@m_o
M O
3 w
I do believe AI has the potential to help reduce our climate footprint but we need a much better scientific foundation to compare AI vs other tools to make better decisions. According to an article published earlier this year in Nature, the carbon emissions of generative AI writing text or creating images has a lower carbon footprint than a human doing the same work. The authors discuss several of the limitations of their research, however the comparison has several important problems not discussed. The researchers took the average yearly carbon footprints of a human living their life and from there calculated a carbon footprint for the time they spent on writing an article or making an illustration. The resulting carbon footprint of human time spend (690-5500g CO2e) is a lot more than the carbon footprint of time a computer needed to be turned on for the task (100-280g CO2e). However if we choose to give less image generating tasks to a computer then a data center somewhere buys less computers and idle computer GPUs use less energy. If we choose to give less illustration jobs to humans then we don't give birth to less humans and idle humans do not use less energy. Whether it's right to use human time in comparisons between AI and human work is something that's important to discuss when presenting articles like this. In case of image generation the demand has historically scaled to match accessibility. According to an article published earlier this year in Nature, the carbon emissions of generative AI writing text or creating images has a lower carbon footprint than a human doing the same work. There are some problems with the human carbon footprint in this article. The researchers took a the average yearly carbon footprints of a human living their life and from there calculated a carbon footprint for the time they spent on writing an article or making an illustration. The resulting carbon footprint of human time spend (690-5500g CO2e) is a lot more than the carbon footprint of time a computer needed to be turned on for the task (100-280g CO2e). However if we choose to give less image generating tasks to a computer then a data center somewhere buys less computers and idle computer GPUs use less energy. If we choose to give less illustration jobs to humans then we don't give birth to less humans and idle humans do not use less energy. Whether it's right to use human time in comparisons between AI and human work is something that's important to discuss when presenting articles like this. Another problem with this comparison is that in current practice users try many different prompts to get the image they like, in cases where a human illustrator would have made only one illustration to make a happy client, which is also not reflected in the comparison because of the choice to compare by a single unit of product created. This brings us to another important question to discuss in an article like this: whether or not a comparison should be made per unit of a product created or per hour that a tool is being used. For e.g. a business looking to hire a freelance writer or illustrator a comparison per unit helps them make better decisions about their carbon footprint. For that freelance writer or illustrator trying to choose the best tools to use a comparison per hour helps them make a better decision about their carbon footprint (e.g. the carbon footprint of an illustrator with a full-time job spending 40 hours using Photoshop or 40 hours writing prompts for DALL-E2). Both will come to different conclusions. From a birds-eye perspective an important factor is whether or not demand follows accessibility. In case of image generation the demand has historically followed to match accessibility, from found pigments to mined pigments, to the first color pencils in the early 19th century and the start of digital art in the 1960s, we now have around 2.2 million illustrators working around the world and AI generating 34 million images per day. Also in this case a comparison of the carbon footprint per hour of the tool being used may be a better choice to help understand the impacts of AI. I do believe AI has the potential to help reduce our climate footprint but we need a better scientific foundation to compare AI vs other tools to make better decisions. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54271-x
The carbon emissions of writing and illustrating are lower for AI than for humans - Scientific Reports
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54271-x
36 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
M O
18 w
I wanted to see what I can do to convince my bank to divest in fossil fuels right now, instead of hiding behind loopholes... Then I discovered this website which helps to find petitions and campaigns to join for several major banks. This is an amazing tool for me and I wanted to share it because I think they deserve some love for the platform they've built. https://www.fossilbanks.org/platform
103 more agrees trigger scaled up advertising
•
•
18 w
Thank you for sharing this invaluable resource. Fossil Banks is an absolute gem to hold financial institutions accountable for their role in funding fossil fuel projects.
•
•
•
18 w
Great and important initiative
•
•
18 w
A great platform to call out banks supporting fossil, this is commendable.
M O
125 w
Today I sent my grocery store a picture of all the purposeless plastic packaging that came with their delivery. The plastic bags the groceries came in were not included because luckily they take them back and re-use them. But this still left me with a bunch of plastic wrapped greens that are really better off without all that plastic, so I gathered them up and took a picture. I explained to my grocery store that in my experience, the veggies that are stuck in plastic don't last as long. They need to be able to breathe or they tend to end up covered in mold. So why wrap them in plastic in the first place? Unfortunately it's necessary to protect food to prevent food-waste. Plastic is often favored in terms of carbon footprint, but as single-use plastic it forms it's own category of problems with long lasting effects. It's a complex problem and it's good to be careful not to greenwash-package while actually making things worse. I added an example of blueberries which they selling packaged in cardboard boxes which greatly increased their chances of safe arrival and their longevity at home, or at least until I'm opening the fridge for snack... Plastic is not always the right answer to protect against food waste. If you think your grocery store has too much purposelessly packaged veggies or other needless plastic, gather up a pile and send them a picture! And why not post a picture on your favorite social platform as well? And just now, while writing this post, they wrote me back to say they're going to discuss my feedback with their suppliers to make sure their customers get heard... For anyone in the Netherlands, Germany or France: "they" are PicNic - a rapidly growing delivery service with "fighting food waste" at the core of their mission - and they take climate action seriously!
