A new report from venture firm a16z highlights a shifting race in generative artificial intelligence (AI). Google’s Gemini, China’s DeepSeek, and even Grok, backed by Elon Musk, are gaining ground on OpenAI’s ChatGPT.
But as these AI rivals advance, there’s an urgent question: how green are their growing footprints? Let’s take a closer look at each of the top three AI’s environmental footprints below.
Competitors Rise: How Google and Grok Are Gaining Ground on ChatGPT
The a16z report maps the top 100 generative AI apps, showing that ChatGPT has strong competition emerging. Google’s Gemini is expanding quickly, and Grok—new but promising—is stepping onto the field, too.

Gemini’s strength comes from Google’s massive infrastructure. Its backing allows faster improvements and better integration across services like search, Gmail, and cloud tools. Gemini’s smooth response and deep context give it a competitive edge.
Meanwhile, DeepSeek earns the third spot because it strikes a middle ground between efficiency and emissions. Much of its footprint comes from running on China’s coal-heavy power grid, which raises its carbon intensity compared to peers with greater access to renewable energy.
Meanwhile, ChatGPT stays strong thanks to its large user base and bold partnerships. OpenAI’s alignment with Microsoft means tight integration in Office, Azure, and more. ChatGPT also supports fine-tuning and plugins, making it more flexible for businesses and developers.

Despite their differences, the report shows all three top models are advancing quickly in user experience, expanding features, and market presence. It marks a growing field, not one dominated by ChatGPT alone anymore.
Watt for Watt: Who’s the Greenest Chatbot? Comparing AI Footprints
As AI usage grows, its environmental impact becomes critical. Let’s compare how these three models fare in energy use and emissions.
OpenAI ChatGPT
ChatGPT sits in the middle of the spectrum. Its exact footprint varies depending on which study you use, but most analyses suggest it consumes more energy and emits more carbon per query than Gemini.
Part of this comes from heavier model sizes and widespread usage. Improvements in hardware efficiency and energy sourcing are bringing numbers down, but its typical footprint is still higher than Google’s.
OpenAI’s Sam Altman claims a ChatGPT query uses as much power as running an oven for about one second. Independent estimates align with this level.
Although a single query uses moderate energy, the rapid growth in usage means overall consumption is significant. U.S. data centers—many of which power AI—could account for up to 8% of U.S. electricity use by 2030.
Greenly, a carbon accounting firm, estimates that using ChatGPT-4 to respond to one million emails monthly could generate 7,138 tonnes of CO₂, equating to about 4,300 round-trip flights Paris–New York per year.

- Energy use per prompt: ~3 Wh (can be lower in some estimates, ~0.3 Wh)
- CO₂ emissions per prompt: ~2–3 g (includes amortized training emissions)
SEE MORE: ChatGPT Hits 700M Weekly Users, But at What Environmental Cost?
Google Gemini
Google has been working to make its AI models more efficient, and Gemini reflects this push. According to Google’s own reporting, text-based queries in Gemini consume very little energy compared to earlier AI systems.
The company highlights dramatic efficiency gains in both energy use and carbon intensity, making Gemini one of the leaner large models when handling short, text-only prompts.
- According to Google, a median Gemini AI text prompt uses just 0.24 watt-hours, emits 0.03 grams of CO₂, and consumes 0.26 milliliters of water—about five drops.
Over the past year, Google claims a 33× reduction in energy use per prompt and a 44× reduction in carbon footprint while improving quality.

Experts warn Google’s method may understate environmental cost by excluding indirect water usage (e.g., power plant cooling) and relying on market-based carbon accounting.
- Energy use per prompt: ~0.24 Wh
- CO₂ emissions per prompt: ~0.03 g
- Water use per prompt: ~0.26 mL
READ MORE: Google Reveals the Environmental Cost of Gemini AI Query
DeepSeek R1
DeepSeek’s reasoning models work well with long, complex prompts. This makes them more energy-intensive than regular chat models.
DeepSeek hasn’t shared its exact CO₂ figures. However, benchmarking shows that its energy use per query is much higher than competitors. This is especially true for tasks that require multi-step reasoning or coding. This places DeepSeek at the high end of per-query emissions.
A recent academic study found that models like DeepSeek-R1 use more than 33 Wh per long prompt—over 70× the energy of smaller models like GPT-4.1 Nano. Large-scale inference, with 700 million queries daily, could use as much electricity as 35,000 U.S. homes. It would also need a forest the size of Chicago to offset its carbon emissions.
- Energy use per long reasoning prompt: >33 Wh
- CO₂ emissions per prompt: Likely an order of magnitude higher than ChatGPT (depends on grid mix): ~2–4 g
At first glance, Gemini seems the greenest per query (with footprints barely visible in the chart below), while ChatGPT has a moderate impact, and DeepSeek is the least efficient. But real-world AI use involves billions of queries daily. So, even small differences matter.

