A Checklist to assess the energy and carbon impacts of ML/AI applications in Earth System Modeling

As machine learning and artificial intelligence find their way into nearly every aspect of climate, weather, and Earth system modeling, it is worth pausing to consider what our design decisions imply for the science and for the computational resources we consume. A growing body of literature addresses the ethical and sustainable development of ML/AI, yet translating these principles into day-to-day research practice remains a challenge as most of best practices are dispersed across multiple studies and commentaries. Here, we distill these discussions into a practical checklist that ML/AI and Earth system science practitioners can use to assess and reduce the environmental footprint of their own applications, organised around the successive stages of the model development pipeline. We complement the checklist with a selection of metrics drawn from the literature for estimating the energy consumption and carbon footprint of a project. For each question, we point to concrete examples and actionable suggestions from recent literature, aiming to bridge the gap between aspirational principles and the decisions researchers face at every stage of the development cycle.

Wasted large language models: A life cycle thinking approach

Large Language Models (LLMs) are machine learning (ML) models that have an increasingly large carbon footprint through their development and use. Efforts to increase the energy efficiency of these models have not translated into reduced consumption due to rebound effects such as Jevons Paradox - that increased efficiency drives increased use. There is therefore a need for additional measures to solve this problem. We suggest that one possible way forward is to use life cycle thinking, and view LLMs as products that can become waste. With this perspective, we investigate the potential of the waste hierarchy from the EU's Waste Framework Directive, which suggests five different measures for how to manage waste: prevention, reuse, recycling, recovery, and disposal. We examine how these measures can inform and motivate new types of thinking and approaches to reducing LLM waste and their environmental impact in general. Applying the waste hierarchy to LLMs highlights that preventing waste is essential for reducing the models' environmental impact, mainly because it reduces the need for training new models. Prevention can be achieved through many existing methods for reusing, "recycling", and "recovering" LLMs. Additionally, disposal can be important both for saving energy and for keeping a considerate attitude to the resources being spent on training LLMs. We also call to attention that prevention of unnecessary use of LLMs carry huge potential for lowering the climate impact of the models.

Life Cycle Assessment of Pre-training the Lucie 7B Open-Source Large Language Model on the Jean Zay Supercomputer

The environmental impact of training large language models (LLMs) is increasingly scrutinised, yet most published estimates focus on operational energy and disclose little about manufacturing (embodied) emissions, water consumption, or the underlying highperformance computing (HPC) infrastructure. We present a life cycle assessment (LCA) of the pre-training of Lucie 7B, an open-source multilingual Foundation Model developed by the OpenLLM-France consortium and trained on the NVIDIA H100 partition of the Jean Zay supercomputer operated by IDRIS (CNRS). The assessment is framed by the AFNOR SPEC 2314 "Frugal AI" reference and applies the Labos 1point5 methodology for greenhouse gas(GHG) accounting in computing. The study scope extends from data preparation to model validation, and integrates the full life cycle of the hardware infrastructure: manufacturing (including raw-material extraction), use (compute, temporary storage, system administration, cooling), and end-of-life. We report (i) an annual footprint of 417.5 tCO2eq for the Jean Zay H100 partition, split almost equally between manufacturing and operation; (ii) an effective intensity of 36.7 gCO2eq per H100 GPU-hour; (iii) a total training footprint of 21 tCO2eq for Lucie 7B (574 564 H100 GPU-hours), inclusive of amortised hardware manufacturing; (iv) on-site water consumption of approximately 76m3 for the training campaign and an annual Water Usage Effectiveness (WUE) of 0.07 L/kWh for IDRIS; (v) a heat-reuse factor (ERF) of 0.37 thanks to waste-heat recovery into the urban heating network. The study contributes one of the few publicly documented LCAs of an LLM training campaign that explicitly couples operational data with embodied emissions decomposed by subsystem (compute, storage, power chain, cooling), and discusses the implications for the design of frugal-by-construction AI systems in Europe.

Accounting for AI Inference in Corporate GHG Inventories: A Four-Tier Methodology for Scope 3 Category 1 Reporting

AI inference services -- API subscriptions, enterprise chat tools, and SaaS products with embedded AI features -- fall unambiguously within Scope 3 Category 1 under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), which requires disclosure for fiscal years starting January 2024. Yet no standardised methodology exists for including them in corporate GHG inventories. Current practice either omits the category entirely or applies a generic economic input-output (EEIO) factor calibrated to the ICT sector as a whole, overestimating AI inference emissions by 10-40x relative to physically derived alternatives. We propose a four-tier framework that matches estimation precision to the data organisations can realistically obtain, progressing from direct token-based physical estimation -- using GPU energy benchmarks and regional grid carbon intensities -- down to a spend-based EEIO fallback for services where no usage data exists. Emission factors are derived from peer-reviewed GPU energy benchmarks (ML.ENERGY Leaderboard v3), confirmed grid carbon intensities (EPA eGRID 2023; Ember 2023), and published water use effectiveness data (Li et al., 2025). Applied to a 200-person European firm, the framework yields a total below 1 tCO2e, illustrating that the compliance challenge is methodological rather than magnitude-driven. We further document a water-carbon trade-off that current ESG tools do not surface: Sweden's hydro-dominated grid delivers the lowest carbon intensity in our dataset but the highest water footprint, with direct implications for data centre location strategy.