Generation Raised by Technology Must Shape AI’s Future

Op-ed by Sidnie Duncan, Advocacy and Outreach Fellow at CCAN, originally published in the Roanoke Times.

College students today face a dilemma with artificial intelligence (AI). On one hand, AI can make schoolwork faster, clearer and learning more personalized. On the other hand, it’s tied to growing inequality, worsening climate change and real public health concerns. College students feel trapped between utilizing AI to get ahead academically or rejecting it to avoid its harms. This binary thinking oversimplifies the reality: AI can be a valuable tool, and its negatives can be mitigated through thoughtful regulation, ethical oversight and responsible development.

As the generation inheriting the consequences of today’s decisions, college students have a stake in shaping what AI becomes and a responsibility to advocate for sustainable AI development that works for everyone, not against the planet or the communities it impacts.

I am a rising senior at Virginia Tech, part of a generation that has grown up alongside rapid technological change. From touchscreen devices to virtual reality, we’ve seen the benefits and the drawbacks firsthand. We’ve seen how devices and social media impact our sleep, attention spans, self-image and social skills. We’re now watching tech reshape the lives of the next generation. We joke about “iPad kids,” but there’s an unsettling reality behind the humor. Watching our siblings and peers lose their social skills to screens has left many college students questioning the consequences of unchecked technological growth.

Fossil-fueled data centers consume gigantic amounts of electricity and water, straining local resources while increasing air pollution and environmental noise. Research shows these environmental impacts are already taking a toll on public health. On top of that, the continued proliferation of large-scale, fossil-fueled data centers could triple electricity demand, driving up utility bills for families.

Through my fellowship with Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN) doing grassroots climate advocacy, I have witnessed these impacts in Northern Virginia, widely known as the data center capital of the world. From rising electricity costs to widespread water shortages, Virginians are feeling the weight of rapid data center expansion. I have spoken to both Republicans and Democrats who share concerns about this issue, reinforcing that this is not a partisan debate. It is about protecting public health, keeping energy affordable, and ensuring that our community is not sacrificed for the profit of Big Tech developers.

As digital literacy grows to be more valuable to employers, universities are creating AI-related coursework and integrating it into assignments. Last semester, four out of five of my classes included assignments that required the use of AI. What stood out wasn’t the use of AI itself, but the lack of discussion around it. For context, my major is Environmental Conservation and Society. You would think that in a field focused on sustainability, we would at least talk about the environmental, ethical and social impacts of AI before using it so extensively, but no. There was no discussion. That disconnect is frustrating, especially in fields that emphasize systems thinking.

AI isn’t just changing how we can get ahead; it’s reinforcing inequalities of who gets a chance to succeed. Over 90% of employers rely on AI to pre-screen resumes; some tools have been proven to exhibit racial and gender biases that deny candidates based on the presence of demographic signals rather than the absence of relevant skills — echoing historical patterns of hiring discrimination. AI isn’t born biased; it’s been baked into the historical data it’s trained on. Without proper correction, this will continue to perpetuate white supremacist values in hiring and will undercut the social progress we’ve made during my lifetime. If we don’t address these failures, we aren’t just tolerating discrimination; we are automating it.

We don’t have to choose between being supportive of AI or being fair to our planet and communities. Both are possible, but only if we act quickly.

We must advocate for universities and corporations to invest in renewable energy infrastructure that will support innovative technology while reducing its environmental impact. Sustainable, equitable and accountable AI development is critical to ensure the boom of AI is looked back on as being positively revolutionary. Join forces with advocacy groups to lobby your local and state policymakers to create clean energy and environmental guardrails for data centers.

Op-ed by Sidnie Duncan, Advocacy and Outreach Fellow at CCAN, originally published in the Roanoke Times.

About the Author: Sidnie Duncan is a rising senior at Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University (Virginia Tech), where she is pursuing a Bachelor of Science in Environmental Conservation and Society.

