Is AI good for the climate?

If you are concerned about climate change, can you really be pro-AI? That is the question stalking the minds of the great and good as the deadlines for achieving Net Zero get nearer and nearer. 

This uncertainty could be considered justified, with recent reports suggesting that data centres for AI could consume as much electricity as Japan by 2026 and globally could require as much as half of the UK’s fresh water use by 2027. 

As a result several countries including Germany, Ireland and China are considering curbs on new server farms, with a former French minister suggesting that access to the internet should be rationed. 

But is there cause for optimism? 

Research conducted by Alessio Tezzi indicates that the answer is yes, there most definitely is cause for optimism.

Firstly, the real promise of AI lies not in offering an immediate fix to all our problems but in accelerating technological progress especially in the realms of environmental sustainability. In this regard the early application of AI in the context of climate mitigation has already begun to justify the hype. AI has helped make air travel more fuel-efficient, it has developed faster electric batteries and as such has helped reduce the dependence on critical raw materials-many of which are critical for the green transition but often associated with environmental and ethical concerns. In another ground-breaking move, AI has helped solve a crucial hurdle in regards to plasma containment, helping build another step on the pathway toward safe fusion energy use. 

Another region in which AI can help in the climate crisis is in helping us adapt to changing climates. With zoonotic diseases likely to become an increasingly prevalent threat in the future, the fact that AI is being deployed to accelerate the development of vaccines can only be a good thing. Furthermore, AI is being used to improve weather forecasting to ensure that we are not caught off-guard by the increasing frequency of extreme weather events. 

The next consideration that Tezzi asks us to ponder is related to energy use. In a recent research paper, Tezzi argued that energy sobriety is always going to play a junior role in decarbonisation strategies vis a vis the need to foster innovation. In this regard as society is still in the early stages of the AI revolution, the technology is still being fine-tuned, but with the right incentives could well allow for the maximisation of energy efficiency. 

For instance, whilst at present a command on Open AI’s ChatGPT requires ten times the electricity of a Google Search, it has been shown that it is possible to build a large language model similar to ChatGPT-3 with much lower emissions. 

With these exciting developments in the offing, Tezzi suggests that when it comes to regulation, countries should not go for outright bans on data centres, but should instead provide clear incentive structures to steer AI innovation toward solutions that are aligned with sustainability goals. A starting point could be with clear environmental reporting requirements for AI companies and could extend to legislation requiring only renewable energy sources be used for new data centres. 

It is encouraging that tech companies seem more aware of these looming issues, and are thus turning to AI to improve the efficiency of their data centres, with some pledging to make them carbon neutral by 2030. To achieve both goals, tech companies are developing strategic partnerships with energy companies, be they nuclear, geothermal, solar or battery. To ensure that the companies do not feel as if they are shouldering all the weight, governments should complement their efforts with regulation. Something that is being considered by both the US and EU. 

Ultimately, from a climate perspective, AI shouldn’t be glorified or vilified. On its own it cannot solve the issues facing the world, but when used together in a system complimented by government legislation and individual ingenuity it can help find a solution to the issues we are facing.