The Environmental Cost of AI
By Eli Ibanga
Edited By Victoria Sosa
A few years ago, I was a panelist for a discussion on the benefits of utilizing AI in support of emergency management operations. I proposed that AI could be used for analyzing financial and location data to better anticipate community needs in advance of natural disasters. While I don’t regret that take, I do think our collective jets should be cooled on AI. Within the last few years, there has been a noticeable push across industries to develop and implement AI, with key goals appearing to be an automation of tasks to decrease costs whilst developing new revenue streams for companies involved in the development and deployment of AI tools. Furthermore, the technology has become part of the average tech layman’s toolbox, with tools like ChatGPT being used across the world daily. While AI undoubtedly has immense potential for good, I believe it is currently being used irresponsibly, partly due to little oversight and regulation. There’s a myriad of potential issues such as biases in the training of algorithms, unethical AI deployment, and its sociological impact, but in the spirit of Earth Month I’d like to focus on the carbon footprint of AI.
I found statistics on AI tools’ climate impact were both underwhelming and jarring, depending on the context through which I considered the data. On one hand, AI’s energy consumption is only approximately 3% of Earth’s total emissions (Kemene et al., 2024). However, the typical ChatGPT inquiry uses approximately 10 times the energy used by a traditional digital inquiry method, like a Google search (Parshall, 2024). Generative AI uses around 33 times more energy to complete a task than “task specific” software (Kemene et al., 2024). Those figures are large, but they mean next to nothing without contextualization. For this, let us take a closer look at what is probably the most famous AI tool at the moment, ChatGPT.
ChatGPT produces around 4.32 grams of carbon dioxide per query, and receives around 50 million unique visits each day (Mittal, 2024). This works out to nearly 78,840 metric tons of CO2 production annually. Compared to the USA, that’s a drop in the bucket, as we generate nearly 18 million metric tons of CO2 per day (EPA, 2024). But what about the amount of power used? Many environmental activists and researchers have begun to realize that some “green” products may have a negative cumulative effect on the climate crisis. If an electric car is developed, or a wind turbine installed, we all feel good because it’s an environmentally conscious product. But what of the environmental cost? Is the supply chain environmentally sound? Are the net emissions to create and sustain such an item worth it? What is the human cost to produce these products? These are the questions we must consider when looking at emerging technologies to better assess their net impact on the environment.
Let’s examine ChatGPT’s climate impact by comparing its energy consumption and emissions to a country like Pakistan, a notable developing country with a large population. Pakistan ranks 5th for largest population worldwide, 32nd for CO2 emissions, and 26th for electricity consumption when compared to other countries and territories (Crippa, et al., 2024; Fulghum, 2024; United Nations, 2024). As ChatGPT is essentially a digital application, we can ignore supply chain emissions, as those are more attributable to smartphone and computer developers (just in case you are wondering though, there are a LOT of emissions there). ChatGPT generates 7.62 metric tons of CO2 in a year, compared to Pakistan’s annual CO2 emissions of 200.51 teragrams (Crippa, et al., 2024; Mittal, 2024). This pales even further when compared to a country like the USA’s 4,682.04 teragrams worth of CO2 emissions (Crippa, et al., 2024).
So, we’ve established that when compared to the biggest of polluters, AI is nowhere close to being one of the main culprits, but that’s only when considering CO2 emissions. ChatGPT annually uses 14.46B kWh, or 8.45% of the electricity that Pakistan uses over the same period, which is made more disturbing when we consider that Pakistan has the 5th largest population worldwide (Fulghum, 2024; United Nations, 2024; Wright 2025). It’s even more scary when you consider that the AI tool uses an equivalent amount of water per month to that of every person on Earth having two glasses of water (Wright, 2025).
