546
submitted 4 months ago by 0x815@feddit.org to c/technology@lemmy.world

The leap in emissions is largely due to energy-guzzling data centers and supply chain emissions necessary to power artificial intelligence (AI) systems such as Google’s Gemini and OpenAI’s ChatGPT. The report estimated that in 2023, Google’s data centers alone account for up to 10% of global data center electricity consumption. Their data center electricity and water consumption both increased 17% between 2022 and 2023.

Google released 14.3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide just last year, 13% higher than the year before.

Climate scientists have shown concerns as Big Tech giants such as Google, Amazon and Microsoft continue to invest billons of dollars into AI.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 130 points 4 months ago

So, lets get this straight. Humans are going to die. Animals are going to die. Plants are going to die.

...........so that corporations can make a few easier dollars before this whole planet burns in flames?

Yes, corporationS. Plural. What? You think google is the only one using AI?

[-] Empricorn@feddit.nl 91 points 4 months ago

Literally not a single person on the planet thinks Google is the only one using AI. Agree with the rest though...

[-] Dasnap@lemmy.world 22 points 4 months ago

It's so we can make silly AI songs to send to each other :)

[-] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago

I mean, yeah.

One of the hallmarks of our species is its insatiable, irrational greed.

[-] niartenyaw@midwest.social 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

and that's unfortunately only true because the greedy groups have destroyed all the non-greedy ones by slaughter or forced participation

[-] naught101@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

That's a hall mark of our civilisation/society, not our species. Humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years, and the vast majority of cultures in that time have been relatively stable, with checks on excessive greed.

(see Graeber and Wengrow's The Dawn Of Everything for some good examples.)

[-] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

I agree with everything except that A.I. doesn’t make money and may never solve a problem important enough to justify the cost.

[-] naught101@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

What problem would it solve?

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 102 points 4 months ago

These companies 100% said they'd be carbon neutral by 2030 in order to take the wind out of the sails of people pushing for carbon taxes, rather than because they actually intended on doing it.

[-] Frozengyro@lemmy.world 26 points 4 months ago

Could be the other way as well. Prepare to become carbon neutral in order to have less tax burden. But once that fell though, they didn't care again. The only way they will be carbon neutral is if governments make it more expensive for them to not be.

[-] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 23 points 4 months ago

Yup. The one thing that is certain is that you cannot just leave companies to self-regulate.

[-] _sideffect@lemmy.world 75 points 4 months ago

But by all means, everyone don't use plastic straws! You're killing the environment!

[-] androogee@midwest.social 27 points 4 months ago

Yeah dawg we can't possibly do two things that are good for the environment, we have to pick one. Everyone knows that.

[-] Holzkohlen@feddit.de 17 points 4 months ago

I pick guillotining the rich as my one thing

[-] naught101@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

What about choking them with plastic straws?

[-] evolvor@sh.itjust.works 10 points 4 months ago

Plastic straws are harmful to sea turtles. That is why their use has been reduced.

Do you like turtles?

[-] Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

I know this is true, but I find it bizarre that there's this fixation on straws and not the hundred other things we are likely doing that also kills turtles.

It's like someone saw that viral video of the turtle with a straw up it's nose and decided that's the only thing to focus on.

[-] barsoap@lemm.ee 4 points 4 months ago

Detractors have that fixation on straws, for the EU legislature it was just another regulation among many.

Also the plastic straw fixation is now kinda fading in favour of attached bottle caps. People will literally lose 50 IQ points and stub their nose to spite Berlaymont instead of rotating the bottle 90 degrees.

[-] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I bought this like, prepared meal thing. It was like curry or something. Packaged, shelf stable. It harked on eco-friendly packaging. I figured, I've gotten curry before that was in a foil bag which I assume is easily recyclable. Probably something like that, right?

Every component was individually plastic wrapped. Even the bowl. Except for the bamboo "spoon". That was wrapped in paper. I put "spoon" in quotes because it was vaguely spoon shaped and functioned more like an oat from a rowboat.

Like, was this just a piss poor attempt at green washing?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ogmios@sh.itjust.works 59 points 4 months ago

It would seem that we shall be requiring you peasants to give up another 10% of your daily carbon footprint to meet the demands of our new machine overlord.

[-] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 9 points 4 months ago

to meet the demands of our new machine ~~overlord~~ dunsel

[-] slaacaa@lemmy.world 43 points 4 months ago

Time to use less paper straws, folks #weareinthistogether🌎

[-] MeatPilot@lemmy.world 27 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I turn off my lights when I'm not in a room and don't own a server farm. #doingmypart🌳

[-] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 27 points 4 months ago

I realized the reading lights on my private jet were all incandescent. Recently flew it to Italy and had them swapped out there for LED.

