Over in Dubai, where 90K took fossil fueled trips, they’re super concerned…in between eating all that meat and posing in their fast fashion
AI emissions are fueling a new doomerism. This time it’s climate change
There is a new doomer narrative over artificial intelligence emerging in the background at this year’s COP meeting. This one isn’t focused on a malignant superintelligence. Instead, it is over sustainability and concerns over AI’s burgeoning energy demands.
A recent study projects that by 2027, NVIDIA’s new AI servers will be consuming over 85.4 terawatt-hours annually, exceeding the energy usage of countries such as Sweden and Argentina.
Research from the University of Massachusetts Amherst suggesting that training a single AI model can emit over 284 tonnes of CO2, equivalent to the lifetime emissions of five average American cars, paints a concerning picture of AI’s environmental impact. Annually, AI’s carbon footprint is approaching 1% of global emissions.
AI’s energy demands have indeed increased dramatically. A Stanford study flags a 300,000-fold rise in AI systems’ power requirements since the early 2010s. And some of this energy is derived from fossil fuels, with data centers globally consuming over 1% of global electricity, a third of which comes from coal and natural gas.
Yeah, it’s pretty much typical for the climate cult to look at something happening and say “hey, we need to drag this into our cult”
However, what the doomers miss is the ingenuity of human research and industry. Analyzing IT’s electricity consumption back to the 2000s, Jonathan Koomey and colleagues found that the energy intensity of the global data center industry dropped by around 20% per year between 2010 and 2018. Efficiency gains in data centers, chips, and programming have outstripped the increase in energy use.
This human factor is what the doomers’ narrative misses, suggesting that while AI’s energy demands are growing, so too are the efficiencies in the systems that support it.
The Warmists do not care. Once they’ve latched onto an issue they will never let it go.
LOL anti-science gibberish
— Sneyob (@BoyensJC) December 12, 2023
So….we have to listen to 'scientists' bought and paid for by the renewables industry, NGO's and philanthrocapitalists, or whose job depends on there being an existential crises so they can continue to receive their grants….know I get it.
— Alan Jones (@AJ37MD) December 12, 2023
This is the kind of insanity we get from Warmists: they take long fossil fueled trips to say we need to ditch fossil fuels.
Caption on cartoon should be: I love you, so I will burn as many fossil fuels as it takes to keep you warm in the winter, cool in the summer, transport you to doctors when you are sick, take you to school, and grow and distribute all the food you will eat in your lifetime. Or instead, we can forget all that to save a hypothetical 2 degree increase in temperatures over the next 100 years… with no harm done.
lol
will this cause our electric rates to “skyrocket”? or remain at an average 2% per year increase?
Are they anymore reactionary than those who forecast thousands of Germans freezing after they switched to green energy and then lost their Russian gas? Last year inspite of their reliance on green energy the German natural gas storage capacity never fell below 60% They look pretty safe for this year.
H
They look pretty safe for this year.
IOW no one knows.
“Pretty safe”? Wow, how noble of you. Right now no Germans or other Europeans are dying because of the cold or because of the heat. You wanna change things because in the future you think they’re gonna die of the heat. And yet they’re pretty safe now?
So you wanna risk the lives today for hypothetical lives and hypothetical weather in 100 years? You wanna risk successful economies today and hope that it doesn’t destroy the economies for the future. That’s no way to run any kind of policy. You leftists do that all the time. You wanna ban guns but the only guns that ever get banned are ones owned by law abiding people then you come back like oh we just did I’d say yeah but those guns that are used in crime were once owned by law abiding people. Even if that is correct which we don’t know it was you’re still going to punish law abiding people in the future because Democrat criminal brain today committed a crime.
You guys always create a problem and then go about making it worse oh while saying that you’re fixing it.
Hayhoe is a bona fide crackpot. Straight up lunatic. Works for the Political Science Department at Texas Tech.
I was hoping that this was about AI concluding that climate change wasn’t a problem after all.
[…] gone from AI being Bad for ‘climate change’ to being a […]