Friend or Foe?: AI’s Complicated Role in the Climate Crisis

In the fight against climate change, those on the frontlines have sought to expand their arsenals. For some, artificial intelligence (AI) has become their weapon of choice. Its myriad and practical applications have convinced many in the movement that it can help turn the tide. From identifying areas at risk of deforestation to improving aid allocation following natural disasters, AI has been invaluable when responding to environmental upheaval. Therefore, unlocking its full potential is critical.

Others taking action to protect the planet see AI’s impact differently. Critics of the technology highlight the significant amount of energy demanded by AI tools, as well as how product developers seemingly obscure this information. They also emphasize how the data centers powering these solutions are polluters, oftentimes toxifying marginalized communities. These problems not only reveal AI’s environmental hazards, but also underscore the need for regulation if this technology is to help combat climate change.

Soaring Energy Use

AI-fueled products available today drain energy in ways that will be felt tomorrow. Attempts to determine tools’ carbon footprints have unveiled the scope of the problem. AP News spotlighted an app developer who found that Google’s AI Overview feature generated 23 times more energy than a non-AI response to the same, simple query. The more complex the request, the more energy required. Given the sheer number of people who visit Google, the energy demanded by their AI solution is difficult to estimate. Combined with competitors’ tools’ usage rates, the total energy cost may only be understood years from now.

Google and its rivals have not always been forthcoming about the energy their AI-enhanced products expend. Many media outlets, including Wired, have reported that companies in the AI sector fail to disclose the amount of energy used by their solutions. Industry leaders have defended this practice, stating that releasing usage data may disadvantage them in the marketplace. Yet the absence of this information means that stakeholders, like researchers and policymakers, are ill-equipped to assess how AI might harm the environment. Minimizing the need for transparency, companies in the field of AI put those striving to address climate change behind the eight ball.

Compromising Community Health

Skeptics of AI in the environmentalist movement have also drawn attention to the communities that supply products with energy. Specifically, they underline how the data centers fueling this technology pollute their surroundings, putting the well-being of those living nearby into jeopardy. Politico, among others, has covered how turbines powering the supercomputer behind xAI’s Grok spew smog into an underserved neighborhood in the American city of Memphis. Residents, particularly those with lung conditions, have argued that the turbines’ emissions have worsened their health. Despite these complaints, xAI continues to run the turbines, resisting pressure from the public to rethink its policies.

The situation in Memphis, where companies contaminate the vulnerable communities where they operate, is not unprecedented. Truthout noted how AI-focused firms flocking to the American South mirror the oil industry. Like their predecessors, AI companies are incentivized to invest in marginalized areas with the promise of cheaper resources. Relocating firms may, over time, downplay their contribution to environmental degradation. As a result, locals are left in the lurch, and may find their communities more sensitive to future climate-related shocks. This pattern is not unique to the United States; it can be seen in countless other at-risk areas around the world.

Reclaiming The Initiative

Weighing this evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that AI may hinder those fighting climate change more than it helps. AI tools’ appetite for energy is voracious, a fact many companies have tried to downplay. Moreover, the facilities powering these products also harm the environment, with marginalized communities often bearing the brunt of the blow. Instead of racing to adopt AI, environmentally conscious leaders should stop and consider the trade-offs of integrating this technology into their work.

What can be done to ensure AI is a net positive for the environment? For starters, regulation is vital. As an example, mandating that companies divulge how much energy they use would be impactful. Holding firms accountable for pollution, particularly when it affects communities on the margins, would also make a difference. Measures like these can mitigate the diverse threats AI poses to the environment, potentially tipping the scales in the crusade on climate change.

Author Bio:

Aaron Spitler is a researcher whose work lies at the intersection of human rights and digital technologies. He has worked at numerous organizations in this evolving space, from the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) to the Internet Society. He believes that, when used ethically, technology can be a force for good.