I often come across debates and discussions which try to frame “responsible use” for artificial intelligence. This debate centers around the emerging understanding of the ecological impact of AI. An example that illustrates this “responsible use” discussion is the casual use of Generative AI to generate memes or funny images that is of no benefit to us, except for a momentary laugh. Was it worth the resources used to create something so transient?
When people talk about AI, the recurring themes tend to center on three things- its potential (what the technology can produce), economic impact (what it might displace) and, to a lesser extent, ecology (carbon footprint of its working). Image generation tools spark debates about creativity and jobs. Chatbots spark debates about the future of work. What also gets discussed, albeit more rarely, is the physical infrastructure that makes all of it possible.
These are, of course, my personal observations and based purely on my experience of the conversations I participate in. It is altogether possible that the infrastructure, which has had to scale to unprecedented levels to keep pace with AI functionalities and adoption, is being developed extensively in relevant circles. The infrastructure story, which I believe to be most consequential, is what I’d like to explore here – and do so on the back of data points that are available.
The demand v/s the planning
Starting with the obvious one – energy use. Energy use by data centers, which form the backbone of AI processing, currently accounts for around 1.5% to 2.1% of global electricity use, and has been growing by approximately 17% annually, according to the International Telecommunication Union. AI requires exponentially more power to train and run than preceding technologies. As of 2026, AI-optimized servers account for 31% of total data center power consumption, and this is forecast to surpass conventional server power use by 2027, according to a Gartner study.[1]
This energy debate reminds me of another one from a few years ago – that of electric vehicles. But, the context is different. Energy demand by AI is different from the ones by EVs, which largely displaces one form of energy consumption (fuel) with another (grid electricity). One might argue that this improves overall efficiency in the process. Data centre growth, by contrast, is additive. It does not replace an existing category of consumption – in fact, it introduces a new and fast-growing one on top of it.
Before the rapid growth of AI in the last decade (or less), many early proponents of the technology made public commitments around carbon neutrality, carbon-negative targets, and renewable energy sourcing – some even setting goals to be carbon negative by a certain time. These commitments were built based on assumptions about how much computing infrastructure the companies would need. But, the pace of AI has outstripped all of them. Some companies that had made such promises have actually reported a rise in emissions attributable to them. A review of 200 leading digital companies found that indirect emissions across the sector rose roughly 150% between 2020 and 2023, driven largely by AI-related infrastructure growth. Though these companies have set emissions targets, those targets have not yet fully translated into actual reductions.
This is not about broken promises, but a legitimate strategic challenge. The landscape has changed, and so the target has become one that’s shifting. The fact that companies have not been able to stay on course for this target should not, in my opinion, be construed as lack of sincerity, but as a timeframe realignment. Should these companies compare scale with usage rather than dates on a calendar? This is one of the questions AI has brought up, which probably no other technology has encountered before.
All about water
Cooling is one of the more tangible costs of data centre operation, and freshwater remains the most common method. Water runs through pipes to absorb and remove heat generated by servers. Because of this, water use has become a major topic of discussion on the ecological impact of data centres.
I was intrigued when I learnt that golf courses use several times more water than data centres and a majority of this water seems to come from natural sources rather than treated, as per a study. Which begs the question – isn’t golf, like the meme example I used earlier for “responsible use”, an avoidable leisure activity whose physical benefits can be gained by other other sports which use lesser water? But, I digress – the example of golf courses emerges from the water use statistics and how it is viewed.
The data centers vs. golf courses water use example is based on gross numbers. The counter argument relates to data points applied in localized contexts – for instance, a single large data centre campus can draw more water from a specific local supply than several golf courses in the same region combined. When we look at AI infrastructure scaling at its current pace, it will surely overtake the water consumption of golf courses in the next few years.
The points I am making here are two-fold: a. single statistics deserve care before they’re used to draw conclusions and b. AI is very early in its evolution cycle to make an informed judgement about its ecological impact.
This is because the industry is working on solutions to optimize the use of natural resources, especially water . Closed-loop cooling systems, which re-circulate water within a sealed system rather than relying on evaporation, can reduce consumption significantly compared to traditional cooling. Some companies are piloting alternatives to freshwater entirely. One significant experiment in this context is use of filtered seawater/ salt water as a cooling source for certain facilities. The approach may be in its early stages, but it’s promising to know efforts are being made in this regard.
AI as part of the solution
When we speak of AI’s grid infrastructure, it is no longer only about additive strain. The same technology is being used as an advantage, by making grids more efficient. According to the International Energy Agency[2] , AI-driven grid management tools could help unlock up to 175 gigawatts of existing transmission capacity that would otherwise sit underused, reducing the need for entirely new infrastructure investment. AI systems are also being deployed for predictive maintenance, faster interconnection planning, and better integration of renewable sources like solar and wind, which depend on real-time adjustments to variable supply. So it’s interesting to note that the same demand growth that is straining grids today is also accelerating investment in the tools that are helping make the grids more capable of handling this same strain.
This plethora of innovations and experiments today make it challenging to draw a conclusive statement on the ecological impact of AI. The rapid evolution and pace of AI is something that even companies building this technology are still adapting to. Yes, this development has come with some additional load on energy and water consumption, but the same technology is also leading to unprecedented progress in making this infrastructure more efficient and sustainable.
The better question for us to ask isn’t whether AI’s environmental footprint is good or bad. It’s more about whether planning, reporting, and infrastructure design are keeping pace with the growth curve, and what it would take to make sure they do. As AI evolves and takes massive leaps every single day, we simply need more responsibility and accountability, every step of the way, to maintain the balance that we strive to achieve.
[1]https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2026-06-10-gartner-says-data-center-electricity-demand-to-grow-26-percent-in-2026
[2]https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-and-ai/ai-for-energy-optimisation-and-innovation
