A cheat sheet for why using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment
Here’s a detailed summary of Andy Masley’s post “Why using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment – a cheat sheet”, which distils his core arguments, data points, and rhetorical strategies:
Masley’s central claim is clear: using ChatGPT (or other LLM chatbots) has a negligible environmental impact, especially compared to meaningful climate concerns. Calls to limit individual chatbot use for climate reasons are a harmful distraction.
- 3 Wh per prompt is a conservative estimate (upper bound).
- Equivalent to:
- 3 minutes of a laptop
- 30 seconds of a microwave
- 1 minute of console gaming
- $0.00051 per prompt (Washington DC rates) – almost imperceptible.
- Masley compares this to buying a gum ball to illustrate absurdity: reducing ChatGPT use to cut emissions is like skipping a monthly penny purchase to save money.
- ChatGPT uses 10–25 mL of water per prompt (training + usage + cooling).
- The average American uses 160 gallons per day (60 from electricity, 100 directly).
- “50 ChatGPT prompts = 1 water bottle” sounds shocking until compared to 1200+ bottles used daily through other activities.
- ChatGPT is ~10× more energy intensive than a Google search.
- But both round to zero in terms of climate impact.
- Like comparing a digital clock (1W) to a watch (1µW) – the difference is vast in percentage, but trivial in practice.
- Skipping one shower second = enough water for 40 ChatGPT prompts.
- One drying cycle = energy of 1000 goofy ChatGPT prompts.
- The scale of these comparisons is key: ChatGPT's usage doesn’t register meaningfully on individual or collective energy footprints.
- Chatbots = only 1–3% of AI's total energy use.
- Main energy hogs: recommender systems, predictive analytics, search and ads, computer vision, and voice AI.
- ChatGPT’s total energy use ≈ 20,000 US households — small when compared with:
- YouTube (2 million households),
- Fortnite (400,000),
- Microwaves used 10 seconds less per day globally = same energy saving.
- Critics say “If everyone used ChatGPT, emissions would rise!” — but this logic applies to anything.
- Global use ≠ a valid reason to criticise personal use unless it’s a large slice of total emissions — ChatGPT isn’t.
- Training GPT-4 used ~50 GWh — seems large, but spread across 50B+ prompts, it’s ~1 Wh per prompt.
- Embodied emissions of hardware (chips, data centres) ≈ 22% of lifecycle emissions — increasing per-prompt cost from 3 Wh to ~4 Wh.
- But again, other devices (e.g., LED bulbs) have high embodied emissions rarely counted in similar debates.
- Microwave metaphor: trimming a meal by 10s = 2 ChatGPT prompts.
- Budget metaphor: spending time worrying about prompts is like budgeting by cutting 1p per month.
- Dot visuals: one ChatGPT energy dot in a field of global energy dots = statistically invisible.
- “But it emits at all!” – Everything does. What matters is how much.
- “But Google is better anyway” – That’s a separate debate.
- “It’s still guesswork” – True, but so are the claims that it’s environmentally harmful. The best guesses say it’s minimal.
- “This is whataboutism” – Not if the point is choosing effective climate actions.
Masley suggests we stop wasting activist energy on irrelevant targets and instead:
- Fly less, eat less meat, buy green electricity, advocate for system-level change.
- Focus on total emissions, not small relative increases in otherwise negligible areas.
- The disproportionate backlash against ChatGPT’s environmental footprint likely stems from a general cultural unease about AI, not the actual numbers.
- He compares the scolding over ChatGPT to randomly attacking a particular phone game (“Wizard Clash 7”) for no reason other than cultural bias.
Masley is not anti-science. He presents himself as:
- A physics graduate and former teacher,
- Someone who’s deeply climate-conscious (vegan, doesn’t fly, walks to work),
- Concerned with rigour, perspective, and effective climate action.
Using ChatGPT is not bad for the environment. The numbers simply do not support the guilt. The climate movement should stay focused on what truly matters — not get sidetracked by symbolic but insignificant issues.