The environmental impact of AI is becoming harder to ignore, from soaring energy use and water consumption to the rapid expansion of data centres and microchip production. What is being built in the name of innovation is also concentrating power, intensifying surveillance and deepening democratic risk.
In Australia, data centres threaten the energy transition
Amid the frenzied global expansion of AI-driven data centres, Australia has emerged as the second-largest market for investment in data centres in the world, behind only the United States.
This out-of-control expansion threatens to derail Australia’s energy transition by adding enormous new energy demand and prolonging reliance on polluting fossil fuels, with many data centre operators even looking to build new gas plants just to power their own operations. Data centres are being rolled out at a feverish pace, with some of the largest planned for Australia needing as much electricity as a small city.
Without strong guardrails, Australia risks replicating the disastrous US pattern — local communities paying the price with higher electricity bills, noise and environmental pollution, while AI and Big Tech companies receive priority access to power and resources.
The environmental impact of AI: energy, water and emissions
The AI boom is being sold as inevitable progress, but the real question is not whether artificial intelligence can do useful things in theory. It is who owns it, who profits from it, what it is mostly being used for, and who pays the environmental and political bill when the hype turns into microchip manufacturing plants, data centres, rising power demand, water stress, surveillance and attacks on democratic life.
A Greenpeace Germany report released in 2025 warned that AI’s electricity demand, emissions, water use and raw material needs are all rising fast, and that AI data centre electricity demand could be 11 times higher in 2030 than in 2023 unless governments intervene. A February 2026 report backed by Beyond Fossil Fuels made the greenwashing problem even clearer, finding that 74% of industry claims about AI’s climate benefits were unproven and that it could not identify a single case where consumer generative AI systems such as ChatGPT, Gemini or Copilot were delivering material, verifiable and substantial emissions cuts.
This matters because it punctures one of the sector’s favourite talking points, namely that energy-hungry generative AI can be excused by vague future climate benefits. In reality, the buildout itself is locking in more extraction, more infrastructure and more corporate power, while the largest firms try to present that expansion as climate leadership.
That is why the debate cannot be reduced to whether AI might do good one day, because the system being built right now is already redistributing power upwards while pushing environmental costs and information risks outwards.
AI data centres and why communities are pushing back
Across different countries, people are fighting data centres not because they are anti-technology, but because they recognise the pattern: land grabbing, noise pollution, pressure on water systems, strain on local grids and the steady erosion of community control over land and infrastructure.
Near Perth, a three-storey, 120-megawatt data centre will no longer go ahead after the developer withdrew plans amid community opposition over its impact on culturally significant sites. In New Brunswick, New Jersey, city leaders removed data centres from a redevelopment plan after public backlash and restored a park requirement, while residents and campaigners explicitly raised concerns about environmental harm, energy consumption, water use and noise pollution. In San Marcos, Texas, the city council voted 5-2 to block a proposed data centre after an hours-long meeting and more than 100 public comments.
In September 2025, South Dublin County Council in Ireland passed a motion calling for a nationwide ban or moratorium on new data centres, or strict conditions including 100% renewables, amid concern that communities are being forced to absorb the economic and ecological costs of someone else’s digital expansion. In the UK, campaigners won permission for a legal challenge against a 90MW hyperscale data centre in Buckinghamshire after the government admitted it had made a “serious error” in approving the scheme.
South Africa shows the growing disconnect between the push for AI infrastructure and the ecological realities of water stress and climate disruption. Australia, meanwhile, shows how rapidly this model is being scaled up globally, with the world’s second-biggest data centre buildout after the United States.
These are not fringe skirmishes. They are early signs of a broader democratic backlash against a model of digital expansion that expects local communities to absorb the costs while distant corporations and billionaires bank the gains.
Resistance is also becoming cultural, not just local. The QuitGPT boycott has gained traction as a symbolic rejection of the idea that ChatGPT should become the default interface for work, knowledge and everyday life. The movement is explicitly a reaction to OpenAI’s deal with the US Department of Defense, and it took on added urgency as the US and Israel began bombing Iran almost immediately afterwards. Dutch historian and author Rutger Bregman has helped amplify it by urging people to cancel their subscriptions, first pointing to more than 700,000 supporters, then more than one million. More than 2.5 million users are now boycotting ChatGPT.
The opposition to OpenAI and ChatGPT is no longer confined to specialists but is reaching writers, organisers, educators and mainstream audiences who are starting to question what exactly they are being asked to normalise.
