Is Eric Schmidt Right About AI and Climate Change?

 Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt sees the future in AI and has called for a heavier focus on the rapidly growing technology than on climate change.

At a recent AI summit in Washington DC, Schmidt sparked debate by suggesting the importance of investing in AI infrastructure at the expense of climate goals. He argued that with AI’s rapid growth demanding more energy, we won’t be able to keep pace with conservation efforts. In his view, it would be smarter to rely on AI to solve environmental issues rather than limiting its development through climate regulatory legislation.

The question many people have of course is whether this argument holds water and if it is true that we won’t win the climate war. In addition, if we cannot defeat climate change, is it wise to contribute to the problem by investing in technology that requires vast amounts of polluting energy?

Earlier this year, the International Energy Agency (IEA) issued its forecast for global energy use over the next two years. The forecast included projections for electricity consumption associated with data centers, cryptocurrency, and AI.

The IEA estimates that demand for these energy uses could double by 2026, which would make it roughly equal to the amount of electricity used by the entire country of Japan.

This is significant.

As AI drives a surge in electricity consumption, natural gas producers are planning for a significant spike in demand over the next decade.

AI uses too much energy and as forecast by the IEA, will only drive more energy production and more pollution.

However, some believe electric vehicles and the industrial sector will both be bigger sources of growth in electricity demand than data centers in the European Union, for example, according to MIT’s climate newsletter, The Spark.

What this means is that there is only so much we can do to prevent climate change since it may be a losing battle if the entire world is not on board and new technologies are not found.

According to the IEA, about 85% of additional electricity demand through 2026 is set to come from outside advanced economies, with China contributing substantially.

And while China provides the largest share of global electricity demand growth in terms of volume, India posts the fastest growth rate through 2026 among major economies.

Without India and China on board, there is simply no way to reduce the effects of climate change substantially enough to make a difference.

For this reason, it is possible that Schmidt is correct in his assessment that it might be better to focus on improving AI than to waste energy – pun intended – on fighting a losing battle with climate change.

Of course, many people disagree with this assessment and that is completely legitimate. There are valid arguments to be made for fighting climate change and reducing its effects through responsible energy usage and investment in alternative and green energy.

The point, for now, is the debate itself and allowing researchers and scientists the time to explore the options available. At this point in time, without a viable solution to resolving the climate crisis as China and India are unwilling or unable to participate in the effort, there is almost no point for the US and the EU in pursuing a fruitless effort to make changes when they are too minimal to make a difference.

That’s not to say the climate crisis is not real or important. Indeed, we must find solutions and continue to work on resolving it, but for now, we may be able to do more good by improving AI.