She was the Advocacy and Outreach CCAN Fellow for summer 2026.

unnamed (4)

70 Bills, 29 States: Misinformation Fuels Campaign Against Climate Science

Policymakers Need Solar Reflective Methods Research — NOT Conspiracy Theories

 

By Quentin Scott, Federal Policy Director, Chesapeake Climate Action Network

What if scientists might one day have tools that could temporarily slow down the worst immediate effects of climate change, protect millions of lives, and buy us more time to advance the clean energy transition? 

What if those tools could help slow the melting of glaciers and sea-level rise in New Orleans, Miami, and low-lying cities across the country? What if we could reduce the number of dangerous heat events like the ones we experienced this month? 

Now, what if your elected representatives were actively trying to ban research into these tools that could save lives? That’s not a hypothetical. It’s what happened this legislative session in statehouses across the country.

Seventy Bills Built on Misinformation

In 2026, lawmakers introduced 70 bills across 29 states to ban or restrict research into a suite of technologies that could potentially cool the planet on a temporary basis and buy us more time to cut carbon pollution. Let that number sink in. That’s not a fringe movement: that’s a coordinated legislative campaign, largely driven by climate-denying, conspiracy-oriented right-wing networks, to ban even the possibility of learning if such technologies are viable options to save our planet.

At hearing after hearing, testimony relied on misinformation. In Alabama, witnesses claimed that tiny particles that reflect sunlight, a form of solar radiation management scientists are researching, were giving bees Alzheimer’s. In South Carolina, a key witness linked this climate research to Bill Gates “controlling populations.” And in New Hampshire, a witness showed pictures of “chemtrails,” pushing a debunked conspiracy theory that airplanes are secretly spraying chemicals. The witness testified that “they” — whoever “they” are — “are severely spraying.” 

None of these conspiracy theories are grounded in evidence. And there is one glaring hole in their argument: no geoengineering is currently deployed at climate‑relevant scale. We’re just talking about researching this new technology — not yet deploying it. Multiple bill sponsors, when asked directly, even admitted they had no firsthand knowledge of geoengineering occurring in their states – because it’s not. It’s not happening anywhere.

One Arizona sponsor acknowledged he didn’t have “specific knowledge” it was happening but said he had “testimony coming up that may lead to the conclusion that there might be some of that going on.” They won’t find anything because there isn’t anything to find. A Rhode Island sponsor described the topic as “the Wild West” and said, to his credit, that “most people, myself included, know very little about it.” And that’s exactly the problem: lawmakers are legislating based on confusion, not evidence.

Scientists, Farmers, and Agencies Push Back

Researchers, climate groups, business leaders, and even state agencies testified against these bad bills. In Maryland, I testified that the bill penalizes research and that “whatever the underlying concern, this bill doesn’t solve it.” Business groups expressed concerns that the broadly written language could capture everything from agriculture cloud seeding and snow-making at ski resorts to everyday farming equipment that emits sulfur dioxide. 

In South Dakota, the state’s Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources disagreed with sponsors’ ‘assurances’ that farmers would be exempt from the bill’s bans. This is what a legislative effort built on misinformation looks like: chaotic, technically incoherent, and disconnected from science.

What Happened When the Bills Faced Legislatures

How far did these bills actually get? Not very.

Of the 70 bills introduced, 60 are dead. One (Arizona’s HB2042) passed its legislature but was vetoed by the governor. Only one bill has been signed into law; it’s an add-on to a law Louisiana passed last year, expanding the list of prohibited chemicals. That’s it.

The volume of bill introductions and the energy behind this effort, and the picture it paints, become clear: for all the noise, these bills have almost no legs.

The pattern is consistent: bills are introduced, get a hearing, but once they run into simple questions — How do you enforce this? What counts as geoengineering? Would this affect farmers? Would this ban legitimate research? — they stall. The conspiracy theories don’t hold up to scrutiny. Neither does the policy.

