AI and the Environment: Responsibility Over Panic.

I recently came across some numbers that made me pause. 

A single ChatGPT prompt can produce around 2–6 grams of carbon dioxide. 

A Gemini query? Something like 0.03 grams. 

A Perplexity search? Roughly 4 grams.

So does that mean AI is bad for the environment?

Yes. 

Anything that runs on massive computers 24/7 is going to leave a footprint. But does that mean we should shut it all down?

No. Definitely not.

To put this into perspective: a 10-minute hot shower emits around 600 grams of CO₂. That’s the carbon equivalent of a hundred ChatGPT prompts, maybe more.

Now, none of this is scientific research. These are just ballpark numbers I’ve come across and my own reflections. This is not something I'm presenting as factual or final. But even with rough estimates, the comparison matters.

Because here’s the thing: some forms of carbon emissions are necessities. A hot shower, for example, can be a necessity. AI? Not always a need. So, yes, we should be more mindful about how often we use it.

But AI use shouldn’t be shamed either. I’ve seen people learn incredibly well because of AI. There are students who finally understand a concept that felt impossible before and people do gain confidence and clarity. But of course, some people misuse it. Some rely on it to do even the most basic things. And that’s where the criticism comes from: “AI kills creativity”, “AI is making us dumber”, “kids rely on it for everything.” Sure. Those criticisms aren’t completely baseless.

But does that make AI the villain? I don't think so.

Instead of blaming the tool, we should be teaching people how to use it responsibly, ethically, sustainably, and intelligently. We don’t say “calculators killed mathematics.” We don’t say “Google killed curiosity.” We learned to integrate them into our lives without letting them replace our thinking.

It’s the same with AI.

AI will always have an environmental footprint, just like anything that uses energy. The real question is: can we use it in ways that justify that footprint? Can we build greener models, better infrastructure, more efficient systems?

Absolutely yes.

And can we reverse the dependency and use AI as a tool that supports human reasoning, instead of replacing it?

100% yes.

Just like a calculator can’t replace a mathematician, an AI tool can’t replace a human being. And it shouldn't try to.