Artificial intelligence is arriving with the force of a technological and economic tsunami. It promises breakthroughs in healthcare, education, scientific discovery, productivity and public administration. Yet it also unsettles assumptions about employment, privacy, democracy and human relevance.

As explored in The Lost Commons: Human Relevance Under Siege, the central question is not simply what increasingly capable AI will be able to do, but what authority, knowledge and confidence people must retain to make the decisions that shape their lives.

Last week’s Podcast Recordings:

Canada’s Next Economic Challenge: A Call to Chambers Leadership HERE

Public Forum: Why Alberta, Canada?  HERE

The unrest surrounding AI is therefore about much more than technology. Workers wonder whether they will be assisted, retrained or replaced. Parents question what children should learn when machines can retrieve information, write essays and solve problems almost instantly. Governments struggle to regulate systems that are developing faster than legislation. Citizens are asked to trust corporations whose algorithms, data, financial arrangements and environmental footprints are often difficult to see.

Statistics Canada estimates that about 60 per cent of Canadian employees work in occupations potentially highly exposed to AI-related transformation. Exposure does not necessarily mean elimination. AI will complement many occupations, while others will be reorganized or reduced. Nevertheless, the pace of adoption is unmistakable. By March 2026, 41.6 per cent of Canadian workers reported using at least one AI or automation technology in their primary job or business. The transition is no longer approaching; it is underway.

The Physical Reality Behind the Cloud. AI may appear weightless, operating somewhere in “the cloud,” but that cloud has a massive physical presence. Every AI response depends upon processors housed in data centres that require land, electricity, cooling, transmission connections and, depending upon their design, considerable amounts of water.

The International Energy Agency estimates that global data-centre electricity consumption could more than double by 2030, reaching approximately 945 terawatt-hours—slightly more electricity than Japan consumes today. Demand from AI-optimized data centres is expected to grow particularly rapidly. In 2025 alone, electricity use by all data centres increased by 17 per cent, while consumption by AI-focused facilities rose by approximately 50 per cent.

Alberta has placed itself directly in the path of this expansion. The province’s AI Data Centre Strategy seeks to make Alberta a leading North American destination by promoting its natural gas resources, cool climate, available land, competitive taxes and engineering expertise. Its three stated pillars are power capacity, sustainable cooling and economic growth.

The scale of interest has been extraordinary. Requests associated with proposed Alberta data centres have risen from hundreds of megawatts to tens of thousands. Reports based on the Alberta Electric System Operator’s project list indicated that, by July 2026, more than 20,000 megawatts of proposed data-centre load were seeking some form of connection or development consideration. That is roughly twice Alberta’s total electricity demand at a typical moment. Not all these projects will be financed, approved or constructed, but their combined scale explains why the word tsunami is not an exaggeration.

The provincial grid cannot accommodate them all. The Alberta Electric System Operator initially determined that only 1,200 megawatts of additional large-load capacity could be connected without jeopardizing reliability. That entire interim allocation has now been assigned: 970 megawatts to the GLDC project and 230 megawatts to the first phase of the Keephills Data Centre. Alberta is therefore prioritizing projects that bring new electricity generation with them.

NIMBY—or a Reasonable Demand to Be Heard? The public response is sometimes dismissed as NIMBY—“not in my backyard.” That label is too convenient. Local opposition is not always resistance to progress. It may be a reasonable response when the benefits are described in billions of dollars while the local costs remain uncertain.

Residents are asking practical questions. How much water will be withdrawn, and from where? Who will pay for new transmission lines, roads and utility infrastructure? Will natural-gas generation increase emissions and affect air quality? Will constant fans, generators and cooling systems create noise? What will happen to agricultural land, nearby property values and household electricity bills? How many permanent local jobs will remain after construction? What information will operators be required to disclose?

