Google's emissions are up over 50%, Amazon builds huge data centers powered by 75% natural gas.
Remember all those posts telling us that "AIs climate impact isn't that bad" supported by some really funky math/perspective and/or numbers Sam Altman invented?
Here's the actual impact.
"AI" is a fossil fuel technology.
nytimes.com/2025/06/24/technol…
theguardian.com/technology/202…
Google’s emissions up 51% as AI electricity demand derails efforts to go green
Increase influenced by datacentre growth, with estimated power required by 2026 equalling that of Japan’sHelena Horton (The Guardian)
teilten dies erneut
Katika Kühnreich
Als Antwort auf tante • • •…and they are trying to bring back #nuclear with #AI …
While #nuclearenergy is not #fossil it not #green at all - but #colonial , #deadly & totally unfair because, like in AI, the #profits are being privatised, the costs are hitting the whole #society & the #planet
But from the point of view of someone believing in #cybernetics or one of its #TESCREAL grandchildren it is great - because in cybernetics EVERY problem will be solved in "the future" by "technology"
Marc
Als Antwort auf Katika Kühnreich • • •tante
Als Antwort auf Marc • • •@Kuttenfunker @Katika not "everyone" uses AI. Adaption is way lower than LinkedIn makes you think (because of lack of quality, political reasons, security issues etc.).
"AI" is neither everywhere nor inevitable
Elias Probst
Als Antwort auf tante • • •the whole AI bubble imploding would be the most beneficial outcome for humanity. I just fear, it won't happen anytime soon 😩
@Kuttenfunker @Katika
Marc
Als Antwort auf tante • • •Hannah
Als Antwort auf Marc • • •@Kuttenfunker @Katika
I believe that it's not an either/or - as in not being able to use AI environmentally friendly and ethically.
AIs specialised on limited tasks can be trained with smaller datasets, we could slow the expansion of data centers and wait till the technology doesn't consume as much power anymore (remember the cooling a computer with less power than your phone needed 10-20 years ago?)
The science is advancing, algorithms are being developed that reduce the needed model size, etc.
But what we see is a "cool" technology under capitalism. Big corporations want to exploit it *fast* and *first*. "The winner takes it all". It's a brutalist approach - just throw size, growth and resources at it.
Hannah
Als Antwort auf Hannah • • •@Kuttenfunker @Katika And currently it's mostly junk we don't need. I'm sick of getting chat bots thrown at me at every corner.
Engineers who have no idea what they are doing just throw the largest LLMs at things instead of designing task specific software.
Generative AI with its hallucinations is ruining quality everywhere...
But the problem won't go away without some kind of regulation.
GhostOnTheHalfShell
Als Antwort auf Hannah • • •@scatty_hannah @Kuttenfunker @Katika
The purpose the Niagara of money being thrown at AI is from the delusion that they will create AGI because the platform billionaires have convinced themselves they’re in a winner take call race, where “win” is totalitarian control of everyone everything in the world.
Each of them say that they are the only one that will use it for good. If you don’t know who or what NRx is it’s time to read a little about it. They are bonkers.
Johannes Brakensiek
Als Antwort auf tante • • •Katika Kühnreich
Als Antwort auf Marc • • •@Kuttenfunker
Well, not everyone. Some by choice, some by not having access
And nuclear is only low in CO2 if you find a ready build nuclear power plant and a store of ready-to-use nuclear fuel
And do not take any of the storage/treatment of waste into your calculation
And… much more
Nuclear is deadly. And shifts responsibility to later generation that were not asked nor do they profit
We do not even have a form of communication that can exist as long as nuclear is deadly
Thomas 🐢
Als Antwort auf tante • • •Marc
Als Antwort auf tante • • •tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/techn…
KI-Boom: Warum kauft Google jetzt Mini-Atomkraftwerke?
