Your browser does not support JavaScript!

Quantifying the Environmental Footprint of Generative AI

General Report June 2, 2025
goover

TABLE OF CONTENTS

  1. Energy Consumption and Carbon Emissions
  2. Water Usage and Mineral Resource Depletion
  3. Hardware Lifecycle, E-Waste and Mitigation Strategies
  4. Policy, Governance and Future Research Directions

Executive Summary

  • This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the environmental footprint of generative artificial intelligence (AI), focusing on energy consumption, water usage, resource depletion, and electronic waste. The core question addressed is the sustainability of AI technologies throughout their lifecycle. Key findings reveal that training large AI models, such as GPT-3, requires approximately 1, 287 megawatt-hours, equating to the annual energy consumption of over 120 average American households. In addition, data centers are projected to consume an alarming 6% of total U.S. electricity demand by 2026, exacerbating carbon emissions that could rise to 355 million tonnes by 2030. These findings highlight the need for informed policy responses and industry accountability to foster sustainable practices.

  • The implications of AI's environmental impact extend beyond immediate energy and water concerns, encompassing broader issues of resource depletion and lifecycle management. Recommendations emphasize embracing circular economy principles, advancing carbon accounting practices, and establishing more rigorous governance frameworks. Moving forward, a collaborative effort among policymakers, industry leaders, and researchers is critical to address the complex interplay of AI development and environmental stewardship.

Introduction

  • As generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies proliferate, the promise they hold for innovation and efficiency is matched by a growing unease regarding their environmental implications. A provocative inquiry emerges: Are the technological advancements in AI worth the potential detriment to our planet? With increasing reliance on these systems, understanding their ecological impact has become imperative for stakeholders across various sectors. This report delves into the environmental footprint of generative AI, scrutinizing the energy, water, and resource demands associated with their lifecycle.

  • The urgency of this analysis stems from the alarming statistics surrounding AI's energy consumption and resource use. For instance, in a world where data centers are expected to account for 6% of total U.S. electricity demand by 2026, the strain on renewable resources and the resultant carbon emissions cannot be overlooked. Furthermore, the extraction of critical minerals for hardware manufacturing poses additional ethical and ecological dilemmas. By establishing a clear context, this report seeks to better facilitate the dialogue around sustainable practices in AI development.

  • As we navigate through the sections of this report—examining the multifaceted challenges and opportunities associated with AI's environmental footprint—we invite readers to ponder: How can industries leverage AI's innovative potential while safeguarding our ecosystem? Each section will elucidate different dimensions of this vital discourse, culminating in actionable insights for a sustainable AI future.

3. Energy Consumption and Carbon Emissions

  • The relentless pace of technological advancement in artificial intelligence (AI) is not devoid of consequences, particularly concerning its environmental footprint. With generative AI penetrating various sectors, its surge brings to the fore critical scrutiny regarding energy consumption and carbon emissions associated with its lifecycle. As demands for AI capabilities soar, so too does their environmental impact, raising pressing questions about sustainability in our increasingly digital world.

  • Understanding the intersection of energy consumption and carbon emissions within the AI ecosystem is essential for navigating the future of technology responsibly. The enormity of AI-related energy usage has ignited significant debate among environmentalists, policymakers, and technologists alike, highlighting an urgent need for transparent data regarding AI's energy footprint. As we delve into this topic, we will unpack the nuances of energy demands in model training versus inference phases, ascertain the electricity consumption shares of data centers, and analyze the carbon intensity of regional power mixes amidst ongoing discussions on climate change.

  • 3-1. Training vs. inference energy demands (model sizes, CPU/GPU hours)

  • The energy consumption of AI systems is predominantly driven by two phases: training and inference. Training large scale models—like GPT-3 and GPT-4—poses tremendous energy demands, contrasting sharply with the operational energy required during inference. Training a single instance of GPT-3 required approximately 1, 287 megawatt-hours (MWh), which equates to the annual energy usage of over 120 average American households. This intense energy consumption underlines the substantial infrastructure and computational power necessary to prepare models for deployment.

