0 cumulative citations
View corpus contextA complex ChatGPT query may carry an estimated long-run climate burden of about $0.4 (≈10 g CO2e), but the number rests on wide-ranging, largely unvalidated assumptions about token usage, datacenter carbon intensity and an extremely high monetized ‘ultimate’ cost of carbon.
The ultimate carbon cost of a ChatGPT query
The paper synthesizes literature estimates to produce an order-of-magnitude estimate that a single complex ChatGPT/GPT-4 query imposes an 'ultimate carbon cost' of roughly $0.4 (≈10 g CO2e), but this figure is highly sensitive to assumptions about tokens per query, compute intensity, and the chosen monetized long-run damage factor.
Citation observations
Cumulative provider counts captured on specific dates; providers are never combined.
This paper reviews and combines findings from the fields of product and life-cycle analysis [36, 38], the usage of modern transformer- based large language models (LLM) [6], as well as on greenhouse gas emissions and the ultimate cost of their subsequent consequences for future generations [2]. In this paper, it is shown that the carbon cost of a LLM query is in the order of magnitude of (USD) $0.4 per query for the future human population in the form of environmental disruptions. This corresponds to emissions in the magnitude of 10 gCO2eq/query. The most significant unknown factor in that calculation being the number of tokens computed (1k to 100k tokens equal 1.2 cent/query to 120 cent/query). This number is subject to a wide range of calculation uncertainties and is less to be seen as a matter of fact and more as an order of magnitude estimate. This estimate is aimed towards aiding the discourse surrounding AI systems by uncover- ing the inevitable consequences of technological development by the means of attaching a consequence in a familiar unit to it. By the introduction of the per query ultimate carbon cost (QCC), even if attached to great uncertainty, it is highlighted that the use of AI services happens within hypercomplex interdependent systems and has concrete consequences for our planetary health. The spread of the awareness about the interdependence of planetary health and AI usage can be useful for the individual user in the formation of political opinion through discourse [5] as well as a literate usage of AI systems [31]. Ways to increase the accuracy of the estima- tions, such as incorporating the cost of AIs water consumption or further determining the realistic token count of a query, have been identified as further research targets.
Summary
Main Finding
Under the paper’s assumptions, the “ultimate carbon cost” (QCC) borne by future generations for a single complex ChatGPT/GPT‑4 query is on the order of $0.4 per query (order‑of‑magnitude). This corresponds to roughly 10 gCO2eq per complex query. The per‑query cost and emissions scale almost linearly with the number of tokens processed; the author reports about 1.2 cents per 1,000 tokens (≈$0.000012 per token), so 1k–100k tokens span ≈1.2¢ to 120¢ ($0.012 to $1.20) per query depending on use‑case.
Key Points
- QCC definition: the paper combines compute energy/emissions (operational + embodied) and converts those emissions into a monetary “ultimate cost” for future humans using Archer et al.’s framework for long‑run damages.
- Central numerical results (example assumptions used in the paper):
- Ultimate cost per tCO2eq used: ~ $27,000 / tCO2eq (derived from $100k per tC in Archer et al.).
- Token‑level intensity (TCI): ~4.4×10−4 gCO2eq per token (paper: 440·10−6 gCO2eq/token).
- Token‑level ultimate cost (TCC): ~0.0012 cents per token (≈ $1.2×10−5 per token), i.e. ~1.2¢ per 1,000 tokens.
- Example complex query (tens of thousands of tokens, CCI ≈ 1000 gCO2eq/10^18 FLOP): ≈9–10 gCO2eq per query and an ultimate cost in the ≈$0.36–$0.40 per query range (paper reports ≈¢36 → $0.36 and rounds to ~$0.4).
- Major uncertainties: number of tokens processed per “query” (wide range from hundreds to 50k+ tokens for agentic/file or multi‑step systems), data‑centre carbon compute intensity (CCI), amortized training emissions and the ultimate damage-per‑ton parameter.
- Broader scale: training a single GPT‑4–size model (estimates used in paper) yields training emissions in the kiloton scale; multiple such models and heavy internal token usage by staff can imply millions of dollars of ultimate carbon cost.
