Fears about AI data centers' water use have exploded. Experts say the reality is far more complicated than people think. Last month, journalist Karen Hao posted a Twitter thread in which she acknowledged that there was a substantial error in her blockbuster book Empire of AI. Hao had written that a proposed Google data center in a town near Santiago, Chile, could require "more than one thousand times the amount of water consumed by the entire population"--a figure which, thanks to a unit misunderstanding, appears to have been off by a magnitude of 1,000. In the thread, Hao thanked Andy Masley, the head of an effective altruism organization in Washington, DC, for bringing the correction to her attention. Masley has spent the past several months questioning some of the numbers and rhetoric common in popular media about water use and AI on his Substack.

One of the first studies of its kind also showed mining's stark effects on the abyssal plain. Breakthroughs, discoveries, and DIY tips sent every weekday. Researchers completing one of the largest impact studies on the potential environmental impacts of deep-sea mining found a bit more than they bargained for on the ocean floor: 4,350 animals, each at least larger than 0.3 millimeters. From these, they ultimately identified 788 separate species of unique crustaceans, mollusks, marine bristle worms, and other creatures living in this sought after mining zone. While the team found that harvesting rare earth metals from over 13,000 feet below the ocean's surface may not be as destructive as initially theorized, the disruptions are still cause for serious concerns.

The past decade has seen a massive rise in the popularity of AI systems, mainly owing to the developments in Gen AI, which has revolutionized numerous industries and applications. However, this progress comes at a considerable cost to the environment as training and deploying these models consume significant computational resources and energy and are responsible for large carbon footprints in the atmosphere. In this paper, we study the amount of carbon dioxide released by models across different domains over varying time periods. By examining parameters such as model size, repository activity (e.g., commits and repository age), task type, and organizational affiliation, we identify key factors influencing the environmental impact of AI development. Our findings reveal that model size and versioning frequency are strongly correlated with higher emissions, while domain-specific trends show that NLP models tend to have lower carbon footprints compared to audio-based systems. Organizational context also plays a significant role, with university-driven projects exhibiting the highest emissions, followed by non-profits and companies, while community-driven projects show a reduction in emissions. These results highlight the critical need for green AI practices, including the adoption of energy-efficient architectures, optimizing development workflows, and leveraging renewable energy sources. We also discuss a few practices that can lead to a more sustainable future with AI, and we end this paper with some future research directions that could be motivated by our work. This work not only provides actionable insights to mitigate the environmental impact of AI but also poses new research questions for the community to explore. By emphasizing the interplay between sustainability and innovation, our study aims to guide future efforts toward building a more ecologically responsible AI ecosystem.

With the ever-growing adoption of artificial intelligence (AI), AI-based software and its negative impact on the environment are no longer negligible, and studying and mitigating this impact has become a critical area of research. However, it is currently unclear which role environmental sustainability plays during AI adoption in industry and how AI regulations influence Green AI practices and decision-making in industry. We therefore aim to investigate the Green AI perception and management of industry practitioners. To this end, we conducted a total of 11 interviews with participants from 10 different organizations that adopted AI-based software. The interviews explored three main themes: AI adoption, current efforts in mitigating the negative environmental impact of AI, and the influence of the EU AI Act and the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). Our findings indicate that 9 of 11 participants prioritized business efficiency during AI adoption, with minimal consideration of environmental sustainability. Monitoring and mitigation of AI's environmental impact were very limited. Only one participant monitored negative environmental effects. Regarding applied mitigation practices, six participants reported no actions, with the others sporadically mentioning techniques like prompt engineering, relying on smaller models, or not overusing AI. Awareness and compliance with the EU AI Act are low, with only one participant reporting on its influence, while the CSRD drove sustainability reporting efforts primarily in larger companies. All in all, our findings reflect a lack of urgency and priority for sustainable AI among these companies. We suggest that current regulations are not very effective, which has implications for policymakers. Additionally, there is a need to raise industry awareness, but also to provide user-friendly techniques and tools for Green AI practices.

My dog contributes to climate change. I've been a vegetarian for over a decade. It's not because of my health, or because I dislike the taste of chicken or beef: It's a lifestyle choice I made because I wanted to reduce my impact on the planet. And yet, twice a day, every day, I lovingly scoop a cup of meat-based kibble into a bowl and set it down for my 50-pound rescue dog, a husky mix named Loki. Until recently, I hadn't devoted a huge amount of thought to that paradox.

