PAX SILICA AND THE DATA CENTER QUESTION

A 4,000-acre artificial intelligence and advanced manufacturing hub is being planned for New Clark City.

Its projected electricity demand could reach around 5 gigawatts.

That is the scale we should be talking about when we discuss Pax Silica.

Scientists, environmental groups, and farmers have raised concerns about water, electricity, mining, agricultural areas, and the communities around Clark. Government officials, meanwhile, say they are working on those problems and point to the jobs and investment the project could bring.

So the question goes beyond whether data centers are bad for the environment.

We already know they can consume enormous amounts of water and electricity.

The harder question is whether the Philippines knows enough about this particular project to decide whether the benefits are worth the cost.

WHAT PAX SILICA INVOLVES

Pax Silica is a United States-led initiative focused on securing supplies needed for semiconductors, artificial intelligence, and advanced technology, while reducing dependence on China.

The Philippines joined the initiative in April 2026.

One of the biggest projects connected to it is the proposed AI and advanced manufacturing hub in New Clark City, Tarlac.

The Bases Conversion and Development Authority, or BCDA, has described the roughly 1,618-hectare development as part of its plan to turn New Clark City into a Philippine version of Silicon Valley.

The project covers data centers, semiconductor fabrication, and industries connected to minerals used in chip production, including nickel and gold.

That makes the environmental debate much wider than the cooling systems inside a server building.

HOW MUCH WATER DOES A DATA CENTER NEED?

Potentially, a lot.

The Environmental and Energy Study Institute says some large data centers can use as much as 5 million gallons of water a day for cooling. That is comparable to the daily water use of a community with tens of thousands of people.

Much of that water evaporates during the cooling process.

There is another layer to the problem. The electricity supplying a data center may come from power plants that use large amounts of water too.

The United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health has warned that the worldwide expansion of AI infrastructure could add significantly to water demand.

Clark is already a fast-growing area.

The concern is easy to understand. A huge industrial customer arrives with enormous computing needs and the money to pay for the resources it consumes. People living nearby still need water too.

That is where the argument becomes very local, very quickly.

THEN THERE IS THE ELECTRICITY

BCDA president Joshua Bingcang has placed New Clark City's projected power demand at around 5 gigawatts.

Officials have even discussed obtaining electricity from outside the Philippines to meet future demand.

Large AI data centers can consume electricity on the scale of entire communities. Cooling systems can account for more than 40 percent of a facility's electricity use.

Backup diesel generators bring another environmental cost through particulate pollution, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide.

Then came another detail.

BCDA reportedly asked infrastructure investor I Squared Capital to consider converting a proposed jet-fuel pipeline into a liquefied natural gas pipeline that could supply New Clark City.

A technology hub may therefore need a major new supply of fossil fuel to keep the lights on and the servers cool.

That deserves more attention than it has received.

WHAT DOES “HYPERSCALE” MEAN?

The word appears often in discussions about Pax Silica, but most people do not spend their days reading about data center infrastructure.

A hyperscale data center is an extremely large computing facility built to handle huge amounts of data, storage, cloud services, or AI processing.

Think of the massive facilities used by major technology companies rather than the server room inside an ordinary office building.

The difference is important because size changes the resource question.

More computing equipment means more electricity. More electricity produces more heat. Removing that heat can demand enormous cooling systems and, depending on the technology used, enormous amounts of water.

Dr. Giovanni Tapang of the University of the Philippines College of Science has warned that hyperscale data centers connected to Pax Silica could consume local resources without producing enough benefit for ordinary Filipinos.

His concern includes the possibility that a facility with far greater buying power than nearby residents could compete with communities for water when supplies become tight.

That possibility has helped bring scientists, environmentalists, and farmers into the opposition.

Groups including AGHAM, the Computer Professionals' Union, and Kalikasan People's Network for the Environment have raised other concerns as well.

They point to the mining of minerals needed for semiconductor production and the possible conversion of areas used for rice and coconut farming.

There is also an economic question underneath all of this.

Critics are asking whether the Philippines will once again supply raw materials while much of the higher-value technology and profit goes elsewhere.

The South China Morning Post has reported concerns about environmental protections, disputed property, and the effects of the development on local livelihoods. Critics quoted in the report used the word “plunder” to describe the mineral extraction they fear could follow.

Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas has raised a different concern involving US-Philippine military cooperation and the risks that could come with placing major industrial facilities near military areas during a future conflict.

These groups are opposing the same project for different reasons.

Some are worried about water and electricity. Others are looking at mining, farming, military cooperation, or who will control the wealth created by the project.

The disagreement over Pax Silica cannot be reduced to a single environmental complaint.

WHAT BCDA HAS SAID

BCDA says concerns involving power, utilities, and water are being addressed.

The agency has also brought in South Korea's K-water for water-management expertise.

BCDA officials say the development could create quality jobs and give Filipinos a bigger role in advanced technology industries.

Those are serious potential benefits.

There is still a basic problem for anyone trying to decide whether the tradeoff is acceptable.

No completed public environmental study has concluded that the project will exhaust local water supplies or cause permanent environmental damage.

At the same time, the public has not been given detailed projections showing how much water the completed development will consume or what final protections will be imposed.

We are talking about a project covering roughly 1,618 hectares with a projected power demand of around 5 gigawatts.

At that size, “we are addressing it” cannot carry the entire argument.

The public needs to see how.

THE OTHER QUESTION: WHOSE LAWS APPLY?

Pax Silica has also run into a legal sovereignty dispute.

Reports indicate that the US side sought special legal protections for investors connected to the hub, including proposals that certain operations be governed under US common law rather than Philippine law.

The Philippine government has not granted that request.

Water and electricity have nothing to do with that dispute, but the issue helps explain why opposition to Pax Silica comes from several directions.

Environmental groups have one set of concerns. Farmers and anti-mining groups have others. The legal dispute raises questions about how much authority the Philippines would retain over activities taking place inside its own territory.

That deserves an argument of its own.

SO WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE US?

I do not think the available environmental evidence gives us an automatic answer to whether the Philippines should reject Pax Silica.

It does give us plenty of reasons to demand answers before a project this large moves too far ahead.

How much water will the completed hub use?

Where will that water come from?

What happens during a drought?

Will communities have guaranteed access before industrial users?

How much of the project's electricity will come from fossil fuels?

What limits will be placed on water and power consumption?

Who pays for the infrastructure needed to support the hub?

How many of the promised jobs will actually go to Filipinos?

How much of the value created by Philippine minerals, electricity, water, and public infrastructure will stay in the country?

And what legal protections will remain firmly under Philippine law?

Those questions do not come from fear of technology.

They come from the sheer size of what is being proposed.

The government may eventually show that Pax Silica will bring more benefits than costs. It may show that the water can be supplied without hurting communities, that the electricity system can handle the demand, and that Filipinos will receive enough economic value to justify the resources involved.

But those answers have to come before trust, not after it.

For now, the people raising environmental concerns have something concrete behind them: what large data centers already consume elsewhere, the 5-gigawatt projection for New Clark City, and the possibility that an LNG pipeline may be needed to help power the development.

Government has the promise of jobs, investment, and a place for the Philippines in the AI and semiconductor economy.

The country deserves to see the full price tag before deciding whether that promise is worth buying.