Angela Göpfert (tagesschau.de)Nicole Parsons
Als Antwort auf tante • • •When the Saudis are throwing $100 billion at products no one wants... AI, cryptocurrency, state surveillance
washingtonpost.com/technology/…
bloomberg.com/news/articles/20…
politico.com/newsletters/power…
thebulletin.org/2025/06/trumps…
bloomberg.com/news/articles/20…
Tech oligarchs got that flood of investment by promising that fossil fuels would never be phased out, no matter the urgency.
desmog.com/2025/04/22/ai-energ…
404media.co/a-black-hole-of-en…
desmog.com/2022/03/31/exxon-co…
As Oil Giants Turn to Bitcoin Mining, Some Spin Burning Fossil Fuels for Cryptocurrency as a Climate Solution - DeSmog
Sharon Kelly (DeSmog)Kiloku
Als Antwort auf tante • • •hsmolin
Als Antwort auf tante • • •and we still need to remind ourselves:
non-fossile fuels are only carbon-neutral, after emitted carbon-dioxide is again bound in wood or other plants.
Mim54
Als Antwort auf tante • • •Mymot
Als Antwort auf tante • • •get it with low cost
s.click.aliexpress.com/e/_ol4L…
ad
Nintendo Switch 2-Konsole und Mario Kart World Bundle – Hong Kong-Version (HK-Ladegerät mit HK-zu-US-Stecker-Adapter) - AliExpress 44
aliexpress.goldoc
Als Antwort auf tante • • •Sensitiver Inhalt
NoBorg
Als Antwort auf tante • • •Good news for the European Union and it's future with AI
"With its decarbonized, abundant electricity supply, expanding high-voltage electric grid and more than 30 ready-to-use, low-carbon AI sites throughout the country, France is poised to become one of the world’s greenest leaders in artificial intelligence."
forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/202…
When Medical AI Performs Better Than Human Doctors
Forbestante
Als Antwort auf NoBorg • • •NoBorg
Als Antwort auf tante • • •In fact, if you check facts for this year, water levels were already great in mars:
terre-net.fr/irrigation/articl…
Jaddy
Als Antwort auf NoBorg • •@NoBorg @tante It’s becoming chronic because of climate change: long periods of heat, drought, winters without enough snow in the mountains, etc.
This ist now, 3 days ago: independent.co.uk/news/world/e… and bloomberg.com/news/articles/20… etc.
Climate collapse doesn’t happen with a single BOOM. It happens by more and more „smaller“ catastrophes within increasingly shorter intervals.
Power cuts during a 40°C heat wave are one of those catastrophes.
NoBorg
Als Antwort auf Jaddy • • •The reason why they may lower production, it's because France has high environmental limits to protect flora and fauna. It's not due to some sort of nuclear catastrophe danger, it's just that France is very protective with its wildlife.
NoBorg
Als Antwort auf Jaddy • • •@jaddy
"Power plants draw in cold water, use it to cool nuclear reactors and spent fuel storage pools, and then release it hotter.
However, this hot water discharge is subject to strict temperature limits to protect flora and fauna – an unusual rise in water temperature, even by a few degrees, is highly detrimental to aquatic biodiversity."
bfmtv.com/economie/entreprises…
Le Rhône trop chaud pour les centrales nucléaires: EDF alerte sur de possibles baisses de production dès...
MC (BFM Business)Jaddy
Als Antwort auf NoBorg • •@NoBorg @tante Protecting the biodiversity is great. But the result is the same: The major power source will have to reduce output and probably cut of electricity for somehow less important consumer - in midst of a heat wave.
Or they’d trash the limits - and the fauna and flora -, because putting more heat into the ecosystem in the midst of an environmentally stressful heat wave would cause even more damage.
But there’s also a technical limit. The cooling system has a minimum necessary temperature difference, determined by the amount of heat it must convey, the capacity of the pipes and pumps and the amount of water available. The hotter the intake water, the more water is needed for the same amount of heat. Roughly: Cooling is a relation of amount of water : temperature difference : time.
If the rivers are too warm and_or there’s not enough water
... mehr anzeigen@NoBorg @tante Protecting the biodiversity is great. But the result is the same: The major power source will have to reduce output and probably cut of electricity for somehow less important consumer - in midst of a heat wave.
Or they’d trash the limits - and the fauna and flora -, because putting more heat into the ecosystem in the midst of an environmentally stressful heat wave would cause even more damage.
But there’s also a technical limit. The cooling system has a minimum necessary temperature difference, determined by the amount of heat it must convey, the capacity of the pipes and pumps and the amount of water available. The hotter the intake water, the more water is needed for the same amount of heat. Roughly: Cooling is a relation of amount of water : temperature difference : time.
