Google reported a 13% increase in its emissions footprint in 2023 | Hacker News Reader

Google reported a 13% increase in its emissions footprint in 2023

indianexpress.com

51 pointsmethuselah_in38 comments

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.

Hahaha, of course Boston Consulting Group would write that. They want to make the people who pay their salaries happy.

I highly recommend the book „the big con“.

Cooprorate bards. If they at least made music instead of playing the pink flute.

"My client is doing a good job".

Can anyone provide a compelling case where and how the use of AI could reduce emission?

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.

But increasing the emissions now to reduce latet I don't find it good

Google has been using ML for years to optimize cooling in data centers.

(I agree with gp though)

Do you happen to have a link on that, I'm genuinely curious?

https://blog.google/inside-google/infrastructure/safety-firs...

If Google starts using AI to calculate their emissions, they can report incorrect numbers that look better.

ConfabulAIting, eh?

Ai can eliminate some office jobs. No jobs -> no office -> no commute -> less emissions.

Working from home can also eliminate office jobs, but Google (amongst many others) are pushing back on that.

https://www.inc.com/jason-aten/googles-threat-to-punish-empl...

If you simply kill all humans, the carbon footprint becomes zero.

Drastic, drastic. Have you tried kill all the poor? https://youtu.be/s_4J4uor3JE?si=rY-7gUX3iymfDTy6

What is the carbon footprint of an AI society then ?

Seems pretty thirsty so far, and it's only generating cat pics.

Turns out various Bond villains were right all along.

I assume they will ask the AI on how to reduce emissions.

Tyranny

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...

What's the source of those numbers?

Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are about 37 billion tons per year, not 65 billion: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions

Shipping and aviation are about equal at 2% of total energy related CO2 emissions each:

https://www.iea.org/energy-system/transport/aviation

https://www.iea.org/energy-system/transport/international-sh...

> much-maligned aviation sector

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).

Shipping has no authority, right? I recall reading they switch to heavier, dirtier fuel in international waters because it's not illegal.

How would we even begin regulating that? Treaties and some new deep sea enforcement agency?

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.

I don't get this point of dirty shit not being illegal in international waters making it legal somehow.

Murdering people is still illegal in international water, we don't see people being boarded for international killing as a service.

Why is shit fuel OK?

I wasn't really speaking from a moralistic perspective, not calling anything "ok".

Murder gets investigated by national authorities depending on the deceased's passport, but pollution on the high seas has noone? In charge?

> 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?

Move production closer to the point of sale. Ship less stuff. Sell less stuff. All things nobody wants to do unless incentivized.

Buy less stuff. Make more of what you need. Go without novelty hats.

[dupe]

Lots of discussion a month ago:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40859993

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?

Low price to pay for our AI-generated theme backgrounds in Chrome. /s

who cares lol

we have to already people living near the areas like sea and rivers are facing huge issues because of global warming.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com