Climate AI is being built on Northern compute and data, producing systematically weaker and potentially misleading outputs for vulnerable, data-sparse regions; public investment in shared data, distributed compute, and co-produced evaluation is needed to prevent costly maladaptation and entrenched informational inequality.

Main Finding

The paper shows that rapid AI adoption in Earth system science is intensifying an existing North–South divide. High-performance compute (HPC), data infrastructure, and foundation-model development are concentrated in the Global North, and this infrastructural asymmetry propagates through models’ inputs, processes, and outputs. As a result, AI-driven climate information risks producing systematically worse performance and misleading recommendations for the most climate-vulnerable, data-sparse regions unless development shifts from a model-centric to a data- and equity-centric approach.

Key Points

• Global asymmetry in compute and data:
  • Foundation-model development and HPC capacity are overwhelmingly located in the Global North.
  • This concentration creates path dependence: model design, datasets, and validation reflect Northern priorities and contexts.
• Three-domain evidence of unequal impacts:
• Weather & climate modelling: Historical and spatially biased observational data lead to systematic performance gaps in under-observed tropical and low-income regions, reducing forecast fidelity where adaptive capacity is lowest.
• Climate impact modelling: Sparse, unrepresentative exposure and vulnerability data and inadequate validation produce high uncertainty and risk of misleading interventions and maladaptation in vulnerable locales.
• Large language models (LLMs): Reliance on dominant, textualized climate knowledge risks foregrounding Northern epistemologies and sidelining local or indigenous knowledge, reinforcing biases in climate narratives and recommendations.
• Framework of failure points: Inequities appear across three phases:
  • Inputs: Data scarcity, biased sampling, and limited local data governance.
  • Process: Model design, training resources, and development priorities shaped by Northern compute and funding.
  • Output: Evaluation metrics and dissemination channels that do not reflect local utility or values.
• Proposed remedies:
  • Shift from model-centric to data-centric development (improve data quality, representativeness, and governance).
  • Establish Climate Digital Public Infrastructure (CDPI): shared, interoperable data and compute resources, standards, and governance to democratize access.
  • Adopt human-centric evaluation metrics that measure value for local users and socio-ecological resilience.
  • Move toward knowledge co-production: involve local stakeholders, integrate diverse knowledge systems, and redistribute “compute sovereignty.”

Data & Methods

• Evidence base:
  • Descriptive mapping of global HPC and foundation-model development concentration (documenting geography of compute and model authorship).
  • Comparative, domain-specific case studies illustrating how data scarcity and bias affect model performance and downstream decisions in weather/climate modelling, impact modelling, and LLMs.
  • Conceptual analysis tracing how inequalities propagate through Inputs → Process → Outputs.
• Methodological approach:
  • Cross-disciplinary synthesis combining infrastructure mapping, literature review, targeted examples of model failures/biases, and normative design principles.
  • Emphasis on illustrative empirical patterns (performance gaps, validation shortfalls) rather than a single quantitative model or randomized experiment.
• Limitations noted by the authors:
  • Granular quantitative estimates of the economic cost of these asymmetries are not provided.
  • Empirical generalization across all climate-AI systems is constrained by heterogeneous data availability and proprietary models.

Implications for AI Economics

• Market structure and concentration:
  • Concentrated compute and model development create market power for Northern institutions and companies, likely leading to unequal pricing, control over standards, and capture of high-value climate services.
  • Returns to scale in compute and data favor incumbents; without intervention, this can entrench inequality in the global climate-information market.
• Public-good nature and market failure:
  • High-quality, equitable climate information has characteristics of a public good (nonrival, nonexcludable at scale). Private incentives alone will underprovide geographically representative data and shared infrastructure.
  • Negative externalities include maladaptation and inefficient investments triggered by biased or unrepresentative AI outputs.
• Distributional and welfare impacts:
  • Economically vulnerable regions face larger adaptation costs and lost benefits from inaccurate forecasts/impact models; this has implications for global welfare and climate justice.
  • Misleading outputs can induce costly maladaptation, increasing expected social costs of climate change.
• Policy and funding implications:
  • Justification for coordinated public investment: build Climate Digital Public Infrastructure (shared data repositories, distributed compute credits, standards, and training) akin to physical public goods (observational networks, satellites).
  • Rethink aid and climate finance: allocate funds explicitly to data collection, compute capacity, and co-production processes, not only to physical adaptation projects.
  • Regulatory and incentive tools: open-data mandates, compute-sharing incentives, conditionality in R&D funding to require equitable validation and local engagement.
• Research and evaluation priorities for economists:
  • Quantify the returns to investments in CDPI versus private compute; model distributional effects and welfare gains from more equitable climate information.
  • Estimate the economic cost of maladaptation caused by biased AI outputs and the value of human-centric evaluation metrics.
  • Design incentive-compatible mechanisms to promote data sharing and co-production (e.g., payment for data public goods, compute-voucher schemes, or international compute pools).
  • Analyze labor-market and knowledge-economy effects: capacity building, on-shoring of data science talent, and effects on local industries.
• Governance and international coordination:
  • Need for multilateral governance frameworks to support compute sovereignty, data standards, and equitable access—similar to global public-health or geospatial-data collaborations.
  • Consider trade-offs between intellectual property, commercial incentives for innovation, and the social value of open shared infrastructures.

Overall, the paper highlights that without deliberate economic and governance interventions—investment in shared digital public goods, new evaluation metrics, and co-production practices—the AI revolution in climate science risks amplifying global inequality and producing economically costly misallocations. Economists can help by quantifying costs/benefits, designing funding and incentive mechanisms, and evaluating policy options to democratize climate-AI infrastructure.