Doctorates

The Universities Australia and Australian Council of Graduate Research report 'Investing in PhD candidates in Australia' states 

Current risks to Australia’s research workforce 

Despite an increase in domestic PhD completions by 41 per cent from 2000 to 2023, enrolment has declined by 8 per cent from 2018 to 2023, highlighting a concerning trend amid growing population demands. At the same time, there is a significant pool of potential PhD candidates due to a 195 per cent increase in Honours degree completions since 2003. Addressing these challenges requires targeted financial support and structural reforms to make PhD study more feasible for both domestic and international students. 

The profile of Australia’s PhD candidates in 2024 

The typical PhD candidate in Australia is often older than expected, with an average commencement age of 34, bringing valuable work experience to their studies. Many candidates, especially women, pursue their studies part-time, balancing responsibilities that often extend beyond academia. This diversity in backgrounds and life stages enriches their research, but it also presents additional financial challenges, especially with limited access to government support.

Barriers to PhD study 

A strong job market, inadequate financial support and insecure employment prospects in academia have deterred many domestic candidates from pursuing PhDs. Cost-of-living pressures, coupled with the low base stipend ($32,192 in 2024, barely above the poverty line) are significant obstacles for potential candidates, particularly those with dependents or prior financial commitments. Additionally, PhD candidates are excluded from key government benefits like Parental Leave Pay, adding to the financial burden.  

International PhD candidates’ contributions and constraints 

International PhD candidates are essential to Australia’s research and development workforce, addressing critical shortages in fields such as engineering and information technology. However, the 10 per cent cap on international PhD candidates within the Research Training Program (RTP) limits the potential for more international students, particularly impacting regional universities that benefit from the population and cultural diversity brought by international students. The current model often requires universities to find alternate funding sources for these candidates — a challenge for smaller institutions. 

Urgent reforms needed: increasing the stipend and adding flexibility 

Universities Australia and the Australian Council of Graduate Research have long advocated for increasing PhD stipends — a need that has become urgent with the rising cost of living. Raising the RTP stipend would allow PhD candidates to focus on research and reduce financial barriers, thereby promoting equity and diversity in the PhD landscape. While universities can theoretically increase stipends, doing so without a larger RTP budget reduces the number of scholarships available. 

Additionally, RTP indexing lags behind inflation, leaving current stipends inadequate. In response, Universities Australia has previously recommended increasing the base stipend to $35,000 in 2025, along with an expanded RTP funding pool to maintain the number of scholarships. A more flexible RTP cap on international students would also allow universities to attract talent aligned with Australia’s research priorities. Noting that this recommendation was not delivered in the 2024–25 Budget, we now recommend a 2026 base rate of $36,000, estimating that this would cost the Government approximately $300 million over four years (an increase of just 5.8 per cent over current program funding). 

The need for Australian PhD graduates 

Australia’s PhD graduates are crucial for meeting research needs beyond academia, with many pursuing careers in industry, government and healthcare. The skills acquired through PhD programs — such as advanced research, problem-solving and analytical capabilities — are highly valuable across various sectors. PhD graduates are equipped to contribute to policy-making, enhance public services and address pressing challenges, reinforcing their relevance to Australia’s workforce and economic growth. 

Recommendations for reforms 

To secure Australia’s research future, we recommend: 

1. Financial support and equity measures for domestic PhD candidates — $300 million over four years1 • increase the minimum stipend to a sustainable level aligned with the cost of living, with regular indexation. • expand the RTP funding pool to cover the increased stipend while maintaining the number of domestic candidates. • extend eligibility for government-funded parental leave to PhD candidates. • remove taxation on part-time stipend scholarships to ease financial burdens. 

2. Enhanced support for international PhD candidates • raise the RTP funding cap for international students from 10 per cent to 20 per cent, especially for regions with critical workforce needs (no cost to Government). • increase the RTP funding pool to support additional international candidates without compromising the number of domestic candidates. (up to approx. $500 million over four years). These reforms will create a more resilient research workforce by improving access to PhD programs for top domestic and international talent, supporting Australia’s standing as a leader in research and contributing to national workforce and economic needs.

