Connect with us

Published

on

ChatGPT vs. Gemini: Who Leads the AI Race and at What Environmental Cost?

The battle between OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini is one of the most talked-about stories in technology today. These two artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots dominate the market for generative AI tools. They power smart responses, summaries, writing help, and more.

As users and businesses rely on AI more, questions about market competition and environmental impacts have grown. This article compares the two leaders in terms of market share, energy use, carbon footprint, and water consumption to give a clear picture of where the AI landscape stands in 2026.

Market Share: Where ChatGPT and Gemini Stand

As of early 2026, ChatGPT still leads the AI chatbot market. ChatGPT has around 68% of the market share based on visits and user interactions. This is less than its previous dominance.

In comparison, Google Gemini accounts for about 18.2% of the market share, showing rapid growth over the past year. This shift marks a major change in how users choose AI tools worldwide.

ChatGPT has maintained a large user base with around 800-900 million weekly active users and billions of monthly visits. But Gemini is also growing fast. Its user numbers have increased as Google adds it to more services.

market share chatgpt vs gemini

Other AI platforms, such as DeepSeek, Grok, Perplexity, and Claude, hold smaller shares of the market but are growing in niche areas. ChatGPT and Gemini lead the global chatbot market. This shows a duopoly trend, with two main players in control.

The market positions of ChatGPT and Gemini reflect their different strategies. OpenAI built ChatGPT as a standalone AI platform with powerful language skills. It became popular early and gained millions of users quickly.

Google, meanwhile, embedded Gemini into search engines, Android devices, and other Google apps. This gives Gemini a wide reach, helping it grow faster in recent years as users encounter it automatically.

For users, this means choice. Some prefer ChatGPT’s deep text-generation and creative outputs. Others choose Gemini for quick answers tied to search and Android use.

As both platforms grow, competition will likely push innovation in AI quality, safety, and usefulness. And for climate-conscious and environmentalists, this means taking a closer look at the platforms’ growing energy use, carbon emissions, and water use. 

AI’s Energy Footprint: Data Centers and Electricity

As AI use expands rapidly, the energy footprint of the technology has become an important topic. AI models like ChatGPT and Gemini run on large networks of servers housed in data centers. These facilities use electricity to power computing tasks and to keep equipment cool.

In 2024, data centers used around 415 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity. This is about 1.5% of the world’s total electricity consumption. AI workloads are a growing part of this total.

  • The International Energy Agency predicts that data center electricity use may double to around 945 TWh by 2030.

This increase comes as AI and other digital services grow. Another research shows the same trend:

AI data center energy GW 2030

AI electricity use varies by task. Training large models—such as initial versions of GPT and other deep learning systems—can consume very large amounts of power. For example, training early large language models used tens of gigawatt-hours of electricity.

  • Running the model for user queries (called inference) uses much less energy per request but occurs far more frequently.

In a direct comparison of per-prompt energy use, Google found that a typical Gemini text prompt consumes about 0.24 watt-hours (Wh) of electricity. This is roughly equivalent to the energy used by a small household device running for a few seconds. 

ChatGPT queries, on the other hand, use about 0.34 Wh of electricity. That’s similar to running a lightbulb for a short time. This makes per-query energy costs relatively low but still significant when scaled to billions of daily uses. Over time, improvements in hardware and software have greatly reduced energy and carbon use per prompt.

chatGPT energy use
Source: Epoch AI

Carbon in the Cloud: Emissions of AI Systems

Carbon emissions from AI are tied closely to electricity use. Where the electricity comes from—renewable sources versus fossil fuels—greatly affects emissions. Data centers powered by coal or gas produce more carbon than those using wind, solar or hydroelectric power.

Global AI and data centers are currently responsible for a small but growing share of carbon emissions. Combined data center emissions contribute to the broader trend of digital technologies impacting climate change. 

Projections show that by 2035, AI’s carbon footprint may vary greatly. This depends on future energy mixes and how AI is deployed. Estimates suggest possible annual emissions ranging from 300 to 500 million tonnes of CO₂ by the mid-2030s. The exact share attributable to AI specifically will vary based on how much AI workloads grow within overall data center use.

ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini differ in their carbon footprints per query. A typical ChatGPT query generates about 0.15 grams of CO₂ per text prompt. In comparison, a typical Google Gemini query emits around 0.03 grams of CO₂ per prompt. This means Gemini’s per-query carbon footprint is about five times lower than ChatGPT’s based on current estimates.

Google Gemini AI carbon emissions
Source: Google

Both companies promise to cut carbon intensity. They plan to do this by improving data center efficiency, buying renewable energy, and upgrading hardware.

For example, Google reported dramatic reductions in energy and carbon footprints for Gemini queries over a one-year period due to efficiency gains and cleaner energy sourcing.

Cooling Costs: Water Use in AI Data Centers

Water consumption is another environmental concern for AI because data centers use water for cooling. Keeping servers cool in large facilities often requires water-cooled systems, especially in warmer climates.

Global AI-related water withdrawal has been rising. Estimates suggest that AI data centers might use 4.2–6.6 billion cubic meters per year by 2027, which is equivalent to 4.2–6.6 billion tonnes of water. This amount is similar to the yearly water use of medium-sized countries.

At the individual query level, water use is very small. For example, OpenAI’s CEO has stated that a single ChatGPT query uses about 0.000085 gallons of water (or ~0.32 ml)—a tiny amount comparable to a few drops. But at scale, with billions of queries each day, total water demand becomes significant in the context of data center cooling systems.

Google’s data reveals that a typical Gemini text prompt uses about 0.26 milliliters of water. That’s about the same as a few drops, considering data center operations.

The Bigger Picture: AI’s Environmental Footprint

AI’s environmental footprint extends beyond individual models and queries. Data centers are expanding rapidly because of increased AI adoption and other online services. Data center electricity use might reach almost 3% of global demand by 2030. This growth highlights the importance of sustainable practices in the tech industry.

While per-query energy and carbon figures can seem small, the aggregate impact of billions of daily AI interactions adds up. Power use and cooling needs can stress local energy grids and water supplies. This happens if companies don’t use renewable sources and efficient technologies.

Major tech companies have made public commitments to use renewable energy and improve energy efficiency at data centers. Experts say that real transparency in environmental impacts needs better reporting. It also requires standardized metrics throughout the AI industry.

So, Who Wins the AI Race?

In the AI chatbot market, ChatGPT continues to lead with about 68% market share in 2026, while Google’s Gemini holds approximately 18.2% and is growing fast. Their competition reflects differences in strategy, reach, and integration into broader technology ecosystems.

ChatGPT vs .Google Gemini Environmental Footprint

On environmental performance, both AI systems contribute to energy use, carbon emissions, and water consumption through data centers. Per-query measurements such as 0.24–0.30 Wh of electricity and tiny amounts of water per request show that individual impacts are small. 

However, the aggregate resource use of running AI at scale is significant and growing. Global demand for electricity in data centers is expected to rise sharply by 2030. Water use might also increase as AI adoption expands.

Understanding these footprints and market dynamics helps users, developers, and policymakers see the costs and benefits of AI. AI tools like ChatGPT and Gemini will keep changing tech markets. They will also influence talks about sustainability in our digital world.

The post ChatGPT vs. Gemini: Who Leads the AI Race and at What Environmental Cost? appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

Finding Nature Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain

Published

on

“…Protecting nature makes our business more resilient…”

For companies with land, water, food, fiber, or commodity exposure, the supply chain may be the most practical place to turn nature from a risk into an operating asset.

Your supply chain already has a nature strategy. It may be undocumented. It may live in procurement files, supplier contracts, commodity maps, and one spreadsheet nobody opens without coffee. But it exists.

If your business depends on farms, forests, water, soil, packaging, rubber, timber, fibers, minerals, or food ingredients, nature is part of your operating system. The question is whether you manage that system with intent, or discover it during a disruption, audit, or difficult board question.

That is why more companies are asking how to find Nature-Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain. Do not begin by shopping for offsets. Begin by asking where nature already affects cost, continuity, emissions, regulatory exposure, and supplier resilience.

What Nature-Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain Means

The European Commission defines nature-based solutions as approaches inspired and supported by nature that are cost-effective, deliver environmental, social, and economic benefits, and help build resilience. They should also benefit biodiversity and support ecosystem services.

In supply-chain terms, that becomes practical. Nature-based solutions in your supply chain can include agroforestry in cocoa, coffee, rubber, or palm supply chains. They can include soil health programs for food ingredients, watershed restoration near water-intensive operations, mangrove restoration linked to coastal sourcing regions, and avoided deforestation in forest-linked commodities.

The key test is business relevance. If your procurement team relies on a landscape, watershed, crop, or supplier base, that is where opportunity may sit. The best projects do not hover outside the business like a framed certificate. They plug into the system that already produces your revenue.

Why the Boardroom Should Care

For many companies, the largest climate and nature exposure sits outside direct operations. The GHG Protocol Scope 3 Standard gives companies a method to account for and report value-chain emissions across sectors. Purchased goods, land use, transport, supplier energy, and product use can make direct emissions look like the visible tip of a very large iceberg.

The Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures notes that many nature-related dependencies, impacts, risks, and opportunities arise upstream and downstream. That is why nature-based supply chain investments matter to boards. You are managing supply security, audit readiness, investor confidence, and regulatory preparedness.

For companies exposed to EU markets, this also connects to rules and expectations such as CSRD, CSDDD, EUDR, and SBTi FLAG.

Step One: Map Where You Touch Land, Water, and Living Systems

Finding Nature-Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain starts with mapping, not marketing.

Begin with procurement and Scope 3 data. Which categories carry high spend, high emissions, or high sourcing risk? Which suppliers depend on agriculture, forestry, mining, water-intensive processing, or land conversion? Which regions face water stress, heat, flood risk, soil degradation, deforestation, or biodiversity pressure?

The Science Based Targets Network uses a clear process for companies: assess, prioritize, set targets, act, and track. That sequence keeps companies from treating nature as a mood board. You identify where the business has exposure, then decide where intervention can create measurable value.

Step Two: Look for Operational Value Before Carbon Value

This is the center of CCC’s Dual-Value Model. A nature-based supply chain investment should do useful work for the business before anyone counts the carbon.

Agroforestry may improve farmer resilience, shade crops, protect soil, and reduce pressure on forests. Watershed restoration may reduce water risk for beverage, textile, or manufacturing sites. Soil health programs may improve the stability of agricultural inputs.

Carbon and sustainability value can still be created. In some cases, the project may support Scope 3 insetting. In others, it may generate verified carbon credits. Sometimes the main value may be resilience, readiness, and better supplier data.

The IPCC has found that ecosystem-based adaptation can reduce climate risks to people, biodiversity, and ecosystem services, with multiple co-benefits, while also warning that effectiveness declines as warming increases. That is a sober argument for acting early.

Step Three: Separate Insetting, Offsetting, and Resilience

Nature-based solutions in your supply chain are not automatically carbon credits. They are not automatically Scope 3 reductions either.

An insetting opportunity usually sits inside or close to your value chain. It may support Scope 3 reporting if the accounting rules, project boundaries, supplier connection, and data quality are strong enough.

An offsetting opportunity usually involves verified credits outside your value chain. High-quality credits can still play a role for residual emissions, but they should not distract from direct reductions or credible value-chain work.

A resilience opportunity may deliver business value even if you cannot claim a Scope 3 reduction immediately. That may include water security, supplier capacity, land restoration, biodiversity protection, or regulatory readiness.

Gold Standard’s Scope 3 value-chain guidance focuses on reporting emissions reductions from interventions in purchased goods and services. Verra’s Scope 3 Standard Program is being developed to certify value-chain interventions and issue units for companies’ emissions accounting. The direction is clear: stronger evidence, tighter boundaries, and more disciplined claims.

