NAACP announces plans to sue Musk's xAI over pollution concerns
The NAACP announced Tuesday that it intends to bring a lawsuit under the Clean Air Act against Elon Musk's startup xAI, which launched a supercomputer project in Memphis last year. The company's use of gas turbines to power the supercomputer, Colossus, runs afoul of environmental regulations and is worsening pollution in the area, the Southern Environmental Law Center, which represents the NAACP, wrote in a letter to xAI.
The turbines emit nitrogen oxides, a key contributor to smog, and formaldehyde, among other pollutants, according to their manufacturer.
Last month, the NAACP called for an emergency order to shut down the supercomputer until a permit is obtained. Tuesday's announcement was a further escalation, with the organization notifying the company, as required by law, of its intent to sue unless the company addresses the alleged violations.
'We cannot afford to normalize this kind of environmental injustice — where billion-dollar companies set up polluting operations in Black neighborhoods without any permits and think they'll get away with it because the people don't have the power to fight back,' NAACP President and CEO Derrick Johnson said in a statement. 'We will not allow xAI to get away with this.'
The Southern Environmental Law Center argues that xAI was required to have a permit before bringing the turbines onsite.
But the county health department, the mayor and the Chamber of Commerce have said permits aren't required for the turbines' first year of use.
In a statement Tuesday, xAI said it's following the law.
'We take our commitment to the community and environment seriously,' an xAI spokesperson said in a statement. 'The temporary power generation units are operating in compliance with applicable laws.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
Bluesky is dying
In the middle of Cairo there's a place called the City of the Dead. In essence, it is a dusty sprawl of mausoleums, sepulchres and crumbling Mameluke tombs, that has housed the corpses of the city for over a thousand years. On a dank winter's dusk, it feels especially lifeless – deformed dogs vanish into shadows, random fires burn vile rubbish. But that's when you notice children's toys. Cheap clothes drying outside a tomb. And you realise, with a shudder: my God, some poor people live here. That, roughly, is the vibe on Bluesky today. Ironically, Bluesky is now much nastier than Twitter In case you've forgotten, Bluesky is the social media platform once seen as the great Twitter replacement. A year ago, after Elon Musk took over Twitter, unbanned a host of right-wing voices, changed the name (irritatingly) to X, and then allegedly began doing Hitler salutes in the canteen, many people took offence and decamped to Bluesky. Of course, Bluesky wasn't the first attempt to replace Twitter. Do you remember Mastodon? You probably don't, because joining it required a PhD in computer science. First you had to choose a server, then you tried to communicate with the seven other users in your digital iso-pod, but they could only message you every second Thursday, probably from space. It wasn't a social medium so much as a social micro-coffin. Bluesky, however, had two big advantages over the other Twitter alternatives. First: it was basically identical to Twitter – so much so, it looked like a rip-off, akin to a cheap Rolex in Bangkok. It was easy to join, and easy to use, even if posts were called 'skeets', a word that sounds like an unfortunate accident in one's pants. 'I just did a skeet. Sorry.' Secondly – and crucially – Bluesky gained early momentum, especially during Trump's rise, which gave it an aura of viability and seriousness. It was benefitting from the network effect – which is when a product becomes more valuable as more people use it. Like a party that gets better and better as more friends show up. At the height of its early surge, lots of people showed up for Bluesky. In a matter of months it grew from a few hundred thousand users to maybe 36 million, most of them Muskphobic refugees streaming across the digital Dnieper from Twitter, along with the merely curious. I was one of the latter. In those heady early days – when the sky was the limit for Bluesky – a lot of not-very-leftwing people like me snuck over to have a look at the new place. I didn't leave Twitter/X, but I checked out the fresh offering. I had good reasons for this. Many of the voices I liked on Twitter were leaving for Bluesky, taking their valuable weirdness with them. Often they were completely non-political – cricket nerds, wine enthusiasts, German archaeologists. One day they were filling my feed with jokes, Ashes stats and pre-ceramic gossip, the next day they were gone. Twitter was poorer as a result. So I joined Bluesky to find them again. Also, it seemed Bluesky might genuinely replace Twitter, and I wanted to be prepped with an account, if the big switcheroo happened. However, as soon as I looked around Bluesky, I sensed it wouldn't work. It didn't yet feel like a desolate vale of inhabited sepulchres – it was more like a bad vegan café, full of humourless puritans with mouths like cats' bottoms, eager to congratulate themselves on how much better and nobler they were than the awful centrists back on Twitter. (Right-wing people were, of course, beyond discussion – unmentionably evil). It wasn't very inviting for people like me. And so, even then, I had the notion: Bluesky is going to fail. And thus it is. As I write, Bluesky is dying – turning into the City of the Dead. On virtually all metrics it is sliding down a slope that threatens to become a cliff, as a reverse network effect kicks in. For example, in terms of unique daily posts, Bluesky peaked at 1.5 million posts per day in late 2024, but is now down to 700,000 – and the trend looks solid. Over the same period, daily 'likes' are down from 2.7m to 1.5m. And still it slides. This kind of decay is disastrous for a social medium – because it is self-fulfilling. As the site shrinks down to a hardcore of tedious, earnest people, so these people will turn viciously on each other, out of sheer boredom – lacking anyone else to spar with (ironically, Bluesky is now much nastier than Twitter). In this way the site becomes even less appealing. The end of all this is what we witness today: a kind of morbid silence. You can spend a day among the tombs of Bluesky and the only sign of life is a feeble joke in the afternoon. Maybe a meme falls, silently and unnoticed, like a snowflake on a gravestone. Tellingly, several big names who moved to Bluesky have quietly returned to X. Quintessential Centrist Dad and Times journalist Hugo Rifkind is one – at least he's honest enough to admit the reason ('Bluesky is dull'). As for large organisations, it's noticeable that the Guardian staged a performative departure from Twitter to Bluesky, yet virtually all its star writers – from Owen Jones to John Harris – sensibly stayed put. I bet the Guardian itself will return, in time. These people are dreadful – shrill, humourless, dour. We don't want them back All of which leads to the question – should we care? If Bluesky dies and the Blueskiers slink back to Muskville, is that a problem? I think it is. For one thing, Bluesky currently functions as a kind of philosophical quarantine zone. It's a safe place where the most politically infected can stew among themselves. Yes, they grow sicker and more misinformed, but that's all the more reason to keep them there. These people are dreadful – shrill, humourless, dour. We don't want them back. We must therefore take action to save their ghetto. But what? Here is where another historical analogy might be useful. It's said that during the Black Death, villagers on Dartmoor would leave food on remote rocks – so that the pestiferous people up in the hills didn't have to descend into the settlements to survive. The plague was kept at altitude, where it belonged. I propose we do the same for Bluesky. Every so often, one of us – the sane, the informed, the occasionally funny – must venture into the eerie cemetery of Bluesky, and leave behind a little sustenance: a decent gag, a nugget of insight. Just enough to keep the infected entertained. Just enough to keep them from returning to civilisation.