Current risks to Australia’s future research workforce 

Over the past two decades, domestic PhD completions have increased by 41 per cent, from 4,557 completions in 2000 to 6,447 in 2023, but this growth has not kept pace with the overall population growth of 41 per cent, or the 60 per cent growth in higher education enrolments. From 2018 to 2023, domestic PhD enrolments declined by 8 per cent (43,174 to 39,8012) even as the population grew by over 7 per cent. This decrease poses as a serious threat to Australia’s research and development capacity. 

At the same time, the number of Australian citizens or permanent residents eligible to commence a PhD is larger than ever before. There has been an 195 per cent increase in students completing Honours degrees (27,389 in 2021 compared to 9,297 in 2003), which are often a pathway to PhD programs. This indicates that there is a significant untapped pool of potential PhD candidates who could contribute to Australia’s research efforts with the right incentives. 

Universities

The 'Respect at Uni Interim Report' from the Australian Human Rights Commission states 

 The Australian Government Department of Education (DoE) has engaged the Commission to undertake a groundbreaking study into the prevalence, nature and impact of racism in Australian universities (the Study). The Race Discrimination Commissioner leads the Study. 

The Study aims to understand the prevalence, nature and experiences of racism at universities for both staff and students, at the individual and systemic level. At the conclusion of this work, the Commission will deliver comprehensive research findings and recommendations on how to effectively address and reduce racism, in all its forms, at universities. 

This interim report is the first deliverable of the Study. Its purpose is to outline how the Commission will undertake this work and provide initial insights that reflect stakeholder feedback, emerging themes and early issues for consideration. 

Part 1 provides an overview of the Study, its objectives, scope and deliverables. 

Part 2 is an environmental scan and analysis of recent developments in relation to racism in universities. 

Part 3 presents initial insights based on stakeholder feedback, expert advice, an environmental scan and desktop research. These initial insights have informed the Study’s research methodology. In its initial consultations, the Commission heard from First Nations and other negatively racialised staff and students that experiences of racism including antisemitism and Islamophobia are pervasive, and that systemic and structural racism is deeply entrenched within the university system. Themes emerging from consultation include the diverse nature of staff and student experiences of racism at universities, the dissatisfaction of staff and students with complaints mechanisms, the disjuncture between universities’ stated policies on racism and practice and the challenge of finding a common language and understanding around racism. 

Part 4 outlines the Study methodology and approach to data collection. Given the complexity of the research task, which involves investigation across all universities and various stakeholder groups, it is essential to establish a best practice approach that delivers cultural safety for surveys and fieldwork. The Interim Report will explain the crucial foundational work that underpins the success of the Study’s next phase. 

This Interim Report describes the establishment of the Study's governance and initial stakeholder engagement. Creating a solid conceptual framework, along with effective governance and stakeholder involvement, is essential for the success of the Study and the delivery of the Final Report. Achieving these foundations has been a top priority for the Commission. 

The Commission is undertaking this work with a strong commitment to anti- racism. The Study will centre lived experiences and perspectives, be designed and conducted through a trauma informed lens, facilitate cultural safety and will focus on the systemic nature of racism. 

Universities should foster a love of learning, challenge thinking and nurture talent. Underpinning this requires a culture of respect and inclusion and systems that enable safety and equality. Unfortunately, this is not the experience for all students and staff, with experiences of racism negatively impacting study and employment. 

Racism in universities is a long-standing problem, with research showing it is a persistent and systemic issue for students and staff from First Nations and other negatively racialised backgrounds. The broader socio-political context impacts the prevalence and patterns of racism in universities. First Nations communities experienced significant racism leading up to the Voice Referendum in 2023 and this has continued even following the result. 

Major world events also impact universities. Following the 7 October 2023 attacks on Israel by Hamas and the Israeli response, there has been an increase in reported antisemitism, Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism. 

International students also report alarming levels of racism, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Racism in universities is certainly not a new problem, but action is long overdue. The severity of recent incidents of antisemitism and Islamophobia, combined with other experiences of racism across different groups, create an urgent need to act decisively. 