Looking at some hopefully more digestible figures, when you drive just one mile in an average gasoline-powered vehicle you produce CO2 emissions equivalent to generating about 243 AI images (Heikkilä, 2023). Despite this, the AI tool could use approximately the same amount of electricity as it takes to charge your smartphone to generate just one of those images (Heikkilä, 2023). Within that context, the use of AI for trivial tasks seems irresponsible at best and unethical at worst (looking at you, AI photo enthusiasts). On a small scale, the aimless ChatGPT query is a drop in a bucket. But cumulative impact paints a grimmer picture.
So, it's clear that using AI won't send the Earth to a fiery grave, at least not on its own, but if AI remains unregulated then the public will remain uninformed on its true environmental impact. This ignorance could erode the very small gains the global community has made against climate change. When considering the environmental cost of AI, one should consider both the energy usage (how much energy will it use, and what else could that energy be used for) as well as its greenhouse emissions (what is the negative impact on the planet). Humanity has introduced a new energy consumption and emissions variable in AI, and it wasn’t created with the purpose of replacing a less sustainable system either. The disconnect between AI’s negative impact on our planet and its potential to aid our everyday lives must be rectified to guarantee that while the AI sector continues to grow, we prioritize Earth’s sustainability over convenience and profitability.
References:
Blue, M.-L. (2022, August 30). What is the carbon footprint of a plastic bottle?. Sciencing. https://www.sciencing.com/carbon-footprint-plastic-bottle-12307187/
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2025, January). Employed persons by detailed occupation, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm
Crippa, M., Guizzardi, D., Pagani, F., Banja, M., Muntean, M., Schaaf, E., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Becker, W., Quadrelli, R., Risquez Martin, A., Taghavi-Moharamli, P., Köykkä, J., Grassi, G., Rossi, S., Melo, J., Oom, D., Branco, A., San-Miguel, J., Manca, G., Pisoni, E., Vignati, E. and Pekar, F., GHG emissions of all world countries, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2024, doi:10.2760/4002897, JRC138862
Edwards, C., & Fry, J. M. (2011, July 25). Life cycle assessment of supermarket carrierbags: A review of the bags available in 2006. GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/life-cycle-assessment-of-supermarket-carrierbags-a-review-of-the-bags-available-in-2006
Environmental Protection Agency. (2016, January). What If More People Bought Groceries Online Instead of Driving to a Store?. EPA. https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/what-if-more-people-bought-groceries-online-instead-driving-store#:~:text=What’s%20the%20big%20deal?,times%20the%20distance%20to%20Pluto!&text=All%20these%20car%20trips%20result,out%20of%20milk%20again.%E2%80%9D)
Environmental Protection Agency. (2024, April 11). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2022 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 430R-24004. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2022.
EUROCONTROL Business Cases (2024, June 18). Standard Inputs for Economic Analyses. EUROCONTROL. (10) 7-7.5. https://ansperformance.eu/economics/cba/standard-inputs/chapters/amount_of_emissions_released_by_fuel_burn.html
Fulghum, N. (2024, December 9). Yearly Electricity Data. Ember. https://ember-energy.org/data/yearly-electricity-data/
Heikkilä, M. (2023, December 1). Making an image with generative AI uses as much energy as charging your phone. MIT Technology Review. https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/12/01/1084189/making-an-image-with-generative-ai-uses-as-much-energy-as-charging-your-phone/
Kemene, E., Valkhof, B., & Tladi, T. (2024, July 22). AI and energy: Will AI reduce emissions or increase demand?. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/07/generative-ai-energy-emissions/#:~:text=How%20much%20energy%20does%20AI,just%20users%20on%20one%20platform.&text=How%20can%20business%20leaders%20strike,of%20the%20Annual%20Meeting%202025
Mittal, A. (2024, October 8). CHATGPT: How much does each query contribute to carbon emissions?. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/chatgpt-how-much-does-each-query-contribute-carbon-emissions-mittal-wjf8c/
Parshall, A. (2024, June 13). What do Google’s AI answers cost the environment? Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-do-googles-ai-answers-cost-the-environment/
Pearce, C. (2023, July 12). How many cars equal the CO2 emissions of one plane?. BBC Science Focus Magazine. https://www.sciencefocus.com/future-technology/how-many-cars-equal-the-co2-emissions-of-one-plane
United Nations (2024). World Population Prospects 2024: Summary of Results. UN DESA/POP/2024/TR/NO. 9. New York: United Nations.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2023, June). Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=97&t=3
Wright, I. (2025, March 6). ChatGPT energy consumption visualized - beuk. Business Energy UK. https://www.businessenergyuk.com/knowledge-hub/chatgpt-energy-consumption-visualized/
Greed Ruined the NFT - And Why Fortnite Can Save It
By Eli Ibanga
During the height of the COVID-19 global pandemic just about everyone had heard of NFTs, and many companies were hard at work trying to find ways to extract value from technology without doing their due diligence. Notable brands found themselves in a race to extract value and profit from this “hot” technology, and in the pursuit of greed they found themselves putting the cart before the horse.
