AI or social media, which is really draining more water and energy?

AI or social media, which is really draining more water and energy?

Scroll through Instagram or TikTok right now and you’ll see it instantly: AI-generated caricatures, stylised portraits, and personality avatars everywhere. Some people are loving it. Others are deeply uncomfortable.

And right on cue, the backlash has followed, not just about privacy or jobs, but about the planet.

AI, critics argue, is an environmental monster. It guzzles electricity, drains water, and quietly worsens the climate crisis. But here’s the twist: when you actually look at the numbers, our everyday social media habits may be doing more damage than the AI tools we love to blame.

Why AI has become the new environmental villain

Artificial intelligence tends to split people into two camps. There are those who see it as a threat to jobs, creativity and now the environment and those who say resistance is pointless and adaptation is key.

Environmentalists have added weight to the sceptics’ argument. According to the International Energy Agency, a single prompt to a generative AI model uses about ten times more electricity than a standard Google search. In real terms, that’s roughly 3 watt-hours per query.

Then there’s water. The UN Environment Programme estimates that global AI demand could use between 4.2 and 6.6 billion cubic metres of water by 2027, mainly to cool the massive data centres that keep these systems running.

Those figures sound alarming and they are, but they don’t always reflect how AI is actually used by individuals.

The water myth around AI prompts

Early headlines suggested that each AI query used litres of water per person. More recent breakdowns paint a more measured picture.

Data centres use around 500 millilitres of water for every 300 AI queries. When you factor in electricity generation and cooling across the system, a single ChatGPT-style query works out to roughly 30 millilitres of water.

That’s not nothing, but it’s far from catastrophic at an individual level.

Social media’s quiet environmental cost

While AI is under intense scrutiny, social media’s footprint has largely flown under the radar even though it’s enormous.

Research cited by Digital Camera World estimates that the average person generates around 24 tonnes of CO₂ emissions per year simply through everyday online behaviour like scrolling, sharing and liking.

Video-heavy platforms are the biggest culprits. TikTok alone is estimated to generate about 30.7 billion kilograms of carbon emissions annually, followed closely by Facebook at 27.5 billion kilograms.

And the water use is just as eye-opening. A Greenspector report found that spending one minute on TikTok uses around 0.27 litres of water and nearly two square metres of land to support the server infrastructure behind the app.

That endless doomscroll? It’s not just frying your brain it’s quietly straining the planet.

AI vs your For You Page

Put side by side, the comparison becomes uncomfortable:

Energy:
One AI query using about 3 watt-hours is roughly equivalent to uploading 30 photos to social media or watching television for three minutes.

Water:
A single AI query uses about 30 ml of water. One hour on social media consumes an estimated 430 ml.

Scale:
ChatGPT’s total energy use is comparable to around 20,000 US households. YouTube, by contrast, uses as much energy as roughly one million households.

The takeaway? Casual AI use doesn’t currently compete with the environmental toll of heavy social media consumption.

Why both rely on the same dirty backbone

At the heart of both AI and social media is the same infrastructure: data centres.

These facilities demand massive amounts of electricity and water. Ireland, one of the world’s major data centre hubs, already sees these facilities consuming 17% of the country’s total electricity a figure expected to double by 2026.

The United Nations also warns that the environmental cost starts long before an app is opened. Manufacturing a single 2kg computer requires around 800kg of raw materials, meaning the hardware itself carries a heavy footprint before a single post is liked or prompt typed.

The real question we should be asking

AI is undoubtedly growing into a major energy user, and if it were to replace all Google searches, it could increase the internet’s total energy demand by about 1%. That’s not insignificant.

But the data suggests something more uncomfortable: our normalised, hours-long social media habits remain one of the biggest environmental drains in the digital world.

So yes, AI companies should be pushed toward cleaner energy and better efficiency. But maybe it’s also time we stop pretending that endless scrolling is harmless for our minds or the planet.

Because while AI might feel like the new problem, your For You Page has been quietly costing the Earth for years.

{Source: IOL}

Follow Joburg ETC on Facebook, Twitter , TikTok and Instagram

For more News in Johannesburg, visit joburgetc.com