87 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
•
125 w
Which store is it?
M O
130 w
Today I watched the panel hosted by the ICC on the topic "marketing hype or conscientious consumerism? The risks of greenwashing and what can be done to address this". During this panel Jenny Bailly, executive beauty director at Allure, talked about the importance of language, how many used to label products as sustainable can be misleading and the pledge made by Allure to address this. Some of the words Allure has decided to ban from their language include recyclable, biodegradable, compostable and green (if not referring to an actual color). Careful consideration of language should not be limited to fashion journalism, the panelists noticed a lot of the same vague terms being used during COP26. Vogue is also using their reach to push for change in the fashion industry, with a footprint estimated to be 4-10% of global greenhouse gas emissions. They're pushing a message of buy less and shop for quality, something you'll wear for a long time. Tonne Goodman, sustainability editor at Vogue, suggested to also ban the word "sustainable" from fashion journalism and the word "eco-friendly," as she explained, "it means nothing at all, actually." Cara Smyth, Managing Director, Global Responsible ESG Retail, Accenture suggested to also ban the phrase "raising awareness." It's not the time to raise awareness, it's time to scale up. It needs to be awareness "plus action." Earlier in the panel she talked about how non-profits, like https://extileexchange.org/ are changing the fashion industry, and the importance of data to back up sustainability claims or detect greenwashing. A link worth sharing: https://mci.textileexchange.org/dashboard/
148 more agrees trigger social media ads
Pinned by We Don't Have Time
•
•
129 w
Dear M O Thank you for getting your Climate Love to level 2! We have reached out to Allure and asked what they think. I will keep you updated on any progress! /Sarah We Don't Have Time
•
•
129 w
Interesting! The way we communicate about the climate crisis and its solutions is key, so it's good to see the fashion and beauty world looking at it
M O
130 w
I want to send some love to all panelists from the Ammonia Technology Roadmap panel, hosted by the ICC, for this very important discussion and I want to highlight a reply by Ahmed Reda (Associate Minister of Trade and Industry, Egypt), when asked for a wish for the future he instead suggested for his co-panelist Blake Adair (representing Nutrien) to go first, adding "perhaps we can make his wish come true." I very much agree with his attitude of lets not waste time on creating more awareness first but rapidly bring solutions to scale, then awareness will follow.
61 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
M O
131 w
I'd highly recommend Ericsson to collaborate with TU Delft, for 2 reasons: 1. 5G is causing a significant increase in energy needs for mobile networks. TU Delft has a solution. 2.The same solution may also benefit Ericsson's ambitious goal of zero-energy devices. A part of the challenge in this is reducing the energy consumption of devices e.g. when searching for cell towers. I believe the same solution from TU Delft can also be extended to help solve this problem bringing the world one step closer to a future with zero-energy devices. https://www.tudelft.nl/en/eemcs/current/nodes/stories/how-not-to-waste-energy-on-5g
57 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
•
131 w
Every advance in technology comes with a price - even modern communications technology needs to be powered somehow.
M O
133 w
Most individual investors are unaware of the power they have, it seems as if the largest institutions with the largest shares hold all the power but by working together a minority of investors in a company can still make a big impact with resolutions. ShareAction helps investors utilize their hidden power to push climate action on the agenda of companies and give investors a voice in carbon reduction plans. The article below highlights the story of several shareholder activists who got involved with ShareAction, including a man who bought a single share and ended up helping push climate action on the agenda for Tesco and HSBC. Similar action groups are forming around the world creating a ripple effect. Resolutions may prove to become a very powerful tool in the fight against climate change. https://www.ft.com/content/97a2df7c-5f13-4f20-b7f4-73a19cedb677
45 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
M O
134 w
A Vicious Circle: Bad Decisions & Climate Change We don't have time. We need to solve the climate crisis now or we will not have the mental capacity left to solve any of the other major global problems vying for our attention. It's not hard to argue that decisions got us into this climate crisis but rising CO2-level also affect our decision making. The 2006 film Idiocracy pictured a dystopian future of declined average IQ, a society controled by consumerism with leaders elected for their popularity and entertainment value. Anno 2021 this all sounds like recent history. But scientists predict it's going to get much worse. Around 1970 outdoor CO2 levels were around 320. Today this around 420 but is predicted to climb to 930 ppm with indoor levels of 1400 ppm. At this concentration our complex decision-making ability is halved. https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200421/Atmospheric-CO2-levels-can-cause-cognitive-impairment.aspx CO2 is toxic to humans (or actually almost all lifeforms on this planet). The mild effects are headache, confusion and lethargy. With a little bit higher or longer exposure feelings of paranoia or depression join the list. None of these symptoms are beneficial to decision making. So, what about chronic exposure? Well, we have a trial running right now with 7.7b participants