The Dilemma: AI vs. Climate Crisis

AI is consuming more and more energy. Google has increased its carbon emissions by 51% and its electricity consumption by 27% in just one year. And it's not alone. Other companies are experiencing a similar situation.

Good intentions aren't enough. Promises to use renewable or nuclear energy are slower than the deployment of new AI models.

We are experiencing a paradox. AI can help fight climate change... but it also indirectly fuels it with its high energy consumption.

To limit AI or not?

. Not all uses of AI are necessary. It is widely used for leisure, entertainment, or convenience, without considering its impact.

. But it also saves lives. AI in medical research, climate prediction, energy efficiency... are uses that can justify its environmental cost.

But let's not fool ourselves, the biggest problem is another: our way of life. Excessive consumption, planned obsolescence, and a society driven by entertainment and immediacy are behind many other polluting activities that we ignore.

AI is just a mirror reflecting a broader contradiction: we want clean, cheap, and instant technology, but we are unwilling to change our lifestyles.

What solutions are possible?

. Efficiency first. Invest in less greedy AI models and energy-optimized data centers.

. Meaningful uses. Prioritize AI development for key problems (health, science, climate), not viral trivialities.

. Ecological footprint transparency. Show the actual consumption of AI tools and models so users can make informed choices.

. More urgent investments in clean energy. Accelerate the move toward clean nuclear energy and renewables, and reform electricity grids to fuel technological growth without exacerbating the problem.

. Education and a culture of limits. Not all progress should be automatic. Learning to slow down, choose, and prioritize is also a way to evolve.

In short:

. It's not about halting the development of AI completely, but rather redefining how, why, and at what cost we use it.

. Because if AI is part of the future, it must also be part of the climate solution, not the problem.

And the question that arises for me is: will we actually do something, or will we continue to let time pass?