  • In juxtaposition, the inference phase, which represents the execution of trained models in response to user queries, remains vastly underappreciated in its energy demands. For instance, engaging in a single interaction with ChatGPT consumes about 0.0029 kilowatt-hours (kWh)—nearly ten times the energy used for a typical Google search. Such figures cast a spotlight on the proliferating energy needs associated with AI services, which are anticipated to exponentially increase as generative AI capabilities become mainstream. A projection estimated AI models would account for 20% of total data center energy use, indicating a troubling growth trajectory amidst a backdrop of limited renewable energy supply.

  • The disparity between training and inference energy requirements illustrates the critical necessity for energy-efficiency strategies that span both phases. As AI architectures advance and become more complex, companies like Nvidia continue to innovate on hardware solutions aimed at curbing energy consumption while maintaining performance standards. This dual focus on efficiency and capability not only underscores the environmental implications but also highlights the potential for reducing operational costs.

  • 3-2. Data center electricity consumption shares and forecasts

  • Data centers are vital cogs in the machinery of AI capabilities, yet their staggering electricity consumption raises alarms about sustainability and future viability. In 2022, data centers as a whole consumed approximately 4% of the total electricity demand in the U.S., a figure predicted to swell to 6% by 2026. Compounding this challenge, the demand for energy to power AI-specific data centers is projected to surge markedly, with Oeko-Institut forecasting an eleven-fold increase in electricity consumption from 50 billion kilowatt-hours in 2023 to around 550 billion kilowatt-hours by 2030.

  • The ramifications of this increase are profound, as they may exacerbate the reliance on non-renewable energy sources such as coal and natural gas, which currently fuel a significant portion of these operations. Despite pledging towards net-zero emissions, major tech companies are struggling to fulfill these commitments, primarily due to the energy exigencies of AI technologies. This illustrates a troubling disconnect between the rapid advancement in AI and the accompanying environmental challenges posed by inflated energy needs.

  • As demand escalates, industries are compelled to navigate the delicate balance between operational requirements and environmental stewardship. For instance, Google and Microsoft have committed to investing heavily in renewable energy sources to mitigate their carbon footprints. However, as of now, such initiatives are not sufficient to bridge the ever-widening gap between energy needs and renewable supply, not to mention the future complexities introduced by growing data center networks.

  • 3-3. Carbon intensity of regional power mixes and lifecycle emissions

  • When evaluating the carbon intensity related to AI technologies, understanding regional power mixes is crucial. The electricity feeding data centers is derived from varying energy sources, which impact the overall carbon emissions associated with operating AI systems. For instance, in regions where fossil fuels dominate the energy mix, the emissions attributable to AI operations are significantly higher compared to areas heavily reliant on renewable energy. Notably, data centers contribute around 212 million tonnes of CO2 emissions in 2023, with projections indicating that this could escalate to 355 million tonnes by 2030, despite expansion in renewable energy usage.

  • Moreover, the lifecycle emissions of AI systems extend beyond what is evident during operation to encompass emissions involved in manufacturing hardware components, cooling systems, and infrastructure maintenance. This holistic view often reveals that the total carbon footprint for AI applications is markedly understated if only operational emissions are accounted for. Insight from studies indicates that embodied emissions from manufacturing—particularly associated with GPUs and servers—may exceed previously reported operational figures, further complicating the environmental narrative around AI.

  • As AI technologies become more ubiquitous, an urgent call to action is required for industries and regulators to improve transparency. Clearer sustainability metrics and carbon accounting practices must be mandated to afford stakeholders a more robust framework for assessing the environmental impacts of AI technologies. Companies that prioritize the adoption of greener power sources and invest in innovative processes to reduce lifecycle emissions can notably alleviate some of the environmental pressures inflicted by the digital transformation fostered by AI.

