Latest news with #environmental impact
South China Morning Post
6 days ago
- Business
- South China Morning Post
You are adding to carbon emissions with each question you ask AI
Feel strongly about these letters, or any other aspects of the news? Share your views by emailing us your Letter to the Editor at letters@ or filling in this Google form . Submissions should not exceed 400 words, and must include your full name and address, plus a phone number for verification Since the launch of ChatGPT in 2022, the global adoption of generative AI has surged, with daily active users reaching an estimated 115 million to 180 million this year. AI tools are now integral to day-to-day tasks like research and content creation. To support this demand, tech giants like Apple and Google have invested heavily in data centres, with Meta and Microsoft even exploring nuclear power options to meet AI's massive energy needs. This raises concerns about the environmental impact of artificial intelligence , particularly its contribution to carbon emissions. In the United States, around 3,000 data centres consumed about 200 terawatt-hours of electricity in 2024 – comparable to Thailand's annual usage. At least a quarter of that is estimated to have been used by AI-specific servers in those centres. By 2028, AI-specific electricity consumption is projected to rise to between 165 and 326 terawatt-hours yearly. Ironically, even asking AI how you can reduce your carbon footprint will add to emissions. While Hong Kong's Climate Action Plan 2050 acknowledges the issue and the government has proposed expanding the Buildings Energy Efficiency Ordinance to include high-consumption buildings like data centres, progress has been slow.
Forbes
21-07-2025
- Science
- Forbes
Phosphorus Depletion Is An Investment Opportunity
Phosphorus is integral to agriculture and human life. We can't grow any of our food without it. Of the phosphorus fertilizers applied, perhaps 20% ends up consumed in the final product. Large amounts will be lost to runoff, ending up in our water systems, causing general pollution and feeding harmful algal blooms. As CO2 levels rise, soil phosphorus becomes less available for certain key crops like paddy rice. This means more will have to be applied. If we have endless amounts of phosphorus then this isn't an issue, phosphorus can be applied as liberally as we like. We Have About 100 Years Of Phosphorus Left On Earth That will be a pretty hard limit when it's reached. It will be difficult to replace the source of phosphorus when the phosphate mines run out, so recapturing as much as possible is our best strategy. The reserves confirmed in Norway in 2023 have nearly doubled our known global supply, but this is still a finite resource. What's more, the mining isn't simple and clean; even with expanded reserves we all want clean air and water, which phosphate mining doesn't support. Strip mining always destroys the surface landscape and ecosystems which is bad, for sure; with mining phosphates we further release heavy metals and radioactive materials that add more risks. Florida and the Netherlands are not rushing to exploit their reserves because of the environmental impact of mining phosphates. In Florida, a large phosphate reserve sits on the Florida Aquifer which really exemplifies the problem. A river polluted by mud and waste dumped from the Kef Eddou mine, Tunisia. Footprints of animals ... More indicate that they graze in the area. Phosphate Mining pollutes waterways, leaving local residents and animals unable to drink the contaminated water. Prior to the Norway phosphate deposit discovery, 70% of the world's phosphate reserves were in Morocco and the Western Sahara. Some of the world recognizes this territory as Moroccan now, but there is still a war there, and the Polisario Front broke the ceasefire in 2020 after Moroccan provocation. Will these lucrative phosphate reserves lead to more resource driven conflict? Will Algeria seize the opportunity to support separatist forces and profit from the instability, as we so famously have seen nations do with critical minerals in Congo? Will parts of Norway look like Nauru, a formerly lush tropical paradise stripped of its phosphate rock, and now a barren, impoverished cautionary tale? A phosphate mining site in Nauru, 1997. Bacteria And Fungi Once phosphorus is applied to a field, it will be available to plants for a short time before reacting with other elements in the soil. There's a goldilocks phenomena with pH for phosphorus; if the soil is too acidic or too basic, the phosphorus will bind with other elements and become largely unavailable to the plants. A pH range of 6-7 is ideal for absorption. This shows the difficulty of handling other factors that could impact phosphorus use indirectly. Complicated problems will often require multifaceted solutions. Some bacteria and fungi make phosphorus in the soil available to plants. Phosphate solubilizing microorganisms (PSMs) are able to break down insoluble forms of phosphorus and make it available to plants as a form that can be easily absorbed. These phosphate-solubilizing microorganisms can reduce fertilizer use by half while producing the same, or higher, crop yields. There is a lack of standardization, and the scalability of this method will need attention. Do lingering questions about this biotechnology disqualify it? No, it means that this is an emerging technology with huge growth potential. This is the time to invest and research. Gene Editing If we can't add endless phosphates to soil, and if bacteria and fungi can only do so much, then why don't we make plants that are better at absorbing phosphorus? It's being worked on. The japonica variety of rice has been successfully gene-edited by Indian researchers to absorb 20% more phosphate, an advancement that will be applied to the indica variety; these are the two most popular types of rice is Asia. Given its role as a staple food for much of the world, without adapting rice to climate change we will need to use ever larger amounts of our