As AI scales, overall energy and CO₂ use skyrocket unless systems are optimized for efficiency.
Data Centers or Carbon Centers? The Stakes for Climate
The environmental stakes are real. Experts estimate global data center use could hit 945 terawatt-hours (TWh) by 2030, with AI responsible for 652 TWh—an 80× jump from today.
Generative AI alone may cause 18–246 million tons of CO₂ emissions per year by 2035, similar to entire industries like aviation or shipping.
Without green design, AI growth could claw back efforts to reduce climate impact. Companies need to think beyond speed and accuracy—AI must grow sustainably, too.
AI Growth Meets Climate Responsibility: What Comes Next
The AI competition is intensifying—with ChatGPT, Gemini, and Grok pushing each other forward. Users benefit from better tools, but rising usage means rising environmental costs. To move forward responsibly, analysts suggest these actions:
- Developers should optimize AI models for energy efficiency, just like Gemini’s leap.
- Companies should track and reveal full lifecycle impacts—not just inference costs.
- Cloud providers and AI firms need policies favoring renewable energy and efficient data center cooling.
- Public policy could reward low-carbon AI, possibly with incentives or carbon pricing.
The a16z report shows that generative AI has entered a new phase—competition among equals, not a single leader. ChatGPT, Gemini, and Grok are all driving innovation in AI. But with growing usage comes growing environmental responsibility.
As the field speeds up, AI’s impact on climate can’t be ignored. Models that combine high performance with low energy use will define the future. If innovators balance progress with sustainability, AI’s value could be even greater—and greener.
The post ChatGPT, Gemini, and DeepSeek Are on an AI Race – But at What Climate Cost? A Comparison appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
Finding Nature Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain
Carbon Footprint
How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living
Americans are paying more for insurance, electricity, taxes, and home repairs every year. What many people may not realize is that climate change is already one of the drivers behind those rising costs.
For many households, climate change is no longer just an environmental issue. It is becoming a cost-of-living issue. While climate impacts like melting glaciers and shrinking polar ice can feel distant from everyday life, the financial effects are already showing up in monthly budgets across the country.
Today, a larger share of household income is consumed by fixed costs such as housing, insurance, utilities, and healthcare. (3) Climate change and climate inaction are adding pressure to many of those expenses through higher disaster recovery costs, rising energy demand, infrastructure repairs, and increased insurance risk.
The goal of this article is to help connect climate change to the everyday financial realities people already experience. Regardless of where someone stands on climate policy, it is important to recognize that climate change is already increasing costs for households, businesses, and taxpayers across the United States.
More conservative estimates indicate that the average household has experienced an increase of about $400 per year from observed climate change, while less conservative estimates suggest an increase of $900.(1) Those in more disaster-prone regions of the country face disproportionate costs, with some households experiencing climate-related costs averaging $1,300 per year.(1) Another study found that climate adaptation costs driven by climate change have already consumed over 3% of personal income in the U.S. since 2015.(9) By the end of the century, housing units could spend an additional $5,600 on adaptation costs.(1)
Whether we realize it or not, Americans are already paying for climate change through higher insurance premiums, energy costs, taxes, and infrastructure repairs. These growing expenses are often referred to as climate adaptation costs.
Without meaningful climate action, these costs are expected to continue rising. Choosing not to invest in climate action is also choosing to spend more on climate adaptation.
Here are a few ways climate change is already increasing the cost of living:
- Higher insurance costs from more frequent and severe storms
- Higher energy use during longer and hotter summers
- Higher electricity rates tied to storm recovery and grid upgrades
- Higher government spending and taxpayer-funded disaster recovery costs
The real debate is not whether climate change costs money. Americans are already paying for it. The question is where we want those costs to go. Should we invest more in climate action to help reduce future climate adaptation costs, or continue paying growing recovery and adaptation expenses in everyday life?
How Climate Change Is Increasing Insurance Costs
There is one industry that closely tracks the financial impact of natural disasters: insurance. Insurance companies are focused on assessing risk, estimating damages, and collecting enough revenue to cover losses and remain financially stable.
Comparing the 20-year periods 1980–1999 and 2000–2019, climate-related disasters increased 83% globally from 3,656 events to 6,681 events. The average time between billion-dollar disasters dropped from 82 days during the 1980s to 16 days during the last 10 years, and in 2025 the average time between disasters fell to just 10 days. (6)
According to the reinsurance firm Munich Re, total economic losses from natural disasters in 2024 exceeded $320 billion globally, nearly 40% higher than the decade-long annual average. Average annual inflation-adjusted costs more than quadrupled from $22.6 billion per year in the 1980s to $102 billion per year in the 2010s. Costs increased further to an average of $153.2 billion annually during 2020–2024, representing another 50% increase over the 2010s. (6)
In the United States, billion-dollar weather and climate disasters have also increased significantly. The average number of billion-dollar disasters per year has grown from roughly three annually during the 1980s to 19 annually over the last decade. In 2023 and 2024, the U.S. recorded 28 and 27 billion-dollar disasters respectively, both setting new records. (6)
The growing impact of climate change is one reason insurance costs continue to rise. “There are two things that drive insurance loss costs, which is the frequency of events and how much they cost,” said Robert Passmore, assistant vice president of personal lines at the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America. “So, as these events become more frequent, that’s definitely going to have an impact.” (8)
After adjusting for inflation, insurance costs have steadily increased over time. From 2000 to 2020, insurance costs consistently grew faster than the Consumer Price Index due to rising rebuilding costs and weather-related losses.(3) Between 2020 and 2023 alone, the average home insurance premium increased from $75 to $360 due to climate change impacts, with disaster-prone regions experiencing especially steep increases.(1) Since 2015, homeowners in some regions affected by more extreme weather have seen home insurance costs increased by nearly 57%.(1) Some insurers have also limited or stopped offering coverage in high-risk areas.(7)
For many families, rising insurance costs are no longer occasional financial burdens. They are becoming recurring monthly expenses tied directly to growing climate risk.
How Rising Temperatures Increase Household Energy Costs