If the rivers are too warm and_or there’s not enough water and_or the pipes and pumps are not big enough, the system can’t get rid of enough heat and the plant has to reduce output.
So, the risk (and days) of power outages will rise with increasing temperatures; see climate stripes. And many rivers will have increasingly less water because of less snow in the mountains in winter. Human made climate change at work.
Now, what will you do? Trash the temperature limits and „bouillabaisse“ the rivers? Build larger cooling systems? Get a lot more cooling water from -ah- where-ever?
Or invest in the cheapest source of electric power generation like the rest of the world, which is above all neutral to earths heat system, produces no extremely dangerous waste (which nobody knows where to store safely for a million years), etc?
Now, should we begin talking about the age of the NPPs in France? About the immense costs of nuclear power that could never compete to market prices, always needed hidden state funding and price guaranties (i.e. tax payers money…), and is now way off compared to PV and wind power?
Read the World Nuclear Industry Status Report, worldnuclearreport.org/World-N… The chart on page 371. Or if you don’t believe them, read the same conclusions at Lazard, an international investment bank. As of now, nuclear is an economical and environmental disaster. The single reason to do it from the beginning till now despite all rational reasoning was access to nuclear weapons.
OTOH, solar plus storage is now cheaper, climate neutral, produces much less waste (which is handable) and is decentralized, therefore providing more stable power supply during increasing numbers of natural disasters (heavy rain, etc). Plus: It’s way faster to install per GW than nuclear.
(((
NoBorg
Als Antwort auf Jaddy • • •@jaddy
The loss of electricity is negligible, it doesn't represent even 1% of annual production, in average it represents just 0.3% of annual production, at a time where it's less needed too.
"According to the group, since 2000, losses in nuclear production due to environmental causes (high temperature and low river flow) have represented on average 0.3% of the annual production of the nuclear fleet."
bfmtv.com/economie/entreprises…
Le Rhône trop chaud pour les centrales nucléaires: EDF alerte sur de possibles baisses de production dès...
MC (BFM Business)NoBorg
Als Antwort auf Jaddy • • •And anyhow, electricity consumption in France is lower during summer, so, it's usual to lower production.
It's also for that same reason (lower consumption) that maintenance work is scheduled during the summer season.
Mensch, Marina
Als Antwort auf tante • • •tinkel
Als Antwort auf tante • • •Missing actual impact in meaningful global context. We can do better.
Data centers accounted for around 1.5% of the world’s electricity consumption in 2024.
Data centers will use twice as much energy by 2030 — driven by AI use... but that's just 10% of global electricity demand 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘄𝘁𝗵 to 2030, less than the share from industrial motors, air conditioning in homes and offices, or electric vehicles.
Meaningful, yes. But just part of the new demand.
iea.org/reports/energy-and-ai
Energy and AI – Analysis - IEA
IEAtante
Unbekannter Ursprungsbeitrag • • •Marc
Unbekannter Ursprungsbeitrag • • •Little Art Histories
Unbekannter Ursprungsbeitrag • • •method to dispose of nuclear and radioactive waste
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)Amoshias
Als Antwort auf tante • • •@Kuttenfunker @art_histories @TomSwirly @Katika no, they're in highly controlled environments, why?
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast-n…
Did you think that just because you don't know about something it doesn't exist? That's not how it works...
nuclear reactor in which the fission chain reaction is sustained by fast neutrons
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)Tom Ritchford
Als Antwort auf tante • • •@Kuttenfunker @art_histories @Katika
This is a deadly serious issue. You being insulting makes it very very hard to take your contribution seriously.
Medea Vanamonde🏳️⚧️ ♀
Als Antwort auf tante • • •@benroyce
Atomic powered AI?
As If
Wulfy
Als Antwort auf tante • • •The AI energy consumption isn't that bad.
Read the numbers yourself. The actual numbers vs baselines, not the percentage word salad.
These numbers are all percentages of percentages with goalposts moving back and forth all the time. It's fakery and number juggling that impresses folks who have difficulties balancing their budget, much less global emissions values.
Whoa! 11 Million tons of CO2... That's huge!
It's about 0.2% of global carbon emissions.
Terrible!
Also, it's google, half of those racks do your work for you when you "write" your googlitcles.
DATA CENTRES CONSUME POWER !
