Humanity has collectively decided to keep pampering the fossil fuel industry despite knowing for decades that its products are not only harmful to long-term well-being, but also imminently replaceable. It should not make the same expensive mistake with artificial intelligence (AI).
Laurence Tubiana, CEO of the European Climate Foundation, a nonprofit research and advocacy group, suggested taxing AI to raise money for climate adaptation. Tubiana helped craft the Paris climate accord and is part of the Global Solidarity Levies Task Force, a group rummaging through the world’s couch cushions for spare change to help it adjust to an environment growing more chaotic and destructive as the planet gets hotter. The group has identified some obvious targets, such as taxing “premium flyers,” cryptocurrencies, fossil fuel profits and shipping emissions.
Until Tubiana’s comments, the group has not said much about AI. Sutton’s Law — based on the apocryphal claim by Willie Sutton that he robbed banks, because that was where the money was — suggests it might want to give AI a look.
Illustration: Yusha
The UN Trade and Development Agency has estimated the value of this market would explode from US$189 billion to US$4.8 trillion by 2033, starting to threaten the size of the fossil fuel market.
All that growth would require dizzying amounts of energy to run data centers around the clock and a lot of water to cool acres of servers.
These power-hungry facilities, which are popping up around the world like acne on a teenager, could consume as much as 12 percent of total US electricity by 2028, a Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory report last year showed, up from 4.4 percent in 2023.
By 2050, data centers could use as much as 8.7 percent of the entire world’s energy, BloombergNEF estimated.
Much of that power would be generated by fossil fuels, the primary source of the greenhouse gases cooking the atmosphere. Data center operations could increase global emissions of these gases by 3.5 billion tonnes over the next decade, Bloomberg said, which is about 10 percent of total global emissions today. The microchips, steel and cement used to build data centers carry their own heavy climate cost.
Meanwhile, US data centers could guzzle 74 billion gallons of water a year by 2028, up from less than 6 billion in 2014, Lawrence Berkeley said.
In light of all this, taxing AI to defray its harm to the climate sounds like a great idea. We have already got the perfect example of what happens when you fail to hold an industry accountable for its externalities: fossil fuels.
By one estimate, we give oil, gas and coal producers about US$6 trillion every year in implied subsidies by failing to price their products high enough to account for their environmental damage. That is a lot of money that could go toward steeling ourselves against rising seas and weather disasters.
The rationale of these subsidies is that the societal benefits of fossil fuels — namely, abundant energy to fuel economic growth — outweigh the costs. However, this gets more untrue every year, as an increasingly chaotic climate wreaks more havoc.
Each degree Celsius the planet warms over preindustrial averages cuts global economic growth by 12 percent, a National Bureau of Economic Research study last year showed.
Of course, this was not so apparent in the 19th century, when today’s fossil fuel industry was just a gleam in businessman John Rockefeller’s eye. Magical stuff came out of the ground that kept the lights on, and it took us a little while to see the downside. In contrast, the societal benefits of AI are fuzzy at best, while the many downsides are already plain. It makes no sense to give this industry its own free pass on environmental destruction.
In theory, a tax on AI, or at least its carbon emissions, would push tech companies to seek efficiency and cleaner energy sources.
In practice, making such a tax work would be challenging, said Robert Bikel, director of the Social, Ethical and Environmental Responsibility program at the Pepperdine Graziadio Business School.
If you make the tax too low, then it becomes just another cost of business and loses effectiveness. If you make it too high, then tech companies would just build their data centers in a jurisdiction that is not so picky about the environment. The net result might be more emissions than without the tax.
Making such a levy universal would help solve that problem. However, good luck getting two of the world’s biggest AI enthusiasts — US and China — to play along. For that matter, a global tax on carbon would be the most efficient device of all, taking care of those fossil fuel subsidies and keeping the AI industry in line in one fell swoop. However, that is even deeper in political fantasyland.
Still, there are other tools. “Not in my backyard” is unhelpful in many ways, but it has put some brakes on runaway data center growth.
Over the past two years, projects worth US$64 billion have been canceled or delayed by public opposition, research group Data Center Watch said. The blowback is bipartisan: 55 percent of the public officials opposing new data centers were US Republicans.
Pressure from locals and investors could be enough to make AI purveyors embrace tech that uses less energy and water. They could use their excess heat to keep local homes warm, cutting energy bills and fossil fuel demand. They could invest in renewables, grid upgrades, and carbon removal and capture.
Most importantly, they need to stop and think about exactly how much of this rush to make AI as big and resource-consuming as physically possible is truly necessary.
“There’s a lot of techno-optimism that more tech and more growth is inherently good,” Bikel said. “I like to flip that around and say what is the economy serving? What’s AI serving? How is it contributing to human flourishing or even just existential stability?”
Answering those questions would go a long way to making AI’s growth more sustainable and avoiding many more expensive mistakes.
Mark Gongloff is a Bloomberg Opinion editor and columnist covering climate change. He previously worked for Fortune.com, the Huffington Post and the Wall Street Journal.
After more than a year of review, the National Security Bureau on Monday said it has completed a sweeping declassification of political archives from the Martial Law period, transferring the full collection to the National Archives Administration under the National Development Council. The move marks another significant step in Taiwan’s long journey toward transitional justice. The newly opened files span the architecture of authoritarian control: internal security and loyalty investigations, intelligence and counterintelligence operations, exit and entry controls, overseas surveillance of Taiwan independence activists, and case materials related to sedition and rebellion charges. For academics of Taiwan’s White Terror era —
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
On Feb. 7, the New York Times ran a column by Nicholas Kristof (“What if the valedictorians were America’s cool kids?”) that blindly and lavishly praised education in Taiwan and in Asia more broadly. We are used to this kind of Orientalist admiration for what is, at the end of the day, paradoxically very Anglo-centered. They could have praised Europeans for valuing education, too, but one rarely sees an American praising Europe, right? It immediately made me think of something I have observed. If Taiwanese education looks so wonderful through the eyes of the archetypal expat, gazing from an ivory tower, how
China has apparently emerged as one of the clearest and most predictable beneficiaries of US President Donald Trump’s “America First” and “Make America Great Again” approach. Many countries are scrambling to defend their interests and reputation regarding an increasingly unpredictable and self-seeking US. There is a growing consensus among foreign policy pundits that the world has already entered the beginning of the end of Pax Americana, the US-led international order. Consequently, a number of countries are reversing their foreign policy preferences. The result has been an accelerating turn toward China as an alternative economic partner, with Beijing hosting Western leaders, albeit
RSS