The first step in an effective response is a robust, evidence-based understanding of the issue. There is no comprehensive data collection of experiences of racism in universities and current evidence about prevalence is limited. The Australian Universities Accord recommended a Tertiary Education Racism Study. Recommendation 33 of the Australian Universities Accord Final Report, released on 25 February 2024, states:

That to contribute to making the tertiary education system as safe as possible for students and staff, the Australian Government conduct a study into the prevalence and impact of racism across the tertiary education system, on campus and online, guided by an expert committee with representation from a wide range of stakeholder groups, with the Australian Tertiary Education Commission tasked with leading the response and acting on the outcomes.

The DoE engaged the Commission to lead this Study. 

This groundbreaking Study will provide an independent, comprehensive analysis of the prevalence and impact of racism in universities. Given the lack of comprehensive data and evidence, this Study is critical to building understanding and developing concrete solutions. 

The Race Discrimination Commissioner leads the Study, with support from the DoE and the Attorney-General’s Department (AGD). The National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) is also providing advice on issues related to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff and students. The DoE has allocated the Commission $2.5 million for the Study.

The interim report goes on to state

The Terms of Reference (Appendix I) outline the Study's objectives, scope, consultation, governance and timing. 

(a) Aim and objectives 

The Study will comprehensively investigate the prevalence and impact of racism in universities, establish a baseline of racism experiences and develop recommendations to create a safe, respectful and inclusive environment for all university students and staff. 

(b) Scope 

The Study has a wide-ranging scope and will identify prevalence and impact, including:

• The prevalence, nature and experiences of racism, including antisemitism and Islamophobia at universities for both staff and students at the individual and systemic levels. Universities with dual-sector operations that integrate higher education with vocational education and training (VET) are included in the scope of the Study. 

• Which cohorts of students and staff experience racism, including but not limited to the distinct incidences of antisemitism, Islamophobia and the experience of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, people from other negatively racialised backgrounds and international students. 

• The unique context and circumstances of racism for different groups of students and staff, including a specific focus on the experiences of Jewish, Muslim and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and staff.

The Study will also conduct practical research to develop recommendations for the Government, universities and other relevant stakeholders to address racism and discrimination. 

(c) Research questions and approach 

The Study utilises a mixed methodology, combining quantitative and qualitative data from the survey analysis with qualitative data from survey responses, focus groups, interviews and roundtable discussions. The Terms of Reference establish the areas for inquiry and scope. These areas have been operationalised into specific research questions to guide research design:

• What is the prevalence, nature and impact of racism on university staff and students? 

• How do different cohorts of students and staff experience racism? • How effective are current responses to racism? 

• Do current responses sufficiently understand and provide targeted responses to the distinct experiences of different cohorts? 

• How can universities embed anti-racism into policy and practice? 

• What can we learn from national and international promising practice and prevention? 

• How can Government, universities and other stakeholders prevent racism and improve responses to racism?

The Study is designed with a strong commitment to anti-racism, including centring lived experiences and perspectives, trauma informed, facilitating cultural safety, intersectional and focusing on the systemic nature of racism. In addition, upholding privacy and ethical principles are also important components of the Study methodology. 

(d) Deliverables 

The Study deliverables will include:

• a robust survey instrument (and associated technical reports) for broader use across the tertiary education sector and as the basis for ongoing, longitudinal use in higher education 

• a comprehensive literature review 

• a report that includes Study findings and a series of recommendations for further work and/or action, for the Government and the university sector.

Conspiracism

'Conspiracy theory, anti-globalism, and the Freedom Convoy: The Great Reset and conspiracist delegitimation' byr Corey Robinson and Scott D. Watson in (2025) Review of International Studies comments

