By Anders Lorenzen
This is the second instalment in our monthly series exploring how well large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, can respond to pressing questions on climate, energy, and sustainability. Last month, we looked at the carbon footprint of AI. This time, we’re asking: is climate action stalling — or still progressing?
You can read last month’s question about the carbon footprint of AI here.
Anders Lorenzen (AL): From a global perspective, do you think we are moving backwards or are we making progress on tackling climate change?
ChatGPT response:
“That’s a critical and nuanced question — and the honest answer is: both. Globally, the picture is deeply mixed, depending on where you look and what indicators you prioritise. Let’s break it down a bit.”
ChatGPT went on to list several examples that point to a mixed picture:
“Booming renewable energy, the rise of electric vehicles (EVs), and corporate shifts.”
And it also highlighted where progress is lacking:
“Failure to curb emissions, continued fossil fuel subsidies, inadequate climate finance for developing economies, and worsening climate extremes.”
ChatGPT summarised:
“Technologically and socially: We’re moving forward — faster than expected in some areas.”
“Ecologically and politically: In many ways, we’re moving backwards or standing still.”
AL: Is what is being reported by some media sources as a backlash on net-zero and ESG genuine? Is there really a backlash?
ChatGPT response:
There is a genuine backlash against net-zero and ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance standards), but like most so-called “backlashes,” it’s not monolithic. It’s coming from different camps with very different agendas, and understanding who’s behind it — and why — is crucial.
ChatGPT elaborated on the origins of this backlash:
“A mix of narratives portraying net-zero and ESG as ‘woke,’ elitist, and anti-freedom. Certain US states are banning ESG investments, and the fossil fuel industry is creating culture war talking points.”
It also described a coordinated pushback:
“There’s a concerted effort from the fossil fuel lobby, the agribusiness sector, and parts of the car industry to shift the discourse.”
ChatGPT noted that while some criticism is valid, particularly when transitions aren’t designed equitably:
“This isn’t always misinformation — in the absence of fair policy design, transitions can hit low-income groups hardest.”
ChatGPT: This is not the whole story
Without further prompting, ChatGPT added more context:
Most people still support climate action
Even in the US, ChatGPT highlighted, there’s strong support for climate measures:
“In the US, surveys show strong bipartisan support for renewables, clean air, and energy efficiency.”
“In Europe, the backlash is loud, but it remains a minority view. Most major parties support some form of climate policy.”
ChatGPT: ESG is not going away
While some media outlets suggest that companies are abandoning ESG and net-zero goals, due in part to political shifts like Donald Trump’s resurgence, ChatGPT offered a different perspective:
“Some investment firms are quietly backing away from the ESG label (BlackRock, for example, now prefers terms like ‘transition finance’), but they are not dropping sustainability mandates altogether. Climate risk is material financial risk — this is not going away.”
ChatGPT: A battle over the narrative
ChatGPT concluded by noting what’s really at stake:
“We’re seeing a contest over the narrative — who controls the story of the transition. Is it one of opportunity, justice, and resilience? Or is it a threat to tradition, cost, and sovereignty?”
What should we make of this?
This proved to be a valuable exercise. ChatGPT delivered a more nuanced and balanced analysis of the state of climate action, net-zero, and ESG than many respected media outlets.
Particularly striking was the insight that the backlash is essentially a political, not a public, phenomenon. While emissions and ecological indicators remain troubling, technological and social progress continues apace.
This month, we explored AI as a means of communication. While its climate footprint remains a concern, this month’s article demonstrates how it can also facilitate more explicit and informed conversations.
In future instalments, we’ll test other angles — including whether different LLMs offer different perspectives on climate.
You can view the whole series here:
Next month’s AI question:
How do different LLMs handle the same climate question?
This will test whether certain models show bias for or against climate action.
Do you have a climate or sustainability-related question we should ask ChatGPT or another AI LLM model?
Let us know in the comments, via email or on social media.
Or fill in the form below, and we may feature your idea.
You can check out the full series here.
Discover more from A greener life, a greener world
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.