Training accounts for the lion’s share of deep-learning models’ carbon footprints, and larger architectures do not consistently justify their extra emissions with proportional accuracy gains; reporting emissions per accuracy point can help choose more sustainable models.

Main Finding

Training is the dominant source of deep learning (DL) carbon emissions; increasing architectural complexity does not reliably yield proportional accuracy gains. The paper (1) systematically reviews Green AI/Green DL research and carbon-measurement tools, and (2) empirically benchmarks six representative DL architectures (simple CNN, ResNet, U-Net, VGG16, VGG19, EfficientNet) under a CPU-based multi-label classification experiment using CodeCarbon to report per-phase (preprocessing, training, testing) emissions and a derived Emissions per Accuracy Point (EAP) metric to quantify carbon-efficiency.

Key Points

• Systematic literature review (SLR) and mapping study followed PRISMA; databases used: IEEE Xplore, ACM DL, Scopus, Semantic Scholar. Final included studies: 49 (with snowballing).
• Defined Green AI (efficiency-focused, lower energy/less data) vs Red AI (resource-intensive state-of-the-art pursuit) and discussed the broader “zero-waste AI” and socio-policy dimensions.
• Sustainability is multi-dimensional (operational energy/carbon, hardware lifetime, e‑waste, water usage); this study focuses on operational carbon as a practical proxy.
• Reviewed optimization strategies by lifecycle phase:
  • Preprocessing: data cleaning, normalization, dimensionality reduction, augmentation.
  • Training: initialization, normalization, progressive training, hyperparameter tuning, early stopping.
  • Inference: pruning, low-rank factorization, quantization, knowledge distillation.
• Empirical experiment:
  • CPU-based setup (explicitly reproducible), CodeCarbon for emissions accounting.
  • Measured emissions per lifecycle phase (preprocessing, training, testing).
  • Introduced Emissions per Accuracy Point (EAP) = total emissions / achieved accuracy to compare carbon-efficiency across models.
• Main empirical outcomes:
  • Training phase contributes the largest share of emissions.
  • More complex architectures (larger/deeper nets) do not necessarily produce proportionally higher accuracy relative to their extra carbon cost (hence varying EAPs).
• Limitations called out: operational emissions only (no cradle-to-grave LCA for hardware), CPU-based experiments (results may differ on GPUs/TPUs), scope limited to selected architectures and a specific multi-label task.

Data & Methods

• Literature review:
  • Time window: 2015–2025.
  • Search queries: “Green AI”/“Green Artificial Intelligence”, “Green DL”/“Green Deep Learning”, “Carbon footprint tools”.
  • Inclusion criteria: peer‑reviewed articles/conference papers on Green AI/Green DL or carbon footprint measurement; English; available.
  • PRISMA flow: initial ~1,028 screened records, final set of 49 included studies after duplicates/exclusions and snowballing.
• Empirical benchmark:
  • Task: multi-label classification (dataset specifics not included in excerpt).
  • Models evaluated: simple CNN, ResNet, U-Net, VGG16, VGG19, EfficientNet.
  • Hardware/environment: CPU-based experimental setup.
  • Carbon accounting tool: CodeCarbon to estimate operational emissions for each lifecycle phase (preprocessing, training, testing).
  • Metric for trade-off analysis: Emissions per Accuracy Point (EAP) — carbon emissions normalized by achieved predictive accuracy.
• Comparative analysis of carbon-measurement tools: reviewed strengths and limitations of existing tools (paper provides structured comparison though detailed tool-by-tool numeric comparisons are not in the provided excerpt).

Implications for AI Economics

• Internalizing environmental costs:
  • EAP and per-phase emissions enable explicit incorporation of carbon externalities into model-selection and procurement decisions (e.g., pick lower-EAP models when marginal accuracy gains are small).
  • Firms and public agencies can include operational carbon costs in total cost-of-ownership (TCO) and cost–benefit models for AI systems.
• Investment and R&D prioritization:
  • Because training dominates emissions, economic incentives (grants, tax credits, procurement preferences) should favor research and deployment of training-efficient methods: transfer learning, few-shot learning, progressive resizing, hyperparameter optimization that reduces redundant runs, and distillation/pruning pipelines.
  • Funding allocation can target software optimizations and carbon-aware tooling (which are often lower-cost levers than large-scale hardware replacement).
• Market and regulatory design:
  • Standardized reporting (accuracy plus emissions/EAP) could be mandated for public procurement and recommended for industry benchmarking to create transparency and comparability.
  • Carbon-aware procurement and carbon pricing (or shadow carbon costs) for compute can shift incentives away from “Red AI” arms races.
• Operational choices and firm strategy:
  • Enterprises should weigh inference vs training trade-offs: sometimes larger general models reduce future retraining and operational overhead, but this requires multi-metric LCA considerations.
  • Cloud providers/enterprises can optimize scheduling (use lower-carbon time windows, regions with cleaner grids), and choose hardware and datacenter locations to reduce emissions per compute unit — but software optimization yields complementary gains.
• Policy and macroeconomic effects:
  • Aggregate reductions in AI training emissions can meaningfully affect energy demand projections for data centers; economic models of energy markets and emissions should include the feedback from AI efficiency improvements.
  • Consideration of hardware lifecycle impacts (manufacturing, disposal) suggests policy should combine operational carbon accounting with lifecycle assessment in longer-term planning and regulation.
• Measurement & reporting standards:
  • Adoption of practical operational metrics (EAP, per-phase emissions) provides tractable inputs for economists modeling the social cost of AI deployment and for evaluating subsidies or penalties aimed at greener AI.

Short takeaway: operational emissions (especially training) should be routinely measured and reported alongside accuracy. Economic decisions — procurement, R&D funding, regulation, and pricing — should incorporate carbon-efficiency metrics (like EAP) to align AI development incentives with sustainability objectives.