First, let’s tackle the technology. An NFT is essentially a digital receipt. This “receipt” has an unchangeable ledger that can be viewed online (the blockchain), which of course demonstrates proof of ownership (Sharma, 2024). Thus, it makes sense that the perceived value of NFTs is in the exclusivity of owning one. One will always be able to trace NFT transactions back to the blockchain, thus proof of ownership is absolute. When compared to some more traditional sales venues NFT transactions also have less intermediaries (Sharma, 2024). They cannot be imitated or copied – except for when they are.
In popular mockery of the technology, detractors would copy the NFTs using screenshots, then post the image to ridicule the NFT owner. This mockery of course offended many NFT owners, but there was no recourse available to them. The court of public opinion found NFTs to be a stupid idea. Furthermore, our governments have proven themselves slow to enact laws to regulate emerging technologies, especially when that tech is exclusively used on the internet. AI is the most popular boogeyman on this front (West, 2024). Compounding the problem was the fact that a lot of the NFT art (and I use that term very loosely) was stolen from actual artist, or had ridiculous origins (Collier, 2022). Tascha-Labs literally took a picture of a diamond, then destroyed it and minted the photo to the blockchain (Tascha-Labs, 2021). All these actions were taken in an effort to create value for the NFT through artificial scarcity. Although NFTs are digitally unique, they are inherently worthless. Thus, a reason needs to be created to give someone a reason to purchase one. But a picture of a diamond? Ugly monkey gifs? Is that really the best we are capable of? The issue with NFTs, as stated in the beginning of this piece, is that the cart was put before the horse. The ideal use of an NFT is to add value to an already popular service through exclusivity. Tascha’s Destroyed Diamond was…well, destroyed, because owning the NFT was worthless so long as the actual diamond existed. Bored-Ape-Yacht-Clubs monkeys were stupid because they became over-saturated before there was any reason to want to actually be a member of the club. What is crazy about all of this is that there was an ideal use case for NFTs all along – and that is Fortnite. Yes, the free-to-play video game.
Fortnite offers its service free to players on various gaming platforms, thus having maximum accessibility options for users. They generate actual revenue through the selling of in game cosmetics, such as skins, music, and emotes (Ganti, 2020). These cosmetics give no advantage to the purchaser, unlike microtransactions in the majority of other games. They strictly exist to allow the owner to express a more unique personality. Fortnite limits access to these items in two ways. The first, of course, is to charge for these items. The second is by creating artificial scarcity by limiting purchasing availability to these items, meaning if you don’t get it when its available you have no idea when you will be able to get it again. Every time I play Fortnite I am disappointed that I never got the opportunity to get the “Verve” emote myself.
