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.
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
When Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) first suggested a mass recall of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, the Taipei Times called the idea “not only absurd, but also deeply undemocratic” (“Lai’s speech and legislative chaos,” Jan. 6, page 8). In a subsequent editorial (“Recall chaos plays into KMT hands,” Jan. 9, page 8), the paper wrote that his suggestion was not a solution, and that if it failed, it would exacerbate the enmity between the parties and lead to a cascade of revenge recalls. The danger came from having the DPP orchestrate a mass recall. As it transpired,
Elbridge Colby, America’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, is the most influential voice on defense strategy in the Second Trump Administration. For insight into his thinking, one could do no better than read his thoughts on the defense of Taiwan which he gathered in a book he wrote in 2021. The Strategy of Denial, is his contemplation of China’s rising hegemony in Asia and on how to deter China from invading Taiwan. Allowing China to absorb Taiwan, he wrote, would open the entire Indo-Pacific region to Chinese preeminence and result in a power transition that would place America’s prosperity
All 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and suspended Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安), formerly of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), survived recall elections against them on Saturday, in a massive loss to the unprecedented mass recall movement, as well as to the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that backed it. The outcome has surprised many, as most analysts expected that at least a few legislators would be ousted. Over the past few months, dedicated and passionate civic groups gathered more than 1 million signatures to recall KMT lawmakers, an extraordinary achievement that many believed would be enough to remove at
RSS