Banking on AI while committed to net zero is ‘magical thinking’, claims report on energy costs of big tech

(Press-News.org) By 2040, the energy demands of the tech industry could be up to 25 times higher than today, with unchecked growth of data centres driven by AI expected to create surges in electricity consumption that will strain power grids and accelerate carbon emissions.  

This is according to a new report from the University of Cambridge’s Minderoo Centre for Technology and Democracy, which suggests that even the most conservative estimate for big tech’s energy needs will see a five-fold increase over the next 15 years.  

The idea that governments such as the UK can become leaders in AI while simultaneously meeting their net zero targets* amounts to “magical thinking at the highest levels,” according to the report’s foreword.

The report authors call for global standards in reporting AI’s environmental cost through forums such as COP, the UN climate summit, and argue that the UK should advocate for this on the international stage while ensuring democratic oversight at home.

The report, published today, synthesises projections from leading consultancies to forecast the energy demands of the global tech industry. The researchers note that these projections are based on claims by tech firms themselves.  

At the moment, data centres – the facilities that house servers for processing and storing data, along with cooling systems preventing this hardware from overheating – account for nearly 1.5% of global emissions.

This figure is expected to grow by 15-30% each year to reach 8% of total global greenhouse gas emissions by 2040, write the report’s authors. They point out that this would far exceed current emissions from air travel.  

The report highlights that in the US, China, and Europe, data centres already consume around 2-4% of national electricity, with regional concentrations becoming extreme. For example, up to 20% of all power in Ireland now goes to data centres in Dublin’s cluster.

“We know the environmental impact of AI will be formidable, but tech giants are deliberately vague about the energy requirements implicit in their aims,” said Bhargav Srinivasa Desikan, the report’s lead author from Cambridge’s Minderoo Centre.

“The lack of hard data on electricity and water consumption as well as associated carbon emissions of digital technology leaves policymakers and researchers in the dark about the climate harms AI might cause.”

“We need to see urgent action from governments to prevent AI from derailing climate goals, not just deferring to tech companies on the promise of economic growth,” said Desikan.

The researchers also use data from corporate press releases and ESG reports of some of the world’s tech giants to show the alarming trajectory of energy use before the AI race had fully kicked into gear.

Google’s reported greenhouse gas emissions rose by 48% between 2019 and 2023, while Microsoft’s reported emissions increased by nearly 30% from 2020 to 2023. Amazon’s carbon footprint grew around 40% between 2019 and 2021, and – while it has begun to fall – remains well above 2019 levels.

This self-reported data is contested, note the researchers, and some independent reporting suggests that actual emissions from tech companies are much higher.  

Several tech giants are looking to nuclear power to defuse the energy timebomb at the heart of their ambitions. Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, has argued that fusion is needed to meet AI’s potential, while Meta have said that nuclear energy can “provide firm, baseload power” to supply their data centres.

Microsoft have even signed a 20-year agreement to reactivate the Three Mile Island plant – site of the worst nuclear accident in US history.

Some tech leaders, such as former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, argue that environmental costs of AI will be offset by its benefits for the climate crisis – from contributing to scientific breakthroughs in green energy to enhanced climate change modelling.

“Despite the rapacious energy demands of AI, tech companies encourage governments to see these technologies as accelerators for the green transition,” said Prof Gina Neff, Executive Director of the Minderoo Centre for Technology and Democracy.

“These claims appeal to governments banking on AI to grow the economy, but they may compromise society's climate commitments.”

“Big Tech is blowing past their own climate goals, while they rely heavily on renewable energy certificates and carbon offsets rather than reducing their emissions,” said Prof Neff.

“Generative AI may be helpful for designing climate solutions, but there is a real risk that emissions from the AI build-out will outstrip any climate gains as tech companies abandon net zero goals and pursue huge AI-driven profits.”

The report calls for the UK’s environmental policies to be updated for the “AI era”. Recommendations include adding AI’s energy footprint into national decarbonisation plans, with specific carbon reduction targets for data centres and AI services, and requirements for detailed reporting of energy and water consumption.   

Ofgem should set strict energy efficiency targets for data centres, write the report’s authors, while government departments such as DESNZ and DSIT** should tie AI research funding and data centre operations to clean power adoption.

The report’s authors note that that UK’s new AI Energy Council currently consists entirely of energy bodies and tech companies – with no representation for communities, climate groups or civil society.   

“Energy grids are already stretched,” said Prof John Naughton, Chair of the Advisory Board at the Minderoo Centre for Technology and Democracy.

“Every megawatt allocated to AI data centres will be a megawatt unavailable for housing or manufacturing. Governments need to be straight with the public about the inevitable energy trade-offs that will come with doubling down on AI as an engine of economic growth.”

Notes:
* The UK is committed to net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
** DESNZ: the UK’s Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. DSIT: the UK’s Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.
 

END