Concerns about the water and energy demands of data centers have become prolific in recent weeks. But debates about their impact often overlook the rapid advances in cooling technology and cleaner energy that are already having an impact.

However, data centers’ resource consumption should be front and center of the AI conversion, as it is set to grow rapidly. By 2030, data centers’ water and energy consumption will double as AI demand leads to rapid construction of the infrastructure.

But data centers will not cause the world to run out of water or energy. Water- and energy-saving technologies already in use are reducing their impact, while Shanghai’s groundbreaking underwater data center demonstrates how innovative design can limit water, energy and land use.

Data centers have underpinned the internet since its founding. Apps, email, file storage and cloud services all run through them.

Modern AI workloads, however, have transformed their power demands beyond recognition. Today a single AI data center can match the electricity consumption of 100,000 homes, making them a significant drain on local energy grids, especially if a region is susceptible to shortages.

Data centers’ energy consumption is only rising as more are built across the world. In the US, data centers could increase from 4.4% to 12% of national electricity usage by 2028 — that is equivalent to adding eight New York Cities to the American grid.

Data centers also consume large amounts of water in two main ways. Water is used directly to cool servers and storage systems, which generate considerable heat, and indirectly to produce electricity at fossil fuel power plants where it is heated into steam to drive turbines.

In the UK, data centers have been estimated to use up to eight times as much water as average on hot summer days, underlining how their impact can rise when local resources are already under strain.

As the effects of climate change intensify, the location of data centers, and methods to reduce their water and energy consumption, are becoming ever more important.

Fortunately, resource-saving measures are already being implemented. Data centers on land use closed-loop cooling systems that recycle water rather than continually evaporating it. This can reduce freshwater use by up to 70% compared to traditional open evaporative methods.

China has also pioneered a revolutionary new type of data center in Shanghai: wind-powered, and underwater. The facility, which began full commercial operations in May 2026, uses seawater as a coolant instead of using refrigerated fresh water as land-based data centers do, reducing the electricity required to cool the computers.

It uses at least 30% less electricity than traditional data centers, and offshore wind turbines reduce reliance on fossil fuels and cut the data center’s carbon emissions. Innovative solutions such as these will go a long way to reducing data centers’ resource consumption.

AI is also part of the solution to data centers’ draw on resources. AI can optimise electricity grids and shift computing workloads towards periods when cleaner energy is more efficient, making energy use more effective overall. AI can also anticipate fluctuations in demand and adjust energy consumption accordingly, reducing waste.

It might sound obvious, but some areas are just better equipped to accommodate a data center than others. For example, facilities in hot or water-stressed regions will impose a heavier burden on resources than those supplied by cleaner energy with plentiful water and located in cooler climates.

AI’s growing demand for data centers will increase electricity and water consumption, that is true. But it does not mean the technology will exhaust regional or global supplies of either resource.

The AI boom and the infrastructure buildout accompanying it are well underway. To manage its impact, the industry needs to plan ahead. Cleaner energy, efficient cooling, and sites that have significant water and energy supplies will all limit the infrastructure’s drain on resources.

Long constrained by its landlocked geography, Kazakhstan is seeking to turn its position between Europe and Asia into a source of economic and geopolitical leverage. As trade disruptions and competition drive demand for diversified supply chains, Astana is investing in new transport corridors to establish itself as an indispensable transit hub and translate connectivity into diplomatic influence.

The Middle Corridor route
“Transport diplomacy has long been a pillar of economic diplomacy. Today, efficient transport and logistics networks are becoming strategic assets that shape economic competitiveness, and a country’s role in regional economic cooperation,” Head of Research Department of the Eurasian Development Bank (EDB) Alexey Kuznetsov told The
Astana Times. 

Alexey Kuznetsov, Head of Research Department of the Eurasian Development Bank. Photo credit: The EDB’s press service Located between China, Europe, Russia, Central Asia and the Caspian Sea, Kazakhstan is developing railways, roads, ports and logistics hubs while expanding connections along several international transport corridors. The scale of the sector is reflected in recent figures. Kazakhstan transported 540.5 million tons of cargo in January-July, up 0.9% from the same period a year earlier, according to the Bureau of National Statistics.

Cargo turnover increased 1%, while road freight transportation grew 6.2%. Government data shows that transit freight reached 21.7 million tons in January-June, up 24% from 17.5 million tons a year earlier. Building Eurasian connectivity Kazakhstan is seeking to strengthen its role not simply as a transit country but as a major regional connectivity hub. “For Kazakhstan, modern transport, logistics, and warehousing infrastructure are essential for addressing the challenges of a landlocked geography.

"At the same time, the country has become one of Eurasia’s most important transit hubs,” said Kuznetsov. He said international transport and logistics partnerships are central to Kazakhstan’s connectivity diplomacy, positioning the country as an influential player in shaping Eurasia’s regional agenda. According to the EDB’s Transport Projects Observatory, Kazakhstan accounts for 53% of transport corridor investments planned or under implementation in Central Asia through 2035.

