce water in the same way other large-scale projects for various industries might. 

Similarly, the power requirements vary greatly by center and local utilities are already trying to devise ways to protect average ratepayers from the effects of increased power requirements on the grid. 

In other words, data centers — just like any other infrastructure project — come with certain trade-offs and benefits for local communities. And while it's easy to only look at one side of the ledger and jump on some populist bandwagon, most legitimate concerns about these projects don't represent insurmountable challenges for the tech industry, lawmakers or local community leaders. 

And in some cases, more pragmatic approaches to the issue are already taking place. As the Brookings Institution noted in a recent white paper on the topic, for example, Microsoft has penned some deals that directly invest in the local community, even beyond the usual promise of a few thousand construction jobs. And virtually all the big industry players — including Meta, Microsoft and Google — are already actively working to make their water usage efficient enough to substantially contribute to a local region's long-term water sustainability goals.  

That's not to say that every proposed center should be automatically greenlit by regulators. But it does illustrate that sound public policy and public discussion can mitigate many of the concerns associated with such construction. 

And the fact that Nevada's gubernatorial race is on the verge of steering into such policy discussions is good news for our era of nonstop performative politics. Even better is the fact that some good-government reforms are already taking place as a result. 

Just last week, for example, Gov. Joe Lombardo (R) signed an executive order limiting the sort of tax incentives data centers can enjoy. Similarly, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Aaron Ford has reversed his previous support for data center tax breaks, promising to place a moratorium on such incentives if elected governor.

Cynics would argue that both candidates are merely placating the public's apparent distrust of the industry — but so what? Restricting or eliminating corporate handouts for any politically connected industry should be seen as a step in the right direction, regardless of whether it was merely in response to public backlash. 

Indeed, of all the concerns regarding data centers, the issue of economically distortive corporate welfare being handed out to massively profitable companies is probably the lowest-hanging fruit for policymakers to pick right now. One doesn't even have to feel particularly animated about the infrastructure needed to keep our Google Drive functioning properly to get on board with a little less political cronyism. 

Importantly, this is the real reason a lawmaker's past support for such subsidies should be considered problematic — not merely because their stance on the issue has conveniently evolved with public opinion, but because their past support demonstrates a belief that government's job is to use our tax dollars to manipulate the economy for the benefit of those who have the best lobbyists. 

Unfortunately, in Nevada, that tends to be the default position for a great many lawmakers, regardless of political party. Governors, legislators and policymakers in our state routinely use the term "economic development" as a catchall excuse to redistribute wealth to politically connected corporations — whether those corporations be sports teams, Hollywood studios, electric vehicle manufacturers or tech companies trying to expand our cloud computing capabilities. 

Nonetheless, the fact that a serious policy discussion is at risk of breaking out in local politics should be quite encouraging for those of us who have felt like the last several years have been nothing more than a weird national fever dream. 

Even more encouraging is that such an accidental policy discussion is already yielding at least a few good-government reforms — at least on the local level. And in a world full of petulant edgelords dominating our public discourse, that is a rare political development worth applauding, regardless of one's partisan preferences.  

Now, what are the odds such policy-based politicking might be contagious?  

Michael Schaus is a communications and branding expert based in Las Vegas and founder of Schaus Creative LLC, an agency dedicated to helping organizations, businesses and activists tell their story and motivate change. He has more than a decade of experience in public affairs commentary, having worked as a news director, columnist, political humorist and most recently as the director of communications for a public policy think tank. Follow him on Twitter @schausmichael or on Substack @creativediscourse.