Tech Giants' Indirect Operational Emissions Rose 50% Since 2020 (reuters.com) 39
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Indirect carbon emissions from the operations of four of the leading AI-focused tech companies rose on average by 150% from 2020-2023, due to the demands of power-hungry data centers, a United Nations report (PDF) said on Thursday. The use of artificial intelligence by Amazon, Microsoft, Alphabet and Meta drove up their global indirect emissions because of the vast amounts of energy required to power data centers, the report by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the U.N. agency for digital technologies, said.
Indirect emissions include those generated by purchased electricity, steam, heating and cooling consumed by a company. Amazon's operational carbon emissions grew the most at 182% in 2023 compared to three years before, followed by Microsoft at 155%, Meta at 145% and Alphabet at 138%, according to the report. The ITU tracked the greenhouse gas emissions of 200 leading digital companies between 2020 and 2023. [...] As investment in AI increases, carbon emissions from the top-emitting AI systems are predicted to reach up to 102.6 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year, the report stated.
The data centres that are needed for AI development could also put pressure on existing energy infrastructure. "The rapid growth of artificial intelligence is driving a sharp rise in global electricity demand, with electricity use by data centers increasing four times faster than the overall rise in electricity consumption," the report found. It also highlighted that although a growing number of digital companies had set emissions targets, those ambitions had not yet fully translated into actual reductions of emissions. UPDATE: The headline has been revised to clarify that four leading AI-focused tech companies saw their operational emissions rise to 150% of their 2020 levels by 2023 -- a 50% increase, not a 150% one.
Indirect emissions include those generated by purchased electricity, steam, heating and cooling consumed by a company. Amazon's operational carbon emissions grew the most at 182% in 2023 compared to three years before, followed by Microsoft at 155%, Meta at 145% and Alphabet at 138%, according to the report. The ITU tracked the greenhouse gas emissions of 200 leading digital companies between 2020 and 2023. [...] As investment in AI increases, carbon emissions from the top-emitting AI systems are predicted to reach up to 102.6 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year, the report stated.
The data centres that are needed for AI development could also put pressure on existing energy infrastructure. "The rapid growth of artificial intelligence is driving a sharp rise in global electricity demand, with electricity use by data centers increasing four times faster than the overall rise in electricity consumption," the report found. It also highlighted that although a growing number of digital companies had set emissions targets, those ambitions had not yet fully translated into actual reductions of emissions. UPDATE: The headline has been revised to clarify that four leading AI-focused tech companies saw their operational emissions rise to 150% of their 2020 levels by 2023 -- a 50% increase, not a 150% one.
Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why does it seem like big tech is always doing more harm than good? The promise back in the 80s and 90s was that it was going to make the world a better place. So far it's done far more harm than good in my opinion.
Re: Why? (Score:3)
Because the vested parties are trying to fuck up the world.
And no, I don't mean big tech.
Re: Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
There were never promises made that the big companies were going to make the world a better place.
The most ambitious promise from google of old was to try not to make it a worse place, but that was rescinded early on.
And nothing was delivered while it was allegedly in use.
Re: (Score:2)
The most ambitious promise from google of old was to try not to make it a worse place, but that was rescinded early on.
"Don't be evil" has not been rescinded, it's still in the employee handbook.
Re: (Score:2)
Why does it seem like big tech is always doing more harm than good?
Because twisting the facts to fit that narrative generates clicks.
So far it's done far more harm than good in my opinion.
Yet, here you are, posting on the Internet using technology created by Big Tech.
Re: (Score:3)
Yet, here you are, posting on the Internet using technology created by Big Tech.
Slashdot does pretty well at avoiding what one would normally label "Big Tech" in its implementation.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Slashdot is built on something like the following hierarchy:
- HTML / CSS / JavaScript (Front end)
- Perl (Back end)
- MySQL (DB)
- Apache / mod_perl (Web server)
- Linux (OS)
- TCP/IP, HTTP
Re: (Score:2)
When they discovered that electricity can make line go up, all their climate promises meant exactly jack and shit.
Don't Be Evil (unless it is profitable).
Re: (Score:3)
Well, the energy mix is the responsibility of the government...
Re: (Score:2)
Why does it seem like big tech is always doing more harm than good? The promise back in the 80s and 90s was that it was going to make the world a better place. So far it's done far more harm than good in my opinion.
I agree entirely with your sentiment, but for this specific example I think a bit of perspective may be in order. I note that the PDF linked in TFS says "A 2025 report by the International Energy Agency (IEA) showed that global data centre electricity use reached 415 TWh in 2024, or 1.5 per cent of global electricity consumption".
At only 1.5% of the total electricity usage, there may be lower-hanging fruit to be had when it comes to electrical consumption. And maybe LLMs will give us some tools to reduce us
Re: (Score:2)
Our social structures prey on the human animal instinct for convenience and instant gratification.
Higher-level humans are trained to resist these urges by traditional social structures.
The "cultural Marxists" encourage each of the "seven deadly sins" to disarm the people who are being trained in the more frontal-lobe strategies. That makes them much easier to control.