to answer that question. Are we indeed having more trouble with thinking clearly? Since 1970, the time when CO2 levels started to rise rapidly, the average IQ has been dropping steadily. Researchers call this the negative Flynn effect. They have been searching for a cause and this search lead them to climate change. https://www.pnas.org/content/115/26/6674 Since this research CO2 levels have tripled. Are we indeed getting more depressed? Between 2005 and 2017 cases of depression roughly doubled. https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2019/03/mental-health-adults Are we indeed getting more paranoid? The 21st century has already been called "the age of paranoia." Psychiatrist have been exploring many facets of modern life as factors summig up to the increase of paranoia in the world, but the rise in CO2 tends to be overlooked. Meanwhile several researchers looking for actual data on the matter have found that we are twice as likely to develop paranoia in urban environments. - Urban environments are also known for higher CO2 levels compared to rural environments, correlating rising paranoia and rising CO2 levels in both time and place, with a known causal relationship (toxin → symptom). https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-22/edition-7/paranoia-increasing https://www.the-ies.org/analysis/outdoor-co2-pollution Meanwhile the effects CO2 has on our mental capacities are enhanced by the filter bubbles we have created with machine learning and the attention-economy. Machine learning is making events we're already struggling to understand move fasters than ever before, while the attention economy is simultaneously degrading our attention span and constantly drawing our attention away from critical thought, problem solving and taking action. We need to take action. We need to solve the climate crisis now or we will not have the mental capacity left to solve any of the other major global problems vying for our attention. Image: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
•
134 w
We need to stop poisoning our soil, ocean and air. We are poisoning ourselves and everything around us!
M O
135 w
The Dutch company North Water is currently cleaning effluent (partially cleaned waste water) for reuse as industrial water. https://northwater.nl/en/ https://northwater.nl/news/nieuwe-industriewaterzuivering-en-transportleidingen-klaar-voor-levering/ (The news of their new sustainable plant now being operational is not yet translated to English) At this moment residential and industrial waste water is still dumped in surface water after partial cleaning. North Water takes this water and makes it reusable again. They're working towards a future where waste water is fed directly to their cleaning plant and they have taken the first step in the Netherlands to a circular water economy.
84 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
•
135 w
Great to hear! Please listen to todays live event focusing on waste water management https://www.wedonthavetime.org/events/circular-table-talks-ii
M O
137 w
Most tech giants focus on clean energy while forgetting about their water footprint. After investing 45m in a new water source for their data center in the Netherlands, Google briefly mentioned an idea to reuse waste water for their data center which they were exploring. (1) Much love to Google for realizing that data centers also have a water footprint and exploring possible solutions. Here is an idea to go one step further. I live in a house which is/was* heated by the cooling water of a power plant. All their excess heat is put to good use keeping me warm. Data centers have the same problem of excess heat and by reusing this to warm up other buildings, a mostly closed loop system could be realized significantly reducing the water footprint (and further reducing the carbon footprint by requiring less energy for filtering water). Aside from houses, excess heat may also be used to warm greenhouses in the winter so local veggies become cheaper relative to high-carbon-footprint imported veggies. A second step going further may be storing the heated water and cooled water underground, to heat homes when they need it and cool CPU's when they need it. Lessons learnt from power plants using this idea: - Don't let construction companies use your carbon-savings as an excuse not to insulate homes connected to the data center. - Power plants produce the most heat during the day while people need it during cold nights. Obviously this is not a great success story but where I think data centers are better suited for this idea: data centers can be optimized to have a more even or matching load by serving other timezones. *I've already started warming my home for the greatest part with intelligently scheduled CPU-intensive tasks... Now it's your turn. (1) Article in Dutch: https://nederland.googleblog.com/2021/04/duurzame-watervoorziening-voor-googles.html?m=1
79 more agrees trigger contact with the recipient
Write or agree to climate reviews to make businesses and world leaders act. It’s easy and it works.
Certified accounts actively looking for your opinion on their climate impact.
One tree is planted for every climate review written to an organization that is Open for Climate Dialogue™.
•
•
3 w
You're targeting the wrong recipient with your warning, it should be towards an AI company or a climate love to Nature
•
•
3 w
This is quite informing..who would have thought artificial intelligence could cause that much pollution...it's about time that we came up with better ways of ensuring that we reduce the pollution.
•
•
3 w
The comparison of AI's carbon footprint is crucial for understanding its environmental impact. Establishing a robust scientific foundation to compare AI with other tools is essential in making informed decisions regarding its role in reducing our climate footprint.