The financial impacts of climate change extend beyond insurance. Rising temperatures are also changing how much energy Americans use and how utilities plan for future electricity demand.
Between 1950 and 2010, per capita electricity use increased 10-fold, though usage has flattened or slightly declined since 2012 due to more efficient appliances and LED lighting. (3) A significant share of increased energy demand comes from cooling needs associated with higher temperatures.
Over the last 20 years, the United States has experienced increasing Cooling Degree Days (CDD) and decreasing Heating Degree Days (HDD). Nearly all counties have become warmer over the past three decades, with some areas experiencing several hundred additional cooling degree days, equivalent to roughly one additional degree of warmth on most days. (1) This trend reflects a warming climate where air conditioning demand is increasing while heating demand generally declines. (4)
As temperatures continue rising, households are expected to spend more on cooling than they save on heating. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that by 2050, national Heating Degree Days will be 11% lower while Cooling Degree Days will be 28% higher than 2021 levels. Cooling demand is projected to rise 2.5 times faster than heating demand declines. (5)
These projections come from energy and infrastructure experts planning for future electricity demand and grid capacity needs. Utilities and grid operators are already preparing for higher peak summer electricity loads caused by rising temperatures. (5)
Longer and hotter summers also affect how homes and buildings are designed. Buildings constructed for past climate conditions may require upgrades such as larger air conditioning systems, stronger insulation, and improved ventilation to remain comfortable and energy efficient in the future. (10)
For many households, this means higher monthly utility bills and potentially higher long-term home improvement costs as temperatures continue to rise.
How Climate Change Affects Electricity Rates
On an inflation-adjusted basis, average U.S. residential electricity rates are slightly lower today than they were 50 years ago. (2) However, climate-related damage to utility infrastructure is creating new upward pressure on electricity costs.
Electric utilities rely heavily on above-ground poles, wires, transformers, and substations that can be damaged by hurricanes, storms, floods, and wildfires. Repairing and upgrading this infrastructure often requires substantial investment.
As a result, utilities are increasing electricity rates in response to wildfire and hurricane events to fund infrastructure repairs and future mitigation efforts. (1) The average cumulative increase in per-household electricity expenditures due to climate-related price changes is approximately $30. (1)
While this increase may appear modest today, utility costs are expected to rise further as climate-related infrastructure damage becomes more frequent and severe.
How Climate Disasters Increase Government Spending and Taxes
Extreme weather events also damage public infrastructure, including roads, schools, bridges, airports, water systems, and emergency services infrastructure. Recovery and rebuilding costs are often funded through taxpayer dollars at the federal, state, and local levels.
The average annual government cost tied to climate-related disaster recovery is estimated at nearly $142 per household. (1) States that frequently experience hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes, or flooding can face even higher public recovery costs.
These expenses affect taxpayers whether they personally experience a disaster or not. Climate-related recovery spending can increase pressure on public budgets, emergency management systems, and infrastructure funding nationwide.
Reducing Climate Costs Through Climate Action
While this article focuses on the growing financial costs associated with climate change, the issue is not only about money for many people. It is also about recognizing our environmental impact and taking responsibility for reducing it in order to help preserve a healthy planet for future generations.
While individuals alone cannot solve climate change, collective action can help reduce future climate adaptation costs over time.
For those interested in taking action, there are three important steps:
- Estimate your carbon footprint to better understand the emissions connected to your lifestyle and activities.
- Create a plan to gradually reduce emissions through energy efficiency, cleaner technologies, and more sustainable choices.
- Address remaining emissions by supporting verified carbon reduction projects through carbon credits.
Carbon credits are one of the most cost-effective tools available for climate action because they help fund projects that generate verified emission reductions at scale. Supporting global emission reduction efforts can help reduce the long-term impacts and costs associated with climate change.
Visit Terrapass to learn more about carbon footprints, carbon credits, and climate action solutions.
The post How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living appeared first on Terrapass.
Carbon Footprint
Carbon credit project stewardship: what happens after credit issuance
A carbon credit purchase is not a transaction that closes at issuance. The credit may be retired, the certificate filed, and the reporting box ticked. But on the ground, in the forest, in the field, and in the community, the work continues. It endures for years. In many cases, for decades.
![]()
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy7 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测