4. Water Usage and Mineral Resource Depletion

  • The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) is accompanied by a relentless demand for energy, water, and critical minerals, essential components that drive the technologies powering this revolution. As AI systems grow in complexity and capability, they invariably exert accelerating pressure on our already strained environmental resources. At the intersection of AI's transformative potential and its substantial environmental footprint lies the urgent need to scrutinize the implications of water usage and mineral resource depletion—two critical facets that hold profound implications for sustainability and environmental stewardship.

  • Water, indispensable for cooling AI-specific data centers, is quickly becoming a determining factor for the future of AI infrastructure. The increasing water requirements for these facilities threaten local ecosystems and water supplies. Concurrently, the extraction of minerals vital for the manufacture of chips and server hardware encapsulates another layer of resource depletion that poses environmental and ethical questions. This section examines these interlinked challenges, highlighting the pressing need for informed policy responses and industry accountability to mitigate the environmental impacts associated with generative AI.

  • 4-1. Cooling Water Requirements in AI-specific Data Centers

  • AI-specific data centers operate with immense computational demands, requiring substantial cooling systems to maintain optimal operational climates. As reported, the global electricity consumption of AI data centers could soar to about 550 billion kilowatt hours by 2030, a staggering eleven-fold increase from 2023 levels. While electricity consumption captures much attention, the associated water usage for cooling these centers has significant implications that warrant a thorough examination.

  • A comprehensive analysis from the Oeko-Institut highlights that water consumption for cooling AI data centers is projected to balloon to approximately 664 billion liters by 2030. This substantial demand raises critical questions about water availability and distribution, particularly in regions already facing water scarcity. As water resources become increasingly contested, the notion of water-intensive AI infrastructures must be reconsidered, adopting more sustainable practices that minimize water reliance while maximizing efficiency. For example, innovative cooling methods such as advanced evaporative cooling or recycled water systems could significantly reduce freshwater consumption. Transparency in reporting water usage and efficiency practices within AI companies is essential to ensure sustainability practices are met and progress is monitored.

  • This aligns with broader trends in environmental policy, where water management strategies must integrate the burgeoning needs of AI infrastructures. Enhanced data tracking and management should be at the forefront of this transition, incentivizing both public and private sectors to take responsibility for the sustainability of their water usage in AI operations.

  • 4-2. Mineral Extraction for Chips and Server Hardware

  • The production of chips and server hardware is heavily reliant on a suite of critical minerals, including copper, cobalt, lithium, and rare earth elements. The increasing demand for AI technology escalates the pressure on these finite resources, often leading to environmentally damaging extraction practices. These minerals, essential for the modern technological ecosystem, are frequently sourced through methods that pose severe ecological risks and ethical dilemmas, particularly in regions where regulatory oversight is lax.

  • For instance, cobalt extraction, predominantly in the Democratic Republic of Congo, has long been criticized for human rights abuses and environmental degradation. With Africa being home to over 70% of the world's cobalt reserves, there is an urgent need to foster responsible sourcing practices. According to forecasts, the AI sector's appetite for critical minerals could rise substantially, necessitating a comprehensive understanding of the supply chain to ensure that it adheres to environmental standards. Furthermore, circular economy principles—such as recycling existing materials in tandem with sustainable sourcing—can alleviate some pressures on mineral extraction and contribute to a reduction in environmental harm.

  • Investment in research and innovation toward alternative materials could also help decouple AI advancement from destructive mining practices. As industries pivot to prioritize sustainability, stakeholders must commit to transparent operations regarding materials sourcing, thereby fostering an industry standard that values ecological integrity alongside technological growth.

  • 4-3. Reporting Gaps and Regional Stress Factors

  • Despite the clear intersections between AI operations, water usage, and mineral resource extraction, significant reporting gaps hinder our understanding of the true extent of these environmental impacts. Many companies involved in AI development often withhold critical data regarding their water consumption and material sourcing claims, citing proprietary concerns. This lack of transparency obscures the magnitude of AI's resource footprint and complicates the development of effective policy measures.