Why Research Must Come Before Deployment

I’ve spent my career working on climate policy. I know how badly we need every tool in the toolbox. And solar reflective methods (SRM) research — not deployment, research — is one of those tools we cannot afford to kneecap before we even understand it.

Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN) does not support SRM deployment. We do support studying whether it could work, what the risks are, who would be affected, and who would get a say. Those are responsible questions. And we need to know those answers—before other nations, private companies, and rogue billionaires make those decisions for us.

Banning SRM research does not make these technologies disappear. It only ensures that, if they are ever used, or if someone else proceeds without public oversight, we will be unprepared.

Here’s what I find especially troubling about this legislative trend: the bills that got the furthest weren’t necessarily the most scientifically coherent; they were the ones in states where the political environment made it easier to move fast and ask questions later. In some hearings, no substantive debate was held at all. A committee vote with no substantive discussion is not a policy process: it’s a vibe check.

Meanwhile, the federal government has shown more interest in restricting climate science than in building the governance frameworks we actually need. That vacuum creates space for state-level chaos like this. And it’s why groups like CCAN are pushing for transparent, publicly funded, equitably governed research. The alternative is to leave these decisions to private companies with no guardrails or to legislatures that openly admit they don’t understand the technologies they’re voting on.

The Fight is Not Over

The good news from this session is that when scientists, farmers, business groups, state agencies, and environmental advocates showed up to say “wait, have you thought this through?”, most of the bills collapsed. That matters.

The 2026 state legislative session is over in most states, which means the immediate threat from this wave is largely contained — for now.

But this threat isn’t going away. The same networks that drove this session’s bills will be back. Louisiana’s law will give advocates a new template to point to. As climate impacts worsen and SRM research receives more public attention, the political pressure around these technologies will only intensify.

The question for the climate movement isn’t whether SRM will be on the research agenda. It already is. The question is whether the people who care most about equity, transparency, and the future of the planet will be in the room when the decisions are made.

If scientists and climate advocates aren’t in the room, the room doesn’t just go away. It just gets populated with self-interested private actors and foreign governments instead. Declaring an outright ban on this research makes this outcome even more likely.

The Bottom Line

Seventy bills. Twenty-nine states. Zero new laws passed this year.

By the numbers, this legislative session was a failure for the anti-research effort. But we’re not ready to relax just yet. We know that the opposition to responsible climate research is organized, loud, and will be back next year.

CCAN will be watching. We hope you will be, too.

About the author: Quentin Scott (he/him) joined CCAN in January 2021 as part of the newly created CCAN Federal Team. He moved from Chicago specifically to build political will for groundbreaking national climate and climate justice policies. Growing up on the South Side of Chicago, he got a first-hand look at the two Americas and sought to bring the two Americas closer together through advocacy.

Before joining CCAN, Quentin was chief of staff for an Illinois State Representative and a legislative correspondent in the US House of Representatives, and has led numerous issue and candidate campaigns across the Midwest and East Coast. In his roles, he has stood with neighborhood groups to hold industrial polluters accountable in communities of color and looks forward to bringing that fight to the federal level.

IMG_1068

Thousands Urge Feds to Reject “MVP Boost” While Virginia DEQ Suspends Impact Review

More than 6,500 people have signed a petition demanding that FERC reject the Mountain Valley Pipeline expansion as state concerns remain unresolved.

RICHMOND, VA — On Friday, August 7, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued its Environmental Assessment (EA) for Mountain Valley Pipeline’s (MVP) proposed “MVP Boost” expansion. While the assessment concludes that the project does not “significantly [affect] the quality of the human environment,” critics say the EA leaves a variety of critical questions unanswered. Additionally, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality has suspended its review of MVP’s proposed compressor station permit due to inconsistent filings. The DEQ also raised concerns about environmental justice and community outreach to MVP, which the company has not resolved. Now, more than 6,500 people have signed a petition urging FERC to reject the MVP expansion. 

