Latest news with #carbonfootprint
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Science
- Yahoo
Advanced AI models generate up to 50 times more CO₂ emissions than more common LLMs when answering the same questions
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. The more accurate we try to make AI models, the bigger their carbon footprint — with some prompts producing up to 50 times more carbon dioxide emissions than others, a new study has revealed. Reasoning models, such as Anthropic's Claude, OpenAI's o3 and DeepSeek's R1, are specialized large language models (LLMs) that dedicate more time and computing power to produce more accurate responses than their predecessors. Yet, aside from some impressive results, these models have been shown to face severe limitations in their ability to crack complex problems. Now, a team of researchers has highlighted another constraint on the models' performance — their exorbitant carbon footprint. They published their findings June 19 in the journal Frontiers in Communication. "The environmental impact of questioning trained LLMs is strongly determined by their reasoning approach, with explicit reasoning processes significantly driving up energy consumption and carbon emissions," study first author Maximilian Dauner, a researcher at Hochschule München University of Applied Sciences in Germany, said in a statement. "We found that reasoning-enabled models produced up to 50 times more CO₂ emissions than concise response models." To answer the prompts given to them, LLMs break up language into tokens — word chunks that are converted into a string of numbers before being fed into neural networks. These neural networks are tuned using training data that calculates the probabilities of certain patterns appearing. They then use these probabilities to generate responses. Reasoning models further attempt to boost accuracy using a process known as "chain-of-thought." This is a technique that works by breaking down one complex problem into smaller, more digestible intermediary steps that follow a logical flow, mimicking how humans might arrive at the conclusion to the same problem. Related: AI 'hallucinates' constantly, but there's a solution However, these models have significantly higher energy demands than conventional LLMs, posing a potential economic bottleneck for companies and users wishing to deploy them. Yet, despite some research into the environmental impacts of growing AI adoption more generally, comparisons between the carbon footprints of different models remain relatively rare. To examine the CO₂ emissions produced by different models, the scientists behind the new study asked 14 LLMs 1,000 questions across different topics. The different models had between 7 and 72 billion parameters. The computations were performed using a Perun framework (which analyzes LLM performance and the energy it requires) on an NVIDIA A100 GPU. The team then converted energy usage into CO₂ by assuming each kilowatt-hour of energy produces 480 grams of CO₂. Their results show that, on average, reasoning models generated 543.5 tokens per question compared to just 37.7 tokens for more concise models. These extra tokens — amounting to more computations — meant that the more accurate reasoning models produced more CO₂. The most accurate model was the 72 billion parameter Cogito model, which answered 84.9% of the benchmark questions correctly. Cogito released three times the CO₂ emissions of similarly sized models made to generate answers more concisely. "Currently, we see a clear accuracy-sustainability trade-off inherent in LLM technologies," said Dauner. "None of the models that kept emissions below 500 grams of CO₂ equivalent [total greenhouse gases released] achieved higher than 80% accuracy on answering the 1,000 questions correctly." RELATED STORIES —Replika AI chatbot is sexually harassing users, including minors, new study claims —OpenAI's 'smartest' AI model was explicitly told to shut down — and it refused —AI benchmarking platform is helping top companies rig their model performances, study claims But the issues go beyond accuracy. Questions that needed longer reasoning times, like in algebra or philosophy, caused emissions to spike six times higher than straightforward look-up queries. The researchers' calculations also show that the emissions depended on the models that were chosen. To answer 60,000 questions, DeepSeek's 70 billion parameter R1 model would produce the CO₂ emitted by a round-trip flight between New York and London. Alibaba Cloud's 72 billion parameter Qwen 2.5 model, however, would be able to answer these with similar accuracy rates for a third of the emissions. The study's findings aren't definitive; emissions may vary depending on the hardware used and the energy grids used to supply their power, the researchers emphasized. But they should prompt AI users to think before they deploy the technology, the researchers noted. "If users know the exact CO₂ cost of their AI-generated outputs, such as casually turning themselves into an action figure, they might be more selective and thoughtful about when and how they use these technologies," Dauner said.
Fast Company
a day ago
- Science
- Fast Company
AI users have to choose between accuracy or sustainability
PREMIUM New research shows the smarter and more capable AI models become, the larger their environmental impact. [Images: hramovnick/Adobe Stock; yLemon/Adobe Stock] BY Listen to this Article More info 0:00 / 2:38 Cheap or free access to AI models keeps improving, with Google the latest firm to make its newest models available to all users, not just paying ones. But that access comes with one cost: the environment. In a new study, German researchers tested 14 large language models (LLMs) of various sizes from leading developers such as Meta, Alibaba, and others. Each model answered 1,000 difficult academic questions spanning topics from world history to advanced mathematics. The tests ran on a powerful, energy-intensive NVIDIA A100 GPU, using a specialized framework to precisely measure electricity consumption per answer. This data was then converted into carbon dioxide equivalent emissions, providing a clear comparison of each model's environmental impact. The researchers found that many LLMs are far more powerful than needed for everyday queries. Smaller, less energy-hungry models can answer many factual questions just as well. The carbon and water footprints of a single prompt vary dramatically depending on model size and task type. Prompts requiring reasoning, which force models to 'think aloud,' are especially polluting because they generate many more tokens. One model, Cogito, topped the accuracy table—answering nearly 85% of questions correctly—but produced three times more emissions than similar-sized models, highlighting a trade-off rarely visible to AI developers or users. (Cogito did not respond to a request for comment.) 'Do we really need a 400-billion parameter GPT model to answer when World War II was, for example,' says Maximilian Dauner, a researcher at Hochschule München University of Applied Sciences and one of the study's authors. advertisement The final deadline for Fast Company's Next Big Things in Tech Awards is Friday, June 20, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply today. Subscribe to see the rest. Already Subscribed? Login. GET UNLIMITED ACCESS TO FAST COMPANY Enjoy the latest trends from the world-leading progressive business media brand just $1 Join for $1 Sign up for our weekly tech digest. SIGN UP This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Privacy Policy ABOUT THE AUTHOR Chris Stokel-Walker is a contributing writer at Fast Company who focuses on the tech sector and its impact on our daily lives—online and offline. He has explored how the WordPress drama has implications for the wider web, how AI web crawlers are pushing sites offline, as well as stories about ordinary people doing incredible things, such as the German teen who set up a MySpace clone with more than a million users. More Explore Topics Artificial Intelligence
Daily Mail
a day ago
- Business
- Daily Mail
Labour climate envoy 'living like a travel writer' after racking up 75,000 air miles in just nine months
Labour's climate envoy has been accused of living like a 'travel writer' after it emerged she has effectively circled the globe three times in her new role. Rachel Kyte has clocked up more than 75,000 air miles since her appointment in September – costing taxpayers almost £40,000. The majority of her flights were in business class, according to details released to The Telegraph via a Freedom of Information request. Ms Kyte, an academic and fan of environmental group Extinction Rebellion, was recruited by Ed Miliband in September as the UK's new 'special representative for climate'. She has previously admitted her carbon footprint was 'a source of deep discomfort', but she visited a foreign country every month between October and May. Her personal carbon footprint for the flights alone could be as high as 15 metric tonnes of CO2. The average carbon footprint per person in the UK is around 12.7 metric tonnes of CO2, for a whole year. Ms Kyte racked up the miles – costing a total of £38,769 – on trips to Dar es Salaam, Cape Town, Washington DC and Riyadh, among other far-flung destinations. According to the Government's website, her objectives are to 'build the UK's profile as a progressive climate leader' and 'drive for results in the clean energy transition and green and inclusive growth'. She told the New Statesman in 2021, while working at a university in Massachusetts: 'Having worked internationally for years, and with family on the other side of the Atlantic and friends spread across the world, the carbon footprint wrapped up in my social and professional identity is a source of deep discomfort.' The Foreign Office said all Ms Kyte's travel complied with internal travel policies, and her 'international diplomacy has supported efforts to unlock more private finance to tackle the climate crisis and taken forward our mission to be a clean energy superpower'. Richard Tice, deputy leader of Reform UK, said: 'The climate envoy is more like a travel writer travelling around the world to exotic locations.' Earlier this year, the Mail revealed that Ms Kyte was among a string of Extinction Rebellion cheerleaders recruited by Mr Miliband to government roles. She is one of a trio of advisers who have expressed public admiration for the radical direct action group that has repeatedly brought chaos to Britain's streets. Ms Kyte previously sported an Extinction Rebellion badge at an international climate summit and praised an eco-activist who glued herself to the pavement outside Shell's headquarters in London. The Mail also revealed this year that civil servants at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) spent more than £700,000 of taxpayer cash on luxury air travel last year, with staff flying business and premium economy 237 times in 12 months.