NBC News
8 hours ago
- NBC News
NAACP announces plans to sue Musk's xAI over pollution concerns
The NAACP announced Tuesday that it intends to bring a lawsuit under the Clean Air Act against Elon Musk's startup xAI, which launched a supercomputer project in Memphis last year. The company's use of gas turbines to power the supercomputer, Colossus, runs afoul of environmental regulations and is worsening pollution in the area, the Southern Environmental Law Center, which represents the NAACP, wrote in a letter to xAI. The turbines emit nitrogen oxides, a key contributor to smog, and formaldehyde, among other pollutants, according to their manufacturer. Last month, the NAACP called for an emergency order to shut down the supercomputer until a permit is obtained. Tuesday's announcement was a further escalation, with the organization notifying the company, as required by law, of its intent to sue unless the company addresses the alleged violations. 'We cannot afford to normalize this kind of environmental injustice — where billion-dollar companies set up polluting operations in Black neighborhoods without any permits and think they'll get away with it because the people don't have the power to fight back,' NAACP President and CEO Derrick Johnson said in a statement. 'We will not allow xAI to get away with this.' The Southern Environmental Law Center argues that xAI was required to have a permit before bringing the turbines onsite. But the county health department, the mayor and the Chamber of Commerce have said permits aren't required for the turbines' first year of use. In a statement Tuesday, xAI said it's following the law. 'We take our commitment to the community and environment seriously,' an xAI spokesperson said in a statement. 'The temporary power generation units are operating in compliance with applicable laws.'
The Guardian
9 hours ago
- The Guardian
Elon Musk's X sues New York over hate speech and disinformation law
Elon Musk's X Corp filed a lawsuit on Tuesday against the state of New York, arguing a recently passed law compelling large social media companies to divulge how they address hate speech is unconstitutional. The complaint alleges that bill S895B, known as the Stop Hiding Hate Act, violates free speech rights under the first amendment. The act, which the governor, Kathy Hochul, signed into law last December, requires companies to publish their terms of service and submit reports detailing the steps they take to moderate extremism, foreign influence, disinformation, hate speech and other forms of harmful content. Musk's lawyers argue that the law, which goes into effect this week, would require X to submit 'highly sensitive information' and compel non-commercial speech, which is subject to greater first amendment protections. The complaint also opposes the possible penalty of $15,000 per violation per day for failing to comply with the law. The bill's authors issued a statement on Tuesday rejecting Musk's suit as an attempt to 'use the First Amendment as a shield against providing New Yorkers with much needed transparency' and argued that the act does not infringe upon the free speech rights of social media companies. X successfully sued last year to block a similar law in California, which also required social media companies to disclose to the government how they define hate speech and extremism. Since Musk bought Twitter in 2022, he has heavily downgraded content moderation efforts and fought against attempts at regulating the platform. The Stop Hiding Hate Act was written by Brad Hoylman-Sigal, a New York state senator and Grace Lee, a state assemblymember, in cooperation with the Anti-Defamation League, with the intent of providing great transparency and accountability over harmful online speech. Lee and Hoylman-Sigal rejected a request last year from X to discuss and amend the bill, according to the state senator, on the grounds that they believed the company was not acting in good faith and only seeking to weaken the bill's requirements. 'Now more than ever, with the rise in political violence and threats emanating from the spread of hate speech and disinformation by President Trump and Elon Musk, New Yorkers deserve to know what social media companies like X are doing (or not doing) to stop the spread of hatred and misinformation on their platform,' Hoylman-Sigal and Lee said Tuesday. Sign up to TechScape A weekly dive in to how technology is shaping our lives after newsletter promotion Although Musk has described himself as a 'free speech absolutist', his platform X has targeted journalists and media outlets that post critical information about him. The platform suspended the accounts of several journalists in recent years that have reported on Musk and throttled links to news sites he has criticized. Musk also sued a non-profit that catalogued racist and extremist content on X, in a case that a US district judge threw out as an attempt to punish freedom of speech.