Data & Methods
- Data sources synthesized:
- Life‑cycle and carbon compute intensity (CCI) estimates: Schneider et al., d’Orgeval et al., Falk et al.
- Compute per token / per query model: J. You’s FLOP-per-token approximation (≈2 FLOP per active parameter per token).
- GPT‑4 scale: assumed active weights ≈ 220 billion (Mixture‑of‑Experts architecture), training compute estimates ~21–30 million × 10^18 FLOP from multiple (public/speculative) sources.
- Usage: OpenAI public statements (e.g., 2.5×10^9 queries/day at a cited time) and interpolated user‑base time series to estimate total queries (≈1.4×10^12 during GPT‑4 runtime as primary ChatGPT model).
- Ultimate cost conversion: Archer et al.’s long‑run damage estimates (paper uses $100k per tC → ≈$27k per tCO2eq).
- Calculation steps (high level):
- Compute per‑token FLOP = 2 × active parameters (wa); per‑query FLOP = per‑token FLOP × tokens per query.
- Convert FLOP to emissions via a CCI (gCO2eq per 10^18 FLOP).
- Add embodied/training emissions amortized per query (training emissions ÷ total queries).
- Convert tCO2eq per query into an ultimate monetary cost via Archer et al.’s factor.
- Representative assumptions emphasized by the author: CCI ≈ 1000 gCO2eq/10^18FLOP (used for many examples), token counts considered from ~261 (average short reply) up to tens of thousands or 100k for agentic/complex workflows.
Implications for AI Economics
- Externalities: The paper translates technical compute use into a familiar economic metric (dollars of long‑term damage), making the environmental externality of AI tangible for cost–benefit and policy analysis.
- Pricing & regulation:
- If society accepts Archer‑style ultimate damage valuations, per‑query or per‑token carbon costs become economically significant for high‑token/agentic applications and large internal usage.
- These results strengthen arguments for transparency (per‑query emissions reporting), internal carbon accounting at AI firms, and policy tools that internalize long‑run damages (taxes, mandated mitigation, or stricter reporting).
- Product design and markets:
- Token‑efficient models, sparsity/MoE approaches that reduce active parameters per token, and on‑device / edge solutions could materially reduce ultimate costs per interaction.
- The rapid growth of agentic and multi‑step services (which multiply token counts) creates demand for pricing models that reflect environmental costs and for product features that limit unnecessary token consumption.
- Research & data needs:
- Better empirical measurements: average tokens per real user query (across use‑cases), real CCI and energy mix per provider, truthful disclosure of training compute and query counts.
- Broader life‑cycle accounting (including water use, cooling, embodied materials) and refinement of long‑run damage-per‑ton estimates; these are the dominant sources of uncertainty.
- Behavioral implications:
- Individually, a single query’s immediate contribution is small compared with household activities, but cumulative effects (heavy users, enterprise workloads, and many models trained repeatedly) can be large.
- Informing users and buyers (developers, enterprises) of per‑query/token ultimate costs could influence demand, SLAs, and procurement decisions.
Summary takeaway: attaching an “ultimate carbon cost” in dollars to LLM queries makes the long‑run damage of compute use visible. Under plausible (but uncertain) assumptions the paper finds per‑query ultimate costs at tens of cents for complex, high‑token interactions and per‑token costs at about 1.2¢ per 1,000 tokens — enough that at scale these externalities matter for AI economics, design, and policy.
Assessment
Paper Typedescriptive
Evidence Strengthlow — The paper is an order-of-magnitude, back-of-envelope synthesis that combines heterogeneous literature estimates and many speculative assumptions (GPT-4 compute, token counts, datacenter carbon intensity, and an extreme monetized long-run damage factor). It lacks primary measurements, systematic uncertainty quantification, or validation against provider-reported emissions, so the empirical claim about a single-query 'ultimate carbon cost' is weakly supported.
Methods Rigorlow — Methods rely on chaining disparate secondary estimates (CCI, FLOP-per-token, training compute, user/query counts) with several strong assumptions (model size/architecture, average tokens per query, linear allocation of training emissions across queries, choice of grid CI and ultimate carbon price) and provide limited sensitivity analysis or robustness checks; key inputs are uncertain or proprietary and not empirically validated.
