
"We can't just do good and do harm at the same time": Nonprofit staff are questioning AI's environmental toll
Nonprofit professionals want to use AI to work smarter, but many are quietly wondering if doing so conflicts with their mission to protect the planet. Experts say the fix isn't avoiding AI altogether, it's being deliberate about which tool you reach for and why, since a generated image can require 1,450 times more electricity than a simple AI chat response.
The tension at the heart of this piece: nonprofits are supposed to be values-driven, but AI adoption pressure is intense, and the environmental math isn't always intuitive (a quick grammar check is a very different footprint than asking for a video or a "deep research" report). Several experts argue organizations need actual AI policies that name this trade-off explicitly rather than pretending it doesn't exist.
Here's a line that captures the tension many staffers feel:
>"We can't just do good and do harm at the same time." — Nathan Chappell, founder of Fundraising.AI
Discussion Questions:
- Does your organization have an AI policy that explicitly addresses environmental impact, or is this a blind spot no one's tackled yet?
- How do you personally decide when a task is "worth" the energy cost of a generative AI tool versus doing it the old-fashioned way?
- Is it realistic to expect nonprofit staff to police their own AI use this closely, or should this responsibility sit with vendors and policymakers instead?
Note: This story is behind a paywall, however a limited number of Chronicle stories are available for free each month to readers who register at philanthropy.com.