When AI Meets Climate Artificial Intelligence (AI) stands as a beacon of innovation, offering transformative advances across almost every sector. But as AI becomes more powerful and more pervasive, it brings with it a growing dilemma: its hunger for energy.

According to the IMF and other global observers, AI is becoming an increasingly large contributor to energy demand, driven by massive data centres, high-intensity model training, and real-time inference at scale. The question is no longer whether AI will impact the climate, it's how we ensure it helps rather than harms.

Training a single large language model can consume as much energy as a small town uses in a week. As deployment scales across healthcare, finance, manufacturing and government, global data centre energy demand is expected to more than double by 2030.

This growth is unsustainable without significant changes to infrastructure, regulation, and design philosophy. Ironically, some of the most promising use cases for AI are in making other systems more energy-efficient:

• Smart energy grids using AI for demand forecasting and renewable energy balancing
• Building automation systems that optimise lighting, heating and cooling in real time
• AI-enhanced chip design reducing the energy footprint of next-generation hardware
• AI for battery management, as with Apple's new AI-powered system in iOS 19, which extends battery life by intelligently learning user behaviour

We're also seeing innovations in neuromorphic computing and event-driven AI models (e.g. the Spiking Neural Network) which consume drastically less energy than traditional deep learning models, in some cases, approaching the efficiency of biological systems.

In these scenarios, AI doesn't just "offset" its own footprint. It could eliminate meaningful power usage altogether, particularly when deployed on-device or in ultra-low-power environments like edge IoT.

So, should AI have an energy label? Yes, and urgently. Consumers now expect energy ratings on fridges, washing machines and televisions. Shouldn't we expect the same transparency for AI? Imagine an AI system with an Energy Impact Rating, clearly indicating:

• Model training cost in kWh
• Inference energy per user session
• Hosting efficiency (green hosting or fossil-based?

This would:

• Help customers and businesses choose responsibly
• Push vendors to optimise for energy as well as performance
• Allow regulators to set efficiency standards for AI

For AI to continue driving economic growth without derailing net-zero targets, we need a shared response:

• Policymakers must create incentives for energy-efficient model design and deployment.
• Companies should disclose the energy use of their AI systems, not just the outcomes.
• Developers must bake energy constraints into their system design from day one.
• Investors should ask not only, "What can this model do?" but "What does it cost the planet to do it?"

AI won't magically reach a zero-carbon footprint. But if we pair it with smart legislation, innovative engineering, and greater public transparency, it can become one of the greatest climate tools we have. The question is: will we demand it?