IT Sustainability Think Tank: AI infrastructure, shared responsibility and the real cost of progress | Computer Weekly

"Artificial intelligence (AI) is no longer a future-state conversation. It is here, embedded across enterprise systems, cloud platforms, security tooling, analytics engines and decision-making frameworks. The pace of adoption has been extraordinary, and so is the scale and intensity of the infrastructure required to power it. Against this backdrop, Microsoft's recent call for a "community-first" approach to AI infrastructure is both timely and necessary."

"Hyperscalers undeniably sit at the centre of this issue. They design, build and operate the datacentres that underpin AI services at scale. They benefit commercially from demand growth, and they are best placed to invest in efficiency, renewable energy sourcing and infrastructure innovation. However, framing the challenge purely as "big tech must pay" risks oversimplifying a far more complex ecosystem."

"Grid upgrades, transmission capacity, resilience planning and peak demand management are not abstract concerns. They affect local communities, national infrastructure and public energy systems. Expecting hyperscalers to absorb the full societal cost alone may feel morally appealing, but in practice it is unlikely to be sustainable or equitable. A public-private cost-sharing model that is transparently structured and outcomes- driven feels more realistic."

AI adoption has accelerated, embedding AI across enterprise systems, cloud platforms, security tooling, analytics engines and decision-making frameworks. The resulting infrastructure scale and intensity drives substantial energy and environmental costs that cannot be indefinitely externalised. Hyperscalers design, build and operate the datacentres powering AI and are commercially positioned to invest in efficiency, renewable sourcing and infrastructure innovation. Grid upgrades, transmission capacity, resilience planning and peak demand management create societal impacts affecting local communities and national energy systems. A transparently structured, outcome-driven public-private cost-sharing model is a more realistic and equitable way to allocate responsibility, and consuming enterprises must recognise their role in driving demand. Accountability mechanisms will determine how costs and responsibilities are distributed and managed.

Read at ComputerWeekly.com