By using stringent rules regarding cheating and account security, Fortnite has successfully created the “meta-verse” that so many other companies have aspired, and failed, to create. Players aren’t even always in the game to earn that elusive Victory Royale. There are social events and brand collaborations, such as one with Shuiesha and Toei Animation, that allowed players to watch episodes of Dragon Ball Super in-game while hanging out with friends (The Fortnite Team, 2022). This of course coincided with a limited release of Dragon Ball themed emotes and skins. So Fortnite offers: (1) an established metaverse with its own draw for users to want to participate, (2) a robust user-base that motivates companies to want to advertise and collaborate on their platform, and (3) purchasable exclusive cosmetics that provide no benefit to players beyond them being able to express their personality in a unique manner. And this formula has been a roaring success. In fact, it’s so successful that there is an “illegal” (against Fortnite terms of service) market for selling Fortnite accounts with rare cosmetics to other players!
In closing, I think it is clear that companies trying to leverage NFTs for new streams of revenue need not give up their aspirations, but refocus them. The aim should be to actually provide something of value to the consumer, not simply to get in front of the pack in the race to make money. Of course, even Epic Games (the developer of Fortnite) is not immune to errors on this front, with it allowing many “crypto-games” of varying quality and repute on its store. And to be fair, this only half-covers the topic as it is difficult to touch on NFTs and the blockchain without delving into cryptocurrencies. But I think we shall save that discussion for a part 2.
References:
Collier, K. (2022, January 10). NFT Art sales are booming. just without some artists’ permission. NBCNews.com. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/nft-art-sales-are-booming-just-artists-permission-rcna10798
The Fortnite Team. (2022, August 16). Your power is unleashed! Goku powers up fortnite X dragon ball. Fortnite News. https://www.fortnite.com/news/goku-powers-up-fortnite-x-dragon-ball-your-power-is-unleashed
Ganti, A. (2020, September 10). How does fortnite make money?. Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/tech/how-does-fortnite-make-money/
Sharma, R. (2024, June 12). Non-fungible token (NFT): What it means and how it works. Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/non-fungible-tokens-nft-5115211
Tascha-Labs. (2021, September). Tascha’s Destroyed Diamond. Retrieved March 19, 2025, from https://opensea.io/assets/ethereum/0x2a9e4045185c8d778b85610ca96d79bd8ecdc720/1.
West, D. M., Wheeler, T., Sorelle Friedler, S. V., MacCarthy, M., & Nicol Turner Lee, T. W. (2024, October 10). The three challenges of AI Regulation. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-three-challenges-of-ai-regulation/
Review of the VA in Advance of “DOGE” Staffing Cuts
By Eli Ibanga
Originally published at www.linkedin.com/in/eibanga/ on 12 March 2025
There has been lots of talk recently about “DOGE” and its sweeping cuts to various US federal agencies, and most recently, the VA. I think its safe to say their approach is reckless when it comes to government cuts. American politicians always say how much they love their veterans, but if that is the case then I would recommend these cuts are halted for a non-arbitrary period until proper review is done by qualified experts, because the current available data does not support their claims.
For today, let’s just look at healthcare outcomes and patient satisfaction. The VA maintains better healthcare outcomes than the larger US healthcare system provides the general public, in fact, the VA by and large maintains better healthcare outcomes than veterans receiving care external to the VA (Apaydin, et al., 2023). Comparatively, the general population of course experiences worse healthcare outcomes in most metrics (Apaydin, et al., 2023). This also does not take into consideration access to care for the general population, which is often influenced by income, location, race, etc. While I’m not aware of any research on that topic, I’d argue the government’s focus on inclusion and anti-discrimination in the past ensures that the lowest private and most senior general receive the same standard of care from the Department of Veterans Affairs. This is underscored by the fact that the VA holds an outpatient satisfaction rate of 92% (Department of Veterans Affairs, 2024).
So, we’ve established the VA does a fantastic job of taking care of its veterans. Well, how does the rest of our nation fare? The answer, as you likely presumed, is not great. US healthcare expenditures double the average healthcare expenditures of other developed countries, and our healthcare outcomes are low to dead last when compared to those same countries (Peter G. Peterson Foundation, 2024).
The point of this isn’t to carry water for the VA. Nor to claim that the Trump administration has no right to review or demand increased efficiency from federal agencies. It’s to highlight that:
1. The VA is working very well as it is currently constructed
2. This energy would be much more beneficial to all Americans if focused on improving healthcare expenditures and outcomes for the general public.