  • Regional disparities further compound these reporting challenges, as areas with inadequate regulation and oversight continue to suffer disproportionately from the effects of resource depletion. For instance, countries with burgeoning AI infrastructure might experience localized water stress exacerbated by insufficient rainfall or competing agricultural water demands. Improved data collection mechanisms and practices are crucial for illuminating these regional stress factors and enabling targeted interventions to manage water and mineral use sustainably.

  • In response, policymakers and industry leaders must work collaboratively to establish standardized frameworks for resource reporting within the AI space. This should prioritize adequate metrics that account for both direct and indirect environmental impacts—promoting accountability and ensuring that the full lifecycle of AI development is considered in any sustainability analysis. By fostering a culture of transparency and cross-sector collaboration, it becomes feasible to address the critical issues surrounding water usage and mineral resource depletion head-on, ultimately driving a more sustainable AI future.

5. Hardware Lifecycle, E-Waste and Mitigation Strategies

  • The rapid proliferation of generative AI technologies is catalyzing a significant re-evaluation of hardware lifecycle management and electronic waste (e-waste) mitigation strategies. As organizations increasingly depend on advanced computational resources to drive AI outputs, the resultant turnover of servers and accelerators has escalated dramatically. With data centers operating at peak efficiency, the environmental burden of e-waste is becoming chronic, presenting an urgent need for comprehensive solutions that address not only the lifecycle of hardware but also the broader implications for sustainability. Understanding this dynamic is paramount for organizations striving to align technological growth with environmental stewardship.

  • 5-1. Server and accelerator turnover rates, electronic waste volumes

  • The dramatic increase in server and accelerator turnover rates is a testament to the relentless pace of technological advancement within the generative AI landscape. Recent studies indicate that many enterprises are cycling through their hardware at an accelerated pace, with server lifespans now averaging between three to five years. Furthermore, the demand for powerful accelerators has surged, with organizations seeking to leverage cutting-edge architectures to maintain competitive advantages in AI-driven operations. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the power levels consumed by AI-specific data centers surged from 2, 688 megawatts (MW) to 5, 341 MW from 2022 to 2023 alone.

  • With this enhanced demand for performance comes a corresponding increase in electronic waste; in 2022, global e-waste volume reached a staggering 59.4 million metric tons, and projections estimate this could rise to over 74 million metric tons by 2030. This reality necessitates a thorough understanding of e-waste generation tied to accelerated hardware turnover. E-waste poses environmental hazards, including hazardous substances like lead and mercury, which can leach into ecosystems, presenting risks to both human health and biodiversity. Effective monitoring and innovative tracking of hardware lifecycle phases are essential measures to manage this growing environmental threat.

  • 5-2. Circular economy practices: refurbishment, recycling and materials recovery

  • Circular economy practices offer a compelling framework to confront the challenges posed by e-waste by focusing on refurbishing, recycling, and material recovery within the hardware lifecycle. Refurbishment lowers e-waste volumes and extends the lifespan of servers and hardware by returning technologically obsolete devices into usable condition. Companies can benefit from such practices, not only enhancing their corporate responsibility but also uncovering cost savings associated with new hardware procurement.

  • Recycling emerges as a key practice within the circular economy, offering a means to extract valuable materials from discarded electronic devices. Over 90% of the materials used in electronic products can be recovered through effective recycling processes. For instance, precious metals like gold, silver, and copper can be reclaimed, mitigating the demand for new raw materials and lessening the environmental impact of mining activities. In 2025, innovative companies have begun deploying advanced recycling technologies that mechanize the extraction of rare earth elements, significantly improving the efficiency of the recycling process. The results reveal not only potential reductions in greenhouse gas emissions but also robust economic conditions centered around sustainable manufacturing.

