Despite its name, the infrastructure used by the “cloud” accounts for more global greenhouse emissions than commercial flights. 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.

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.

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.

Furthermore, while minerals such as lithium and cobalt are most commonly associated with batteries in the motor sector, they are also crucial for the batteries used in datacentres. The extraction process often involves significant water usage and can lead to pollution, undermining water security. The extraction of these minerals are also often linked to human rights violations and poor labour standards. Trying to achieve one climate goal of limiting our dependence on fossil fuels can compromise another goal, of ensuring everyone has a safe and accessible water supply.

Moreover, when significant energy resources are allocated to tech-related endeavours, it can lead to energy shortages for essential needs such as residential power supply. Recent data from the UK shows that the country’s outdated electricity network is holding back affordable housing projects.

In other words, policy needs to be designed not to pick sectors or technologies as “winners”, but to pick the willing by providing support that is conditional on companies moving in the right direction. Making disclosure of environmental practices and impacts a condition for government support could ensure greater transparency and accountability.

    • Buttons@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      It seems the people who are the most staunch defenders of capitalism and free markets are the most resistant to the capitalist and free market solution.

      Clean air (or rather, air with normal levels of carbon) belongs to the public, and anyone who wants to take it away should pay the public.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        7 months ago

        Sigh. You can hold any opinion you want about the ideal society. This is a good idea for the society we have now. If we all die it’s not going to matter if Adam Smith or Karl Marx was correct.

            • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              7 months ago

              Which may be because recent history has proven beyond doubt that capitalism without regulation is catastrophical and capitalists will always push the boundaries & try to get rid of regulation, thereby it is always catastrophical, with temporary periods where it looks good on the surface.

              • 𝓔𝓶𝓶𝓲𝓮@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                Sometimes I just want to see online world burn

                Now do I want to engage em or not? Probably not I guess, it would be tiring especially since any nuance is lost on the web in favour of black and white thinking

                I’ll play some guitar or eat burgers while they produce their stuff. Maybe draw something or blender hm

                The key to healthy internet is to wisely choose your keyboard battles and not get bogged down by the army of simpletons

                • Grimy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  On top of that, if you refuse to defend your vague statements implying it would be a waste of your time and beneath you, you end up being always right!

                  • 𝓔𝓶𝓶𝓲𝓮@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    I mean only something that can crumble needs defending. If something is made from undefeated steel it can be left and is as pristine as ever upon return.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          7 months ago

          Adam Smith would go absolutely ballistic if he were to see our current system. Not at all his vision.

    • spyd3r@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Why don’t you just hand over all your income to the government just to be sure you won’t engage in any unnecessary activity.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        What are you on about? A carbon tax is a way to lower the tragedy of the commons in terms of air pollution. It is the free market compromise. Allowing individuals and companies time and giving them incentive to stop doing something that hurts us as a whole. The socialist answer would be to ban it outright. You are getting the best solution the capitalist market allows. Additionally it aligns pretty well with traditional capitalist economists have argued before: a resource owned as a whole will be mismanaged.

        I honestly don’t get why it isn’t a more popular idea. I would much rather live in a world where people are being gently pushed into making the right decision with adequate time to adapt vs a world that is on fire.

        And on the off chance that 99% of climate science is wrong we still benefit from having a less acidic ocean, less smog, less local air pollution, and spending less money on maintenance of so many machines.