Cited by 25Ethics and Social Impacts of AIArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationInnovation, Sustainability, Human-Machine Systems

Climate Change and Health: The next Challenge of Ethical AI

Open access
Fiske, Amelia, Radhuber, Isabella M, Willem, Theresa, Buyx, Alena, Celi, Leo Anthony, McLennan, Stuart·2025·The Lancet Global Health

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is one of the world's most resource-intensive digital technologies, but the environmental impact of AI on health remains largely unaddressed in both global health and bioethics. Effects on the environment have, thus far, been understood as a subsidiary consideration in AI ethics and rarely considered as a key ethical concern. AI technologies exacerbate climate change and sociopolitical instability due to their intensive use of natural resources and energy resources linked to the training and deployment of algorithmic systems. In global health, this intensive resource use is particularly concerning, given the explicit emphasis on improving health and advancing equity across the world. To address this, we interrogate how the inclusion of AI's environmental impact necessarily reshapes established ethical commitments in AI ethics frameworks and propose concrete strategies for accountability in the area of global health. This approach includes building a culture of intentional AI, for example through improved reporting, auditing, and intranational cooperation, in order to better align AI development and AI ethics with critical climate goals.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s2214-109x(25)00124-x

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • SHAP values can rank the importance of different clinical factors and show whether a prognosis was driven primarily by tumor size, patient age, or biomarker status.

    “For tabular data, SHAP values can rank the importance of different clinical factors and show whether a prognosis was driven primarily by tumor size, patient age, or biomarker status [162,163,164,165].”
  • Training a single large language model generates emissions equivalent to approximately 300,000 kg of CO2, which is roughly five times the lifetime emissions of an average automobile.

    “Training a single large language model generates emissions equivalent to approximately 300,000 kg of CO2, which is roughly five times the lifetime emissions of an average automobile [165,166].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 28 · Cited by 25

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Keller R. Geographies or power, legacies of mistrust: colonial medicine in the global present. Hist Geogr 2006; 34: 26-48.
  2. Crawford K. Atlas of AI: the real worlds of artificial intelligence. Yale University Press, 2021.
  3. Couldry N, Mejias U. Data grab: the new colonialism of Big Tech and how to fight back. University Of Chicago Press, 2024.
  4. Schwartz R, Dodge J, Smith NA, Etzioni O. Green AI. Commun ACM 2020; 63: 54-63.
  5. Mitchell M, Wu S, Zaldivar A, et al. Model cards for model reporting. Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. FAccT '19; Jan 29-31, 2019.
  6. Henderson P, Hu J, Romoff J, Brunskill E, Jurafsky D, Pineau J. Towards the systematic reporting of the energy and carbon footprints of machine learning. J Mach Learn Res 2020; 21: 1-43.

Authors
Fiske, A., Radhuber, I. M., Willem, T., Buyx, A., Celi, L. A., & McLennan, S.
Affiliations
  • Technical University of Munich (DE)
  • University of Vienna (AT)
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Fiske, Amelia
Venue
The Lancet Global Health
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2025-07
Volume
13
Issue
7
Pages
e1314-e1320
ISSN
2214-109X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4411636419
Cited by
25
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 5
FWCI
3.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet Global Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • IIASA PURE (International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (ITEST 2148451)
  • National Institutes of Health (R01 EB017205, U54 TW012043\u201301, Bridge2AI OT2OD032701)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Innovation, Sustainability, Human-Machine Systems
Keywords
AI ethics, environmental impact of AI, climate change, global health, bioethics, energy consumption, accountability, auditing, reporting, equity, socio-political instability
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Global Health, Climate Change

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review