Big Tech, AI power and the threat to democracy
If you want to understand why campaigners are increasingly focusing on chips as well as chatbots, start with Nvidia, the American chipmaking giant, and its CEO, Jensen Huang. Nvidia announced a staggering annual revenue of US$ 215.9 billion, underscoring just how central the company has become to the global AI boom. Recent earnings show Nvidia’s business is now dominated by data centres and AI chips, not gaming, with roughly 80% to 90% of revenue coming from data centres while gaming has fallen below 10%.
Huang has framed AI as “the largest infrastructure build-out in human history” and as foundational infrastructure for the modern world, which is precisely why Nvidia cannot be treated as a passive supplier standing outside the social and ecological consequences of the boom. Without Nvidia’s chips, much of the present generative AI race simply would not happen at its current scale.
Greenpeace East Asia’s October 2025 findings rank Nvidia last on AI supply-chain decarbonisation and argue that the company’s record revenues are being built on a “decarbonisation deficit” outsourced to suppliers in Taiwan and South Korea that still depend heavily on fossil power.
Greenpeace East Asia’s reporting also highlighted a 4.5-fold increase in emissions from AI chip manufacturing in a single year, showing how quickly the environmental cost of this infrastructure race is escalating. This is not a side effect of the boom. It is part of the industrial model that underpins OpenAI, Anthropic, Amazon and the wider rush to scale generative AI as fast as possible.
Amazon tells a similar story. Jeff Bezos’s Amazon made more than US$ 77 billion in profits in 2025 while cutting around 30,000 workers as it ramped up AI spending. This is what “innovation” looks like when it is steered by monopoly power: record profits, job cuts, rising capital expenditure and a false promise that more automation will somehow trickle down into public good.
AI, war and manipulation
The political economy of the AI boom should worry anyone who cares about democracy and civil liberties. Tech leaders and companies spent heavily to curry favour with Donald Trump after his reelection, including OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman’s US$ 1 million donation to Trump’s inauguration fund, while reporting also tied OpenAI co-founder Greg Brockman to a US$ 102 million Trump war chest drive.
Palantir and Alex Karp have gone further into the architecture of state power. ICE agreed to pay Palantir $30m to build its “ImmigrationOS” surveillance platform, while Karp defended the company’s work with ICE and later said critics of ICE should be protesting for “more Palantir”, not less. That tells you a great deal about what counts as “progress” when AI, border violence, data extraction and executive power converge.
The debate over AI and war has become sharper too. Anthropic reportedly sought explicit contractual prohibitions on mass domestic surveillance and fully autonomous weapons, and has been in conflict with the Pentagon over refusing to broaden those terms, while OpenAI struck a Pentagon deal for classified systems and revised it only after backlash, adding stronger restrictions against domestic surveillance and autonomous weapons without human oversight. That does not make Anthropic harmless, but it does show that even inside this industry there are real fault lines over how far companies are willing to go in militarisation and state surveillance.
Amnesty International has called for bans on AI-based practices including public facial recognition, predictive policing, biometric categorisation, emotion recognition and migrant profiling, while Forbidden Stories has investigated firms pitching AI-enabled surveillance tools that can target journalists, dissidents and activists.
Culture and information are being reshaped at speed as well. Deezer says it is now receiving more than 60,000 fully AI-generated tracks a day, roughly 39% of all music delivered to the platform daily. Six of Spotify’s top 50 trending songs in the US in late January were fully AI-generated. Suno was generating 7 million songs a day. Suno chief executive Mikey Shulman gave the game away when he said: “It’s not really enjoyable to make music now. It takes a lot of time, it takes a lot of practice”, reducing musical craft to a friction problem for software to remove. Sam Altman’s remark that it takes “20 years of life and all of the food you eat” to “train a human” landed for the same reason, because it exposed a worldview in which human creativity and ecological limits are treated less as values than as inefficiencies.
The biggest AI companies have not just disrupted creative industries, they have been repeatedly accused in court of building their products on unlicensed human work, with lawsuits from authors and visual artists, from major news organisations including The New York Times, and from Hollywood studios such as Disney and Universal alleging large-scale copyright infringement. Whether every case succeeds or not, the pattern is clear: companies that present themselves as engines of innovation have been credibly accused of treating books, journalism, music and art as raw material to be scraped, absorbed and monetised without consent, compensation or democratic accountability.
The same systems are also corroding the information environment. Research from Proof News found that leading AI tools gave inaccurate, harmful or incomplete answers to basic election questions more than half the time, while a separate GroundTruthAI analysis reported by NBC found that popular chatbots answered election queries incorrectly 27% of the time.
Grok on X has already shown how this can play out in practice. Election officials traced false claims about ballot deadlines and candidate eligibility back to Grok during the 2024 US race, and later warned that such errors could mislead or confuse voters at scale. With more high-stakes elections approaching, that is not a marginal bug. It is a democratic risk amplified by billionaire-owned platforms, automated recommendation systems and synthetic content designed for maximum engagement rather than truth.
Technology for the common good: democratic control, privacy and renewable energy
A different future is possible.
Technology for the common good would mean a society where digital tools are built first to meet real social and ecological needs, not to deepen billionaire control or chase speculative profit, and where AI is not treated as an automatic solution but used only when it is appropriate, justified and not more resource-intensive than simpler alternatives.
It would run on 100% additional renewable energy, disclose its full energy, water and supply-chain footprint, and be designed so communities are not left paying the price through higher bills, water stress or pollution.
Ownership and governance would be far more democratic, with strong public rules, limits on monopoly power, meaningful community consent, and institutions able to steer technology towards climate resilience, public services, biodiversity protection and other shared needs. It would also mean building forms of sovereign AI, where data and models are not simply extracted into distant corporate clouds but remain subject to local democratic control, clear auditability, strict privacy safeguards and public-interest rules. Access would be broad, affordable and accessible by design, and the freedoms it protects would include privacy, freedom of expression, the right to dissent, and protection from surveillance, manipulation and exclusion, so that technology expands people’s power instead of shrinking it.
This is an edited version of a blog first posted by Mehdi Leman for Greenpeace International.
Note: Greenpeace’s approach to AI is cautious, human-led and grounded in accountability. We do not support the use of AI-generated content in public-facing communications, and any limited use of AI must be carefully reviewed by humans for accuracy, bias, transparency, security and alignment with Greenpeace’s values. We also respect artists’ work and intellectual property rights, and we value the labour of artists, creatives and content creators; creative work should not be copied, exploited or repurposed in ways that undermine authorship, consent, attribution or livelihoods.
https://www.greenpeace.org.au/learn/the-energy-and-environmental-impact-of-ai-and-how-it-undermines-democracy/
Governments are holding “critical” talks this week on a global treaty to curb plastic pollution, as some countries and activists warn that key issues – including measures to rein in soaring plastic production – are being sidelined.
Diplomats are meeting in person in Nairobi for the first time since negotiations were suspended in chaos nearly a year ago, stymied by a long-running deadlock that pits petrostates against more ambitious nations over the reach of the UN pact.
Because nearly all plastic is made from planet-heating oil, gas and coal, the sector’s trajectory will have a major influence on global efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
The four-day informal gathering, which begins on Tuesday, has been billed by the chair of the talks, Chilean ambassador Julio Cordano, as a “brainstorming” session in which countries are invited to put forward possible solutions to some of the treaty negotiations’ most divisive elements.
Cordano is expected to distill those views in a new document intended to serve as the basis for a new draft text of the future treaty, which governments would take up at the next official round of negotiations, scheduled for March 13-24, 2027.
Two earlier rounds, each billed as the final one, ended without agreement, derailed largely by a standoff over how the treaty should address plastic production, which the UN says is set to triple by 2060 without intervention.
Production curbs in the spotlight
Large fossil fuel and petrochemical producers, led by Saudi Arabia, the United States, Russia and India, have repeatedly argued that the treaty should focus only on managing plastic waste. A US State Department spokesperson told Climate Home News that Washington supports “practical, cost-effective solutions” to plastic pollution, while opposing “global plastic bans”.
A majority of countries – including most European, Latin American, African and Pacific island nations -want to limit the manufacturing of plastic to “sustainable levels”, but have not pushed for any wide-ranging ban.
-
China’s coal-chemicals boom risks repeating the mistakes of the past
By reviving the problematic industry in the name of energy security, China runs the risk of higher emissions, stranded assets and setting back its ambitions as a clean energy leader -
Roadmap launched to restart deadlocked UN plastics treaty talks
The chair of the negotiations proposes informal meetings through 2026 to bridge deep divisions among countries, following the collapse of talks in Geneva last year
Ahead of what it described as “critical” talks in Nairobi, the French government said last week it had already shown flexibility and “significantly scaled back” its initial ambitions. But a French official told a meeting of EU environment ministers that without an explicit reference to the “unsustainable nature” of plastic production, the treaty would be “fundamentally unbalanced, ineffective and, worse still, could set us on the wrong path for decades to come”.
In a separate written communication, the French government lamented that informal meetings held in recent months have given “disproportionate visibility to the positions of the least ambitious states”, fuelling a “risk that partial agreements may be reached only on the issues with the broadest consensus”.