In this article, we analyse how anti-globalist conspiracy theories were mobilised online to delegitimise national authorities and policies designed to curb the Covid-19 pandemic in Canada. These conspiracy theories attacked the political authority underpinning public health measures and targeted purportedly ‘liberal’ policies and ‘globalist’ actors. Our case study examines the Freedom Convoy, a series of protests against Covid-19 vaccine mandates that began in Canada but inspired global demonstrations. The Freedom Convoy fostered and relied upon anti-globalist conspiracy theories, including the ‘Great Reset’ and ‘Great Replacement’, both of which posit a global conspiracy to erode national sovereignty and impose a ‘liberal’ international order. We investigate far-right social media commentary from 4chan’s Politically Incorrect imageboard /pol/, Infowars, and Rebel News, showing how conspiratorial claims were marshalled in alt-tech spaces. These narratives were used to delegitimise public health measures to combat Covid-19 and the Liberal Trudeau government by linking them to various ‘globalist’ forces. In exploring three mechanisms of delegitimation – externalisation, personification, and Othering – we argue that far-right movements like the Freedom Convoy, motivated by anti-globalist conspiracism, mobilise the international realm by leveraging the legitimacy gap of international organisations and agendas to undermine the political authority of actors at the national level. 

 

The Freedom Convoy (FC) began in January 2022 as a series of protests, blockades, and online campaigns opposing Covid-19 vaccine mandates for commercial truckers crossing the Canada–US border. The protests quickly evolved into a broader movement, both within Canada and internationally, against ‘globalism’ and various issues associated with liberal global governance. These issues ranged from vaccine mandates to intentional depopulation and world government. The FC, which united a loose coalition of far-right groups alongside vaccine sceptics, organised via social media and travelled across Canada to gather in Ottawa and at key border points. The movement mobilised far-right anti-globalist conspiracy theories to articulate its opposition to a range of measures associated with the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the ‘Great Reset’. 

 

Using semi-trailer trucks, protestors established an encampment and demanded the repeal of public health measures and the dissolution of the Trudeau government. Sustained by the deafening chorus of honking from 400 to 500 semi-trailer trucks and supported by approximately $24 million CAD in online donations – 56 per cent of which came from the United States – the protests grew to an estimated 10,000 people in Ottawa’s downtown core, paralysing city services for over three weeks. The Ottawa protest sparked demonstrations at provincial capitals and blockades at numerous Canada–US border crossings. It obstructed at least 19 ports of entry, resulting in $3.9 billion CAD in lost trade activity. At the Coutts Port of Entry, along the Alberta border, police uncovered a cache of guns, ammunition, a pipe bomb, and body armour. Four protestors, some with alleged ties to Diagolon – a far-right accelerationist group – were charged with conspiracy to murder RCMP officers. 

 

Driven by anti-globalist conspiracies and extremist rhetoric, the FC and the Canadian government’s invocation of the Emergencies Act to end the protest garnered significant international attention, leading to smaller but notable copycat demonstrations worldwide. Countries such as Austria, Bolivia, Israel, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand saw groups rally against what they perceived as the authoritarianism of public health orders, framing the situation as a populist battle for ‘freedom’ against alleged government overreach and a ‘globalist’ agenda. In Wellington and Helsinki, vehicles blocked roads around Parliament, while Paris and Brussels took steps to prohibit anti-vaccine protests inspired by the FC. French police arrested dozens of individuals and intercepted vehicles heading to Brussels. In the United States, former president Donald Trump criticised Prime Minister Trudeau as a ‘far-left lunatic’ who ‘destroyed Canada with insane COVID mandates’. Senator Ted Cruz visited the ‘People’s Convoy’ in Washington, DC, to show his support, while Florida Governor Ron DeSantis vowed to investigate GoFundMe after the crowdfunding platform suspended fundraising for the protestors. Pierre Poilievre, leader of the Conservative Party and the official opposition in Canada, enthusiastically supported the FC as a popular campaign against Trudeau and the ‘gatekeeping elite’.  In his campaign to become the next prime minister, Poilievre continues to engage with many of the groups that participated in the Convoy and to weaponise conspiracy theories that found a discursive vehicle in the protests, such as the Great Reset. 

 

Focusing on the conspiracy theories surrounding the FC that circulated online, this article explores the question: how does anti-globalist conspiracism function in the delegitimation of political authority? Contextualising these transnational protests within broader scholarly debates about the global far right and populist internationalism, this article examines how far-right populists and movements have increasingly mobilised conspiracy theories to undermine national governments and ‘elites’ associated with ‘globalist’ institutions and agendas. 

