4 ms·

AI is one of the causes that climate change is accelerating, which is another in a long list of reasons to hate it.

by lpcvoid 6mo ago

tonmoy 6mo ago
Im not sure I follow. AI barely consumes energy compared to other industries and instead of focusing on the heavy hitters first wasting time on the climate impact on AI doesn’t seem useful
- Insanity 6mo ago
  Pretty large amounts of energy go towards training large language models. Running them is also a non-negligible energy cost at scale. But yeah, there's way worse industries out there when it comes to climate change impact.
- datsci_est_2015 6mo ago
  ? Am I misunderstanding the push for nuclear energy and record energy prices in locales with new “data centers”?
- hirako2000 6mo ago
  Before large models things were starting to move to micro VM, lean hardware, firecracker cloud platforms running thin containers. Ai buzz and now we are building giga factories. It stands for gigawatt usage, no less target.
- elbasti 6mo ago
  This is wrong. AI uses ~4% of the US grid, and projections are that it will grow to 10%+ in the next 6 years. And most of that new capacity will be natural gas. That increase would basically whipe out the reduction in CO2 emissions the USA has had since 2018.
  - thethirdone 6mo ago
    Compare that to ~30% of all energy use for transportation. So approximately 40%*4% = 1.6% vs 30%. I find your correction to be more wrong that the initial statement. > And most of that new capacity will be natural gas. That increase would basically whipe out the reduction in CO2 emissions the USA has had since 2018. Emissions in 2018 were ~5250M metric ton and in 2024 it was 4750M. That is a reduction of 10% total emissions. Without going into calculations of green electricity and such, its still safe to say AI using 10% of the grid would not completely wipe out the reduction. [0]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-1999/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide...
    - graypegg 6mo ago
      > Compare that to ~30% of all energy use for transportation Transportation, especially ALL transportation, does a LOT. You're looking for ROI not the absolute values. I think it's undeniable that the positive economic effect of every car, truck, train, and plane is unfathomably huge. That's trains moving minerals, planes moving people, trucks transporting goods, and hundreds of combinations thereof, all interconnected. Literally no economic activity would happen without transportation, including the transition to green energy sources, of which would improve the emissions from transportation. I think it might be more emissions-efficient at generating value than AI by a factor exceeding the 7.5x energy use. Moving rocks from (place with rocks) to (place that needs rocks) continues to be just an insanely good thing for humanity. Also, I'm not sure about your math. 4% would be 4% of the whole like in a pie chart, not 4% of the remainder after removing one slice. 4% AI, 30% transportation, 66% other. I don't know where that 40% is from.
      - thethirdone 6mo ago
        > Also, I'm not sure about your math. 4% would be 4% of the whole like in a pie chart, not 4% of the remainder after removing one slice. 4% AI, 30% transportation, 66% other. I don't know where that 40% is from. 40% is for energy use in the US in the form of electricity. It was a rough number that I pulled from my memory. It is roughly right though. Check https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/ https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/ AI is not currently 4% of the energy market of the US. Only the grid. I should have been more clear about the ALL ENERGY vs GRID distinction. > I think it might be more emissions-efficient at generating value than AI by a factor exceeding the 7.5x energy use. Moving rocks from (place with rocks) to (place that needs rocks) continues to be just an insanely good thing for humanity. I really made no statement on the value of doing things. Transportation is obviously very valuable. I just wanted a more fact based conversation.
  - kai_mac 6mo ago
    The 4% figure is for data centres generally afaik, and it's pre-AI Of course nearly all of that growth is going to be AI
- surgical_fire 6mo ago
  Which is why talk about AI datacenters typically involve energy supply constraints, and possibly the need to build power plants along with it. It is, of course, because it barely uses any energy.
xvector 6mo ago
Seeing this kind of populist misinformation/bikeshedding on HN is particularly disappointing.
- lpcvoid 6mo ago
  So then explain to me where I wrote misinformation?
proc0 6mo ago
People sure don't care about it anymore and it coincided with rise of AI. There's barely any mention of climate change compared to 5+ years ago. I really think this is all about how to keep the capitalist system from imploding because of so much debt (so the next big thing needs to happen to keep the growth).
- sharemywin 6mo ago
  climate change was an important issue when they were trying to peddle EVs and solar.
  - lpcvoid 6mo ago
    They == the lizard people, I assume?
    - sharemywin 6mo ago
      VCs now that AI will solve everything don't need too worry about climate change!!?!
amelius 6mo ago
> AI is one of the causes that climate change is accelerating, which is another in a long list of reasons to hate it. If you want to point at causes of climate change, look no further than adtech. It's the driving force behind our overconsumption. And it has perhaps an even longer list of reasons to hate it.
- bluefirebrand 6mo ago
  AI and Adtech are the same damn industry
mostertoaster 6mo ago
The EPA repealed its 2009 conclusion that greenhouse gases warm the Earth and endanger human health and well-being. So this is not a good reason to oppose AI. Now the sheer energy it requires does mean we might want to go nuclear though. Natural gas is nice though because it does pollute the air far less than coal. You might argue the EPA only repealed that because of political agendas, but the same argument could be made for why it was passed. A lot of people got very rich off the fear mongering from climate alarmists.
- computerdork 6mo ago
  Hmm, it seems pretty clear that climate is getting hotter, so it seems natural for some people to be worried about what will happen to the planet in a few decades (me for one). And, you may be right, it may not be that big a deal and that we're being alarmists, but it seems like we currently have the tools to slow it down greatly. Why not be on the safe side and use them? ... but to be honest, guessing my opinion won't sway you in any way, still thought I'd try. thanks!
  - mostertoaster 6mo ago
    It’s really about the cost/benefit analysis. The value of plowing ahead and using more energy is worth far more than making sure Florida doesn’t lose some coastline. The presumptions I see that annoy me with the alarmists, is that they completely negate human agency and ingenuity, and they ignore the economic cost of many of the proposed plans. Natural gas is far better than coal and should be encouraged rather than condemned. Nuclear power is best of all, is the cleanest and safest energy, and yet is hardly ever the first choice of the alarmists. I’d rather spend double the energy unlocking breakthroughs in science with the help of AI, and address the problems when they come. I don’t go out of my way to lower my “carbon footprint”, but I also don’t just do things that are wasteful and deliberately harmful to the environment. AI making us forget how to think for ourselves is a far bigger risk to mankind than climate change. Thanks.
    - computerdork 6mo ago

