It seems like the poor farmers are being paraded around as the climate change villains while the tech giants in Silicon Valley are sipping on their lattes, pretending to be the saviors of the planet. “Climate-smart” programs are being shoved down the throats of farmers at an incredible pace, but massive technology companies certainly aren’t expected to completely hobble their operations to reduce energy usage and be more “climate-friendly.”
Many people might not realize just how big this issue is. Data centers are guzzling energy at an alarming rate, which has only increased with the recent AI craze. All those fancy algorithms and models are running on servers that require more energy than a small country.
“the Cloud now has a greater #carbon footprint than the airline #industry . A single data center can consume the equivalent electricity of 50,000 homes. At 200 terawatt hours annually, #data centers collectively devour more energy than some nation-states” https://t.co/DSnI4mNxuG
— rational_geographic (@ritodhi_c) March 4, 2024
But hey, at least the “liberal elite” can feel good about themselves with their “Green New Deal,” while chastizing those evil White men on their tractors, who are lucky if they can even turn a profit these days while growing food for the rest of the world
Could it be that Big Tech is given a free pass because of its left-leaning, “socially responsible” image? It’s a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. While they preach about saving the planet, they have their dirty little data center secret hidden from public view. But hey, as long as they have a rainbow logo during pride month and are committed to celebrating “diversity,” they must be the good guys, right?
Estimated electricity consumption of data centers:
🇨🇳 China: 8,540 (in TWh)
🇺🇲 USA: 4,128
🇮🇳 India: 1,463
🇯🇵 Japan: 939
🇨🇦 Canada: 553
🇩🇪 Germany: 503
🇫🇷 France: 426
🇬🇧 UK: 287Note: TWh = A Terawatt-hour is a unit of energy equal to outputting one trillion watts for one hour.…
— Global Index (@TheGlobal_Index) July 28, 2024
A recent article in the Guardian did a decent job of bringing to light Big Tech’s dirty little secret.
When you picture the tech industry, you probably think of things that don’t exist in physical space, such as the apps and internet browser on your phone. But the infrastructure required to store all this information – the physical datacentres housed in business parks and city outskirts – consume massive amounts of energy.
The article highlights the significant environmental impact of artificial intelligence, particularly large language models like ChatGPT. It argues that while AI has the potential to revolutionize various sectors, its development and deployment come at a high environmental cost.
In 2018, for instance, the 5bn YouTube hits for the viral song Despacito used the same amount of energy it would take to heat 40,000 US homes annually.
This is a hugely environmentally destructive side to the tech industry. While it has played a big role in reaching net zero, giving us smart meters and efficient solar, it’s critical that we turn the spotlight on its environmental footprint. Large language models such as ChatGPT are some of the most energy-guzzling technologies of all. Research suggests, for instance, that about 700,000 litres of water could have been used to cool the machines that trained ChatGPT-3 at Microsoft’s data facilities.
Not only does the article point out that training AI models require massive amounts of energy, leading to a substantial carbon footprint, but it also notes that the production of the hardware used for AI development, such as graphics processing units (GPUs), also contributes to pollution and the usage of massive amounts of water.
There is also the issue of these data centers sucking up water from poorer and drier regions.
Google’s global datacentre and Meta’s ambitious plans for a new AI Research SuperCluster (RSC) further underscore the industry’s energy-intensive nature, raising concerns that these facilities could significantly increase energy consumption. Additionally, as these companies aim to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels, they may opt to base their datacentres in regions with cheaper electricity, such as the southern US, potentially exacerbating water consumption issues in drier parts of the world
The article suggests that the environmental impact of AI is often overlooked or downplayed in discussions about its potential benefits. It argues that the tech industry needs to be more transparent about the environmental costs of AI and that there should be greater efforts to develop more energy-efficient AI technologies.
A recent article from Zero Hedge also pointed out how much more energy is being consumed by Microsoft, as the company’s electricity consumption has more than doubled between 2020 and 2023.
Microsoft's Electricity Use Has Doubled Between 2020–2023 https://t.co/yuJVoYnPwP
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) August 2, 2024
Microsoft’s carbon emissions have also increased by 42% during this period. The construction of Microsoft’s data centers alone has accounted for 30% of the emissions increase between 2020 and 2023. Google’s emissions have also skyrocketed in recent years.
“Google grew its emissions by 48% in the last five years chasing a technology that made its search engine even worse than it already is, with little to show for it.” https://t.co/hANo0QThRu
— Mel Andrews (@bayesianboy) July 30, 2024
People around the world are starting to notice the big elephant in the computer room.
Agricultural farms are not to blame for Ireland’s carbon emissions.
The data farms of the global tech corps are, using up to a quarter of Ireland’s electricity.
— Tory Fibs (@ToryFibs) August 10, 2022
The tech elite often make statements that seem environmentally friendly, but their actions do not always align with their words. They may invest in green technologies or initiatives to improve their public image, but their primary focus is increasing profits. This can lead to decisions prioritizing financial gain over environmental impact, such as using a massive amount of non-renewable energy sources, contributing to electronic waste, or ignoring the ecological consequences of their supply chains. While some tech companies may be genuinely committed to sustainability, most use environmentalism as a marketing tool without making meaningful changes to their operations.
On the other hand, farmers have a deep-rooted connection to the land and the environment, as their livelihood depends on the health and sustainability of their farms. They are often the first to notice changes in weather patterns, soil quality, and the impact of their farming practices on the surrounding ecosystem. Many farmers are actively engaged in conservation efforts, implementing practices such as crop rotation, reduced tillage, and cover cropping to improve soil health and reduce erosion.
When considering this topic, we must prioritize. Which is more important: billions of people being able to watch some stupid video or feeding those billions of people? The answer seems fairly obvious.