The rapid expansion of data centers powering artificial intelligence systems is increasingly triggering legal battles over environmental concerns.

According to a report by the London School of Economics (LSE) cited by The Guardian in its annual climate litigation review, non-governmental organizations, local communities, and environmental activists from Chile to Ireland and the US are seeking to block the construction and operation of data centers through the courts, citing high energy consumption, water usage, and associated climate risks.

Researchers analyzed approximately 3,600 climate lawsuits filed globally since 2015, detecting a rise in cases linked to data centers.

The legal proceedings focus on energy supply sources, the volume of water used to cool servers, and environmental pollution.

One of the earliest cases in this field was filed against a Google project in the Chilean capital, Santiago.

In 2020, local residents and municipal officials challenged a construction permit granted for a massive data center in the Cerrillos area, arguing that it threatened the water resources of a city already struggling with drought.

The court ruled that the project’s climate impacts had been inadequately assessed and ordered a review of the decision.

Environmental impacts of projects in Chile and Ireland taken to court

In Ireland, which the report’s authors describe as one of the global flashpoints of conflicts over data centers, the situation is even more acute.

According to data shared in the report, more than 20% of the country’s total electricity consumption is allocated to this sector.

Despite government plans to further expand the sector, environmental organizations are pursuing legal action against official decisions that allow new facilities to use fossil fuels for several more years before transitioning to renewable sources.

Lawsuits in the US and UK force companies to make commitments

Environmental requirements for data centers are also tightening in the US. Officials in the city of Pittsburg, California, imposed obligations on a new data center to use renewable energy and opt for recycled water for equipment cooling.

At the same time, lawsuits in several states are challenging regulatory bodies that have approved the construction of fossil-fuel-based energy infrastructure to meet growing computing capacity demands.

A project belonging to Elon Musk’s xAI company in the state of Mississippi has also faced legal pressure.

Plaintiffs argue that the company used methane generators without obtaining the necessary environmental permits, thereby violating the Clean Air Act. The US Department of Justice, meanwhile, defended the project, highlighting its economic significance.

Similar disputes are occurring across Europe.

In the United Kingdom, activists successfully secured a review of the environmental assessment report for a planned mega-scale data center project in Buckinghamshire.

Following the judicial process, official authorities acknowledged deficiencies in the approval process, while the contractor agreed to undertake additional environmental commitments.

According to the experts who prepared the study, these lawsuits demonstrate that judicial processes have become a new tool for regulating rapidly expanding digital infrastructure.

Even if projects are not halted entirely, the lawsuits force companies and official bodies to account for climate risks, transparently disclose resource consumption data, and re-evaluate their energy strategies.

As reported by The Guardian, study co-author Associate Professor Joana Setzer of the London School of Economics commented on the issue: “The issue here is not necessarily to stop development, but to prevent the lock-in of fossil fuel dependency.”

“This is an opportunity to direct highly energy-intensive projects toward renewable energy sources while we still have the chance,” Setzer added.

NATO member states are preparing to approve the allocation of €70 billion in military aid to Ukraine at the annual leaders’ summit to be held in Ankara, Türkiye, on June 7-8.

If these resources are secured, Ukraine’s total defense spending—combining its own domestic resources and foreign aid—will approximately match Russia’s budgeted defense expenditure for this year.

Although the Russian Federation continues to spend its budgeted amounts at a faster pace, a budgetary balance will have been established on paper.

Speaking to Politico, five diplomats from alliance member states said that NATO ambassadors have largely agreed on the text of the leaders’ joint declaration, though details may still change.

According to the diplomats, the draft declaration commits NATO countries to providing €70 billion (approximately $80 billion) in military support to Ukraine.

The US, however, is not participating in this specific support program.

When this amount is added to Ukraine’s own defense and security expenditures, the total budget will reach approximately $178 billion. Three days ago, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy signed a law approving a 4.4 trillion hryvnia (approximately $98 billion) budget, which includes a loan from the European Union and drives defense spending to record levels.