Call the wahOHMbulance!
50% of datacenters are your Facebook's, iclouds and your precious self hosted shit.
Where do you think Fediverse lives?
In wooden cabin basements?
Powered by gerbils treadmills and fairies?
Just about the only legitimate critique of AI energy excesses is its agregious use of water.
And even there there is a room for dramatization as water use vs water consumption.
Quick, what's the difference without googling?
Anything els
... mehr anzeigenThe AI energy consumption isn't that bad.
Read the numbers yourself. The actual numbers vs baselines, not the percentage word salad.
These numbers are all percentages of percentages with goalposts moving back and forth all the time. It's fakery and number juggling that impresses folks who have difficulties balancing their budget, much less global emissions values.
Whoa! 11 Million tons of CO2... That's huge!
It's about 0.2% of global carbon emissions.
Terrible!
Also, it's google, half of those racks do your work for you when you "write" your googlitcles.
DATA CENTRES CONSUME POWER !
Call the wahOHMbulance!
50% of datacenters are your Facebook's, iclouds and your precious self hosted shit.
Where do you think Fediverse lives?
In wooden cabin basements?
Powered by gerbils treadmills and fairies?
Just about the only legitimate critique of AI energy excesses is its agregious use of water.
And even there there is a room for dramatization as water use vs water consumption.
Quick, what's the difference without googling?
Anything else is dishonest scaremongering by journalist terrified they will be replaced by 2000 lines of code and a terabyte of a multidimensional vector tree.
50% percent of journalistic integrity was reduced by 75% growth in their fawning subservience to the oligarchs who own the media and are now backpedling for any sort of relevancy at projected 200% of estimates of loss of consequent public trust.
/eyeroll
Aurora
Als Antwort auf tante • • •even if they claim to be running purely off of renewables, we should treat them as though they're running off of coal.
Because we're only building so much renewables per year, and had the AI bullshit not consumed that capacity, that capacity could have displaced capacity from worse sources. Without AI, we'd still install the same amount of renewables capacity.
HaleakalaCrater
Als Antwort auf tante • • •aiquez
Als Antwort auf tante • • •basically you mean
#AI is a #FossilFool_Technology ?!?
#maga #AdTech
Alexf24
Als Antwort auf tante • • •I always get tickled when the press mentions "natural gas". That is a term invented by PR types.
It is called methane.
Is AI polluting? Of course! Wasteful? Of course!
Wesley Cook ⚡🚲
Als Antwort auf tante • • •I saw a lengthy article explaining why an individual Chat GPT query is marginally not much emissions to debunk the claims islt uses 10 times what a Google search uses and all I could think was "so what?"
Cause on aggregate AI is adding a ton of additional emissions
Lokjo - a European online map
Als Antwort auf tante • • •We definately should change the name of 'natural gas' since it's misleading.
LNG is tons more poluting then normal gas.
Don Jebantyk
Als Antwort auf tante • • •rexi
Als Antwort auf tante • • •quotetoot: Jun 25, 2025, 10:21 AM
mastodon.social/@rexi/11474515…
(p.s., Mastodon: end the anal BS around #quotetoots, enough!)
#FixFusionFirst
rexi (@rexi@mastodon.social)
MastodonSylvain Miermont
Als Antwort auf tante • • •Extinction Rebellion Global (@ExtinctionR@social.rebellion.global)
MastodonArthur_500
Als Antwort auf tante • • •indyradio
Als Antwort auf tante • • •What have you done to #De-Google today?
Know this fact: they've been reading your mail for 20 years now unless you've been smart enough to cancel them, and now everything they do is powered by AI.
Now wtf is with this gmail?
I absolutely do not exchange mail with people who self sabotage by using #Google. #gmail
SpaceLifeForm
Als Antwort auf tante • • •AI is the reason to drive up prices, and therefore, profits.
#BigOil #AI #Insanity
kenchan
Als Antwort auf tante • • •saxnot
Als Antwort auf tante • • •wow
i'm surprised the municipal electricity can just ramp up like that
Professor Charles Haas
Als Antwort auf tante • • •The internet was construction to be resilient to failure of any node, with many pathways. How is building a (small number) of mega-data centers contributing to resilience. Do these not represent a small number of single points of failure?
#resilience #AI #datacenters #risk