From climate change to landfill, AI promises to solve Earth’s big environmental problems – but there’s a hitch

by bpckle | Aug 6, 2024 | Media

Artificial intelligence (AI) has revolutionised our lives in myriad ways, from personalising our social media feeds to giving us driving directions and monitoring our health.

In recent years, hopes have grown that AI may also help humanity tackle global environmental problems such as climate change.

AI involves using computers to make them think like humans. It can solve complex problems and process huge amounts of data.

But the technology brings with it a host of environmental costs. Here, we weigh up the pros and cons.

4 ways AI can help the natural world

Energy efficiency

AI systems can control and optimise energy use. For example, AI-powered “smart grids” monitor and manage electricity generation to meet the demand of consumers, which can both lower energy costs and allow for more efficient energy use.

AI can also help streamline the energy used by big commercial and industrial systems. Tech giant Google, for instance, used AI to cut the amount of energy required to cool its data centres by 40%.

Urban Infrastructure

Waste management systems driven by AI may help increase recycling rates. In the United Kingdom, for example, recycling company Recycleye uses AI to identify materials for sorting, lowering contamination rates and increasing recycling volumes – and so, reducing pressure on landfill.

And AI-powered “smart cities” technologies help make public transport systems work more smoothly, which can reduce congestion and minimise vehicle emissions.

Artificial intelligence can also be deployed to improve air quality in cities. IBM, for example, uses the technology to
analyse weather and air pollution data from sensors and satellites. This can help authorities pinpoint pollution sources, make air quality forecasts and issue health alerts.

Sustainable agriculture

AI-powered smart machines, robots and sensors are already used in agriculture.

They can provide real-time monitoring of weather, soil conditions and crop needs, leading to better water use and ensuring crops receive only what they need.

The technology can also identify pests, reducing the need to spray chemical pesticides on crops.

As climate change worsens, there are hopes AI can help farmers avoid reduced crop yields and become more resilient.

Environmental monitoring

AI systems can forecast floods, bushfires and other natural hazards quickly and accurately. This can minimise the effects of natural hazards on both the environment and communities.

AI can be used to track environmental change. For example, it can reportedly measure changes in icebergs 10,000 times faster than a human can.

Meanwhile, environmental group The Nature Conservancy uses AI to minimise the environmental impacts of hydropower across the Amazon.

But what about the downsides?

The path to realising the potential of AI is fraught – and the technology comes with several major downsides, as outlined below.

Energy use

Artificial intelligence guzzles a huge amount of energy. First the computer models must be “trained”, or fed a large set of data. This feeding can be relatively quick, or take up to several months – during which time big data processors are running 24/7.

And when we ask AI to solve a problem, this also requires processing power which consumes energy. Advanced AI models such as ChatGPT reportedly use ten times more energy per search than a conventional Google search, according to one estimate. Only a small fraction of this demand is met by renewable energy sources.

The International Energy Agency projects electricity consumption from data centres, AI and cryptocurrency sector could double in the four years to 2026, from 460 terawatt-hours in 2022 to more than 1,000 terrawatt-hours in 2026.

By comparison, total electricity generation in Australia in 2022 was around 273 terawatt-hours.

Greener AI systems are urgently needed – and this is looking increasingly possible. Studies have shown the energy use of AI-based computer models can be slashed through various means, such as reducing a model’s complexity without affecting its performance.

Water impacts

The water requirements of AI are significant. The data centres housing powerful AI servers generate a lot of heat. Water is used in cooling to keep the servers at operating temperature.

AI also consumes water indirectly through its energy consumption. Coal-fired power stations use water for cooling, and water is also lost through evaporation from hydro electricity schemes.

And as others have noted, the mining and manufacturing required to produce AI hardware both uses and pollutes water.

Broader environmental damage

The environmental impact of AI goes beyond its energy use. For example, as Scientific American has reported, ExxonMobil in 2019 partnered with Microsoft to deploy AI in oil extraction, substantially increasing production.

As the article also noted, the use of AI in targeted online advertising – on platforms such as Instagram and Facebook – creates demand for material goods. This leads to greater consumption of mass-produced items which creates carbon emissions and uses Earth’s natural resources.

Where to now?

As AI becomes more integrated into modern life, its environmental footprint will grow. Humanity must find the right balance to ensure AI helps the Earth, rather than harms it.

To better achieve this, standard criteria must be developed to accurately measure the effects of AI on the environment.

There is also a push from some quarters for more environmental regulation of AI, and greater transparency from companies about their AI-related emissions.

But efforts to make AI more environmentally friendly will struggle for public and industry acceptance if the effectiveness of AI systems is sacrificed. To avoid this, stronger collaboration between researchers and the AI industry is needed.

Ehsan Noroozinejad does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article.

Seyedali Mirjalili does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Soft plastics, glass bins and bans on compostable liners: will Victoria’s new recycling proposal be a step forward?

by bpckle | Aug 6, 2024 | Media

In recent years, the question of what to do with our household waste has become more pressing. In 2018, China stopped accepting many types of recyclable plastic waste from Australia. Four years later, Australia’s main soft plastics recycling scheme, REDcycle, collapsed, leaving behind big stockpiles. Food scraps or non-recyclable plastics in recycling bins slash the value of these waste streams.

This year, Australia’s second most populous state, Victoria, is trying to improve matters with a proposed waste system using four bins across all 79 council areas and its alpine resorts. The state government is seeking your feedback on these changes and how they would be implemented. Our research suggests there’s much to like in these changes, but there are also big sticking points.

What would the new system look like?

Many Victorians will be familiar with the first two bins:

• general rubbish (goes to landfill)
• mixed recycling (goes to various recyclers)

But the two other streams will be new to many, namely:

• glass recycling (goes to glass recyclers)
• food organics and garden organics (goes to councils or other providers to be composted or mulched)

Some councils have already trialled or rolled out all four bins to their residents.

Why would more bins help?

While recycling and reducing waste enjoy widespread support, there’s often a gap between how we feel and what actually happens.

For instance, a survey of 1,000 Australians this year found 89% see recycling as important and 74% of us believe our own recycling practices are good or very good.

But in Victoria, the actual rate of recycling is only 45%. That means more than half of all recyclable materials end up in other waste streams – mainly landfill.

Worse, our waste streams are very often contaminated. If there are meat scraps in the recycling bin, or polystyrene in the food waste bin, the entire truckload may have no recycling or composting value.

Will the government’s proposal improve the situation?

There’s much to like in Victoria’s plan.

Standardised bin colours will help people recognise waste streams even if they move houses.

There will be much-needed clarity over what to do with a pizza box – you will be able to recycle them, if they are shaken out.

Another big plus is proposing to let households throw soft plastics into mixed recycling. However, under the proposal, councils could decide not to offer this service. This is because only some councils have access to soft-plastic recycling at present, which is not ideal.

Glass-only recycling bins will help avoid the common problem of broken bottles contaminating paper in the mixed recycling bin. One issue is Victoria has only just introduced a Container Deposit Scheme offering 10 cents per eligible glass container, which may compete with the glass bin at home, which would not be eligible.

Big gaps remain

There’s not enough focus on reducing waste, especially plastic, in the first place.

Plastic production is soaring and our current plastic recycling options are limited. Many types of plastic can’t be recycled. The recycling process steadily degrades plastics, making all plastic into landfill eventually. It would be far better to focus on cutting demand for virgin plastics.

It would also be better to focus on reusing glass, rather than recycling it, as recycling glass is energy intensive.

Apartment residents also look to miss out. Victoria’s proposed new system would only apply to residents with access to council rubbish services or hard waste collection. Most apartments are privately serviced, meaning they have to contract waste contractors directly. This is expensive, and can lead to issues such as littering

Then there is the issue of compostable kitchen caddy liners. Many of us use these liners to make our food and organic waste bins less gross. But the Victorian plan would ban compostable liners due to concerns over contamination. The concern is real – these liners vary a lot and cannot be guaranteed to actually decompose.

If the ban happens, it’s likely some people will put food waste in their general waste bin to avoid the yuck factor, just as residents did after a similar ban took effect in the United Kingdom.

On the plus side, the proposed changes give clarity over “compostable” and “biodegradable” liners and coffee cups – they cannot be put in the food and organic waste bin.

What should we do?

Redesigning a waste system is hard. Here are some ideas to make the Victorian proposal even better:

• The new system should be ubiquitous. The four options should be available on streets, at home, at work and in public places.

• Collection sites for the container deposit scheme should be located next to supermarkets to boost convenience and as a backup for housing unable to accommodate glass bins.

• Soft plastics recycling should be rolled out statewide. This should be paired with a gradual phase out of hard or impossible to recycle materials and products such as polystyrene and composite materials.

• Regulate compostable bin liners so only genuinely biodegradable liners can be sold. In the interim, replace these liners with paper.

• Give apartments the same waste options as residents of freestanding houses to avoid further disadvantaging apartment residents. Design better bin-sharing systems with robust ways of ensuring waste streams don’t get contaminated.

From Victoria to the nation

Our research suggests consistency and standardisation is central to recycling success – not just in Victoria but nationally. At present, there’s great variation across states and territories.

South Australia and New South Wales have three bins, one each for landfill, mixed recycling and green waste. But neither has plans for a glass bin, as South Australia has had a container scheme for 45 years and NSW for around seven.

In Queensland, most households have two bins. Many councils are now rolling out a green and food waste bin. Queensland does not have a glass bin but has made wine and spirit bottles eligible for its container scheme in an Australian first.

To really make our system work, we need federal standardisation – just as New Zealand has done.

Bhavna Middha receives funding from the Australian Research Council's Discovery Early Career Researcher Award programme.

Ralph Horne receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Kingston and Hobson Bay Councils, and the Municipal Association of Victoria