Dennis Clare, a negotiator for the Pacific island nation of Micronesia, told Climate Home News that “if we fail to address any key elements”, including overproduction, the impacts of the plastic crisis on the climate, human health and ecosystems will only grow more severe.
Fears over “political calculations”
Despite such concerns, plastics production is not mentioned in the wide-ranging list of topics Cordano has drafted for the meeting – an omission that has alarmed observers.
Christina Dixon, a campaigner at the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), said there appeared to be an attempt to write off this crucial element of the treaty as “too complicated and politically unviable”.
David Azoulay, environmental health programme director at the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), said the meeting’s proposed structure was “highly concerning”. He accused the chair of “making political calculations in favour of potential short-term wins” and aiming to deliver a treaty “based on the lowest common denominator”.
Speaking to journalists last week, Cordano pushed back, insisting that “no topic is off the table” and inviting countries to bring whatever proposals they judged necessary for a successful outcome.
He added that the treaty could not be allowed to settle for just any level of ambition, and that he would not be happy with an outcome at all costs.
“This is what makes it so difficult and complex,” said Cordano, who was elected in February after his predecessor’s resignation. Countries “are trying to be creative” in finding solutions, he explained, because “the road to the objective of our work might not be so obvious”.
The post UN plastics pact talks restart amid fears production curbs will be left out appeared first on Climate Home News.
UN plastics pact talks restart amid fears production curbs will be left out
A new report from Greenpeace Australia Pacific sets out the pathway forward for Australia to be a global leader on ocean protection. With the Treaty now in force, Australia and nations around the world, have an important opportunity to drive the creation of ocean sanctuaries on the high seas, by leading with ambition, science and collaboration to ensure this landmark agreement delivers lasting protections.
The report was launched on Tuesday 23rd June at Parliament House at an event to celebrate Australia’s recent ratification and look ahead to implementation. The event was attended by Parliamentarians, Ambassadors, Departmental leaders and civil society. Thank you to everyone for celebrating with us. To ensure the Treaty is strong, fit for purpose and delivers its role of creating ocean sanctuaries on the high seas across the global ocean – multilateralism and collaboration is essential. The event hosted by Greenpeace Australia Pacific and WWF was a strong step forwards on the implementation pathway.
The Global Ocean Treaty is one of the most significant international nature agreements in history and the first focused on protecting biodiversity in the high seas. These waters cover 64% of the ocean, are home to extraordinary biodiversity, and until now, less than 1% have been fully or highly protected.
Clean power added more to global energy supplies than any other source in 2025, according to the latest Energy Institute statistical review of world energy.
Outside the Covid pandemic, it was also the first year ever in which wind and solar, when combined, contributed more new energy than any of the individual fossil fuels.
The findings illustrate the “growing prominence” of electricity in the global energy system, according to the Energy Institute, a professional membership body that took over the production of the annual statistical review from oil firm BP in 2023.
It notes that electricity demand is rising much faster, at 3% in 2025, than energy use overall at 1.7% – and that all of the new power supply came from low-carbon sources.
While it includes data on data-centre demand for the first time, the review shows that these only make up 2% of all electricity use and 15% of the increase in 2025.
(The review does not explore other sources of demand, but separate data shows electrification of industry, heat and transport is a far larger driver of growth than data centres.)
At the same time, every source of energy – including coal, oil, gas, nuclear and hydro – also reached global all-time highs in 2025, the statistical review shows.
While the 86% of “primary energy” that came from fossil fuels is a record low, their real contribution to the economy is far lower, because roughly two-thirds of their energy is lost during combustion.
Below, Carbon Brief highlights the key findings of the review in six charts.
- Global energy supplies increase 1.7% in 2025
- Fossil fuels met a record-low 86.2% of global energy supply
- The ‘primary energy fallacy’ ‘inflates fossil fuels’
- Wind and solar were biggest source of new energy in 2025
- Clean energy met all of global electricity growth in 2025
- China generates more power than the US, EU and India combined
Global energy supplies increase 1.7% in 2025
The review shows that global energy supply reached a record high in 2025, climbing 10 exajoules (EJ, 1.7%) to more than 600EJ for the first time ever.
Within this total, there were new all-time highs for every energy source: oil; coal; gas; nuclear; wind and solar; as well as hydro and other renewables. This is shown in the figure below.
Notably, coal hit a new record of 166EJ in 2025, up 0.7% from a year earlier and 2.8% above the level reached in 2014, which had been seen as a potential peak for the fuel.
Wind and solar saw the fastest growth, up by 18.3% year-on-year, as well as adding more to global supplies – in combination – than any single fuel source.
