In a recent LinkedIn post, Thomas Lingard explores the complex and often contradictory relationship between artificial intelligence (AI) and the planet’s health, emphasizing that AI’s impact is determined by human choices rather than its inherent nature.
Lingard begins by framing AI’s environmental consequences as a matter of application and intent, stating:
“The honest answer is that it depends entirely on what we choose to do with it.”
He reflects on Google’s recent “AI for the Planet” event during London Climate Action Week, where he observed a range of AI applications demonstrating potential benefits for environmental sustainability. These include balancing renewable energy grids, forecasting energy demand, aiding vulnerable communities with natural disaster prediction, improving agricultural practices, and monitoring biodiversity.
The Dual Nature of AI Applications
Lingard highlights that while AI offers powerful tools for environmental good, its own operational footprint cannot be ignored. He points out the significant energy and water demands of data centers, along with the environmental and social costs associated with the extraction of critical minerals used in AI hardware. This leads to a crucial observation:
“It’s important to remember that a tool that removes emissions and other impacts from one column can quietly add them to another.”
This duality underscores the need for a balanced perspective, acknowledging both the potential advantages and the inherent challenges associated with scaling AI technologies.
Governance Over Engineering: The Critical Missing Piece
A key point Lingard raises is the potential for AI to optimize processes that are detrimental to decarbonization efforts. He notes the absence of discussion at the Google event regarding how AI’s optimization capabilities could also be applied to enhance fossil fuel exploration and extraction, making these activities faster and cheaper.
According to Lingard, technology itself is neutral; it amplifies societal objectives. He elaborates on this by stating:
“Technology is not inherently aligned with decarbonisation; it amplifies whatever objective society points it at – whether that’s the decarbonisation of the global economy, military supremacy over adversaries, or short term economic growth at any societal cost.”
This perspective emphasizes that technological advancement alone does not guarantee positive environmental outcomes. The direction and purpose society assigns to these tools are paramount.
The Centrality of Governance
Lingard argues that the governance of AI is as critical as its engineering. He suggests that simply because AI *could* be beneficial for the planet does not mean it *will* be. This necessitates proactive policy-making and ethical considerations to steer AI development towards sustainable goals.
He further mentions the work being done at the Centre for Future Generations (CFG) through its Tech and the Planet programme, which is directly examining issues such as the energy and water demands of tech infrastructure and the complexities of critical mineral supply chains, particularly concerning their impact on affected communities.
In conclusion, Lingard posits that AI’s ultimate impact on the climate is not predetermined. He asserts:
“AI will not be good or bad for the climate on its own. We will decide — through the incentives we set, the transparency we demand, and the policy frameworks we build.”
His analysis serves as a call to action, urging society to actively shape the deployment of AI to ensure it contributes to a healthier planet, rather than exacerbating environmental challenges.
📝 About This Content
This article is based on insights shared by Thomas Lingard on LinkedIn.
📅 Originally posted on June 25, 2026 | View original post on LinkedIn →