The US government is not a startup. Moving fast and failing fast does not work for organizations that maintain critical functions. Breaking these organizations will have drastic, and at times fatal, consequences that we won’t see make headlines.
Sources:
Apaydin, E.A., Paige, N.M., Begashaw, M.M. et al. Veterans Health Administration (VA) vs. Non-VA Healthcare Quality: A Systematic Review. J GEN INTERN MED 38, 2179–2188 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-023-08207-2
Peter G Peterson Foundation. (2024, August 16). How does the U.S. healthcare system compare to other countries? https://www.pgpf.org/article/how-does-the-us-healthcare-system-compare-to-other-countries/?utm_term=healthcare+outcomes+by+country&utm_campaign=Healthcare%2BGeneral&utm_source=adwords&utm_medium=ppc&hsa_acc=1523796716&hsa_cam=15585669000&hsa_grp=131358281459&hsa_ad=570089444339&hsa_src=g&hsa_tgt=kwd-329647557082&hsa_kw=healthcare+outcomes+by+country&hsa_mt=b&hsa_net=adwords&hsa_ver=3&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAiAlPu9BhAjEiwA5NDSA5b0mMB-WVZWDI4KMoyOSDnKgupnvRbFCFuac9AAI8uQy4pasqqh5xoCWAcQAvD_BwE
Department of Veterans Affairs. (2024, May 9). Trust in VA among veteran patients rises to 91.8%, up 6% since 2018. VA News. https://news.va.gov/press-room/trust-in-va-among-veteran-patients-rises-to-91-8/
The Argument for Tesla Parting Ways With Elon Musk
By Eli Ibanga
Originally published at linkedin.com/in/eibanga/ 13 March 2025
We are over a month beyond Elon Musk "giving his heart" (it disgusted me to even type that. side by side image with you-know-who here: https://lnkd.in/gyMchuBM). Surely one must ask then, why on earth is Tesla still associated with him?
From a perspective that strictly surrounds Tesla’s profitability, it makes zero sense to get rid of Musk. He is the quintessential personality hire, but as a CEO. His “personal brand” carries $TSLA, which has resulted in is incredible stock valuation over the years. An argument could be made that his own brand is more valuable than Tesla itself, and their association with him is what makes the company so valuable. And although Tesla is currently experiencing a PR nightmare so bad that the President of the United States has waded into the topic (which is a discussion for another day), from the perspective of a shareholder concerned with profit, how could you justify getting rid of him? Tesla has outperformed major stocks and indexes when viewed holistically. All stocks experience a dip from time to time. Furthermore, he is arguably the most powerful man in the world at the moment, given his unprecedented wealth, access to sensitive US government data, and influence over the President of the United States.
With all that said, I will make a case on why they should get rid of him, even though it will never happen. Long term strategy and principles. If Musk’s brand is indeed more valuable than Tesla’s, then what will happen when he is no longer around? The man isn’t immortal after all. One day he will retire, pass away, or fly off into space to never return. When that day comes, Tesla will lose their “Elon stimulus package”. But their history of association with him will remain. Certain consumer groups have long memories. Of course that may not matter. Sure, Target is currently nearing a 5 year low in stock price, but similar retailers have seen devaluations without any protest in the same period. Any African American reading this surely knows at least one person who refuses to wear Tommy Hilfiger because of the untrue rumors of their being a racist clothing brand from the 90s. That never stopped them from being one of the most iconic brands in the world. Will Tesla’s brand survive post-Elon if they don’t “cut slingload” now? I don’t know. What I *do* know is that they should part with him because his actions are simply unacceptable, whether you believe he did it intentionally or not. Leaders have a responsibility to uphold the highest of ethical standards. As the leader of Tesla, his actions have caused great harm to many employees, consumers, and even private citizens given some of his non-Tesla related activities.