Is Artificial Intelligence smart for nature?
Depending on where you look, the emergence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is an impending disaster or amazing opportunity, due to the potentially profound and transformative impact it will have on the way we work and live. Supporters of AI will laude the impact on Disaster Risk Management, enhancing efficiency and accuracy of emergency and disaster responses, such as the ability to predict the spread of wildfires to expedite responses to the affected areas, but there is also growing consternation about the environmental impact inextricably linked to the growth of AI with demand in both energy and the Critical Minerals required by infrastructure to support the technology.
With the intense demands of data centres coupled with the global economy's insatiable appetite for growth, there are fears that rather than becoming the source of the greatest energy ‘transition’ since the Industrial Revolution, renewables will be reduced to become the great ‘addition’ rather than replacement to a fossil fuel-laden energy grid.
A typical AI-focused data centre consumes as much electricity as 100 000 households, but the largest ones under construction today will consume 20 times as much. Today, around 1% of global energy consumption is attributed to data centres. For advanced economies it is estimated that data centres will take up as much as 20% of energy demand up to 2030. For context, if you are someone who likes to play around with Elon’s pedo’ machine, Grok, for kicks and giggles, consider this: Just to train Grok 4, AI research institute, Epoch AI estimated that its data centre, named Colossus 1, required 310 million kwh generated by its methane gas generators, emitting the equivalent of 140,000 tonnes of CO2, requiring 750 million litres of water for cooling. Then there’s the environmental health impacts of the methane gas generators powering the centre. According to a story in the Guardian, have the capacity to emit “thousands of tonnes of nitrogen oxides” as well as formaldehyde. Not so welcome news for the predominantly surrounding black Memphis neighbourhoods already suffering from disproportionately high rates of respiratory disease and asthma. Social Justice? Elon be thy name. In a win for local activists the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ruled on January 15, 2026, that Colossus 1’s use of these gas turbines was illegal.
The mining industry has historically been recognised as one of the most polluting, often leaving behind devastating environmental and social impacts. In February, 2025, there was a toxic spill from a tailing collapse at a Chinese owned copper mine in Zambia releasing toxins like arsenic, mercury and lead into the Kafue, an important water source and Zambia’s longest river. In 2019 there was the tailings collapse from a Brazilian mine that resulted in the deaths of over 270 people and the release of 9.7 million cubic meters of waste polluting the Paraopeba River ecosystem in Brumadinho, Brazil. Tailings are like a toxic slushie, they’re the leftover material and chemicals after the resource has been extracted and are stored in a dam in the form of a liquid slurry. Mining is one of the leading causes of deforestation and the growing demand for CRMs is leading to an increase in mining in ecologically sensitive areas. In 2019, it was recorded that 79% of metal ore mining occurred in 5 of the 6 most biodiverse rich environments. As highlighted by Djukanović in Material Dependencies, the mining of Critical Raw Materials (CRMs) is equally culpable so the “green transition” is only likely to exacerbate the impacts.
An IEA assessment of operating and announced energy policies suggests that the global mineral requirements for energy technologies by 2040 will double. But in order to meet the “well below 2°C global temperature rise” goals of the Paris Agreement, these mineral requirements will need to quadruple. To meet net zero by 2050 would necessitate a six fold increase in mineral requirements. In October this year Australia and the US announced a common policy framework for the mining and processing of CRMs. This follows the EU Commission’s introduction of the Omnibus 1 regulations which has signalled a significant shift from “transformative regulation” committing to greater transparency and market responsibility in regards to sustainability and climate change to “deregulatory retreat”. Given mining’s violent relationship with the environment, is granting the industry a clearer path to extraction compatible with the recommendations of international scientists and environmentalists? The ICJ’s May 2025 Advisory Opinion on climate change confirmed that nation states’ climate obligations are binding, not aspirational. They are obliged to co-operate internationally, upholding fundamental rights and avoid significant environmental harm.
The Australian Government’s National AI Plan cites three goals; capturing the opportunity the technology presents, spreading the benefits and keeping Australians safe. Whilst there is acknowledgement in the plan of the high energy requirements of data centres, there is no advice on how these will impact Australia meeting its recently announced NDC commitments to the Paris Agreement. CDC Data Centres are referenced in the plan as a local sustainable exemplar in supplying Australia’s data centre needs through its water efficiency and 100% net zero carbon electricity. The closed-loop water efficiency standards are impressive but the data centres draw their energy from an already strained energy grid and the claimed net zero status is achieved through the purchase of Carbon Credits. Environment and mining are referenced in the plan only as potential AI applications. It’s a plan focused on capturing economic opportunities but offers no detail on environmental impacts and costs.
Today, Australian data centres account for two per cent of the nation’s energy consumption, with growth predicted to reach six per cent by 2030. When it comes to international investment, Government FOMO might be understandable, but as evidenced by Australia’s record in terms of compromised water management, biodiversity loss, deforestation and Indigenous cultural trauma, the mechanics of perpetual growth extract a cost far beyond that shown on a financial balance sheet.As highlighted in Djukanović’s paper, alternatives to supply focused policies do exist. Redirecting some of the focus towards reducing demand have an immediate impact. One suggestion from the IEA’s own 10 point plan to reduce oil is to reduce existing speed limits by 10km/h globally and would see a reduction in use of 290,000 barrels per day. Using available alternatives to business class air travel when feasible would see a short term drop off of 260,000 barrels per day. These measures have been deployed in the past during times of fuel scarcity and COVID so their efficacy has been tested.
Without critical examination of the exploitative processes centred around relentless growth, the capacity of the planet to cope with the impacts of either the “green transition” or the “AI revolution” is questionable. How then, can it be expected to deal with both?