 

Our analysis illustrates that the anti-globalist conspiracism surrounding the FC functioned discursively to delegitimise the political authority of the Canadian government (and public health measures like vaccine mandates) by associating them with international institutions and ‘globalist’ agendas held responsible for the pandemic response. As we show in the following sections, conspiracist delegitimation employs three primary mechanisms: externalisation, personification, and Othering. 

 

First, externalisation involves projecting problems of national politics onto the international level and attributing their causes to foreign actors, institutions, and agendas, to the exclusion of internal/domestic processes, policies, and complex, multilevel governance structures. This process redirects concerns about domestic issues onto representative figures of the global elite, delegitimising national actors (such as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau), international institutions (like the WEF), and agendas (such as the Great Reset). Of course, this is not unique to anti-globalism; identifying foreign, international actors as the driving force in history is a fundamental feature of conspiracy theories. External figures such as Klaus Schwab, George Soros, and Bill Gates were prominent in the Convoy discourse, as was the general term ‘globalists’. Externalisation functioned discursively by linking public health measures and post-Covid recovery policies to international organisations such as the WEF, the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations (UN). At the same time, externalisation obscured key factors that shaped the response, such as the division of federal and provincial powers, and the rejection of legitimate democratic processes and actors, which were discredited through their association with the legitimacy deficit of international institutions. Externalisation thus served to delegitimise democratic norms and procedures by mobilising the international and the legitimacy deficit of international institutions and agendas. 

 

Second, personification entails reducing various processes and structures to the actions of single individuals or groups – what Popper referred to as ‘psychologism’ in his early critique of conspiracism – a phenomenon also captured by terms such as ‘hyperagency’. Personification assumes that individuals hold near-total control over outcomes and that outcomes are always intended. Consequently, it attributes both unintentional effects and negative outcomes of impersonal and abstract structures to the intentional conspiratorial design of powerful individuals or groups, such as Schwab, Soros, or Gates. Domestically, Trudeau personified the Covid public health measures associated with ‘globalism’, while externally, Klaus Schwab of the WEF was considered responsible for the ‘Great Reset’. The focus on Trudeau, along with his association with Schwab, obscured the mistakes and unintended outcomes that contributed to the pandemic and simplified complex global processes into a narrative of intentional design by individuals. These processes, and the complex governance of public health, border controls, international trade, and supply chains in Canada, were reduced to the intentions of specific elites. By focusing on Trudeau and associating him with Schwab and the WEF’s Great Reset, anti-globalist conspiracism offered a simplistic diagnosis of the pandemic that challenged the legitimacy of the Canadian government and public health measures by discursively linking the prime minister to elitist, illegitimate, and undemocratic forces of ‘globalism’. 

 

Finally, Othering draws on racist, civilisational, and gendered discourses to identify those allegedly engaging in or facilitating conspiratorial behaviour intended to alter social norms and practices against the values and interests of the national community. Certain groups are consistently Othered in anti-globalist conspiracism, including Jews, homosexuals, and communists, either explicitly or through the use of coded language like ‘globalists’. As we explore in subsequent sections, the FC online narratives focused their discursive energy on these ‘Others’, with communists (Trudeau and Castro), women and homosexuals (globohomo), and Jews (George Soros) all featured in the discourse about the FC. 

 

Through an analysis of the anti-globalist conspiracy theories that discursively fuelled the FC, this article makes a twofold contribution to International Relations (IR). First, it adds to the emerging body of research situated at the intersection of IR, the global far right, and conspiracy theories by extending the study of anti-globalist conspiracism beyond the realms of populist foreign policy and far-right ideology to focus on alt-tech spaces, which are becoming increasingly influential in these movements. Second, this article advances the study of populist internationalism by highlighting the role of anti-globalist conspiracism in the FC’s resistance to the perceived forces of globalism, and by analysing the mechanisms of delegitimation directed towards national authorities, who were cast as front organisations for global elites. 

 

Before analysing the process of conspiracist delegitimation in the alt-tech space, the following section reviews the multidisciplinary literature on conspiracy theory. While existing scholarship identifies individual and cultural responses to globalisation, it has not sufficiently addressed the national and international political dynamics at the root of anti-globalist conspiracism. Subsequently, we examine the emerging scholarship on conspiracy theory in IR. We then turn quickly to the literature on the global far right, which has drawn attention to the internationalisation of the far right but has largely neglected anti-globalist conspiracism. Finally, before the empirical analysis, we outline our methodological approach.