Step Four: Design for Audit-Readiness From the Beginning

Weak data is where promising nature projects go to become expensive anecdotes.

Before public claims are made, you need to know the baseline. What would have happened without the project? Who owns or manages the land? Which suppliers are involved? How will outcomes be measured? How will leakage, permanence, and double counting be addressed?

The GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard gives companies methods to quantify, report, and track land emissions, CO2 removals, and related metrics. This matters because land projects are rarely neat. Farms change practices. Suppliers shift volumes. Weather changes outcomes.

What Recent Corporate Examples Show

Recent case studies show that supply-chain nature work is becoming more serious, and more scrutinized.

Reuters has reported on insetting to reduce emissions within supply chains, including examples linked to Reckitt, Danone, Nestlé, Earthworm Foundation, and Nature-based Insights. The same article highlights familiar problems: measurement, double counting, supplier incentives, and credibility.

Reuters has also reported on companies using the Science Based Targets Network process to examine nature impacts. GSK, Holcim, and Kering were among the first companies with validated science-based targets for nature.

The Financial Times has covered the promise and difficulty of soil carbon in corporate supply chains, including a PepsiCo example in India where yields reportedly increased while greenhouse gas emissions fell. The lesson is that carbon, soil, biodiversity, farmer economics, and measurement need to be handled together.

A Practical Screening Checklist

A supply-chain nature-based solution deserves deeper review when you can answer yes to most of these questions:

  • Does it sit in or near a material supply-chain hotspot?
  • Does it address a real business risk?
  • Can you connect it to supplier behavior, land management, or sourcing practices?
  • Can the outcomes be measured?
  • Are the claim boundaries clear?
  • Does it support Scope 3 strategy, SBTi FLAG, CSRD, CSDDD, EUDR, or investor reporting needs?
  • Are permanence, leakage, land rights, and community issues addressed?

Build the Asset, Then Make the Claim

Finding Nature-Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain is about identifying where your business already depends on living systems, then designing interventions that make those systems more resilient, measurable, and commercially useful.

For companies with material Scope 3 exposure, the right project can support supplier resilience, emissions strategy, regulatory readiness, and credible climate communication. The wrong project can become a glossy story with a weak audit trail.

Carbon Credit Capital helps companies design nature-based carbon and sustainability assets that embed directly into corporate supply chains. Through CCC’s Dual-Value Model, you can assess where sustainability investment may support operational resilience, Scope 3 insetting eligibility, regulatory readiness, and high-quality carbon or sustainability value.

Schedule your consultation with the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital to explore how nature-based supply chain investments can support your next stage of climate strategy.

Sources

  1. European Commission: Nature-based solutions
  2. GHG Protocol: Corporate Value Chain Scope 3 Standard
  3. TNFD: Guidance on value chains
  4. European Commission: Corporate Sustainability Reporting
  5. European Commission: Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence
  6. European Commission: Regulation on Deforestation-free Products
  7. SBTi: Forest, Land and Agriculture FLAG
  8. Science Based Targets Network: Take Action
  9. IPCC AR6 WGII Summary for Policymakers
  10. Gold Standard: Scope 3 Value Chain Interventions Guidance
  11. Verra: Scope 3 Standard Program
  12. GHG Protocol: Land Sector and Removals Standard
  13. Reuters: Can insetting stack the cards towards more sustainable supply chains?
  14. Reuters: Three companies put their impacts on nature under a microscope
  15. Financial Times: The dubious climate gains of turning soil into a carbon sink

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living

Published

on

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

A light bulb, a pen, a calculator and some copper euro cent coins lie on top of an electricity bill

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:

  1. Estimate your carbon footprint to better understand the emissions connected to your lifestyle and activities.
  2. Create a plan to gradually reduce emissions through energy efficiency, cleaner technologies, and more sustainable choices.
  3. 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.

Continue Reading

Carbon Footprint

Carbon credit project stewardship: what happens after credit issuance

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com