“More than $32 billion is expected to be invested in 55 major transport projects, including construction of the Center-West motorway, the Uralsk-Atyrau and Kyzylorda-Saksaulsk roads, and the Moiynty-Kyzylzhar railway. These investments will strengthen East-West and North-South trade routes and further position Kazakhstan as a strategic transport crossroads linking Europe and Asia,” Kuznetsov said. Road construction, reconstruction and repairs cover around 11,000 kilometers nationwide in 2026. Kazakhstan also plans to repair 11,000 kilometers of railway tracks by 2029. International financing is supporting part of the expansion.

In February, the World Bank approved an $846 million guarantee to mobilize $1.41 billion in commercial financing for a major railway connectivity project along Kazakhstan’s section of the Middle Corridor. However, Kuznetsov emphasized that infrastructure alone cannot determine whether a transport route succeeds. “Transport connectivity depends equally on ‘soft infrastructure’: harmonized regulations, efficient border-crossing procedures, coordinated corridor development, and digitalization of transport services and documentation,” he said.

The World Bank estimates cited by Kuznetsov suggest that cutting border delays by 50% through regulatory harmonization and digital solutions could increase exports from Central Asian countries along transport corridors by an average of 18%. For Kazakhstan, this means that the competitiveness of its routes will depend not only on the number of roads, railways and terminals built, but also on how efficiently they operate.

The Middle Corridor and geopolitics At the center of Kazakhstan’s connectivity strategy is the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route, which connects China with Kazakhstan, the Caspian Sea, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Europe. For political scientist Tair Naumov, the importance of such routes extends beyond trade. “Investment in transit infrastructure requires a certain level of trust between countries, including confidence in political relations and the security of investments,” Naumov said in an interview with The Astana Times. Once a route becomes operational, however, it can also strengthen those relations by creating greater economic interdependence.

“When countries rely on the same transport routes, their interests become more closely connected. If a corridor becomes important to foreign trade, there is a stronger incentive to maintain stable relations and keep existing agreements in place,” he said. Naumov noted that this interdependence can eventually acquire a security dimension. “If a country becomes an important transit hub, its stability becomes an interest not only for the country itself but also for its neighbors and major trading partners,” he said. Damir Kayumov, PhD, with a bachelor’s degree in economics and law. Damir Kayumov, PhD, with a bachelor’s degree in economics and law, takes a similar view, emphasizing the economic interests created by shared logistics networks.

“Good logistics creates mutual interest between countries. The more participants there are, the safer it becomes. And the more economic ties pass through Kazakhstan, the greater its role in the region,” Kayumov told The Astana Times. The Middle Corridor illustrates this dynamic. While it does not yet account for a dominant share of Kazakhstan’s transit flows, its rapid growth could give it greater strategic importance.

From transit to economic value
For Kazakhstan, stronger economic ties along these routes are only part of the opportunity. The bigger question is how the country can turn growing transit flows into broader economic value at home. 

“I would not reduce the transport strategy to transit alone. If a container simply passes through Kazakhstan, the country earns comparatively little. It is much more interesting when logistics centers, warehouses, manufacturing and service companies emerge alongside the route,” Kayumov said. Such an approach would allow Kazakhstan to capture more value from its position in Eurasian supply chains. “Then the transport corridor begins to work for the regions and for our industry. Kazakhstan receives much more income. The service model that develops around the entire flow allows us to earn more and create more jobs,” he said.

Kayumov noted that attracting cargo also requires competitive and predictable routes. Border delays, limited port capacity, container shortages and differences in procedures can increase costs and make a route less attractive to businesses. “A convenient route must be fast, clear and predictable. For business, it matters how long cargo remains at the border, how quickly documents are processed and how much railway capacity is available,” he said. According to Kayumov, digitalization can help address some of these challenges. Electronic document management, for example, can reduce corruption risks while speeding up operations.

TRIPP and the wider connectivity network
The development of new routes beyond Kazakhstan could expand the country’s connectivity options. The Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP) is a proposed transport link through Armenia connecting Azerbaijan proper with its Nakhchivan exclave. Kazakhstan has expressed interest in participating in the project and linking it with the Middle Corridor. “For the Trans-Caspian route, TRIPP provides an additional option for moving cargo after the Caspian Sea toward Türkiye and Europe. The more such branches there are, the more resilient and attractive the entire corridor becomes,” Kayumov said.

For Kazakhstan, the interest is largely pragmatic. As a landlocked country, it needs several reliable routes to major markets. However, Kayumov noted that the project’s value for Kazakhstan would depend on how effectively it is integrated into the country’s existing transport network. “What is more important for us is not formal participation in the project, but its integration with our existing transit hub. This means having unified tariffs, digital borders, digital document management and clear, predictable delivery times,” Kayumov said. “The more reliable routes connect Central Asia with Europe through Kazakhstan, the greater the economic and political value of our geography and our role in connecting different markets,” he added.

The UK’s trade ambitions are clear: open new markets, reduce border friction, and make it genuinely easier for small businesses to compete globally. The government’s 2025 Trade Strategy frames this as a growth priority. Yet the data tells a more sobering story, write Jose Puyana and Tom Harding.