“As a resident in Elliston, we already have the trains, which are a situation in themselves that block us in where we can’t get out,” said Penny Nunes, an Elliston, Virginia resident. “Now we’ve got gas in the pipe. I find it interesting that our firehouse is in the blast zone. You can see from the blast zone: a trailer park, housing development, and ROWE Furniture, a business with about 500 employees. As soon as they put gas in the pipe, I thought about moving. But I am not gonna move. I’m gonna stay here, and I am gonna fight as hard as I can to stop this. And for FERC to do something that Virginia DEQ said is incomplete, that’s one agency stepping on the other. DEQ is right: you got a problem, you gotta fix it. But FERC may just ignore our problem and go on with it.” 

The MVP Boost proposal would drastically increase gas capacity on the 303-mile Mountain Valley Pipeline system and add a new 136,900-horsepower compressor station in Montgomery County, Virginia, near homes, farms, a busy railroad crossing, and an environmental justice community in Elliston. FERC is reviewing the industrial water use associated with this major fossil-fuel project, even as Virginia faces mounting concerns about industrial water use prompting state lawmakers to call a special session on stronger water protections. 

“The people of Elliston, Virginia deserve clean air and a safe, healthy community,” said Russel Chisholm, Managing Director at Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights. “EQT and MVP’s massive Boost expansion and data center fever dreams directly threaten that safety while recklessly pushing the planet toward a future of more fire, flood, and displacement. People everywhere are fighting back – and prevailing – against these greedy projects by saying, ‘Enough is enough.’”

The Montgomery County Board of Supervisors previously found the proposed site unsuitable, citing safety concerns that the evacuation route from the site would be blocked by train traffic. For community members, that one concern does not resolve the bigger question: whether it is appropriate to place a massive fossil fuel compressor station in a community already burdened by pollution and safety risks.

“Time and time again, FERC commits itself to an unreality where massively polluting and unsafe fossil fuel projects somehow pose no significant threat to the environment or the neighboring communities who must shoulder the burden,” said Joshua Vana, Director of ARTivism Virginia. “A rational review of the dangers posed by MVP Boost and its Swann Compressor Station should alarm any conscious person. Whether it be harmful air pollution dumped on an environmental justice community in Eastern Montgomery County, the cumulative impacts of drastically increasing MVP’s methane emissions in a world that’s on fire, or gambling on the safety of an already compromised pipeline – this project is nothing more than another bad idea from MVP, meant to cash in during a time of gross environmental deregulation, nauseating corruption, and an intensifying stench of skyrocketing corporate profits. This project must never be built.”

MVP Boost also comes after years of concerns surrounding the existing Mountain Valley Pipeline, including state violations, safety orders, and construction impacts that residents say underscore why further expansion should not be approved. Community and environmental advocates say the federal government should not advance the project while Virginia’s permit process remains paused and local opposition remains overwhelming.

“FERC is trying to build on a foundation that DEQ has already found to be flawed,” said Zander Pellegrino, Senior Field Manager at Chesapeake Climate Action Network. “MVP wants to lock us into outdated fossil fuel infrastructure and decades of climate pollution when we urgently need to transition to clean energy. It is unacceptable that the company is trying to do so on the back of environmental justice communities that have clearly said they do not want this project in their neighborhoods. FERC should stop MVP Boost and reject this dangerous expansion before it puts more communities at risk.” 

The EA was issued by FERC Friday, August 7, 2026, followed by a comment period ending on September 6, 2026, and a Federal Authorization Decision deadline on November 5, 2026.

###

Chesapeake Climate Action Network is the first grassroots organization dedicated exclusively to raising awareness about the impacts and solutions associated with global warming in the Chesapeake Bay region. Founded in 2002, CCAN has been at the center of the fight for clean energy and wise climate policy in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, DC.

