Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor published End Times Fascism on September 15, a book whose thesis unsettles the artificial intelligence (AI) industry. The data centers powering AI consume vast amounts of electricity, and the authors contend that this energy originates primarily from fossil fuels. Klein previewed this thesis days earlier in an excerpt published by The Globe and Mail on September 12, which she republished on her Substack under the direct title, "Big Tech and Big Oil have fused – Call it Fossil Tech."

Oil and gas companies have found in AI a customer requiring rapid and massive quantities of power. In a February interview with the AI Now Institute, Klein illustrated this dynamic using the image of a three-legged stool: technology, fossil fuels seeking a market, and the state acting as the client. The consulting firm East Daley Analytics projected for 2025 that the data center boom would boost natural gas prices and drive increased drilling activity for producers—leading, in other words, to more wells.

Proof of this trend is evident in Memphis, Tennessee. To power Colossus, the supercomputer built there by Elon Musk for his AI company xAI, up to 35 methane gas turbines were brought into operation—a fossil fuel particularly damaging to the climate. According to the authors, these turbines operated without the necessary permits while generating enough energy to power approximately 280,000 local homes. Volunteer pilots confirmed their operation by flying over the premises with thermal cameras.

That was only the beginning.

Months later, just a few miles away, Musk opened a second complex double the size, with energy consumption equivalent to nearly two million homes, followed by a third facility that operated with 18 turbines. For years, Musk had presented himself as the leader who would transition the world away from fossil fuels; however, in his rush to overtake OpenAI, he chose the fastest available electricity source.

Klein and Taylor depict the resulting entity as a gigantic data center with a smoking exhaust pipe, coining the term "fossil tech."

They describe it as a dangerous and unprecedented alliance between two of the most powerful and profitable sectors in history. Prior to merging with the oil industry, tech giants had pledged the exact opposite.

From Climate Pledges to Burning Gas

Those commitments date back to 2020, when Google, Microsoft, and Jeff Bezos competed to project the greenest image possible. With the advent of the AI race, the authors explain, these companies abandoned that rhetoric—first gradually, then all at once. Google removed its net-zero emissions target from its website and acknowledged in its 2025 environmental report that AI complicates its climate objectives. That alignment became explicit in April 2025 during an AI conference in Washington. Doug Burgum, Interior Secretary under Trump, criticized what he called Silicon Valley's extreme climate agenda while praising coal. Ruth Porat, President of Google and Alphabet, responded that his speech was "fantastic" and emphasized that leveraging AI requires the power needed to run it. There they sat, side-by-side: tech, fossil fuels, and the state—the three legs of Klein's stool.

The data behind this shift was compiled by the Kairos Fellowship, an independent study cited in the book, which calculated that Google's emissions rose by 65% between 2019 and 2024, rather than the 51% reported by the company. Between 2023 and 2024 alone, emissions grew by 26%.

The authors point to a symbolic day in late October 2025. Bill Gates circulated a memorandum downplaying climate risks, Hurricane Melissa devastated Jamaica, and OpenAI completed its transition into a for-profit enterprise, with Microsoft holding a 27% stake. That marked the end, they argue, of the era in which tech companies claimed to save the world, giving way to an era of consuming it.

In late August 2026, amid the congressional midterm campaign, Donald Trump demanded on social media that communities let "data reign supreme," warning that anyone opposing data centers would end up "left behind and poor." The statement sparked pushback even within his own party, while a poll conducted in early September revealed that seven out of ten Americans oppose having these facilities built near their homes.