Very quick Googling suggests Wired’s estimate would be ~1.9% of US emissions.

AI data center investment is, at core, a bet on increasing the productivity of labor. That’s what businesses will pay for, and what will earn the big money.

If US labor productivity rises by more than 2%—and implicit in the size of this bet is a guess much higher—US carbon intensity goes down correspondingly, and these data centers end up as a win for the climate.

▲

Havoc 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Problem is climate and ecosystem doesn’t give a fuck about some notional productivity or carbon intensity just the absolute number of pollution molecules going into the air

	▲	nDRDY 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[flagged]

▲

nextaccountic 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You are supposing that with more productivity people will emit less carbon but there's no mechanism for that

More productivity means the employers just demand more from the workers

▲

asymmetric 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah, this seems like a textbook case where one could apply Jevons Paradox.

	▲	twoodfin 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		OK well now you have to look at changing the economy-wide energy mix or embracing de-growth. Switching data centers to 100% solar or nuclear or … solves Wired’s complaint but not this one.

▲

gambiting 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"with increases in productivity, we'll all work 2-4 hours a week and maintain the same output!"

No, you'll work 40 hours and just do 10 times more in that time. Same thing.

▲

mynti 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The "climate" cares little about carbon intensity of labor or dollars. It cares about absolute tons of green house gases in the atmostphere and if you use more to produce more you still use more.

	▲	cyanydeez 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You should always assume these that benefit most from the technological forefront think they can outrun the output of climate change or any of the outputs. It generally is called "effective altruism", eg, techno jesus will solve whatever problems creating techno jesus creates.

▲

monegator 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> If US labor productivity rises by more than 2%—and implicit in the size of this bet is a guess much higher—US carbon intensity goes down correspondingly, and these data centers end up as a win for the climate

I can promise you it won't happen in a million years. More productivity lends to more exploitation, because you can do more with the same unit of work, instead of getting the same result with less work.. Or at least we have decades of data proving that is what realistically happen. So the only way to reduce emissions is either using carbon neutral sources (gas is... not?) or forbidding people from using energy in the first place (and let's be honest, that will not happen.)

▲

loudmax 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Or the third solution: a carbon tax.

That is a tough sell in the current environment. It's a regressive tax, so opposed on both ends of the political spectrum. People on the far right don't believe in climate change, and people on the far left don't believe in market efficiency. With 20% of the world's oil flow crimped in the Strait of Hormuz for who knows how long, higher energy prices is the last thing people want to contemplate.

In the longer run, a carbon tax is the best option. The fossil fuel price shock is a strong signal to produce energy through other means. There are major engineering initiatives around developing cheaper and safer nuclear energy. and it's cheaper now to deploy a solar farm than a coal plant.

A carbon tax would raise money to pay off national debts and encourage consumers and producers to figure out the most efficient way to accomplish their needs while minimizing their carbon footprint. It's a tough sell today, but this is they way to go for a better quality of life tomorrow.

▲

gruez 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>More productivity lends to more exploitation, because you can do more with the same unit of work, instead of getting the same result with less work..

But per-capita greenhouse emissions have been falling in much of the developed world? And you can't really claim with a straight face that productivity has been dropping from 2000 to today.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?c...

▲

defrost 16 hours ago | parent [-]

> But per-capita greenhouse emissions have been falling in much of the developed world?

Only by the deceptive accounting trick of not including the emissions associated with overseas production of the goods consumed by the "developed world".

If you include all the emissions that prop up the highest per capita consumption patterns on the planet then you see the highest per capita emissions attached to the highest consumers.

	▲	gruez 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>Only by the deceptive accounting trick of not including the emissions associated with overseas production of the goods consumed by the "developed world". That does increase US's emissions, but not enough to change the conclusion: https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2

▲

17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

tejohnso 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Emitting more greenhouse gas is only a win if your goal is to hasten and worsen the climate catastrophe.

Carbon intensity is not the relevant metric.

And there's no evidence or historic precedent backing your idea that it would go down anyway.

▲

cyanydeez 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

yo, "productivity of labor" isn't how they're selling this stuff. Its "replacement" of labor.