  • As businesses hasten to adopt circular economy practices, they must consider engaging with sustainable supply chain partners who prioritize environmental stewardship. Governmental incentives and collaborative frameworks can drive the adoption of refurbishment and recycling initiatives, fostering an ecosystem where sustainability and economic viability coexist.

  • 5-3. Best practices for carbon accounting, green procurement, and design optimization

  • Implementing best practices for carbon accounting is crucial for organizations seeking to measure, manage, and mitigate their environmental impact throughout the hardware lifecycle. Establishing transparent reporting frameworks for carbon emissions generated in every phase, from hardware manufacturing to disposal, ensures that businesses are held accountable for the ecological footprint of their computational activities. Accurate carbon accounting not only fulfills regulatory requirements and improves corporate image but also catalyzes insights aimed at optimizing operations.

  • Green procurement practices empower organizations to make environmentally conscious decisions when sourcing hardware. Prioritizing suppliers who adhere to sustainable practices—such as investing in renewable energy for their operations, minimizing toxic materials, and adopting eco-design principles—can greatly influence embodied carbon levels and emissions associated with the entire supply chain. Companies like Apple and Google have pioneered practices such as sourcing recycled aluminum for their products while actively pursuing 100% carbon neutrality goals across their respective supply chains within the next decade.

  • Design optimization presents another avenue for reducing environmental impact. This approach promotes energy-efficient hardware designs, coupled with strategies like modularity, which facilitates easy upgrades and repairs. Forthcoming AI models are now being developed with sustainability in mind, encouraging innovations that favor reduced power requirements and minimal e-waste generation. The intersection of technology and sustainability becomes not merely a challenge to overcome but a lens through which organizations can position themselves as leaders in the global shift towards eco-consciousness. Through comprehensive mitigation strategies and proactive engagement in lifecycle management, businesses can emerge as stewards of environmental sustainability while embracing ongoing advancements in generative AI technologies.

6. Policy, Governance and Future Research Directions

  • The advancements in generative artificial intelligence (AI) are not just reshaping industries; they are also raising profound ethical, environmental, and governance questions that demand urgent attention. As AI technologies proliferate, their impacts on the environment, society, and the economy become increasingly intertwined, making the need for cohesive policy frameworks more essential than ever. The challenges presented by the environmental footprint of AI compel a thorough reevaluation of existing governance structures and research priorities. Addressing these areas is critical in ensuring that the benefits of AI do not come at the expense of our planet and societal well-being.

  • Against this backdrop, the role of policymakers becomes pivotal. They must navigate a landscape characterized by rapid technological change, information asymmetries, and varying stakeholder interests, all while striving to achieve sustainability goals. This section examines existing transparency and reporting frameworks that inform AI's policies, explores potential policy options to mitigate environmental impacts, and identifies significant research gaps that need to be addressed in order to build a comprehensive understanding of AI's indirect impacts.

  • 6-1. Current transparency and reporting frameworks (IEA, GAO, OECD)

  • The current landscape of transparency and reporting frameworks governing AI is represented by key players such as the International Energy Agency (IEA), the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Each of these entities plays a vital role in establishing norms and guidelines that shape how AI technologies are assessed in terms of their environmental footprint. The IEA focuses primarily on energy consumption data and trends within the AI sector, emphasizing that the share of electricity used by data centers is projected to rise from 4% in 2022 to an alarming 6% in 2026 if current patterns continue. This increase signals an urgent need for rigorous data collection and reporting initiatives to better understand the sector's burgeoning energy demands.

  • The GAO has also jumped into the fray, highlighting the need for comprehensive assessments regarding generative AI's resource utilization. The lack of detailed reporting on water and energy consumption within AI training models exemplifies the critical gaps in understanding the environmental impact. With generative AI projected to increase data center demand significantly, it is crucial for the GAO to advocate for improved transparency measures that encompass not only energy usage but also water and material resource consumption. Finally, the OECD has developed principles for AI governance, emphasizing the need for responsible management of AI technologies that align with environmental sustainability. These principles serve as a vital framework for countries looking to create policies that guide ethical AI implementation, ensuring transparency and accountability in the processes.

