Jason Kelce and Liquid Death Want Your Pee to Cool AI Data Centers
Jason Kelce has fronted a tongue-in-cheek advert for beer brand Garage Beer and canned water company Liquid Death, urging drinkers to send their urine to AI data centres to help cool them down. The stunt is a satirical jab at the huge water consumption of AI data centres, which face growing criticism for using millions of gallons daily while producing little tangible benefit and contributing to component shortages that have driven up tech prices for consumers.
To promote the campaign, the companies released an $18 "Data Center Coolant" cup designed for collecting (or drinking from), though it is currently sold out. Small print on the advert and product page makes clear the pitch is not to be taken literally, noting that mailing urine as a prank is illegal and only permitted as a properly packaged medical sample. Liquid Death has a history of provocative marketing, including a drink previously named "Armless Palmer" that was renamed "Dead Billionaire" after a legal threat from Arnold Palmer's estate.
- Jason Kelce fronts satirical ad urging fans to "donate" urine to cool AI data centres
- Stunt highlights criticism of data centres' huge water use
- $18 novelty "Data Center Coolant" cup is sold out; don't actually mail urine
New here? Start with this
AI data centres are large buildings packed with computers that run services such as chatbots and image generators. Those machines produce heat and need cooling, which can require substantial amounts of water; the amount varies by centre and cooling system.
Liquid Death sells canned water and is known for attention-grabbing adverts, while Garage Beer is a beer brand. Jason Kelce, a former American football player, appears in their joint advert. The companies’ “Data Center Coolant” cup is part of a joke about using urine to cool the computers, rather than a real cooling product.
The campaign touches on concerns about the resources used by expanding AI services. Data centres also use electricity and equipment, so debates about their costs can involve local water supplies, energy demand and the prices of technology.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
This campaign effectively uses satire to highlight a real environmental concern about AI data centres' water consumption. The transparent disclaimers make clear it is not literal, whilst the provocative humour cuts through noise and sparks conversation about a serious issue that deserves public scrutiny.
The case against
Whilst the environmental concern is legitimate, relying on crude shock value undermines the seriousness of the issue and may confuse audiences who don't read fine print. A message about unsustainable resource consumption deserves a more thoughtful approach; the provocative marketing risks becoming the story itself, potentially distracting from genuine discussion about AI's ecological footprint.