These concerns have already produced protests in Alberta, including opposition to Meta’s proposed Sturgeon County development. The announced project represents a $13-billion investment and is expected to operate initially at approximately one gigawatt, with the potential to expand. Meta forecasts about 3,000 construction jobs at the peak and more than 300 continuing positions. It says the facility will use closed-loop cooling and consume less water annually than a typical golf course. Those are important commitments, but the public is entitled to independently verifiable information.

Municipalities are responding. Sturgeon County has amended its land-use rules and expects operators to report publicly on water consumption, noise and nitrogen-oxide emissions. Developers are also expected to fund project-related municipal infrastructure rather than transferring those costs to local ratepayers. Other municipalities are examining zoning, setbacks, noise limits, water requirements, emergency planning and reclamation obligations.

Such regulation should not be portrayed as hostility to investment. Clear rules protect responsible investors as well as communities. They distinguish credible projects from speculative announcements and reduce the risk that municipalities will inherit abandoned infrastructure or unexpected costs.

Who Pays—and Who Benefits? Electricity affordability remains one of the most contentious questions. Large data centres could increase demand for generation and transmission, potentially raising system costs. Conversely, if operators finance their own power, pay for necessary connections and contribute substantial transmission charges, they may broaden the customer base and reduce the portion of those costs borne by households.

Alberta has introduced a levy of up to two per cent on computing equipment used by large grid-connected data centres, in addition to applicable property taxes, transmission charges and royalties from natural gas consumption. The province also maintains that large projects will receive no grants, discounted electricity or tax holidays, and that homes will take priority during an electricity emergency. These protections are encouraging, but they must be backed by enforceable rules, transparent accounting and ongoing public oversight.

AI-related investment is increasingly measured in trillions of dollars. Capital directed into processors, power generation, transmission, cooling systems and hyperscale campuses is capital unavailable—at least temporarily—for housing, transportation, conventional business expansion and other public or private priorities. This does not necessarily constitute a financial liquidity crisis. Still, it can crowd out competing investments, increase borrowing costs and concentrate economic influence among a small number of technology and financial corporations.

The danger is magnified if enthusiasm produces a speculative bubble. Data centres may be built on optimistic forecasts of future AI demand, while their processors can become obsolete within only a few years. Alberta should welcome serious, long-term investors, but it should not confuse the number of proposals with the number of sustainable projects.

Alberta’s Opportunity—If We Get It Right. Trouble lies ahead because profound change always redistributes power, opportunity, risk and wealth. Attempting to stop AI is unlikely to succeed. Accepting every proposal without scrutiny would be equally irresponsible.

Alberta has an opportunity to turn its energy experience into a broader digital and knowledge economy. Data centres could support new-generation carbon-management technologies, renewable energy, energy storage, advanced cooling, cybersecurity, sovereign Canadian computing capacity and locally developed AI applications. They could create markets for Alberta natural gas while encouraging the province to become more efficient and innovative in how it produces and uses energy. Universities, colleges and technical institutes could prepare Albertans for careers in engineering, computing, construction, maintenance, data governance and applied artificial intelligence.

The lasting economic prize, however, will not come merely from hosting warehouses filled with foreign-owned computers. It will come from building an ecosystem around them: Alberta-owned intellectual property, research, software companies, skilled workers, local suppliers and AI applications serving agriculture, energy, healthcare, education and government.

That future requires transparency. Every major proposal should disclose its expected electricity and water demands, infrastructure contributions and emergency obligations. Communities should be consulted before decisions become irreversible. Benefits and risks should be reported in language ordinary citizens can understand, and performance should be measured independently after operations begin.

AI does not have to diminish human relevance. Properly governed, it can extend human capability. Data centres do not have to become monuments to corporate power. Properly planned, they can become infrastructure for economic diversification and public benefit.

The question facing Alberta is therefore not whether change is coming. It is whether Albertans will be informed participants in shaping it. That question—who decides, who benefits and who bears the risk—will be at the centre of our associated podcast discussion.