[-] fluxc0@lemmy.world 41 points 4 months ago

who would have guessed the giant corporation would have lied about something, because we haven’t been lied to before.

[-] kenkenken@sh.itjust.works 38 points 4 months ago

Net-zero in 2030 is a lie. Google, Microsoft, whoever, - doesn't matter. It's only five years left. I don't even think that bigcop can go from increasing carbon emissions to decreasing before 2030.

[-] lost_faith@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 months ago

Who better than these obnoxious companies to build solar and wind farms to power their own server farms?

[-] Alphane_Moon@lemmy.world 24 points 4 months ago

The stuff about tech companies going carbon neutral or whatever was such bullshit. It was clear this was mostly PR and if there was a need to massively increase carbon emissions (as happened with current "AI" trends), they wouldn't think twice.

[-] morementum@lemmy.fosshost.com 18 points 4 months ago

Speed running two apocalypse fronts.

[-] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 17 points 4 months ago

I wonder if this is taking into account the energy mix of the particular data centers, or just using the average energy mix?

[-] Humanius@lemmy.world 23 points 4 months ago

Sadly it's tricky to separate the two.

Say if hypothethically we have a data center that is not connected to the grid, and is entirely running on solar power and battery storage.
If the grid still generates (part of) its electricity need using fossil fuels, those same solar panels and batteries could instead have been used to (further) decarbonize the grid.

While using solar power is good, increasing the overall unnecessary electricity consumption is still not great.

[-] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 months ago

But you can measure how much of the power of a grid is generated with fossil fuels at a particular place and time. For example, if they have more data centers where energy is cheap like from hydro or geothermal, then the carbon footprint will be less than if they were just using average power statistics.

[-] Humanius@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

That is assuming that those data centers are necessary. If the data center is doing something that is not really needed then it is in effect wasting power that could have been used for other purposes. (e.g. using surplus power to make steel or aluminium for instance)

While I do think that AI-tools can be increadibly useful, the current hype surrounding it very much looks like a bubble akin to the DotCom bubble to me. Companies left and right are jumping on the AI bandwagon for the sake of using the buzzword "AI" in their marketing speech.

I don't consider that kind of use of datacenters to be necessary.

[-] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 months ago

using surplus power to make steel

isn't steel still primarily made through the coking process? Or is that transitioning to more efficient means, last i heard the barrier was efficient hydrogen generation.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 4 months ago

there are almost certainly heuristics you can use, but these are going to be heuristics the size of the national US grid, with physics similar to how water flows through pipes. Except these pipes are dynamic and significantly less restrictive.

Plus source generation is very sparse, CCG gas plants for example generally only run when peaking, and solar only works during the day, generally, and nuclear power runs 24/7 around the clock, so it's not quite trivial to calculate. More than likely what the heuristic they're using here is that they consume 43% more power as a corpo, and thusly, produce 43% more CO2.

[-] naught101@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago

Anti correlated with search quality

[-] pyre@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago

BUT YOU PLEBS BETTER NOT TURN ON THE AC

[-] ToucheGoodSir@lemy.lol 8 points 4 months ago

Classic corporate behavior. Get market share, enshittify (Enshittification) for quarterly profits. At the expense of their users. What a waste.

[-] nivenkos@lemmy.ml 6 points 4 months ago

The answer is nuclear power.

[-] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 42 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Or how about cutting back on the idiotic and venal misuse of poorly-developed AI?

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 14 points 4 months ago

Environmentalism aside, I think it's shitty that a company can waste so much energy on frivolous things anyway. Even if we were using more nuclear I still wouldn't want it going to generating more porn of three-breasted women

[-] androogee@midwest.social 6 points 4 months ago

Why did you pick the one positive use of AI?

[-] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 months ago

Or at least not decommissioning old ones. A dollar invested into new solar or wind goes further than new nuclear right now, but we'll see if it tips more towards nuclear once the grid is a higher percentage intermittent and needs a lot more energy storage with it.

Modular nuclear reactors seem really cool though for replacing large long term generators like at construction or excavation sites.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] HotsauceHurricane@lemmy.one 6 points 4 months ago

Surprising nobody.

[-] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 3 points 4 months ago

50% more energy so it can tell me to superglue my pizza together and jump off the Golden Gate Bridge? Not seeing the value.
There should be an AI-free 'eco' option... I can live without the AI.

[-] Brickardo@feddit.nl 2 points 4 months ago

Fucking hell

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2024
546 points (98.2% liked)

Technology

59674 readers
2075 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS