Avec le boom de l'IA et sans aucune mesure prise pour limiter cette pollution, ce chiffre pourrait atteindre 2,5 millions de tonnes en 2030, selon les chercheurs, soit l'équivalent de 13,3 milliards de smartphones jetés.
Par ailleurs, les serveurs informatiques et les puces nécessaires à l'IA impliquent l'utilisation de métaux rares, dont l'extraction intensive, notamment en Afrique, repose sur des procédés polluants, comme l'a noté l'Agence de la transition écologique (Ademe) en France.
environnement
Vous êtes ici
Aucune technologie n’est neutre ni inéluctable. Chacune se déploie dans un certain contexte économique et politique qui oriente les choix. Cela a toujours été le cas pour le numérique, depuis le début. L’extrême concentration d’acteurs et de moyens qui préside au déploiement des IAs génératives devrait aider à prendre conscience de cet état de fait. L’annonce récente de 500 milliards de dollars à consacrer au sujet donne la (dé)mesure de la chose. Je ne détaillerai pas les courants politiques et philosophiques qui circulent parmi les promoteurs des IAs. Certains acteurs affirment croire à l’avénement des IAs générales, comme résultat inéluctable de l’accumulation de moyens et de ressources. Que l’on fasse miroiter ces IAs capables de sauver le monde, ou qu’au contraire on annonce l’apocalypse, leur prise de pouvoir et la fin de l’humanité, on participe à détourner l’attention des dégâts déjà bien présents ici et maintenant.
Mais l’élargissement des autoroutes permettrait-il réellement d’atteindre l’objectif souhaité, à savoir réduire les embouteillages? La recherche nous a appris que non. En tant que professeurs et chercheurs dans le domaine des transports et de la mobilité actifs dans les universités suisses, nous souhaitons expliquer pourquoi dans les paragraphes qui suivent.
“One thing that occurs to me is the behavior of the tobacco companies denying the connection between smoking and lung cancer for the sake of profits, but this is an order of magnitude greater moral offence, in my opinion, because what is at stake is the fate of the planet, humanity, and the future of civilisation, not to be melodramatic.”
The reason you should boycott bottled water is because it enables a bullshit, backwards vision for society.
Boycotting bottled water means you support the idea that public access to clean, safe water is not only a basic human right, but that it’s a goddamn technological triumph worth protecting. It means you believe that ensuring public access to this resource is the only way to guarantee it will be around in a few more years.
Clean, safe drinking water that flows freely out of our faucets is a feat of engineering that humans have been been perfecting for two millennia. It is a cornerstone of civilization. It is what our cities are built upon. And over the years the scientists and hydrologists and technicians who help get water to our houses have also become our environmental stewards, our infrastructural watchdogs, our urban visionaries. Drinking the water these people supply to our homes is the best possible way to protect future access to water worldwide.
[...]
Giving up bottled water also means thinking long-term about preserving water security. You may have reservoirs near you brimming over with fresh rainfall right now, but the truth is that the amount of potable water on this planet is growing more scarce every year. The bottled water industry is one of the fastest-growing on the planet. Last year it made $100 billion, an amount that is expected to double within five years. Now consider the fact that it actually takes the equivalent of three bottles of water to make a single water bottle. Every swig from a plastic blob in the name of convenience moves us closer to a world without any clean water at all.
Because like I said before, it’s not about this drought—it’s about every future drought.
Nicholas Stern, an eminent climate economist at the London School of Economics, said: “This very important analysis shatters the myth that fossil fuels are cheap by showing just how huge their real costs are. There is no justification for these enormous subsidies for fossil fuels, which distort markets and damages economies, particularly in poorer countries.”
For residents of the United States — and indeed, the entire Northern Hemisphere — the impact of major ice loss from Antarctica could be dire. If Antarctica loses volumes of ice that would translate into major contributions to sea level rise, that rise would not be distributed evenly around the globe. The reason is the force of gravity. Antarctica is so massive that it pulls the ocean toward it, but if it loses ice, that gravitational pull will relax, and the ocean will slosh back toward the Northern Hemisphere — which will experience additional sea level rise.