Humans inadvertently impact their environment with every muscle movement they make.
As climate change persists, our lifestyles—including diets, transportation, and comfort choices—are facing increasing scrutiny, particularly as the human population continues to grow. Recently, our online behaviors have also come under examination.
The rise of AI has highlighted the substantial energy and water demands of digital technologies.
A 2026 report predicts that global AI usage, especially the data centers that support it, will produce CO2 emissions comparable to that of New York City within a year.
Moreover, estimates suggest that every 5 to 50 queries to ChatGPT requires 0.5 liters of water (about 1/10th of a gallon) to cool its servers.
The British Government Advisor from the Government Digital Sustainability Alliance warns that AI data centers pose a risk to global and national water security.
But how does AI usage contrast with other online activities, such as streaming movies or scrolling through social media?
Comparing one technology to another or one platform to another can be challenging, but some analysts have attempted to do so.
For instance, AI and tech writer Andy Masley calculated that the average ChatGPT query emits 0.28g of CO2. This is roughly equal to streaming video for 35 seconds, uploading nine photos to social media, or using a laptop for one minute.
It’s important to note that assessing the total environmental impact of AI is complicated due to the extensive resources needed for model training, making precise calculations challenging.
A simpler way to gauge the environmental costs of online activities is by examining the amount of data consumed at any given moment.
For example, reading a text post on LinkedIn utilizes less data than watching a video on TikTok. Similarly, a text query to an AI chatbot consumes much less data compared to generating an AI text-to-video request.
Cloud-based gaming is among the biggest online culprits, requiring gaming servers to operate continuously.
However, a 2025 report from the carbon accounting firm Greenly indicates that physical video games are 100 times more carbon-intensive than online streaming, due to the manufacturing of discs and packaging, product distribution, and their eventual disposal in landfills or incinerators.
This illustrates a broader truth: our offline activities typically have a significantly greater environmental impact than our online endeavors.
Another analysis from Greenly indicates that an annual subscription to Netflix (based on average viewing time) results in approximately 17 kg of CO2 emissions, roughly equivalent to a 60-mile trip in a gasoline vehicle.
A single flight from London to Berlin generates ten times more emissions per economy passenger. Additionally, consuming just one sirloin steak produces more carbon (20-30 kg depending on size) than a year’s worth of binge-watching Bridgerton.
In summary, if reducing your carbon footprint is a priority, while managing screen time is important, factors such as your purchases, dietary choices, and travel habits have a more significant impact.
This article addresses the question posed by Adeline Cliffe of Lisburn: “What is the worst thing you can do for the planet online?”
If you have any queries, please reach out to us at: questions@sciencefocus.com or send us a message Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram Page (please include your name and location).
Explore our ultimate fun facts and discover more amazing science pages.
Read more:
- We may be on the brink of an entire internet collapse, and we might only have a few months to stop it.
- ‘Our products are sometimes used to kill people’: Inside Palantir, the world’s most alarming AI company.
- How malevolent can AI become? Researchers are uncovering its darker possibilities.
Source: www.sciencefocus.com