Fossil fuels met a record-low 86.2% of global energy supply
Nevertheless, on the basis of these primary energy figures, the contribution of low-carbon sources to the global energy system still looks relatively small.
The latest data shows that fossil fuels made up 86.2% of global primary energy supplies, as shown in the figure below.
The rise of nuclear power had pushed the fossil-fuel share of global energy down to 91% as long ago as 1986, before the Chernobyl disaster pulled the plug on further growth.
It is only in the past decade that clean-energy sources have started to gain more ground, as a result of the rapid expansion of wind and solar.
The ‘primary energy fallacy’ ‘inflates fossil fuels’
Crucially, however, the statistical review is based on “total energy supply” (TES), a measure of primary energy. This counts the energy stored in coal, oil, gas and nuclear fuel going into the energy system, whereas for renewables it measures the amount of electricity coming out.
Yet, most of the energy in fossil fuels is lost as waste heat during combustion.
In fact, some two-thirds of all primary energy is lost before it can be turned into useful energy that moves a car, warms a home or keeps the lights on.
This gives rise to the “primary energy fallacy”, which tends to “inflate…the perceived contribution of fossil fuels” and the difficulty of replacing them with low-carbon energy sources.
For example, the figure in the post shows that 105 units of energy went into the global transport sector – almost all of it oil – but this only generated 20 units of transport “energy services”.
In other words, less than 20% of the primary energy being used for transport actually ends up moving people or goods, while the remaining 80% was lost as waste heat.
Until 2024, the statistical review sought to address this issue by using the “substitution method” for clean-energy sources. This listed the primary energy supplied by wind and solar, for example, as the amount of fossil fuels that would have been needed to generate the same amount of electricity.
It stopped using this approach in 2025, explaining that this would reveal the higher efficiency of a clean-energy system that loses less energy during fossil-fuel combustion. It explained:
“Put simply, in future we will need to supply less energy in the form of clean electricity to undertake the same amount of work as the equivalent energy supplies from fossil fuels. Primary energy demand will decrease as the energy system increasingly electrifies and renewable electricity continues to increase its share of generation..”
Wind and solar were biggest source of new energy in 2025
With this in mind, it is all the more notable that wind and solar, in combination, were the world’s biggest source of new energy in 2025, as shown in the figure below.
Again, perhaps two-thirds of the new primary energy added by fossil fuels last year will never actually contribute useful work to the economy, because it will be lost as waste heat.
In contrast, the new energy added by wind and solar is in the form of electricity and almost all of it can be used directly to power factories, homes, appliances and electric vehicles.
Moreover, wind and solar saw the fastest growth by far, up 18% in 2025 alone. Over the past decade, they expanded fivefold, while coal, oil and gas grew by 6%, 9% and 21%, respectively.
Clean energy met all of global electricity growth in 2025
The impact of renewables is clearest in the power sector, where combined with a new record for nuclear power, they met all of the growth in global electricity demand in 2025.
This is shown in the figure below, which illustrates how fossil generation was flat last year and how wind and solar now generate more electricity than hydro or nuclear power.
The review says that wind and solar power, when combined, grew by 18% in 2025, whereas there was a small decline in coal generation balanced by a small rise for gas.
Overall, it says that global electricity generation increased by some 940 terawatt hours (TWh, 3%), roughly three times the annual demand of the UK.
Separate figures, included in the review for the first time, show that data centres used 788TWh of electricity in 2025, up 130TWh on a year earlier.
This means that data centres accounted for 2% of global electricity demand.
China generates more power than the US, EU and India combined
The Energy Institute report says that the power sector is set to play an increasingly important role, because it is growing more quickly than other parts of the global energy system.
There is also increasing political attention on the idea of using expanded clean-power supplies to rapidly electrify other parts of the economy, particularly heat and transport.
The COP31 presidency has called for countries to back a global goal for 35% of “final” energy to come from electricity by 2035, against a global average today of around 22%.
China is well ahead of the global average, with electricity making up 30% of its final energy supplies in 2025. It recently adopted a 35% by 2030 target for electrification.
One reason it has been able to do this is the huge scale of its electricity system. Indeed, China now generates more electricity than the US, EU and India combined, as shown in the figure below.
While much of the rise in China’s electricity has historically come from coal-fired generation, there was enough growth of clean-power sources to push coal down last year.
The post Six charts show how clean power was world’s largest source of new energy in 2025 appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Six charts show how clean power was world’s largest source of new energy in 2025
-
Greenhouse Gases11 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change11 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”
-
Renewable Energy8 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases12 months ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测