Cited by 121Green IT and SustainabilityEnergy Efficiency in ComputingEnvironmental Impact and Sustainability

Environmental impact and net-zero pathways for sustainable artificial intelligence servers in the USA

Open access
Xiao, Tianqi, Nerini, Francesco Fuso, Matthews, H. Damon, Tavoni, Massimo, You, Fengqi·2025·Nature Sustainability

Abstract

The rapidly increasing demand for generative artificial intelligence (AI) models requires extensive server installation with sustainability implications in terms of the compound energy–water–climate impacts. Here we show that the deployment of AI servers across the United States could generate an annual water footprint ranging from 731 to 1,125 million m3 and additional annual carbon emissions from 24 to 44 Mt CO2-equivalent between 2024 and 2030, depending on the scale of expansion. Other factors, such as industry efficiency initiatives, grid decarbonization rates and the spatial distribution of server locations within the United States, drive deep uncertainties in the estimated water and carbon footprints. We show that the AI server industry is unlikely to meet its net-zero aspirations by 2030 without substantial reliance on highly uncertain carbon offset and water restoration mechanisms. Although best practices may reduce emissions and water footprints by up to 73% and 86%, respectively, their effectiveness is constrained by current energy infrastructure limitations. These findings underscore the urgency of accelerating the energy transition and point to the need for AI companies to harness the clean energy potential of Midwestern states. Coordinating efforts of private actors and regulatory interventions would ensure the competitive and sustainable development of the AI sector. The rapid expansion of AI server installations in the United States poses sustainability challenges in terms of water usage and carbon emissions. A study now quantifies these potential impacts and outlines coordinated mitigation strategies for the AI sector to achieve net-zero.

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 · 10.1038/s41893-025-01681-y

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Scenario-based modeling identifies that without coordinated efficiency improvements and regional planning, AI-driven data center growth has the potential to exacerbate water stress in already constrained watersheds.

    “Scenario-based modeling identifies that without coordinated efficiency improvements and regional planning, AI-driven data center growth has the potential to exacerbate water stress in already constrained watersheds [26].”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Jeon, M. et al. Analysis of large-scale multi-tenant GPU clusters for DNN training workloads. In 2019 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC 19), 947-960 (2019). https://www.usenix. org/conference/atc19/presentation/jeon
  2. Weng, Q. et al. Beware of Fragmentation: scheduling GPU-sharing workloads with fragmentation gradient descent. In 2023 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC 23), 995-1008 (2023). https://www.usenix.org/conference/atc23/presentation/weng
  3. Hu, Q. et al. Characterization of large language model development in the datacenter. In 21st USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 24), 709-729 (2024). https://www.usenix.org/conference/nsdi24/ presentation/hu Analysis https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-025-01681-y
  4. Worldwide Quarterly AI Infrastructure Tracker (IDC, 2024); https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=IDC_P37251
  5. Kung, F. See Generative AI's Impact on the AI Server Market to 2025 (TrendForce, 2024); https://files.futurememorystorage. com/proceedings/2024/20240808_BMKT-301-1_KUNG.pdf
  6. Wu, C.-J. et al. Sustainable AI: environmental implications, challenges and opportunities. Proc. Mach. Learn. Syst. 4, 795-813 (2022).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Xiao, T., Nerini, F. F., Matthews, H. D., Tavoni, M., & You, F.
Affiliations
  • Cornell University (US)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Concordia University (CA)
  • RFF-CMCC European Institute on Economics and the Environment (IT)
Corresponding author
You, Fengqi
Venue
Nature Sustainability
Published
2025-11-10
Volume
8
Issue
12
Pages
1541-1553
ISSN
2398-9629 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4416067151
Cited by
121
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 117 · 2025: 4
FWCI
26.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Sustainability (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Virtual Community of Pathological Anatomy (University of Castilla La Mancha) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
National Science Foundation (1643244)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Green IT and Sustainability
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Hardware and Architecture › Energy Efficiency in Computing
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
Keywords
generative AI, water footprint, CO2 emissions, net-zero pathways, grid decarbonization, carbon offsetting, water restoration, energy transition, United States, AI sustainability

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