The Guardian
2 days ago
- Sport
- The Guardian
Fifa again under scrutiny for World Cup's increased carbon footprint
As next summer's World Cup approaches, excitement is building for the biggest global soccer tournament ever held, but so too are concerns over the viability and environmental sustainability of the vastly expanded competition. Held across 16 cities in the United States, Canada and Mexico, the 2026 World Cup will see the tournament expand from 32 nations to 48 competing for soccer's most coveted prize. It will be a tournament of unprecedented scale both in terms of the number of teams, and the vast geographical expanse it will cover. Both of these factors bring significant environmental concerns, however – particularly regarding the tournament's carbon footprint and the effectiveness of Fifa's proposed mitigation strategies. Fifa first introduced its Climate Strategy report back in 2021 in response to growing environmental concerns, launching its initiative at the UN Climate Change Conference (Cop26) that year. In the plan, Fifa pledged to reduce its carbon emissions by 50% by 2030 and achieve net zero emissions by 2040. The strategy included measures such as promoting sustainable infrastructure, enhancing energy efficiency and encouraging the use of renewable energy. It also included a fair amount of carbon offsetting – a process by which entities buy 'credits' that go toward environmental protection, to theoretically make up for emissions produced. However, it has been argued by critics that Fifa's reliance on carbon offsetting lacks transparency and may not be effective in mitigating the environmental impact of its expanded showpiece tournament. The organization's previous claims of carbon neutrality for the 2022 World Cup in Qatar were deemed misleading by a Swiss regulator. Responding to complaints raised by environmental groups in five different countries, the Swiss Commission for Fairness – which is based in Fifa's home city of Zurich – found the governing body was 'not able to provide proof that the claims were accurate' and 'did not set out a plan to define how it will further offset emissions.' This raises questions about the credibility of similar assertions Fifa has made about the 2026 World Cup. The tournament will feature 80 matches, spread across the three host countries. The massive geographical spread will necessitate extensive air travel for teams and fans alike, contributing to the tournament's substantial carbon emissions. United 2026, the joint bid by the host nations, has estimated that the event will generate approximately 3.7m tonnes of CO₂, making it the highest World Cup carbon footprint ever recorded. Of this estimate, travel accounts for 85% of the emissions – 51% from international travel and 34% from inter- and intra-city travel. The 2022 World Cup faced significant criticism for its environmental impact, but that was to do with factors other than travel. The construction of new stadiums and infrastructure, coupled with the energy-intensive cooling systems required for the desert climate, contributed to the tournament's substantial carbon footprint. Fifa estimated that the tournament was responsible for emissions of approximately 3.6m tonnes of CO₂. In contrast, Uefa's approach to Euro 2024 in Germany seems to offer a more sustainable model. The tournament used existing stadiums, implemented energy-efficient technologies and promoted public transportation for fans and teams. These measures led to a 21% reduction in carbon emissions compared to initial forecasts. Additionally, Uefa established a €7m Climate Fund to support sustainable infrastructure projects, leaving a lasting environmental legacy for the Euros. In fairness to the hosts, 2026 is being played under different conditions to Euro 2024 and Qatar 2022. Those tournaments were played in a single country (a tiny country in the latter case). Meanwhile, 2026 will traverse North America. The vast distances between venues in Canada, the United States and Mexico make air travel the most practical option for many teams and fans, significantly increasing emissions. While the use of existing stadiums reduces the need for new construction, the pressure on infrastructure and transportation systems