`FOR every prompt on ChatGPT, the cost is a bottle of water spilled`, read a post I recently came across on my timeline; an attempt to moralise the environmental cost of every AI prompt.

The implication was clear: that interacting with generative AI, particularly large language models (LLMs), is somehow an extravagant and irresponsible use of electricity. It is the kind of sanctimonious alarmism that sounds intelligent until you hold it up to basic scrutiny.

Because if we`re going to start measuring digital behaviour by the drop, let`s at least be consistent. How many litres are poured into the void every time someone binge-watches an entire season on Netflix in HD? How many hours are spent mindlessly refreshing timelines, watching algorithmically served rage bait, or uploading the fifth filtered version of a sunset or a workout video for some Instagram validation? These, too, are digital actions. They, too, have a carbon cost. But somehow, they escape critique, not because they`re cleaner but because they`re culturally familiar.

We`ve normalised that waste, so we don`t see it.

It`s not that AI and crypto shouldn`t be held to environmental standards; they absolutely should.

But let`s not pretend that the sudden concern about electricity and water consumption is rooted in climate justice. It`s not. It`s rooted in a deep discomfort with change, with disruption, and with technologies that threaten to redistribute power away from legacy structures, and towards something less familiar, less controllable, and potentially more liberating. This is much less about the energy, or the climate, and much more about inertia masquerading as morality.

At the cost of repetition, the point is not to excuse AI`s energy demands but to highlight the absurdity of pretending that prompting GPT is where the guilt should begin. These criticisms aren`t rooted in environmental justice but the fear of technological disruption, especially of tools that could shift knowledge creation, creative production, and economic opportunity outside the gates of elite institutions.

I`ve been noticing similar fear-mongering around Pakistan`s recent interest in crypto and AI, especially the chorus of concern over energy consumption. The government`s announcement to dedicate two gigawatts of power towards AIdata centres and crypto mining has triggered a kind of moral panic that feels less about climate and more about control. Overnight, everyone`s turned into an energy auditor, as if this country hasn`t spent decades watching power get siphoned off by inefficient state-owned enterprises, bloated real estate empires, and unmetered political favour. Now, when the state finally signals an intention to invest in frontier tech, industries that might bring Pakistan into the modern digital economy, it`s met with outrage dressed up as environmentalism.

Let`s be honest: this isn`t about the electricity.

It`s about the shift. About newer, faster players entering spaces traditionally guarded by bureaucracy and old power structures. It`s about the fear of Pakistan participating in a world its critics no longer fully understand.If we`re serious about addressing the environmental cost of emerging technologies like AI and crypto, the answer is to steer it responsibly, and not outrightly shut it down. That means demanding transparency from data centres on their energy and water use, pushing for cleaner energy integration, and incentivising green infrastructure, not stoking public fear to stall progress. An inclusive approach understands that Pakistan, already trailing in tech, can`t afford to sit out the AI revolution. At the same time, it also can`t replicate the dirty models of the past. The task is to build a roadmap where innovation and sustainability aren`t seen as opposing forces but as twin imperatives.

But that roadmap can`t be built in isolation.

Voluntary commitments by tech companies to switch to clean energy have, time and again, proven inadequate. What`s needed now is serious advocacy that targets global forums, from the United Nations to international standard-settingbodies, to push for binding protocols that compel technology firms to meet stringent environmental obligations. The burden of sustainability cannot rest on consumer guilt or national regulation alone; it must be enforced at the level where tech power actually resides.

As for Pakistan`s new love for crypto, there are far more pressing questions to be asked than the performative panic over electricity consumption.

Who is shaping the regulatory framework? Who stands to benefit, and who might be excluded? Is this going to be another playground for politically connected actors to mine profit under the guise of innovation, or can it become a legitimate avenue for financial inclusion in a country where access to traditional banking remains out of reach for millions? The energy question is real, but it can`t be the only lens. We need to talk about transparency, governance, digital rights and whether this tech will empower or further marginalise. The conversation must move past the performative activism and dig into the architecture being quietly built. If we don`t shape it now, we`ll find ourselves locked out of systems that claim to be open.

Pakistan`s newfound enthusiasm for crypto doesn`t have to follow the chaotic, exploitative are seen elsewhere. This moment presents a chance to do it differently, to design systems that are transparent, inclusive, and locally rooted. Crypto can be more than just speculative trading and mining farms; it can be a way to reimagine financial access, to build tools for remittances, savings, and digital ownership for people excluded from formal banking. But that requires intent.

We need a regulatory framework built in consultation with technologists, civil society, and financial experts, and not just the enforcement bodies. We need clarity, not criminalisation; guardrails, not gatekeeping. If Pakistan wants to embrace crypto, it must also invest in public literacy, consumer protections, and infrastructure that ensures the benefits are not just concentrated at the top. This doesn`t have to be a rushed gold rush. It can be a careful, deliberate step towards something fairer, but only if we`re brave enough to move past the performative actions. • The wnter is the founder of Media Matters for Democracy