“People Over Data Centers” Maryland’s First Statewide Conference on Confronting the Data Center Crisis

A day-long conference bringing together residents, advocates, community leaders, and public officials for discussion, training, and organizing to protect communities from dirty and dangerous data centers.

BALTIMORE, MD – With a bipartisan wave of data center opposition sweeping Maryland, two top nonprofits today unveiled plans to host the first statewide conference aimed at confronting the crisis in all its many forms. The daylong gathering on November 7 at the Baltimore Convention Center will feature everyday Marylanders and state and national leaders working to safeguard our water, air, health, climate, and insulate power bills from Big Tech’s alarming infrastructure agenda.

Nearly 80 percent of Marylanders already live in a county or city that has imposed a temporary moratorium on new data center permits, in what is perhaps the biggest and fastest grassroots rebellion in state history. Now leaders of those local fights – combined with top state officials, experts, and activists of every stripe – will bring their expertise to Baltimore to debate new ideas and offer practical next steps.

“With riveting local and national speakers, plus panels covering everything from water pollution to AI to local moratorium victories, journalists and policymakers will be able to hear and interact with everyday Marylanders working to defend their communities at the municipal, county, and state level in Maryland,” said Mike Tidwell, Executive Director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network.

“For the first time, community leaders, organizers, and advocates from across the state will gather to share what’s working in the fight against dirty and dangerous data centers,” said Lydia Lawrence, Director of Conservation, Nature Forward. “People from urban and rural communities and across the political spectrum are uniting to protect our communities from the harmful impacts of unchecked data center expansion. This conference will send a clear message to elected officials at every level: data center reform can’t wait.” 

WHAT: Maryland’s first statewide conference on the dangers of unfettered data center growth and the practical actions communities can take to fight back

WHEN: Saturday, November 7, 2026, 10 AM – 5 PM. 

WHERE: Baltimore Convention Center, downtown Baltimore, Maryland

WHO: Prominent Maryland political leaders, activists, and everyday Marylanders

ENTRANCE: To obtain a press pass, please contact: kc@chesapeakeclimate.org

HOSTED BY: Chesapeake Climate Action Network (CCAN) and Nature Forward. 

FOR MORE INFORMATION: Visit peopleoverdatacenters.org 

###

Chesapeake Climate Action Network is the first grassroots organization dedicated exclusively to raising awareness about the impacts and solutions associated with global warming in the Chesapeake Bay region. Founded in 2002, CCAN has been at the center of the fight for clean energy and wise climate policy in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, DC.

Throughout its history, Nature Forward, first established in 1897 as the Audubon Society of the District of Columbia, has championed nature for all by playing a pivotal role in conserving our region’s iconic natural places from development, including the C&O Canal, Dyke Marsh, and, most recently, Ten Mile Creek. Past member and board president Rachel Carson, author of Silent Spring, is credited with launching the now global environmental movement. Nature Forward’s nature experts provide hundreds of opportunities each year for people of all ages and abilities to enjoy, learn about, and protect the environment.   

DC Summers Are Getting More Extreme and Expensive – Who’s Responsible?

By Macy Brigham-Hill, DC Campaign Intern, Chesapeake Climate Action Network

Growing up in the Nation’s Capitol, I spent my summers climbing trees, exploring Rock Creek Park, playing sports, going to the Zoo, camps and playgrounds, and spending almost all of my time outside. Today, those summers are being reshaped by extreme heat. Heat advisories, cancellations, and warnings to stay indoors are frequent experiences for children and families in D.C. Now, as a rising college senior, I feel frustration for kids like my younger sister, whose summers are being threatened and changed by climate change. As extreme heat worsens, we will continue to witness its negative impacts on people’s physical and mental health and overall well-being.

This Fourth of July marked the hottest in D.C. history, surpassing the record in 1919, with temperatures over 100°F. The city issued an extreme heat warning as the heat index was expected to reach 105-115°F in many areas. While high humidity increases the risk of heat-related illness, consistently high temperatures throughout the day produced life-threatening conditions for residents partaking in outdoor plans and events.

