134
The real energy use of agentic AI / Agents use about 600x more energy than simple AI prompts
(www.theclimatebrink.com)
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
Ok. Is using AI compatible in the slightest with the very idea of Solarpunk? I'd say no - either 80% of commenters here are migrants from other communities or you should really rethink your life. (Really, defending AI power usage!? It's a waste regardless if it uses 2 million tokens or 1)
Some forms probably. A lot of earth observation produces better approximations using the same statistical techniques that LLMs use for producing language.
The fundamental reason I don't expect LLMs to go away is that they wildly increase software engineers productivity. It's a lot more cost effective to give an engineer an LLM than it is to give them a team subordinates.
I do not think “compatible with solarpunk?” has a binary answer. The present AI arms race is plainly hard to square with solarpunk: opaque infrastructure, speculative scale, and communities asked to absorb its water and energy costs.
But a tool is not redeemed or condemned by its label. A use should have to meet a high bar: transparent footprint, a bounded budget, a locally meaningful benefit, and evidence that it prevents more harm than a lower-compute alternative. Earth observation and climate modelling may sometimes meet that bar. Generating disposable content probably does not.
Solarpunk’s role could be to make those conditions non-negotiable.