AI is one of the causes that climate change is accelerating, which is another in a long list of reasons to hate it.

by lpcvoid 6mo ago

AI is one of the causes that climate change is accelerating, which is another in a long list of reasons to hate it.

Im not sure I follow. AI barely consumes energy compared to other industries and instead of focusing on the heavy hitters first wasting time on the climate impact on AI doesn’t seem useful

Insanity 6mo ago
Pretty large amounts of energy go towards training large language models. Running them is also a non-negligible energy cost at scale. But yeah, there's way worse industries out there when it comes to climate change impact.
datsci_est_2015 6mo ago
? Am I misunderstanding the push for nuclear energy and record energy prices in locales with new “data centers”?
hirako2000 6mo ago
Before large models things were starting to move to micro VM, lean hardware, firecracker cloud platforms running thin containers. Ai buzz and now we are building giga factories. It stands for gigawatt usage, no less target.
elbasti 6mo ago
This is wrong. AI uses ~4% of the US grid, and projections are that it will grow to 10%+ in the next 6 years. And most of that new capacity will be natural gas. That increase would basically whipe out the reduction in CO2 emissions the USA has had since 2018.
- thethirdone 6mo ago
  Compare that to ~30% of all energy use for transportation. So approximately 40%*4% = 1.6% vs 30%. I find your correction to be more wrong that the initial statement. > And most of that new capacity will be natural gas. That increase would basically whipe out the reduction in CO2 emissions the USA has had since 2018. Emissions in 2018 were ~5250M metric ton and in 2024 it was 4750M. That is a reduction of 10% total emissions. Without going into calculations of green electricity and such, its still safe to say AI using 10% of the grid would not completely wipe out the reduction. [0]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-1999/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide...
  - graypegg 6mo ago
    > Compare that to ~30% of all energy use for transportation Transportation, especially ALL transportation, does a LOT. You're looking for ROI not the absolute values. I think it's undeniable that the positive economic effect of every car, truck, train, and plane is unfathomably huge. That's trains moving minerals, planes moving people, trucks transporting goods, and hundreds of combinations thereof, all interconnected. Literally no economic activity would happen without transportation, including the transition to green energy sources, of which would improve the emissions from transportation. I think it might be more emissions-efficient at generating value than AI by a factor exceeding the 7.5x energy use. Moving rocks from (place with rocks) to (place that needs rocks) continues to be just an insanely good thing for humanity. Also, I'm not sure about your math. 4% would be 4% of the whole like in a pie chart, not 4% of the remainder after removing one slice. 4% AI, 30% transportation, 66% other. I don't know where that 40% is from.
    - thethirdone 6mo ago
      > Also, I'm not sure about your math. 4% would be 4% of the whole like in a pie chart, not 4% of the remainder after removing one slice. 4% AI, 30% transportation, 66% other. I don't know where that 40% is from. 40% is for energy use in the US in the form of electricity. It was a rough number that I pulled from my memory. It is roughly right though. Check https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/ https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/ AI is not currently 4% of the energy market of the US. Only the grid. I should have been more clear about the ALL ENERGY vs GRID distinction. > I think it might be more emissions-efficient at generating value than AI by a factor exceeding the 7.5x energy use. Moving rocks from (place with rocks) to (place that needs rocks) continues to be just an insanely good thing for humanity. I really made no statement on the value of doing things. Transportation is obviously very valuable. I just wanted a more fact based conversation.
- kai_mac 6mo ago
  The 4% figure is for data centres generally afaik, and it's pre-AI Of course nearly all of that growth is going to be AI
surgical_fire 6mo ago
Which is why talk about AI datacenters typically involve energy supply constraints, and possibly the need to build power plants along with it. It is, of course, because it barely uses any energy.

xvector 6mo ago

Seeing this kind of populist misinformation/bikeshedding on HN is particularly disappointing.

lpcvoid 6mo ago
So then explain to me where I wrote misinformation?

proc0 6mo ago

People sure don't care about it anymore and it coincided with rise of AI. There's barely any mention of climate change compared to 5+ years ago. I really think this is all about how to keep the capitalist system from imploding because of so much debt (so the next big thing needs to happen to keep the growth).

sharemywin 6mo ago
climate change was an important issue when they were trying to peddle EVs and solar.
- lpcvoid 6mo ago
  They == the lizard people, I assume?
  - sharemywin 6mo ago
    VCs now that AI will solve everything don't need too worry about climate change!!?!

amelius 6mo ago

> AI is one of the causes that climate change is accelerating, which is another in a long list of reasons to hate it. If you want to point at causes of climate change, look no further than adtech. It's the driving force behind our overconsumption. And it has perhaps an even longer list of reasons to hate it.

bluefirebrand 6mo ago
AI and Adtech are the same damn industry

mostertoaster 6mo ago

The EPA repealed its 2009 conclusion that greenhouse gases warm the Earth and endanger human health and well-being. So this is not a good reason to oppose AI. Now the sheer energy it requires does mean we might want to go nuclear though. Natural gas is nice though because it does pollute the air far less than coal. You might argue the EPA only repealed that because of political agendas, but the same argument could be made for why it was passed. A lot of people got very rich off the fear mongering from climate alarmists.

computerdork 6mo ago
Hmm, it seems pretty clear that climate is getting hotter, so it seems natural for some people to be worried about what will happen to the planet in a few decades (me for one). And, you may be right, it may not be that big a deal and that we're being alarmists, but it seems like we currently have the tools to slow it down greatly. Why not be on the safe side and use them? ... but to be honest, guessing my opinion won't sway you in any way, still thought I'd try. thanks!
- mostertoaster 6mo ago
  It’s really about the cost/benefit analysis. The value of plowing ahead and using more energy is worth far more than making sure Florida doesn’t lose some coastline. The presumptions I see that annoy me with the alarmists, is that they completely negate human agency and ingenuity, and they ignore the economic cost of many of the proposed plans. Natural gas is far better than coal and should be encouraged rather than condemned. Nuclear power is best of all, is the cleanest and safest energy, and yet is hardly ever the first choice of the alarmists. I’d rather spend double the energy unlocking breakthroughs in science with the help of AI, and address the problems when they come. I don’t go out of my way to lower my “carbon footprint”, but I also don’t just do things that are wasteful and deliberately harmful to the environment. AI making us forget how to think for ourselves is a far bigger risk to mankind than climate change. Thanks.
  - computerdork 6mo ago