On the National Mall, celebrations were cut short due to the dangerous temperatures. D.C. Fire and EMS reported 96 patient contacts and 40 patient transports. People were seen lying on the ground and on stretchers with ice, as they were loaded into ambulances. A total of 603 people received first aid in one day.

High temperatures and humidity are the deadliest extreme weather events worldwide, with thousands of people dying from heat each year in the U.S. alone. A Virginia study on extreme heat, when projected nationally, estimates that heat-related hospital visits and illness cost approximately $1 billion in health care costs each summer. Extreme heat is also particularly dangerous in cities like D.C., due to the urban heat-island effect, which happens when pavement, buildings, and other hard surfaces absorb and trap heat instead of cooling down. This means majority Black and Brown communities, which often have less tree cover, more asphalt, fewer parks, and more development shaped by decades of unequal urban planning, can be about 17 degrees hotter than others on the same day. Neighborhoods such as Ivy City, Trinidad, and the Navy Yard have faced some of the city’s highest heat risks, making extreme heat a public health emergency and an issue of environmental justice.

Extreme heat also places intense strain on public infrastructure and essential resources that residents depend on. Heatwaves overwhelm the U.S. grid, leading to cancellations and delays. During the July heatwave, PJM, our regional grid manager, issued a federal alert to cut electricity consumption across its territory, which impacted all D.C. residents and resulted in higher AC bills and even blackouts. Amtrak also stated that trains would run at reduced speeds and people could experience delays throughout the day. D.C. summers have always been hot, but climate change is making extreme heatwaves more frequent, intense, and dangerous.

National Research Council. 2026. Attribution of Extreme Weather and Climate Events and Their Impacts. 

DC and Beyond: Scientists Link Extreme Heatwaves to Climate Change

World Weather Attribution (WWA), an international network of scientists, conducts rapid studies of extreme events to determine the influence of climate change. A recent article by WWA analyzed this heatwave and determined that the combination of heat and humidity experienced in early July would have been virtually impossible without climate change.

These kinds of attribution studies are becoming more crucial in lawsuits focused on holding fossil fuel companies financially responsible for climate-related damages. Researchers can even trace aspects of these damages to specific emission sources and fossil fuel companies that are responsible for the largest share of emissions.

What We’re Doing: Make Polluters Pay Campaign

D.C. residents are already paying the price of climate change in higher utility bills, increased hospital visits, and strains on public systems that families rely on, particularly in minority, overburdened, and underserved communities. CCAN Action Fund’s Make Polluters Pay campaign aims to take the burden off of taxpayers and put it on the shoulders of the largest, most polluting fossil fuel companies. Climate change could cost every D.C. resident born in 2024 an extra $500,000 to 1 million over their lifetime. Meanwhile, in the same year, the largest fossil-fuel emitters’ profits totaled more than $102,000,000,000.

In June, the D.C. Council passed the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study Amendment Act to kickstart a study to determine the total financial cost of climate change on D.C. and how exactly extreme weather impacts the city. The results would help guide investments towards heatwave relief, flood protection, and public infrastructure and transportation improvements and so much more. Sign the Make Polluters Pay petition to make sure the biggest fossil fuel companies cover the costs of climate change-related extreme weather damages.

Sign the Petition to Make Polluters Pay!

About the author: Macy Brigham-Hill (she/her) is the DC Campaign Intern for summer 2026. In her role, she supports the DC team by assisting with community outreach, organizing, and coalition-building to advance campaign goals. She is a rising senior at Tulane University, where she is working towards a bachelor’s degree in Environmental Studies and Sociology, with a minor in Climate Change: Science and Practice.

Macy’s passion for environmental advocacy began at a young age, shaped by her love of nature and animals. She hopes to pursue a career in environmental policy, advocacy, and research, working at the intersection of climate adaptation and mitigation within communities most vulnerable to climate impacts.

IMG_8337