limited phosphorus, or face food insecurity. If this sort of advancement can me made with rice, can gene editing be done to other staple crops to increase their absorptivity? Raising rice and ducks together has been shown to improve phosphorus absorption. Wastewater Recycling There are a few ways to go about this, but the basic idea is to remove phosphorus from wastewater and reuse it. Each individual discharges 2 grams of phosphorus, daily. Recovery can be done with thermal, biological or chemical means which have their respective pros and cons, but ultimately these processes can recover maybe 40-90+% of the otherwise wasted phosphorus. Different phosphorus recovery methods have their respective efficiencies and advantages. Several ... More could be presently adopted at scale. Phosphorus mining should be regarded as our last option after recovery and mitigation. With every finite good, we'll have to worry about scarcity and the associated price increases, and this is all while we have any phosphorus left to fight over. Investing in the infrastructure to recover phosphorus and beneficial microorganism cultivation are the superior, greener investment opportunities that are still largely untapped. When problems like the finite supply of phosphorus have been identified and publicized 100 years ago, how can we reasonably pretend to be unaware? Why, beyond collective failure of global political leadership, do we not have answers to questions that were asked back before the Great Depression? Having been aware of this phosphorus problem for a century, and with perhaps two centuries left before we're completely out, how much longer should we wait before mass adaptation of the solutions, even if they require substantial investment now? Why doesn't every wastewater facility apply some method of recapture?
Telegraph
18-07-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
We'll stop Nimbys from blocking nuclear power stations, say Tories
Nimbys will be stopped from blocking nuclear power stations in their area under Tory plans. The party wants to end the 'absurd' blocking of new nuclear sites through environmental impact assessments or regulations on habitats, and would make it impossible to challenge a new power station in court. The Tories have submitted amendments to the Government's Planning and Infrastructure Bill that would exempt nuclear power stations from being blocked or delayed on environmental grounds, to speed up energy production in the UK. They accused Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, of presiding over 'the highest prices for offshore wind in a decade' and called for more nuclear power to meet the UK's growing demand for electricity. The rule changes would see planning officers ignore all environmental considerations when building a new nuclear site, which is likely to anger locals and lead to public opposition. However, the party said it would also stop 'anti-growth activist groups from using lawfare to block or delay development and pushing up costs' by exempting the ministerial consent for new power stations from judicial review. Writing for The Telegraph, Claire Coutinho, the shadow energy secretary, said the new Hinkley Point C power station in Somerset is set to be the most expensive in history because of 'bureaucracy and rampant lawfarism'. '[There is] Endless lawfare, environmental paperwork, and legal challenges that do little to protect nature but create plenty of expensive work for planning consultants and pencil-pushing bureaucrats,' she said. 'Every single delay and absurd mitigation measure adds more cost.' The amendments would only become law with the support of Labour MPs, which is not expected to happen. Labour has previously said it will reform the same rules raised by the Conservatives, but will not exempt them from judicial review or all environmental assessments. In February, Downing Street pointed to a 30,000-page environmental assessment that Hinkley Point planners were required to produce to receive permission to build. The last new power station was constructed in the UK in 1995, and while domestic demand for electricity has grown many renewable energy sources are not expected to start producing power until the next decade. Responding to the Conservative proposal, Sam Richards, chief executive of pro-growth campaign group Britain Remade, said the UK had the 'worst of both worlds' with a planning system that does not protect nature and slows down infrastructure projects. 'These amendments are radical, but the status quo where safe, clean nuclear power projects are delayed and made more expensive due to repeated legal challenges and poorly drafted environmental legislation is intolerable,' he said. 'Nuclear power isn't just safe, it is also low carbon. It also has the smallest land footprint of any form of energy. Without nuclear power we have to turn to sources that take up more land and impact nature more.' No more fish discos – cheap, reliable energy must come first By Claire Coutinho It's no secret that I'm a fan of nuclear power. In government, the Conservatives ended a 30-year moratorium on new nuclear, with two new plants consented, a third agreed and a fleet of next-generation smaller reactors on the way. While Labour is paying lip-service to continuing that work, they have downgraded our ambitions by scrapping our 24GW target, the third nuclear plant I had agreed on Anglesey in Wales, and downgrading our ambitions for our small modular reactor programme. This is because Ed Miliband's ideological obsession with wind and solar farms has made him blind to their soaring costs and the challenges they pose for our beautiful but small islands. This is an enormous mistake. It's time to double down on nuclear, not scale it back. Nuclear can provide us with the stable, reliable, 24/7 power that we need if we want to have a prosperous nation and support new energy hungry industries like AI. Only nuclear gives us a secure supply chain that can give us real energy independence, without having to import more and more solar