SampleNo original primary dataset; the paper synthesizes published cradle-to-grave CCI estimates (Schneider et al., d'Orgeval et al., Falk et al.), speculative estimates of GPT-4 training compute (various sources), OpenAI public user/query counts and interpolations, FLOP-per-token rules-of-thumb, assumed token-per-query scenarios (1000 to 30,000), a California grid carbon intensity for an example, and the 'ultimate cost' per ton of CO2 from Archer et al.; calculations are arithmetic combinations of these sources.
Themesgovernance adoption
GeneralizabilityEstimates are specific to assumed GPT-4 architecture, size and runtime and may not apply to other models or subsequent generations, Highly sensitive to assumed tokens-per-query; agentic and file-processing scenarios exaggerate typical user queries, Dependent on datacenter grid carbon intensity and hardware lifecycle assumptions that vary geographically and over time, Allocation of training emissions per query (dividing by total queries) is a crude approach and assumes training emissions are fully attributable to subsequent queries, Monetization via the 'ultimate cost' of carbon is normative and highly uncertain, reducing comparability to standard social cost of carbon metrics, Excludes or only briefly notes other resource impacts (water, e-waste), and does not account for potential avoided emissions or benefits of AI use
Claims (10)
| Claim | Direction | Outcome | Confidence & Evidence | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The ultimate carbon cost of a ChatGPT/LLM query is estimated to be on the order of US$0.4 per query for future human populations through environmental disruptions. Other | positive | Estimated monetary damages to future human populations from greenhouse-gas emissions per LLM query |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
low
|
$0.4/query
|
| The estimated greenhouse-gas emissions associated with an LLM query are on the order of 10 grams of CO2-equivalent per query. Other | positive | CO2-equivalent emissions per LLM query |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
low
|
10 gCO2eq/query
|
| For the paper's complex-query scenario, estimated emissions are approximately 13.2 gCO2-equivalent per query, corresponding to an ultimate carbon cost of approximately 36 US cents per query. Other | positive | Per-query CO2-equivalent emissions and associated ultimate monetary carbon cost |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
low
|
13.2 gCO2eq/query; 36 cents/query
|
| The number of tokens computed per query is identified as the most significant unknown factor in the carbon-cost calculation. Other | mixed | Uncertainty in estimated per-query carbon emissions and monetary carbon cost |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
low
|
1k to 100k tokens
|
| The paper estimates that GPT-4 training and associated hardware acquisition produced approximately 10 kilotonnes of CO2-equivalent emissions. Other | positive | CO2-equivalent emissions from GPT-4 training and hardware acquisition |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
low
|
10 ktCO2eq
|
| The paper estimates that GPT-4 was used for approximately 1.4 trillion queries during its runtime as the primary model supporting ChatGPT. Adoption Rate | positive | Estimated number of GPT-4 queries |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
low
|
n=1400000000000
1.4 trillion queries
|
| The estimated emissions from GPT-4 training, when allocated across approximately 1.4 trillion queries, are about 7 × 10^-6 grams of CO2-equivalent per query. Other | positive | Training-related CO2-equivalent emissions allocated per query |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
low
|
n=1400000000000
7 × 10^-6 gCO2eq/query
|
| The paper estimates that 2.5 billion ChatGPT queries per day, assuming an average query length of approximately 1,000 tokens and a carbon compute intensity of approximately 1,000 gCO2e per 10^18 FLOP, would generate about 1.1 kilotonnes of CO2-equivalent emissions per day. Other | positive | Daily CO2-equivalent emissions from ChatGPT queries |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
low
|
n=2500000000
1.1 ktCO2eq/day
|
| The paper estimates that more than 30 models trained to approximately GPT-4 scale by January 2025 imply aggregate carbon costs of roughly $8 billion, or 300 kilotonnes of CO2-equivalent. Other | positive | Aggregate training emissions and ultimate monetary carbon cost of GPT-4-scale models |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
speculative
|
n=30
$8 billion; 300 ktCO2eq
|
| The paper concludes that AI services may impose substantial aggregate environmental damages on future generations, while the operational emissions from an individual's use are generally small relative to activities such as heating or commuting. Other | mixed | Aggregate environmental burden versus individual operational emissions from AI use |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
low
|
not reported
|