A few months back The Economist, once an elegant skeptic in suspenders but now tattooed and backward-hatted, explained “How AI could help the climate”. Alas it’s not easy trying to be one of the cool kids. You have to be like totally against climate change, man, except when flying about to live your cool life. And you have to be totally in favour of AI which after all will never steal your job, just that of the little people you fly over. But AI is incredibly energy-intensive. So you also have to say it will fix climate change by being so AI-ey that climate change becomes way less climate changey. Or something.

After explaining that the last panic over the Internet and energy use was wrong, The Economist argued that “fears about AI’s energy use in particular can be misleading if viewed out of context.” Said context being that “Data centres currently account for 1.5% of global electricity use.” So if it increases 10-fold it will hit 15% and so on. Not very reassuring viewed in context.

Also apparently AI will help find methane leaks from space. And “Other useful applications abound, from breeding heat-resistant crops to designing the materials needed to suck carbon from the air.” So nothing to see here, folks.

Oh, wait. There is. Inside Climate News, for instance, reports:

“As of early 2025, the United States has more than 5,000 data centers, according to industry reports, compared to around 1,000 just five years earlier. And with that increased demand comes an inevitable, increased demand for resources.”

Especially electricity. Not to worry. AI will um uh save the bees from climate. Yeah. That’s the ticket. Bloomberg explains:

“Lifting up the hood of a Beewise hive feels more like you’re getting ready to examine the engine of a car than visit with a few thousand pollinators…. all clad in white metal and solar panels. Inside sits a high-tech scanner and robotic arm powered by artificial intelligence. Roughly 300,000 of these units are in use across the US, scattered across fields of almond, canola, pistachios and other crops that require pollination to grow…. providing constant insights on colony health and the ability to provide treatment should it start to falter. The US has observed a startling uptick in the number of die-offs since the mid-2000s as beekeepers have struggled to keep pace with the rise of disease-carrying mites, climate extremes and other stressors that can wipe out colonies.”

Trendy and pretentious, moi? So Statista emails:

“Can AI Really Save the World? Yes – but only if we understand it. From fighting climate change to improving healthcare and boosting creativity – AI holds the power to transform the world. But here’s the twist: most people don’t know how to use it ethically and effectively. That’s why you need AI For Social Good – and the best part? 👉 It’s completely free to download.”

Step right up, folks. 👉 This way to the egress. Oh, and just out of curiosity, does personkind know how to use a stone ax ethically with or without a webinar? But this stuff we don’t understand, and indeed a great many people are not good at writing computer code and increasingly even the good ones can’t keep up with the bots, will save us all this time for sure, like the telegraph, television and internet did.

According to a Scientific American email:

“If harnessed correctly, AI could slash global climate pollution. Here’s how. | 3 min read”.

Gad. Slash climate pollution. And a mere three-minute read… unless you ask ChatGPT to turn it into a couple of bullet points so you can get back to being cool. The actual article says:

“Artificial intelligence could cut global climate pollution by up to 5.4 billion metric tons a year over the next decade if it’s harnessed in ways that would improve transportation, energy and food production. Those reductions would outweigh even the expected increase in global energy consumption and emissions that would be created by running power-hungry data centers associated with AI, according to research by the Grantham Research Institute that was published in the journal npj Climate Action.”

We don’t know why the “npj” is not capitalized. Probably a cool thing. But it’s a pretty big “if” up front. And it gets bigger and iffier:

“‘The key will be to channel practical AI applications towards key impact areas to accelerate the market adoption rate and efficiency of low-carbon solutions,’ the study said, noting that governments will have a vital role to play.”

Because nothing says smart and efficient like Leviathan lumbering into view, asking you to send it a fax. Also, using something between real intelligence and the internet we looked up that current human emissions are estimated, possibly inaccurately, at around 38 billion tonnes a year and growing fast. So the AI will save, theorhetorically, an eighth of that amount, using only, well, um, uh, that is to say…

Of course occasionally reality intrudes. Thus:

“The International Energy Agency projects that by 2030 data centers will consume twice as much electricity as they do today. Growing energy demands are already challenging the U.S. grid, and oil companies are using AI to find new areas to drill. BloombergNEF has said fossil fuels will provide most of the new power for data centers over the next decade, imperiling efforts to cut carbon pollution. There are ways to mitigate the damage, the Grantham study said.”

Yes. But are they practical, let alone likely? Pish. Of course, once we shut the windows to that smelly dirty loud hot reality:

“For example, AI can help integrate renewables into the grid by better forecasting supply and demand fluctuations and help the grid distribute energy more accurately, reducing concerns about intermittency. That can increase the uptake of solar and wind and lower the use of polluting backup power sources, the report said.”

But while they’re doing the can can, we’re doing the don’t don’t. Including on “AI can also identify new types of protein to replace meat and dairy in human diets – industries that are heavy emitters.” So we can all eat bugs and chemicals so the data centres can have what used to be our farmland. Is anyone sure the AI will think us worth keeping around? And will we even want it to?

In any case, artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity. Accuweather runs a piece from CNN (which also tried to sell us “CNN’s Life, But Greener newsletter”) warning that:

“Your AI prompts could have a hidden environmental cost/ A growing body of research shows that for every problem AI solves, hidden environmental costs are racking up.”

Apparently the solution is for us to ask AI fewer stupid questions, unlikely as it takes over the thinking for us. Oh, and use it less for the inane hobbies we now engage in lacking meaningful challenges:

“‘Generally, if people were more informed about the average (environmental) cost of generating a response, people would maybe start thinking, “Is it really necessary to turn myself into an action figure just because I’m bored?” Or “do I have to tell ChatGPT jokes because I have nothing to do?”’ [first study author Maximilian] Dauner said.”

Not so cool after all.