AI Externalities

'The Unpaid Toll: Quantifying the Public Health Impact of AI' byYuelin Han, Zhifeng Wu, Pengfei Li, Adam Wierman and Shaolei Ren comments 

The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has numerous potentials to play a transformative role in addressing grand societal challenges, including air quality and public health [1, 2]. For example, by integrating multimodal data from various sources, AI can provide effective tools and actionable insights for pandemic preparedness, disease prevention, healthcare optimization, and air quality management [1, 3]. However, the surging demand for AI — particularly generative AI, as exemplified by the recent popularity of large language models (LLMs) — has driven a rapid increase in computational needs, fueling the unprecedented expansion of energy-intensive AI data centers. According to McKinsey projections, under a medium-growth scenario [4], the U.S. data centers are anticipated to account for 11.7% of national electricity consumption in 2030, a substantial increase from their current share of less than 4% in 2023. 

The growing electricity demand of AI data centers has not only created significant stress on power grid stability [5,6], but also increasingly impacts the environment through escalating carbon emissions [7,8] and water consumption [9]. These environmental impacts are driven primarily by the “expansion of AI products and services,” as recently acknowledged by Google in its latest sustainability report [10]. To mitigate the challenges posed to both power grids and the environment, a range of strategies have been explored, including grid-integrated data centers [6, 11], energy-efficient hardware and software [12–14], and the adoption of carbon-aware and water-efficient computing practices [9,15–17], among others. 

The hidden toll of AI. While the environmental footprint of AI has garnered attention, the public health burden, a hidden toll of AI, has been largely overlooked. Across its entire lifecycle — from chip manufacturing to data center operation — AI contributes substantially to air quality degradation and public health costs through the emission of various criteria air pollutants. These include fine particulate matter (PM2.5, particles measuring 2.5 micrometers or smaller in diameter that can penetrate deep into lungs and cause serious health effects), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Concretely, the AI hardware manufacturing process [18], electricity generation from fossil fuels to power AI data centers, and the maintenance and usage of diesel backup generators to ensure continuous AI data center operation all produce significant amounts of criteria air pollutants. Moreover, the distinct spatial-temporal heterogeneities of emission sources suggest that focusing solely on reducing AI’s carbon footprints may not minimize its emissions of criteria air pollutants or the resulting public health impacts (Section 5). 

Exposure to criteria air pollutants is directly and causally linked to various adverse health outcomes, including premature mortality, lung cancer, asthma, heart attacks, cardiovascular diseases, strokes, and even cognitive decline, especially for the elderly and vulnerable individuals with pre-existing conditions [20–23]. Moreover, even short-term (hours to days) PM2.5 exposure is harmful and deadly, accounting for approximately 1 million premature deaths per year from 2000 to 2019 and representing 2% of total global deaths [24]. 

Globally, 4.2 million deaths were attributed to ambient (i.e., outdoor) air pollution in 2019 [25]. Air pollution has become the second highest risk factor for noncommunicable diseases [26]. Notably, according to the latest Global Burden of Disease report [27], along with high blood pressure and high blood sugar, ambient particulate matter is placed among the leading risk factors for disease burden globally in every socio-demographic group. 

While the U.S. has generally better air quality than many other countries, 4 in 10 people in the U.S. still live with unhealthy levels of air pollution, according to the “State of the Air 2024” report published by the American Lung Association [28]. In 2019 (the latest year of data provided by the World Health Organization, or WHO, as of November 2024), an estimate of 93,886 deaths in the U.S. were attributed to ambient air pollution [29]. In fact, even compliance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) air quality standards does not necessarily guarantee healthy air that meets the WHO guidelines. Concretely, the EPA’s recently tightened primary standard for PM2.5 sets an annual average limit of 9 µg/m3, considerably higher than the WHO’s recommended level of 5 µg/m3 [30,31]. In addition, the EPA projects that 53 U.S. counties, including 23 in the most populous state of California, would fail to meet the revised national annual PM2.5 standard in 2032 [32]. 