Big Tech is an instrument of this structure. Corporate law makes it trivial to exploit them, and that's the ones not founded by Int-Q-Tel.
Re: (Score:2)
Why does it seem like big tech is always doing more harm than good?
Because that is the narrative that you are being sold. They are other so it is good to hate them... even for things that they don't do. Just indirectly attribute something to them and call it harmful to someone and you can feel good about hating them.
It is by design. It is a distraction to give us focus for our hate. Otherwise we might change something.
But "nobody wants nukes", right? (Score:1)
Nuclear power was mentioned as a means to produce low CO2 emitting energy to power data centers in the future. This will undoubtedly bring out the commenters on how nuclear power costs too much, therefore "nobody wants nukes". Here's one answer to that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
A summary of the video could be that as good as renewable energy may be in lowering CO2 emissions they cannot provide the required base load power for a stable electrical grid, for that we need nuclear power as part of the
Re: (Score:1)
POTUS is not interested in nuclear power? How did you find that link on coal from the White House without seeing these:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/pre... [whitehouse.gov]
https://www.whitehouse.gov/pre... [whitehouse.gov]
https://www.whitehouse.gov/pre... [whitehouse.gov]
President Carter effectively killed the nuclear power industry in 1980/1981 with his reaction to the meltdown at Three Mile Island. I've seen claims that Carter knew the meltdown was a relative non-event but he didn't want to go against the anti-nuclear people in the Democrat party. Reagan
Re: (Score:1)
The Democrat party had changed their party platform from pretending nuclear power didn't exist to being supportive of nuclear power in 2020, likely as a result of seeing Andrew Yang saying nice things about nuclear power and gaining much support for him as POTUS from this. That wasn't enough to win the election for Yang, obviously, but it did mean those running had to say something nice about nuclear power to have the best chance to win. Biden won in spite of his halfhearted support of nuclear power, and
Re: (Score:1)
Prior to 1980 there was no "anti-nuclear" faction in the Democratic party. The turn away from nuclear power after TMI was a social phenomenon that really had little or nothing to do with Carter.
Really? No anti-nuclear policies from the Democrat party prior to 1980? How do you explain this news article then?
https://web.archive.org/web/20... [archive.org]
The Democrat has had a clear opposition from 1972 to 2020, it was stated in their party platform documents. Over time they tried to hide their opposition by simply not making any mention of nuclear power in their party platform but according to that article out of Forbes the Democrats opposed nuclear power as far back as the Nixon administration.
After the melt
Re: (Score:2)
Just want to chime in because no-doubt someone is going to take your description of the problem literally. It's not really the cost of the permits themselves, but the cost of the permitting process which is overly extensive and can go on for years and years, all for no real good reason other than as a political/ideological deterrent to Nuclear power. It remains to be seen what streamlining of that process this Administration can achieve. I'm not for zero regulation...quite the opposite. But regulation f
Indirect is unfair (Score:4, Informative)
If you measure indirect emissions, you blame energy users for the choices of electricity companies. When they add more fossile energy to the mix they are not asking their customers before, but increase the indirect emissions for them.
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, the "indirect emissions" term is misleading. Obviously tech companies mostly consume electricity, and all purchased electricity is classified as indirect emissions (as opposed to electricity from backup generators that the companies own).
But yes, indirect emissions is fair. You can't blame electricity companies for the emissions caused by the additional electricity you buy from them, just like we can't blame only fossil fuel companies for the fossil fuels that we consume.
All consumers of
Re: (Score:2)
Now let's do a thought experiment. I make a contract with an energy company when they use 100% solar.
Next year they change business plans and go to 50% nuclear and 50% coal. Why am I responsible for their decision to produce CO2 and create radioactive waste?
You could say I could have asked for a 100% solar contract. But do you really think they let someone who needs that much power make rules how it is produced? Maybe you can buy 100% solar for your flat, because the power companies know they will be able t
Re: (Score:2)
Now let's do a thought experiment. I make a contract with an energy company when they use 100% solar. Next year they change business plans and go to 50% nuclear and 50% coal. Why am I responsible for their decision to produce CO2 and create radioactive waste?
You should not be responsible for any emission changes after you make the contract. Also the original article should take into account the increase in electricity consumption, not for changes in the emissions per kWh.
But when you make the contract, you should build the renewable energy power plant to provide this power (or pay someone else to build it). Regulatory authorities should monitor that these power plants get built and used.
It's very simple: Data centers should be built together with renewab
Re: (Score:2)
Why should I build power plants? I make a contract with an energy provider because they know how to build power plants while I know how to build data centers. I pay the suppliers to do their work, so I don't have to do it.
Rose 150% In Three Years (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Momma Mia... (Score:2)
Well, at least we know our alien overlords will love us.. (with some Marinara sauce and a little cheese on top).
Accounting gimmicks (Score:2)
All these companies to run around saying how they are net-0 or net-negative; will at some point have to explain despite the giant carbon sink they all supposedly represent we are still emitting.
Should be a good show, have your pop-corn ready.
The peeny to drop... (Score:2)