  • Despite the efforts of these organizations, there remains a lack of consensus on establishing a unified reporting standard across the AI ecosystem. The disparate frameworks lead to inconsistencies in data interpretation, which can undermine the effectiveness of any regulatory measures put forth. Policymakers must therefore work collectively to harmonize these reporting structures so as to enhance clarity and comparability across different regions and sectors.

  • 6-2. Policy options: disclosure mandates, efficiency standards, green tariffs

  • As the environmental repercussions of generative AI continue to unfold, a range of policy options emerges to mitigate its adverse effects. Disclosure mandates stand out as critical first steps for creating accountability within technology companies. By requiring companies to disclose their energy and water consumption figures, stakeholders can better understand the resource intensiveness of AI training processes and cloud operations. Transparency around these figures will empower consumers and businesses to make informed decisions, while also placing pressure on companies to adopt more sustainable practices.

  • Efficiency standards are another policy option that can significantly drive improvement. These standards could set maximal thresholds for energy consumption during AI model training and inference stages. By predicating continued access to public resources - such as tax incentives or grants - on adherence to efficiency benchmarks, the government can incentivize the development of less resource-heavy algorithms. Over the long term, this approach promises significant dividends in reducing AI-related energy consumption.

  • Green tariffs represent a complementary strategy where energy utilities can offer reduced rates or financial incentives to AI companies that commit to utilizing renewable energy sources. As the IEA indicates, the current trajectory of non-renewable energy consumption in data centers is unsustainable; introducing green tariffs could guide companies toward cleaner energy alternatives, fitting the urgent need for decarbonization. Additionally, establishing such tariffs could stimulate demand for renewable energy, making further investments in green infrastructure viable.

  • Together, these policy options form a robust framework for action, but they also require the close collaboration of policymakers, industry stakeholders, and environmental advocates. Ongoing dialogue will be crucial to their success, allowing for the adaptation of frameworks based on technological advancements and evolving environmental objectives.

  • 6-3. Research gaps in indirect impacts (enabling emissions, rebound effects)

  • Despite the available literature on AI’s direct environmental effects, significant research gaps remain regarding the indirect impacts, particularly concerning enabling emissions and rebound effects. Enabling emissions arise as the adoption of AI technologies propagates across sectors, increasing demand for computational resources and services, thus unwittingly contributing to greater overall environmental footprints. As organizations leverage AI to enhance efficiencies, there is an urgent need for empirical studies that assess the compensatory energy costs of these applications against the reductions claimed. The interplay of productivity gains against increased resource consumption raises critical questions about the true sustainability impact of generative AI.

  • Moreover, rebound effects—the phenomenon where improvements in efficiency lead to increased consumption—require further exploration. While efficiency standards may reduce energy consumption per computation, they could also lead to expansive usage of AI technologies, ultimately leading to greater overall energy consumption. This paradox calls for interdisciplinary research that brings together expertise in energy economics, behavioral science, and computational modeling to better anticipate and manage these rebound effects.

  • Addressing these gaps is paramount, not only for crafting more effective policies but also for providing clarity and guidance to organizations navigating the complexities of AI adoption. Without satisfying these research needs, strategies aimed at reducing AI's environmental impacts may inadvertently mislead stakeholders about the actual sustainability outcomes, resulting in insufficient action against the climate crisis. Encouraging collaboration among academic institutions, governmental bodies, and tech companies could prove instrumental in advancing this critical research agenda.

Conclusion

  • The findings presented in this report underscore the pressing need for a recalibration of generative AI's environmental stewardship. As AI technologies become integral to numerous sectors, the urgency to address their energy consumption, water usage, and resource depletion is paramount. It is evident that while AI can drive efficiencies, it can also exacerbate environmental degradation if left unchecked. The staggering projected increase in resource and energy demands highlights a critical intersection—where cutting-edge technology must be reconciled with ecological sustainability.