Further, criteria air pollutants are not confined to the immediate vicinity of their emission sources; they can travel hundreds of miles through a dispersion process (i.e., cross-state air pollution) [33,34], impacting public health across vast regions — pollutants from the 2024 Canadian wildfires significantly degraded air quality across much of the U.S. and reached as far as Mexico and Europe [35]. 

Importantly, along with transportation and industrial activities, electricity generation is a major contributor to ambient air pollution with substantial public health impacts [26, 36, 37]. For example, a recent study [38] shows that, between 1999 and 2020, a total of 460,000 excess deaths were attributed to PM2.5 generated by coal-fired power plants alone in the U.S. As highlighted by the U.S. EPA [36], despite years of progress, “fossil fuel-based power plants remain a leading source of air, water, and land pollution that affects communities nationwide.” Moreover, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projection [39], the coal consumption by the electricity sector in 2050 will still be about 30% of the 2024 level in the baseline reference case, and the number will exceed 50% in the high zero-carbon technology cost case. Indeed, the growing energy demands of AI are already delaying the decommissioning of coal-fired power plants and increasing fossil-fuel plants in the U.S. as well as around the world [6,40,41]. 

The public health outcomes of AI due to its emission of criteria air pollutants lead to various losses, such as hospitalizations, medication usage, emergency room visits, school loss days, and lost workdays. Moreover, these losses can be further quantified in economic costs based on epidemiology and economics research for the corresponding health endpoints [22,42]. In contrast, the environmental impacts of AI, e.g., carbon emission from fossil fuels and water consumption for data center cooling, often do not cause the same immediate health impacts. For instance, while anthropogenic carbon emissions could also pose risks to public health, such impacts are often second- or third-order effects through long-term climate change which can then threaten the human well-being by affecting the food people eat and facilitating the spreading of pests, among others [43]. Nonetheless, despite their immediate and tangible impacts on public health, the criteria air pollutants of AI have remained under the radar, entirely omitted from today’s AI risk assessments and sustainability reports [10,44,45]. 

Quantifying the public health costs of AI. In this paper, we uncover and quantify the hidden public health impacts of AI. We introduce a general methodology to model the emission of criteria air pollutants  associated with AI tasks across three distinct scopes: emissions from the maintenance and operation of backup generators (Scope 1), emissions from fossil fuel combustion for electricity generation (Scope 2), and emissions resulting from the manufacturing of server hardware (Scope 3). Then, we analyze the dispersion of criteria air pollutants and the resulting public health impacts across different regions.

Classroom FRT

'Cameras in the Classroom: Facial Recognition Technology in Schools' (2020) by Claire Galligan, Hannah Rosenfeld, Molly Kleinman and Shobita Parthasarathy 2020 comments 

 Facial recognition (FR) technology was long considered science fiction, but it is now part of everyday life for people all over the world. FR systems identify or verify an individual’s identity based on a digitized image alone, and are commonly used for identity verification, security, and surveillance in a variety of settings including law enforcement, commerce, and transportation. Schools have also begun to use it to track students and visitors for a range of uses, from automating attendance to school security. FR can be used to identify people in photos, videos, and in real time, and is usually framed as more efficient and accurate than other forms of identity verification. However, a growing body of evidence suggests that it will erode individual privacy and disproportionately burden people of color, women, people with disabilities, and trans and gender non-conforming people. In this report, we focus on the use of FR in schools because it is not yet widespread and because it will impact particularly vulnerable populations. We analyze FR’s implications using an analogical case comparison method. Through an iterative process, we developed historical case studies of similar technologies, and analyzed their social, economic, and political impacts, and the moral questions that they raised. This method enables us to anticipate the consequences of using FR in schools; our analysis reveals that FR will likely have five types of implications: exacerbating racism, normalizing surveillance and eroding privacy, narrowing the definition of the “acceptable” student, commodifying data, and institutionalizing inaccuracy. Because FR is automated, it will extend these effects to more students than any manual system could. On the basis of this analysis, we strongly recommend that use of FR be banned in schools. However, we have offered some recommendations for its development, deployment, and regulation if schools proceed to use the technology.