By comparison, Russia’s official budget allocates 12.93 trillion rubles for defense.

While this amount equates to approximately $170 billion at current exchange rates, the ruble’s recent depreciation plays a role in this balance; indeed, just a month ago, the dollar equivalent of this sum exceeded $180 billion.

In contrast, according to calculations by Janis Kluge, a researcher at the Germany-based Institute for International and Security Affairs, Russia’s military spending in the first quarter of 2026 alone reached a record 5.908 trillion rubles (approximately $78 billion at the current exchange rate).

Ukraine, meanwhile, has managed to significantly increase its budget expenditures thanks to a €90 billion loan provided by the European Union. Kyiv is scheduled to receive half of this loan this year, with €31.8 billion of that portion planned to be used directly for defense spending.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, speaking on Thursday at the Ukraine Reconstruction Conference in Gdansk, Poland, announced that the first tranche of €3.2 billion was transferred today.

According to an earlier Politico report citing Ukrainian Ministry of Defense data, NATO countries had already committed $38 billion in military aid to Ukraine for this year.

In addition, Kyiv planned to request an additional $20 billion from the alliance. The Ukrainian side aims to maintain the initiative it has gained in recent months by effectively utilizing unmanned aerial vehicles across all areas, from the front line to occupied territories.

These vehicles, while cutting off Russian supply lines, also cause explosions and fires at oil refineries and defense industry facilities deep inside Russia.

Consequently, according to the draft declaration of the NATO leaders, Ukraine will receive more support than expected, potentially reaching a total of €70 billion.

According to information provided to Politico by the diplomats, the alliance will also commit to allocating at least an equivalent amount for next year.

If these plans are implemented, and with the addition of €45 billion allocated from the EU loan for the year 2027, Ukraine’s defense financing will continue to be strongly supported next year as well.

The United States and Qatar have urged the European Union to overhaul its planned methane emission regulations for oil and gas imports, warning that the incoming framework threatens energy security.

Beginning next year, the EU regulation will mandate strict methane monitoring and verification requirements for fuel deliveries imported into the bloc.

The rules are designed to curb leaks of the potent greenhouse gas. However, they have drawn fierce opposition from the energy industry and foreign suppliers.

In an open letter addressed to EU leaders, the energy ministers of the US, Qatar, Nigeria, and Algeria—all major gas exporters to Europe—demanded that the EU suspend the legislation and introduce “targeted changes.”

“Importers have already begun the process of purchasing oil and natural gas to be stored for delivery in 2027, and as of now, there is no viable pathway to comply with the regulation,” the letter stated.

Speaking on Wednesday at the Reuters Global Energy Forum in New York, US Energy Secretary Chris Wright said the EU’s “crazy” methane regulations would make liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports from the US and other allied signatory nations impossible.

Wright warned that the move would put EU member states at risk. “The risk of experiencing power outages or heating issues next winter will be quite high. There is no justification for this,” he said.

Speaking to reporters before the letter was published, EU Energy Commissioner Dan Jorgensen indicated openness to discussing ways to ease the implementation of the regulation, but maintained that the bloc would not dilute the policy’s objectives.

“I will not bring this matter back to the table. I am very proud of our methane regulations. We have also faced significant pressure from international companies and countries like the US; our message to them remains the same. We will assist as much as we can to be pragmatic, but we must protect the legislation,” Jorgensen said.

The European Commission has drafted plans to remove penalties for companies violating the law, but has so far refused to rewrite the core rules.

According to a document seen by Reuters, 11 EU governments—including Italy, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, and Poland—have separately requested that Brussels delay the implementation of the rules by three years, citing energy supply disruptions linked to the war in Ukraine.

EU energy ministers are scheduled to discuss the request on Friday.

According to a study by Wood Mackenzie published in March and backed by the oil and gas industry, nearly half of the EU’s gas imports could struggle to comply with the incoming rules.

However, research published this week by Rystad for the Environmental Defense Fund indicated that the volume of gas already compliant with the current rules is three times the EU’s existing import levels.