Other estimates suggest that the large scale deployment of AI could help in significant reductions of emissions globally. A recent study by the Boston Consulting Group found that application of AI to corporate and industrial practices could result in a 5-10% reduction in global emissions by 2030, while generating a value worth $1.3 trillion to $2.6 trillion through additional revenues or cost savings.
Prediction, the emissions will only be additive. More things to consume basically. I hope I am wrong.
Some possibilities: AI aided material design could help create more efficient solar cells or batteries. Google issue a report how AI aided shipping logistics planning could optimize many aspects of the process. Project Starline (AI enhanced video conferencing) could reduce the need for business travel. Broadly, anything being done to improve energy efficiency certainly uses computers in design or planning. Anything using computers stands to be made more efficient with AI.
Well GFC 2007-08 caused emissions to drop more than anything any corporation or govt did since the Kyoto Protocol was signed in 1997. So AI or whatever other bubble, the bubble engineers on Wall St have in the pipeline might just do it.
To put this in perspective: for CO2 emissions (which is what we're talking about here, I guess?), you have the Big Four, in descending order of pollution: transportation, electricity, industry and other (mostly commercial/residential), for a total of about 65 Billion Metric Tons of CO2 per year.
In transportation, the biggest polluter (by direct emissions) by far is shipping. This is about 8/65 (12%), compared to 1/65 (1.5%) for the much-maligned aviation sector, or the 4/65 (6%) for cars, that, for some reason, nobody likes to talk about.
Then, when it comes to electricity, data centers are really quite marginal: 0.4/65 (about 0.6%). And, like aviation, the sector is taking measures to Be Better: higher airco setpoints, mandatory purchase of "green" electricity, etc. etc. Unlike the shipping sector, which pretty much continues to burn raw dinosaurs just because they're based in a jurisdiction that allows, nay, encourages that.
So, if you want to get mad about emissions, start with things that actually matter, would be my take? I happen to be of the opinion that AI is bunk, and any energy invested in it is wasted, but that goes doubly or triply for the shipment of novelty hats...
It is much maligned because unlike shipping that benefits nearly every single human being and is much more efficient (despite horrible lack of regulations) benefits per person, aviation is used by tiny population and minuscule accomplishments.
That said, shipping does need a heavy global hand to get compliant.
Cars are fair point, and there is serious action being taken by the big Govs to get them pollute less (both China and India have plans to phase out ICEs within next decade).
Part of this is that besides CO2, the other pollution has local effects too.
So places where ships moor for long periods have a local incentive to force them to burn cleaner fuels (or plug into shore for electricity) when in their immediate area.
The industry does have various plans for the wider CO2 issue, similar to the airline industry. A recurring theme is that even mild regulation or carbon pricing (or Russia invading your neighbour) provides enough motivation for a lot of low hanging fruit to be found and fixed.
In shipping, the practice of going really fast then waiting around for weeks is being phased out. It mostly hinges on contracts sharing the risks when it goes wrong one time in a hundred.
They've also identified that one size fits all ship designs can have efficiency impacts depending on what speed they intend to move at, which can depend on cargo and purpose.
The further you reduce the CO2 the harder it gets to wring out further improvements but they have a wide range of decarbonisation plans in motion.
Didn't a shift away from dirty fuel actually cause a short term increase in global temperatures in 2023 due to a reduction in Sulphur-tainted fuels? So this is being worked on, but with counterintuitive unintended effects.
> Unlike the shipping sector, which pretty much continues to burn raw dinosaurs just because they're based in a jurisdiction that allows, nay, encourages that.
What's a realistic alternative to burning dinosaurs?
does anyone know if this is a regression of Urs' promises, or is it just that < of emissions from dirty fuels is dropping, but total emissions is rising much faster?
Prediction, the emissions will only be additive. More things to consume basically. I hope I am wrong.