UK goods exports to the EU have fallen by £27 billion since Brexit. Exports remain roughly 18% below pre-2019 levels. And around one in seven UK businesses have stopped trading with the EU altogether.

Large-scale surveys from the Federation of Small Businesses and British Chambers of Commerce consistently cite customs processes and compliance complexity as the leading barriers for SMEs. But surveys don’t fully capture the emotional texture of what traders describe: a persistent, low-level anxiety about whether a detail has been missed, whether the code is right, whether the rules have quietly changed since last time.

The traders understand their products, their customers, and their commercial realities. What leaves them uneasy is the web of rules, requirements, and systems governing the movement of goods across a border. We call this mindset the Nervous Trader.

The fear of getting it wrong

Consider a small business importing animal-derived products: the origin of materials, their treatment, and finishing processes can all shift how a shipment must be declared. A detail that seems minor to an outsider - whether a skin has been treated, how a component has been finished - can change the commodity code entirely. Get it wrong, and products are delayed or blocked at the border. Unexpected duties land, turning a profitable shipment into a loss. Time is consumed by questions from freight forwarders and internal scrutiny that the business cannot afford.

For a clothing importer shipping technical apparel from multiple countries, the same anxiety plays out at scale. Every declaration carries the nagging worry of a missed detail or overlooked cost. And for a manufacturer exporting specialist components, the risk doesn’t just lie with a single shipment - it scales with volume. As the business grows, so does the exposure. One overlooked requirement can have knock-on effects across the whole operation.

Rules without a map

What these businesses share is not inexperience. It is the absence of certainty. Trade is inherently consequential - financial and reputational stakes are real. But the systems around it do remarkably little to reduce the sense of exposure. Nervousness is rational in an ambiguous environment. The question is why we continue to design ambiguity into the experience.

International trade is inherently complex. Nobody who works in it would claim otherwise. The rules are numerous, the requirements specific, and the consequences of error real. Traders understand this. None of the businesses we spoke to expected the process to be simple.

What they experience, however, is complexity without context - rules and requirements presented without enough orientation to be useful. Government guidance is often comprehensive and technically accurate. The information assumes a level of prior knowledge that most small business operators simply don’t have time to develop.

More critically, guidance is almost always written around policy rather than around the person trying to follow it. That gap between what guidance says and what a trader actually needs to know in a given moment is where confidence breaks down.

When traders are nervous and the guidance around them fails to build confidence, they find other ways to manage the risk. They defer. They delegate. They pay someone else to carry the uncertainty; they were never given the tools to handle themselves.

It is a rational response to an inadequate system. The more revealing data point, though, is the informal workarounds. Traders describe turning to AI tools, online forums, and third-party platforms to fill the gap that official guidance leaves. Not because those sources are more authoritative, but because they are faster, more conversational, and more willing to engage with the specific question being asked rather than the general rule that may or may not apply.

Designing for confidence, not just compliance

If our digital services don’t actively build confidence and help manage the risks associated with trade compliance, other ecosystems will fill that gap. Intermediaries become the only translators of complexity, while traders never fully learn the language.

Trade is never static. For UK businesses, the pace of change over the past decade has been relentless: Brexit reshaping EU relationships, US tariff policy shifting unpredictably, new regulatory requirements emerging as new markets are entered. The environment that small traders are navigating today bears little resemblance to the one they trained themselves on five years ago.

The consequences are visible. Businesses that built strong European revenue streams have watched them erode as post-Brexit duties and friction increased. What had been a reliable, profitable channel became uncertain, then marginal, then unviable. The challenge wasn’t that traders didn’t see change coming - most did. The challenge was that the systems around them provided no clear guidance on what to do about it.

When those questions arise constantly, in a domain that already feels high-risk and poorly signposted, the fear of making mistakes doesn’t simply persist; it compounds. And that compounding weight is what drives traders towards avoidance - towards stepping back from unfamiliar routes, delaying entry into new markets, and, at worst, withdrawing from international trade altogether.

Change is inevitable in trade. But adaptation should not require heroic effort on the part of the trader. When our systems don’t communicate change in accessible, context-relevant ways, they transform something manageable into something exhausting.

Addressing this requires more than incremental improvements to individual services. It requires a different frame. In practical terms, it means translating policy into language that traders can act on. It means providing reassurance at the moments it is most needed, not just information. It means improving relevance - helping traders quickly understand what applies to their situation rather than leaving them to extract that signal from comprehensive but impersonal guidance. And it means fragmented government services beginning to work more deliberately across boundaries, acknowledging their shared users, shared challenges, and shared outcomes.

Confidence should be treated as a primary, measurable outcome of good service design in trade. Not a soft aspiration, but a design specification. If a service leaves traders more uncertain than when they arrived, something has gone wrong - regardless of whether the information was technically accurate.

The role of digital and service design is not to eliminate the complexity of international trade. It is to prevent that complexity from being amplified by the experiences built around it. Trade will always carry risk. The question is whether we design services that help traders manage that risk clearly, or services that make them feel exposed to it at every turn.