AI: Peak Demand and Peak Supply Postponed (fossil future)

From MasterResource

By Robert Bradley Jr.

“Absent [climate] policy steering [intervention], AI’s modeled effects increase the carbon intensity of the global economy and reinforce fossil fuel incumbency—outcomes that current analytical and governance frameworks do not fully capture.” (Nature Portfolio, below)

Age-old fears of declining fossil fuel supply and falling demand have, once again, been upended by the engines of progress. The anti-CO2 crusade, futile and wasteful, has been set back again. Tsvetana Paraskova’s “AI Could Make Big Oil Even Bigger” (OilPrice.com: August 18, 2026) gives the supply-side story:

AI could strengthen fossil fuels, with oil and gas productivity gains potentially outweighing emissions savings from renewables.

  • AI could create nearly $500 billion in value for E&P companies by 2030 through lower costs and higher production.
  • Exxon and Chevron are already deploying AI in exploration, potentially uncovering new drilling opportunities and accelerating development.

“Arguably, a fundamental change in the energy system may not come from surging power demand,” she writes, “but from the efficiencies and productivity gains AI will help energy companies achieve, according to a new paper published in the journal npj Climate Action by co-authors, some of whom have worked for Microsoft and its sustainability initiatives.” (“npj” stands for “Nature Partner Journal.”)

The abstract of “AI-driven Productivity Gains Enable More CO Emissions than They Avoid in a Global Energy–economy Model” (Nature Portfolio: August 5, 2026) follows:

The net climate impacts of artificial intelligence (AI) depend largely on how its applications propagate through competing energy pathways. Predominant analyses examine the relationship between datacenter energy demand, renewables optimization, and demand-side efficiencies, but insufficiently address how AI also reshapes fossil fuel supply economics.

We instead model AI as a bidirectional productivity amplifier in a global computable general equilibrium model, quantifying both enabled emissions from fossil fuel productivity gains and avoided emissions from renewables productivity gains. Under parallel adoption scenarios, net annual CO₂ emissions increase by 0.47–1.8 gigatonnes (1.2–4.8% of 2024 global energy-related CO₂ emissions).

Enabled emissions exceed avoided emissions whenever fossil-sector gains are nonzero; net emissions reductions require renewables gains 4–5× greater than fossil fuel gains. Absent policy steering, AI’s modeled effects increase the carbon intensity of the global economy and reinforce fossil fuel incumbency—outcomes that current analytical and governance frameworks do not fully capture.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
4.7 7 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
16 Comments
August 24, 2026 2:17 pm

????????? SIMPLY AMAZING!! I’ve never a word salad this large before!!!

Reply to  drhealy
August 24, 2026 2:39 pm

Yes, and the above article’s very last paragraph is just exceptional in this regard!

Anybody out there able to translate it to useful English?

John Hultquist
Reply to  ToldYouSo
August 24, 2026 4:21 pm

Absent policy steering …”
Transition of the U.N. to a tyrannical world government will solve the issue. What’s the issue? “Enabled emissions exceed …” … means the demon-witch molecule continues to be produced and must be eliminated..

Reply to  John Hultquist
August 24, 2026 4:29 pm

“Enabled emissions”? Would that be in comparison to say, “disabled emissions” which, of course, might be subject to ADA limitations?

Then too, everyone knows just how well “policy steering” works in the USA . . . just look at our national debt!

Tom Johnson
Reply to  ToldYouSo
August 24, 2026 4:48 pm

In English it means “I don’t know a damn thing about AI, but I know it’s all really bad”.

Reply to  ToldYouSo
August 24, 2026 8:18 pm

Maybe that last paragraph was written by an AI agent. In any event, it won’t win a Pulitzer Prize for prose.

oeman50
Reply to  drhealy
August 25, 2026 6:45 am

Good one.

“a bidirectional productivity amplifier in a global computable general equilibrium model”

Whew! Do you want thousand island or bleu cheese with that?

August 24, 2026 2:19 pm

“Absent policy steering, AI’s modeled effects increase the carbon intensity of the global economy and reinforce fossil fuel incumbency…”

So we’re better off with no “policy steering” against emissions anyway, right?

There.

Nick Stokes
August 24, 2026 2:30 pm

“We instead model AI as a bidirectional productivity amplifier in a global computable general equilibrium model…”

Convinced?

Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 24, 2026 3:30 pm

Totally, absolutely.. ??? 😉

Leon de Boer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
August 25, 2026 7:16 am

No one cares if you are convinced your a retired grifter who seems to want to have a view on stuff you know less than nothing about.

FACT companies are making massive productivity increases and profits from the use of AI which is why the market is being driven.

My suggestion is you actually get a trial account and run some of your website junk and thoughts into it and ask it for analysis and build you a webpage with the result. You will likely be shocked with what it does and at the very least your website might look much improved.

August 24, 2026 2:32 pm

I’m sure that any day—yes, any day now— some less-than-genius will ask one of several big AIs how to build an inherently safe and reliable, practical, manufacturable, low total delivered- and life cycle-cost nuclear reactor that has better than 50% efficiency in converting MWt to MWe and doesn’t have any dangerous, highly radioactive byproduct in its spent nuclear fuel.

After all, I understand it’s just a matter of correct phrasing of the question that one puts to an AI bot so as to get a good answer, right?

August 24, 2026 3:35 pm

“require renewables gains 4–5× greater than fossil fuel gains.”

That is going to require one heck of a lot of fossil fuels and toxic chemicals.

And environmental devastation.

Reply to  bnice2000
August 25, 2026 8:52 am

What is/are the metric(s)—that is, the units—for evaluating “gains” from fuels?

Is it $ per kWh-used, or $ per kWh-avoided?
Is it quality of life per kWh?
Or maybe hours-of-convenience per kWh?
Or perhaps lives saved per KWh?
Maybe weight gained per capita for a given nation based on terawatt-equivalent (or should it be just joules) of energy circulating per year in any give nation?

“If you can’t define something you have no formal rational way of knowing that it exists. Neither can you really tell anyone else what it is. There is, in fact, no formal difference between inability to define and stupidity.”

― Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  ToldYouSo
August 25, 2026 2:14 pm

Applies also to optimum climate.

August 26, 2026 4:00 am

Still playing their game. “Emissions” DON’T MATTER. CO2 DOESN’T MATTER.

CO2 is NOT the, or even A, “climate control knob.”

Atmospheric CO2 levels are inconsequential to the Earth’s climate. Unless they have an explanation for the GLACIATION that occurred with roughly TEN TIMES the current amount.