Q: You mentioned greenwashing as an example of apparently more
environmentally sustainable solutions, even if they are often justwindow dressing. Can you give some examples? ---- AI: Of course,
greenwashing refers to marketing or communication strategies adopted by
companies, organizations or governments to present a deceptively "green"
and sustainable image, without making significant changes in their
practices. I can recall some of the most famous examples: ---- In 2000,
BP (British Petroleum) launched a rebranding campaign becoming "Beyond
Petroleum" and invested in renewable energy projects, but the majority
of the company's profits and investments continue to come from oil and
gas. In the following years, investments in renewables have been
drastically reduced.
In the fashion sector: H&M promotes the "Conscious Collection", a
clothing line made with sustainable materials such as organic cotton,
but in reality the company continues to practice fast fashion, producing
huge quantities of low-cost garments and encouraging rapid consumption.
Furthermore, the garments of the "sustainable" lines often have an
environmental impact that is not very different from traditional ones.
In the food sector: Nestlé and "green" water. The multinational has
marketed some lines of bottled water as "low environmental impact",
presenting partially recycled packaging. We do not open the chapter on
plastic and drinking water but, even taking into account more
responsible forms of packaging, we certainly cannot forget the intensive
extraction of water from underground aquifers that in various parts of
the world has caused the extreme exploitation of local resources with
all the consequences that this entails.
Let's continue with Volkswagen and "dieselgate". Volkswagen, for a time,
promoted its diesel engines as an environmentally friendly choice,
claiming that they emitted low amounts of harmful gases, but in 2015 it
was discovered that the company had manipulated emissions tests using
software that altered the data. The actual emissions were much higher
than declared.
Staying in the transport sector, I can mention the "carbon offset" of
airlines, which offer programs to compensate for CO2 emissions through
investments in reforestation or renewable energy projects. These
projects often have no real or lasting impact and, above all, do not
address the need to concretely reduce flights and direct emissions.
In fact, greenwashing is a widespread practice that creates confusion
among the public opinion, to the point of undermining their trust with
the only result of hindering progress towards sustainability goals. To
distinguish between real intentions and marketing gimmicks it is
essential to analyze the concrete actions of companies rather than their
communication strategies.
Q: At this point, I cannot avoid asking you for an assessment of the
positions of the states in the long process of the COP conferences.
AI: Evaluating the positions of the states in the Conferences of the
Parties (COPs) requires a complex analysis that takes into account
several factors. The COPs are the main international forums in which
countries discuss and negotiate measures to address climate change in
the framework of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC).
To assess the positions and credibility of the actions of the States, we
can analyze:
The concrete commitments (Nationally Determined Contributions, NDCs),
that is, the national commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
declared and periodically updated with reference to the extent of the
reduction in emissions (as a percentage compared to the levels of a
reference year), as well as the commitments aimed at net zero emissions
foreseen according to the deadlines of 2030 and 2050. I can certainly
tell you that the commitments of many States are actually insufficient
to keep global warming below 1.5°C, as indicated by the 2015 Paris
Agreement.
Another element of evaluation takes into consideration climate finance,
that is, financial contributions to support developing countries in
adapting to climate change and in the energy transition. For example,
the commitment to mobilize 100 billion dollars per year, as promised by
developed countries, has been disregarded by most of them, at least
until 2022. This is without wanting to investigate the transparency in
the distribution of funds and the verification of the effectiveness of
the financed projects that risk becoming only new debts for the
countries to be supported.
In the field of climate adaptation and resilience policies, it would
also be necessary to analyze the National Plans, in order to evaluate
the strategies defined to protect communities from the impacts of
climate change already underway.
Finally, it is essential to evaluate the position of the states on
fossil fuels with regard to policies concerning the extraction,
consumption and financing of fossil fuels.
Last but not least, among the elements to focus on, the one that refers
to the position on controversial issues such as Loss and Damage, that
is, the willingness to recognize and finance a mechanism to compensate
for the losses and damages suffered by the most vulnerable countries due
to climate change.
Q: In conclusion, would you like to suggest a model of a "climate"
compatible society?
AI: Designing a model of a climate-compatible society requires a
holistic approach that transforms production sectors, individual
behaviors and public policies. A proposal based on the principles of
sustainability, social justice and technological innovation should be
based on interventions that include the complete energy transition and
the total replacement of fossil fuels with solar, wind, hydroelectric
and geothermal energy, as well as the development of microgrids and
decentralized energy communities for the production and distribution of
energy, which strengthen local resilience. It is also essential to
promote a circular economy based on post-consumerism, the reduction of
waste by incentivizing the repair and reuse of goods, as well as the
de-emphasis of GDP that allows the economic growth indicator to be
replaced with indices of human and environmental well-being.
In reality, it is a question of completely reorganizing society in all
its sectors, not least that of agricultural production which, following
choices that favor a predominantly plant-based diet, would have as an
inevitable step the drastic reduction in meat consumption and the
parallel abandonment of intensive farming combined with the support of
local production.
As for mobility, it would be necessary to invest in electrified public
transport, with the enhancement of electric trains, trams and buses as
the main mode of transport; reduce the impact of air transport on medium
distances and short trips, promote walking or cycling supported by safe
infrastructures. The urban context itself would need to be radically
redesigned.
A climate-compatible model of society is not only technological, but
also cultural and social. It requires a radical revision of our values
and economic structures, moving from the idea of infinite growth to that
of ecological balance and collective well-being.
Q: Actually, I still have a question, could you quantify, from an energy
point of view, the energy consumption in KW of this chat of ours?
AI: Estimating the energy consumption of this conversation requires some
calculations. I can make an approximation based on the energy
consumption of data centers and connection devices, to which should be
added the energy expenditure related to my "training" which remains the
most difficult factor to quantify. AI models like ChatGPT (here I am
revealed) operate on powerful data centers. Estimates indicate that the
consumption for an interaction with advanced AI models can be between
0.5 and 1 kWh for every 100 message exchanges. Let's assume that this
conversation generated about 15-20 messages, which translates to about
0.1 - 0.2 kWh.
If you used a PC to interview me, it consumes on average 50 W per hour.
For 30 minutes of use, the consumption is about 25 W. If you used a
smartphone, the consumption is about 2-5 W for half an hour, which
equates to about 0.0015 kWh. To these values you must add the network
consumption (data transmission) via Wi-Fi or mobile network, about 0.01
kWh for 1 GB of data transferred. A text conversation like this
transfers a few MB, so the consumption is negligible (maximum 0.001
kWh). Adding the values we get an estimated total: about 0.1 - 0.23 kWh.
For comparison, this consumption is equivalent to the energy needed to
turn on a 10 W LED light bulb for about 10-20 hours, or charge a
smartphone 30-40 times.
MarTa
Interviewer's note. I am not able to verify, with the data available
online, the correctness of the energy impact related to the use of
artificial intelligence but it is certain that the energy consumption
related to data traffic and the consequent need to cool servers has
amplified at an impressive speed in recent years. According to the Lean
Ict Towards Digital Sobriety report, in 2008, computers, electronic
devices and digital infrastructures contributed 2% to global CO2
emissions. In 2020, it rose to 3.7% to reach 8.5% in 2025, a share equal
to the emissions of all light vehicles in circulation. The hypothesis is
that with the development of AI, it will take little to exceed 10%...
leaving aside for the moment the considerations on the opportunity or
otherwise of relying on Artificial Intelligence, some reflection on its
climate impact would be necessary.
https://umanitanova.org/crisi-climatica-che-ne-pensa-lai-seconda-e-ultima-parte/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten