When AI Meets Climate: Powering Progress Without Burning the Planet
Artificial Intelligence (AI) stands as a beacon of innovation, offering transformative advances across almost every sector. But as AI becomes more powerful and more pervasive, it brings with it a growing dilemma: its hunger for energy.
Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.
You're reading Entrepreneur United Kingdom, an international franchise of Entrepreneur Media.
According to the IMF and other global observers, AI is becoming an increasingly large contributor to energy demand, driven by massive data centres, high-intensity model training, and real-time inference at scale. The question is no longer whether AI will impact the climate, it's how we ensure it helps rather than harms.
Training a single large language model can consume as much energy as a small town uses in a week. As deployment scales across healthcare, finance, manufacturing and government, global data centre energy demand is expected to more than double by 2030.
This growth is unsustainable without significant changes to infrastructure, regulation, and design philosophy. Ironically, some of the most promising use cases for AI are in making other systems more energy-efficient:
Smart energy grids using AI for demand forecasting and renewable energy balancing
using AI for demand forecasting and renewable energy balancing Building automation systems that optimise lighting, heating and cooling in real time
that optimise lighting, heating and cooling in real time AI-enhanced chip design reducing the energy footprint of next-generation hardware
reducing the energy footprint of next-generation hardware AI for battery management, as with Apple's new AI-powered system in iOS 19, which extends battery life by intelligently learning user behaviour
We're also seeing innovations in neuromorphic computing and event-driven AI models (e.g. the Spiking Neural Network) which consume drastically less energy than traditional deep learning models, in some cases, approaching the efficiency of biological systems.
In these scenarios, AI doesn't just "offset" its own footprint. It could eliminate meaningful power usage altogether, particularly when deployed on-device or in ultra-low-power environments like edge IoT.
So, should AI have an energy label? Yes, and urgently. Consumers now expect energy ratings on fridges, washing machines and televisions. Shouldn't we expect the same transparency for AI? Imagine an AI system with an Energy Impact Rating, clearly indicating:
Model training cost in kWh
Inference energy per user session
Hosting efficiency (green hosting or fossil-based?
This would:
Help customers and businesses choose responsibly
Push vendors to optimise for energy as well as performance
Allow regulators to set efficiency standards for AI
For AI to continue driving economic growth without derailing net-zero targets, we need a shared response:
Policymakers must create incentives for energy-efficient model design and deployment.
Companies should disclose the energy use of their AI systems, not just the outcomes.
Developers must bake energy constraints into their system design from day one.
Investors should ask not only, "What can this model do?" but "What does it cost the planet to do it?"
AI won't magically reach a zero-carbon footprint. But if we pair it with smart legislation, innovative engineering, and greater public transparency, it can become one of the greatest climate tools we have. The question is: will we demand it?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
31 minutes ago
- Forbes
EU Employment Committee Draft Opinion Opposes Reductions In Sustainability Reporting
JUNE 26: People walk by an European flag (Photo by) The future of sustainability reporting in the European Union is in peril as legislators debate the Omnibus Simplification Package. The current proposal includes significant changes to the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directives. As the legislative process unfolds in the Parliament, members are submitting proposed amendments through various committees. In the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, a draft opinion expresses clear opposition to any reductions to the CSRD or the CSDDD. From 2020 - 2024, a trilogy of directives were passed by the EU to force businesses to address climate change and report greenhouse gas missions. The Taxonomy for Sustainable Activities created a classification system for business and investors to know what activities are considered green or climate friendly. The CSRD created requirements for businesses to report GHG emissions and other environmental, social, and governance actions. The CSDDD, also known as the CS3D, created legal liability for companies in relation to their supply chain. While the gains excited activists, the cost of these proposals on businesses and the broader impact on the EU economy became a theme during the 2024 European Parliament elections. The shift to the right in EU politics embolden opponents to the European Green Deal directives. As a result, the Commission proposed a package of new directives to 'reduce the burden' on businesses. The Omnibus Simplification Package was officially adopted by the Commission in February. The proposal is being debated in the Council and the Parliament. In the Parliament, the debate is public and working through multiple committees, giving interest parties and MEPs the opportunity to voice their opinions. The Committee on Legal Affairs, known as JURI, is the primary committee that will produce the legislation that will be sent to the full Parliament for a vote. However, related committees will draft opinions to be considered during the process. Each committee designates a rapporteur to lead the drafting. The Parliament states that a 'rapporteur is appointed in the responsible parliamentary committee to draft a report on proposals of a legislative or budgetary nature, or other issues. In drafting their report, rapporteurs may consult with relevant experts and stakeholders. They are also responsible for the drafting of compromise amendments and negotiations with shadow rapporteurs.' The amendments change the Commission's language in the Omnibus Simplification Package, not the original CSRD and CSDDD. Rather than offering sweeping amendments that encompass every change a MEP or Party wants to see, every change to every subparagraph is offered in a separate amendment. This results in a high volume of amendments. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, known as ECON, and the Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety, known as ENVI, posted 987 amendments proposed by their respective members. In the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, known as EMPL, the committee chose to post a draft opinion by the rapporteur before posting amendments by members. Committee members have until June 3 to offer amendments before the June 4 vote. European Parliament The draft opinion was submitted by MEP Li Andersson of The Left, rapporteur for the opinion. The draft included language that directly criticizes the Commission and objects to changes. While the opinion is may not be adopted as the final committee draft, and will likely have minimal impact on the final vote, the language will certainly excite activists and like minded MEPs. In the 'short justification' included in opinions to provide context for canges, Andersson made her opposition to the changes clear. "The current Commission proposal risks watering down the core elements of this newly established sustainability reporting and due diligence framework. Although the aim of simplification in terms of reporting duties for companies is laudable… simplification cannot mean broad sweeping deregulation that changes the entire purposes of the previous directives. Dismantling core parts of the legislation risks not only creating regulatory uncertainty for companies, barring proper access to justice for those harmed, but also hampers the availability of quality, comparable and granular sustainability data that is much called for by investors and business partners alike…" Of the MEP's 49 proposed amendments, 40 simply delete language proposed the Omnibus Simplification Package, leaving the existing language in original directives intact. This includes the employee thresholds for companies to fall under reporting requirements. Three proposed amendments include language that is worth highlighting. The first proposed amendment addresses the first paragraph of the Omnibus in which the Commission states their reason for the changes. The Commission references 'A simpler and faster Europe: Communication on implementation and simplification' sent on February 11 in which they outline their vision. Andersson, and many like minded individuals, took issue with the process used and the need for action. Original language as proposed by the Commission: '… the European Commission set out a vision for an implementation and simplification agenda that delivers fast and visible improvements for people and business on the ground. This requires more than an incremental approach and the Union must take bold action to achieve this goal…' Andersson's Proposed Amendment: "…the European Commission set out a vision for an implementation and simplification agenda, which is leading to unpredictability and legal uncertainty by rolling back on legal obligations recently adopted at Union level under the guise of reducing administrative burden. The consequences of such an agenda will have rippling effects, with increasing political risks particularly for first movers. In order to safeguard the ambition of the current legal acquis, it is important to oppose such measures." The second proposed amendment addresses the second paragraph in which the Commission states their goals. Andersson not only takes issue with, what some perceive as, an overbearing approach by the Commission, but also addresses concerns relating to the process used. Those concerns have resulted in an investigation by the European Ombudsman, although they are unlikely to impact the final result. Original language as proposed by the Commission: "In the context of the Commission's commitment to reduce reporting burdens and enhance competitiveness, it is necessary to amend Directives 2006/43/EC3 , 2013/34/EU4 , (EU) 2022/24645 and (EU) 2024/1760 of the European Parliament and of the Council, whilst maintaining the policy objectives of the European Green Deal, and the Sustainable Finance Action Plan." Andersson's Proposed Amendment: 'In the context of the Commission's commitment to reduce reporting burdens and enhance competitiveness, the Comission (sic) has declared that it is necessary to amend Directives 2006/43/EC3 , 2013/34/EU4 , (EU) 2022/24645 and (EU) 2024/1760 of the, without conducting any impact assessment and limiting public consultation to a closed-door stakeholder event.' A major theme in the push for simplification is the impact sustainability reporting could have on small and medium-sized enterprises. In addition to the high cost on businesses that are required to comply with sustainability reporting requirements, businesses interests also expressed concerns that the costs will adversely impact SMEs that are not required to report, but are indirectly forced to gather information in the course of doing business with large companies. The Commission has made it clear they want to prevent SMEs from being forced to pay to gather data beyond minimum requirements. Original language as proposed by the Commission: "Member States shall ensure that, for the mapping provided for in paragraph 2, point (a), companies do not seek to obtain information from direct business partners with fewer than 500 employees that exceeds the information specified in the standards for voluntary use referred to in Article 29a of Directive 2013/34/EU…" Andersson's Proposed Amendment: 'Where necessary in the light of resource and knowledge constraints of an SME that is a business partner of a company, Member States shall ensure that companies provide targeted and proportionate support. Support may include financial support, providing or enabling access to capacity building or training, or support in upgrading management systems or facilitating the upgrading of such systems in order to support the identification of adverse impacts.' The Committee on Employment and Social Affairs has placed the draft opinion on the June 4 meeting agenda. Committee members have until June 3 to offer their own amendments. Given the amendments proposed in other committees, expect conflicting opinions to be stated. The draft opinion will be sent to the Committee on Legal Affairs for consideration. The final vote in the Parliament is expected to take place on October 13. The Commission, Council, and Parliament will then meet to negotiate the final changes to the sustainability reporting requirements. They are expected to be approved in December.
Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
Meyer Burger to Delay Results as Two Units File for Insolvency
Struggling solar-module manufacturer Meyer Burger Technology AG requested an extension of the deadline to present its 2024 financial results after its German units filed for insolvency proceedings. Efforts to keep the sites open during restructuring negotiations were unsuccessful, the Switzerland-listed company said in a statement on Saturday.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
CEOs Jensen Huang And Dario Amodei On AI: Adapt Or Be Replaced
Jensen Huang and Dario Amodei's warning about AI. AFP via Getty Images One predicts AI will put 40 million people back to work. The other warns it could drive mass unemployment. Nvidia's Jensen Huang and Anthropic's Dario Amodei, despite their contrasting tones, are both broadcasting the same underlying truth: evolve or risk becoming obsolete. Whether it's reshaping industries, redefining roles, or redrawing the line between relevance and redundancy, AI is here in full force. For leaders, the question isn't whether AI will change everything. It's whether you're willing to change yourself fast enough to stay afloat. This realization of AI is what makes Huang's and Amodei's recent comments so critical. Not because they agree on the outcomes but because they're waving the same flag: radical adaptability isn't optional anymore. At the recent Milken Conference, Nvidia's Jensen Huang didn't sugarcoat the potential impact of AI. "Every job will be affected, and immediately," he warned. But Huang wasn't forecasting dystopia; he was emphasizing opportunity. In his view, AI can close global talent gaps, increase the GDP, and level the playing field. However, this only happens if people commit to learning and fully embracing artificial intelligence. "You're not going to lose your job to AI," he said. "You're going to lose your job to someone who uses AI." Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, by contrast, is raising the alarm. In recent interviews, he has been straightforward: AI is improving at nearly all intellectual tasks, even those typically performed by CEOs. In a discussion with Axios, he predicted that up to 50% of entry-level white-collar jobs could vanish within five years. He put it this way: 'Cancer is cured, the economy grows at 10% a year, the budget is balanced—and 20% of people don't have jobs.' These aren't opposing views. They're parallel warnings. Both point to the same truth: the cost of ignoring AI is compounding, particularly for those in leadership positions. No matter which prediction you believe, the path forward is the same. Radical adaptability is no longer a nice to have. It's the currency of continued relevance that gives you the best chance of staying ahead. It's about rewiring how you lead, think, and operate at the speed of disruption. In this new reality, clinging to stability is akin to a slow-motion decline. Here are two principles to begin practicing radical adaptability: Intel founder Andy Grove once wrote, "Only the paranoid survive." That mindset isn't about fear—it's about foresightedness. Huang echoes this sentiment: no role is immune from AI's reach, and machines won't overtake those who delay adapting—they'll be outpaced by those who have already learned to use them. Amodei also points to this blind spot, warning that most people—and many leaders—still don't realize how fast things are moving. That kind of lag in awareness is where disruption thrives. Practicing healthy paranoia means scanning for cracks before they break open. It's asking difficult questions before the market forces you to. It's not just designing a strategy for what could succeed—but instead for what could make today's model obsolete. Build before it's obvious. In the age of AI, staying a little paranoid might be your strongest competitive edge. According to the 2025 World Economic Forum's "Future of Jobs" Report, 41% of companies plan to downsize due to the impact of AI; however, 77% plan to reskill or upskill their employees. It's never been more obvious: what got you here won't keep you here. Amodei's warning about AI's acceleration on intellectual tasks shows that static expertise now has a short shelf life. Leaders who thrive will treat reinvention not as a pivot—but as a permanent operating system. That means evolving your digital fluency and skills, rethinking communication styles, and being willing to redefine what leadership looks like in a more machine-augmented world. Whether AI becomes a net benefit or net threat will be debated for years. But as both Huang and Amodei stress, this isn't something you can ignore. And for those in leadership, AI won't just test your strategy. It will test your identity. This scenario is where your ego comes into play. Leaders who are rigid in how they see themselves, their roles, or their industry will fall behind. The future won't belong to the biggest or the smartest. It'll belong to the most adaptable.