  • Moving forward, a concerted effort is necessary to integrate sustainability into the core practices of AI development. This includes adopting circular economy principles, prioritizing green procurement tactics, and implementing best practices for carbon accounting. Clear governance frameworks should be established to promote transparency in energy and resource usage, fostering accountability among stakeholders. Furthermore, tackling the identified research gaps regarding indirect impacts is vital for developing comprehensive strategies that adequately address the complexities of AI's environmental footprint.

  • In conclusion, the future of generative AI holds significant promise, but it must also carry a robust commitment to environmental responsibility. By fostering collaboration among policymakers, industry leaders, and academic institutions, we can steer the trajectory of AI towards a path that not only embraces innovation but also champions sustainability. The pivotal task at hand is to ensure that advancements in AI technology contribute positively to our global ecosystem, paving the way for a sustainable future.

Glossary

  • Generative AI: Generative artificial intelligence refers to AI systems that can create new content, such as text, images, or music, based on the patterns learned from existing data. This technology is used in various applications, from chatbots like ChatGPT to advanced image generation.
  • Energy Consumption: Energy consumption in the context of AI refers to the amount of electrical energy used by hardware systems for tasks such as training models and running algorithms. High levels of energy consumption raise concerns about environmental sustainability.
  • Data Centers: Data centers are facilities that house computer systems and associated components, including servers and storage systems, and are vital for powering AI technologies. They consume significant amounts of energy and contribute to carbon emissions.
  • Carbon Emissions: Carbon emissions are the industrial release of carbon, particularly in the form of carbon dioxide (CO2), into the atmosphere, primarily from burning fossil fuels. In AI contexts, carbon emissions are associated with energy consumption in data centers.
  • Lifecycle Assessment: Lifecycle assessment (LCA) is a systematic approach used to evaluate the environmental impacts of a product or service throughout its entire lifecycle, from raw material extraction to manufacturing, use, and disposal, including emissions and resource use.
  • Inference Phase: The inference phase refers to the process of using a trained AI model to make predictions or generate outputs based on new input data. This phase typically has different energy demands compared to the initial training phase.
  • Circular Economy: The circular economy is an economic model aimed at minimizing waste and making the most of resources. In AI infrastructure, it refers to practices such as refurbishing and recycling hardware to reduce environmental impact.
  • Water Usage: Water usage in AI contexts refers to the water needed for cooling data centers and other operational processes. As water scarcity becomes a concern, managing this usage is critical for sustainable AI operations.
  • Resource Depletion: Resource depletion involves the consumption of natural resources faster than they can be replenished, particularly relevant in AI for critical minerals such as cobalt and lithium used in hardware production.
  • E-Waste: E-waste refers to discarded electronic devices, which pose significant environmental hazards due to harmful materials like lead and mercury. Proper management and recycling are crucial to minimizing the environmental impact.
  • Policy Frameworks: Policy frameworks are structured guidelines and regulations established to govern the use and development of technologies, including AI. They help ensure accountability and sustainability in technology practices.
  • Green Tariffs: Green tariffs are pricing strategies that incentivize companies to use renewable energy sources, potentially offering reduced rates for energy-consuming operations like data centers when they commit to sustainability.
  • Carbon Accounting: Carbon accounting is the practice of measuring the amount of carbon dioxide emissions associated with specific activities, such as manufacturing and operating AI systems, to manage and reduce their environmental impact.
  • Critical Minerals: Critical minerals are natural resources essential for modern technology, including AI hardware. Their extraction often raises ethical and environmental concerns due to the complex supply chains involved.
  • Transparency and Reporting: Transparency and reporting in AI relate to the clear disclosure of energy and resource usage data by companies, aimed at fostering accountability and informing sustainable practices.

Source Documents