remains a concern. Efforts to mitigate these challenges include promoting public transit and reducing reliance on air travel within host cities. However, the effectiveness of these measures depends on the availability, accessibility and affordability of sustainable transportation options, in addition to the willingness of fans and teams to utilize them. And, as anyone who has used public transport in the US will tell you, it can vary from rickety but effective in cities such as New York to almost non-existent in places such as Kansas City and Arlington. Fifa's choice of sponsorship partners for the tournament is another area in which the World Cup has come under scrutiny for its environmental impact. Partnerships with fossil fuel companies and airlines contribute to soccer's carbon footprint and raise questions about the alignment of commercial interests with stated sustainability goals. Among Fifa's many commercial partners for the 2026 tournament are Qatar Airways and Aramco, officially known as the Saudi Arabian Oil Group. It could be argued that such sponsorships undermine the organization's efforts to promote environmental responsibility. After facing pushback against their sustainability reporting in the aftermath of the 2022 tournament in Qatar, the 2026 World Cup presents fresh challenges for Fifa and its green initiatives. But it also represents an opportunity for the organization to demonstrate a genuine commitment to environmental sustainability. Soccer's supposed commitment to reducing emissions and easing its environmental impact is more than a mere box-ticking exercise; it is a matter of increasing importance to fans. A new study commissioned by UK-based climate change charity Pledgeball, in conjunction with Champions League sponsors Mastercard, polled over 1,600 fans – including attendees at last year's Champions League final – on the subject of environmental sustainability in soccer. It found that 81% of respondents said they are worried about the climate crisis, and 82% said they wanted their clubs to do more to combat it. The majority of respondents also believed that it was incumbent on governing bodies – such as Fifa – to take the lead by implementing a top-down approach by overseeing explicit reporting requirements and meting out punishments to clubs responsible for the highest emissions. The sheer scope of the expanded competition next year will provide the sternest possible test of the mitigation measures Fifa has put in place. And there will be an added expectation for a greater level of transparency when it comes to the postmortem reporting of the tournament's carbon impact, after Fifa's attempts to do so after the Qatar tournament didn't stand up to scrutiny. Set in the biggest media market on the planet, the 2026 World Cup will have record-breaking reach, but also a record-breaking carbon footprint. How Fifa tackles that issue will determine the credibility on its grand green plans.
BBC News
4 days ago
- Business
- BBC News
Birmingham Airport spends £10m on solar farm to reduce emissions
Birmingham Airport has spent nearly £10m on a solar farm to help reduce its emissions. More than 12,000 panels have been installed on the airport's noise bund - mounds of soil that reduce noise pollution and protect residential areas from aircraft farm produces more than 20% of the airport's power and is enough to reduce its carbon footprint by about 1,000 tonnes a year, the airport finance and sustainability officer Simon Richards said the panels were part of the airport's plan to hit net-zero carbon by 2033. "We're an industry that's quite carbon intensive and there's a lot of work going on with airlines to reduce carbon from flying," he peak sunny times, the 6.8-megawatt farm can generate enough solar energy to fully power the airport. "The installation produces around six gigawatt-hours (GWh) of power a year - that's enough to power more than 2,000 homes," Mr Richards said panels had been also installed on the terminal's rooftops from 2012 to reduce the airport's reliance on the electrical grid. To improve sustainability, it plans to move its heating from gas to electric heat pumps in the future. Follow BBC Birmingham on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
