4 ms·

Very quick Googling suggests Wired’s estimate would be ~1.9% of US emissions. AI data center investment is, at core, a bet on increasing the productivity of la

Very quick Googling suggests Wired’s estimate would be ~1.9% of US emissions. AI data center investment is, at core, a bet on increasing the productivity of labor. That’s what businesses will pay for, and what will earn the big money. If US labor productivity rises by more than 2%—and implicit in the size of this bet is a guess much higher—US carbon intensity goes down correspondingly, and these data centers end up as a win for the climate.

deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
nextaccountic 6mo ago
You are supposing that with more productivity people will emit less carbon but there's no mechanism for that More productivity means the employers just demand more from the workers
- asymmetric 6mo ago
  Yeah, this seems like a textbook case where one could apply Jevons Paradox.
  - twoodfin 6mo ago
    OK well now you have to look at changing the economy-wide energy mix or embracing de-growth. Switching data centers to 100% solar or nuclear or … solves Wired’s complaint but not this one.
- gambiting 6mo ago
  "with increases in productivity, we'll all work 2-4 hours a week and maintain the same output!" No, you'll work 40 hours and just do 10 times more in that time. Same thing.
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
monegator 6mo ago
> If US labor productivity rises by more than 2%—and implicit in the size of this bet is a guess much higher—US carbon intensity goes down correspondingly, and these data centers end up as a win for the climate I can promise you it won't happen in a million years. More productivity lends to more exploitation, because you can do more with the same unit of work, instead of getting the same result with less work.. Or at least we have decades of data proving that is what realistically happen. So the only way to reduce emissions is either using carbon neutral sources (gas is... not?) or forbidding people from using energy in the first place (and let's be honest, that will not happen.)
- gruez 6mo ago
  >More productivity lends to more exploitation, because you can do more with the same unit of work, instead of getting the same result with less work.. But per-capita greenhouse emissions have been falling in much of the developed world? And you can't really claim with a straight face that productivity has been dropping from 2000 to today. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?country=~USA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?c...
  - defrost 6mo ago
    > But per-capita greenhouse emissions have been falling in much of the developed world? Only by the deceptive accounting trick of not including the emissions associated with overseas production of the goods consumed by the "developed world". If you include all the emissions that prop up the highest per capita consumption patterns on the planet then you see the highest per capita emissions attached to the highest consumers.
    - gruez 6mo ago
      >Only by the deceptive accounting trick of not including the emissions associated with overseas production of the goods consumed by the "developed world". That does increase US's emissions, but not enough to change the conclusion: https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2 https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2
Havoc 6mo ago
Problem is climate and ecosystem doesn’t give a fuck about some notional productivity or carbon intensity just the absolute number of pollution molecules going into the air
- nDRDY 6mo ago
  [flagged]
mynti 6mo ago
The "climate" cares little about carbon intensity of labor or dollars. It cares about absolute tons of green house gases in the atmostphere and if you use more to produce more you still use more.
- cyanydeez 6mo ago
  You should always assume these that benefit most from the technological forefront think they can outrun the output of climate change or any of the outputs. It generally is called "effective altruism", eg, techno jesus will solve whatever problems creating techno jesus creates.
tejohnso 6mo ago
Emitting more greenhouse gas is only a win if your goal is to hasten and worsen the climate catastrophe. Carbon intensity is not the relevant metric. And there's no evidence or historic precedent backing your idea that it would go down anyway.
cyanydeez 6mo ago
yo, "productivity of labor" isn't how they're selling this stuff. Its "replacement" of labor.

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]

nextaccountic 6mo ago

You are supposing that with more productivity people will emit less carbon but there's no mechanism for that More productivity means the employers just demand more from the workers

asymmetric 6mo ago
Yeah, this seems like a textbook case where one could apply Jevons Paradox.
- twoodfin 6mo ago
  OK well now you have to look at changing the economy-wide energy mix or embracing de-growth. Switching data centers to 100% solar or nuclear or … solves Wired’s complaint but not this one.
gambiting 6mo ago
"with increases in productivity, we'll all work 2-4 hours a week and maintain the same output!" No, you'll work 40 hours and just do 10 times more in that time. Same thing.

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]

monegator 6mo ago

> If US labor productivity rises by more than 2%—and implicit in the size of this bet is a guess much higher—US carbon intensity goes down correspondingly, and these data centers end up as a win for the climate I can promise you it won't happen in a million years. More productivity lends to more exploitation, because you can do more with the same unit of work, instead of getting the same result with less work.. Or at least we have decades of data proving that is what realistically happen. So the only way to reduce emissions is either using carbon neutral sources (gas is... not?) or forbidding people from using energy in the first place (and let's be honest, that will not happen.)

gruez 6mo ago
>More productivity lends to more exploitation, because you can do more with the same unit of work, instead of getting the same result with less work.. But per-capita greenhouse emissions have been falling in much of the developed world? And you can't really claim with a straight face that productivity has been dropping from 2000 to today. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?country=~USA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?c...
- defrost 6mo ago
  > But per-capita greenhouse emissions have been falling in much of the developed world? Only by the deceptive accounting trick of not including the emissions associated with overseas production of the goods consumed by the "developed world". If you include all the emissions that prop up the highest per capita consumption patterns on the planet then you see the highest per capita emissions attached to the highest consumers.
  - gruez 6mo ago
    >Only by the deceptive accounting trick of not including the emissions associated with overseas production of the goods consumed by the "developed world". That does increase US's emissions, but not enough to change the conclusion: https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2 https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2

Havoc 6mo ago

Problem is climate and ecosystem doesn’t give a fuck about some notional productivity or carbon intensity just the absolute number of pollution molecules going into the air

nDRDY 6mo ago
[flagged]

mynti 6mo ago

The "climate" cares little about carbon intensity of labor or dollars. It cares about absolute tons of green house gases in the atmostphere and if you use more to produce more you still use more.

cyanydeez 6mo ago
You should always assume these that benefit most from the technological forefront think they can outrun the output of climate change or any of the outputs. It generally is called "effective altruism", eg, techno jesus will solve whatever problems creating techno jesus creates.

tejohnso 6mo ago

Emitting more greenhouse gas is only a win if your goal is to hasten and worsen the climate catastrophe. Carbon intensity is not the relevant metric. And there's no evidence or historic precedent backing your idea that it would go down anyway.

cyanydeez 6mo ago

yo, "productivity of labor" isn't how they're selling this stuff. Its "replacement" of labor.