Try gene edited, meat-like fungi. Using CRISPR, researchers made a protein packed fungi that's easier to stomach. Breakthroughs, discoveries, and DIY tips sent every weekday. It might not seem so obvious when walking past rows of vacuum-sealed Butterball turkeys at the supermarket, but the world is on the brink of a protein shortage . Global demand for animal-based protein is expected to double by 2050 and while plant-based alternatives exist, enthusiasm around them has wavered in recent years .

Ensemble techniques in recommender systems have demonstrated accuracy improvements of 10-30%, yet their environmental impact remains unmeasured. While deep learning recommendation algorithms can generate up to 3,297 kg CO2 per paper, ensemble methods have not been sufficiently evaluated for energy consumption. This thesis investigates how ensemble techniques influence environmental impact compared to single optimized models. We conducted 93 experiments across two frameworks (Surprise for rating prediction, LensKit for ranking) on four datasets spanning 100,000 to 7.8 million interactions. We evaluated four ensemble strategies (Average, Weighted, Stacking/Rank Fusion, Top Performers) against simple baselines and optimized single models, measuring energy consumption with a smart plug. Results revealed a non-linear accuracy-energy relationship. Ensemble methods achieved 0.3-5.7% accuracy improvements while consuming 19-2,549% more energy depending on dataset size and strategy. The Top Performers ensemble showed best efficiency: 0.96% RMSE improvement with 18.8% energy overhead on MovieLens-1M, and 5.7% NDCG improvement with 103% overhead on MovieLens-100K. Exhaustive averaging strategies consumed 88-270% more energy for comparable gains. On the largest dataset (Anime, 7.8M interactions), the Surprise ensemble consumed 2,005% more energy (0.21 Wh vs. 0.01 Wh) for 1.2% accuracy improvement, producing 53.8 mg CO2 versus 2.6 mg CO2 for the single model. This research provides one of the first systematic measurements of energy and carbon footprint for ensemble recommender systems, demonstrates that selective strategies offer superior efficiency over exhaustive averaging, and identifies scalability limitations at industrial scale. These findings enable informed decisions about sustainable algorithm selection in recommender systems.

Environmental sustainability, particularly in relation to climate change, is a key concern for consumers, producers, and policymakers. The carbon footprint, based on greenhouse gas emissions, is a standard metric for quantifying the contribution to climate change of activities and is often assessed using life cycle assessment (LCA). However, conducting LCA is complex due to opaque and global supply chains, as well as fragmented data. This paper presents a methodology that combines advances in LCA and publicly available databases with knowledge-augmented AI techniques, including retrieval-augmented generation, to estimate cradle-to-gate carbon footprints of food products. Our methodology is implemented as a chatbot interface that allows users to interactively explore the carbon impact of composite meals and relate the results to familiar activities.

Transitioning to sustainable and resilient energy systems requires navigating complex and interdependent trade-offs across environmental, social, and resource dimensions. Neglecting these trade-offs can lead to unintended consequences across sectors. However, existing assessments often evaluate emerging energy pathways and their impacts in silos, overlooking critical interactions such as regional resource competition and cumulative impacts. We present an integrated modeling framework that couples agent-based modeling and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to simulate how energy transition pathways interact with regional resource competition, ecological constraints, and community-level burdens. We apply the model to a case study in Southern California. The results demonstrate how integrated and multiscale decision making can shape energy pathway deployment and reveal spatially explicit trade-offs under scenario-driven constraints. This modeling framework can further support more adaptive and resilient energy transition planning on spatial and institutional scales.

If the US Has to Build Data Centers, Here's Where They Should Go A new analysis tries to calculate the coming environmental footprint of AI in the US and finds that the ideal sites for data centers aren't where they're being built. A data center for cryptocurrency mining, cloud services, and AI computing in Stutsman County, North Dakota.Video: halbergman/Getty Images Tech companies have invested so much money in building data centers in recent months, it's actively driving the US economy--and the AI race is showing no signs of slowing down. Meta chief Mark Zuckerberg told President Donald Trump last week that the company would spend $600 billion on US infrastructure--including data centers--by 2028, while OpenAI has committed already to spending $1.4 trillion. An extensive new analysis looks at the environmental footprint of data centers in the US to get a handle on what, exactly, the country might be facing as this buildout continues over the next few years--and where the US should be building data centers to avoid the most harmful environmental impacts. The study, published in the journal Nature Communications on Monday, uses a variety of data, including demand for AI chips and information on state electricity and water scarcity, to project the potential environmental impacts of future data centers through the end of the decade. The study models a number of different possible scenarios on how data centers could affect the US and the planet--and cautions that tech companies' net zero promises aren't likely to hold up against the energy and water needs of the massive facilities they're building.