panels, batteries and critical minerals from coal-powered China. And crucially it is better for nature, using less than 0.1 per cent of the land required by wind and solar farms. Choosing a nuclear future is our best chance at protecting the glorious British countryside we all love – and it produces zero emissions to boot. We need to bring costs down The one problem? We need to bring costs down. Hinkley Point C is set to be the most expensive nuclear power station in history. Not because of the technology – Hinkley C is almost 70 per cent more expensive than a project building the very same safe reactor design in Finland. It is, in part, because of our own bureaucracy and rampant lawfarism. Endless lawfare, environmental paperwork, and legal challenges that do little to protect nature but create plenty of expensive work for planning consultants and pencil-pushing bureaucrats. Every single delay and absurd mitigation measure adds more cost. The prime example is the 'fish disco' at Hinkley – where EDF has spent eight years negotiating the installation of 288 underwater loudspeakers, at the cost of millions of pounds, to prevent one fishing trawler's worth of fish from swimming into their water pipes. Today, we are putting a stop to that. We have tabled radical amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to stop a system which puts its addiction to paperwork above the national interest and our need for cheap, reliable energy. No more environmental impact assessments 30 times longer than the complete works of Shakespeare. No more pointless, gold-plated fish discos. No more bogus judicial reviews from anti-growth activist groups who just want to kill off the infrastructure that is critical to our national and energy security. I have every sympathy with those who truly want to protect nature. I believe, as does Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, that our love of our natural world sits deep in our national soul. But this self-defeating, sclerotic system is nature's own worst enemy. In making it impossible to build cheap nuclear on a small number of sites, we will just end up building thousands upon thousands of wind turbines and solar farms in every corner of the country. Nuclear produces, by far, more power per acre than any other source of energy. This could not be more important on a small island like ours. Dr John Constable of the Renewable Energy Foundation has calculated that wind and solar farms use up to 3,000 times more land than nuclear to produce the same amount of energy. Abundant nuclear is not a pipe dream In some areas, up to 8 per cent of all land is already covered by solar farm applications – and this is only going to soar as Ed Miliband's targets mean building more than ever before, faster than ever before. Cheap, abundant nuclear is not a pipe dream. Some of the cheapest and cleanest electricity in Europe can be found in France, Finland and Sweden and all of them rely on nuclear for baseload. As ever, it is the green anti-growthers who are shooting themselves in the foot by opposing the only form of cheap, reliable, secure, clean energy. It's no secret the West is in trouble – post-Covid debt, challenging demographics and stagnating growth are putting pressure on governments of all colours. But in nuclear power, Britain has a ready-made escape plan. We just need politicians brave enough to change the law to allow us to carry it through. Britain is in touching distance of a new era of prosperity. With cheap, abundant, reliable nuclear energy, we could end the poverty mindset that says British consumers should rearrange their lives to suit an energy system that depends on the weather. We could take the brakes off new energy hungry data centres and even, dare I say, let people have air conditioning.
Yahoo
12-07-2025
- Yahoo
Builder faces prison sentence after committing illicit act to improve view: 'It was my castle'
Australia's 7News reported that a builder is facing up to 10 years in prison after pleading guilty to illegally destroying historic shacks on the Fleurieu Peninsula in South Australia. "They were on Crown land not his," said Shelly Pomtiak, one of the shack owners. Families were heartbroken after their historic holiday homes were destroyed illegally and without warning by George Lavrentiadis. The two shacks were built on the coast in 1934 and had been maintained by the Robertson family of South Australia for almost 60 years. Another shack that was owned by eight people was also destroyed. Lavrentiadis explained that Julian Johnston, a realtor from Miami, paid him $5,000 to clear the land so he could have a better view for the $2 million home he has plans to build on an adjacent plot of land. Johnston has denied any involvement and has not been charged. The owners of the shacks said that to rebuild the dwellings to current standards would cost significantly more and that what they lost was irreplaceable. In addition to having destroyed the historical homes, building a mansion on the adjacent land can have significant environmental impacts on the natural landscape. Fragile natural areas can be destroyed, which would disrupt the balance of the ecosystem. It is important for construction projects to include plans for offsetting the environmental impacts of the construction process. It seems the process of destroying the South Australian shacks wasn't thought out much at all. Lavrentiadis said that he should have checked to see if leveling the homes was against the law, but that he didn't because Johnston, whom he said hired him to do so, spoke with confidence, so he didn't question the legality of the demolition. Lavrentiadis apologized for demolishing the shacks, but that does not bring the historical homes back. "The shacks had to go because he didn't like the look of them," said Pomtiak. Barry Robertson, the owner of one shack, said that "it was much more than a shack. It was my castle." Do you think America is in a housing crisis? Definitely Not sure No way Only in some cities Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
