# *Detailed SUMMARY of the article “Powering the future” by Asad Baig, Published in Dawn on June 2nd, 2025:* The article critiques the selective outrage over the environmental costs of *AI* and *cryptocurrency* in *Pakistan*, arguing that criticisms of their *energy* and *water consumption* reflect discomfort with technological disruption rather than genuine *climate justice* concerns. It compares *AI prompts* to other digital activities like *Netflix binge-watching* or *social media scrolling*, which also consume significant resources but face less scrutiny due to cultural familiarity. The author challenges the *moral panic* surrounding *Pakistan*’s plan to allocate *two gigawatts* of power for *AI data centers* and *crypto mining*, suggesting this reflects resistance to new players disrupting traditional power structures. The article advocates for a responsible approach to *emerging technologies*, emphasizing *transparency* in energy use, *cleaner energy integration*, and *green infrastructure* rather than halting progress. Globally, it calls for *binding protocols* through forums like the *United Nations* to enforce *sustainability* in tech. For *crypto* in *Pakistan*, the focus should shift from energy concerns to *regulatory frameworks*, *transparency*, *governance*, and *financial inclusion* to benefit the unbanked, rather than allowing politically connected elites to dominate. The article urges a *consultative regulatory process* involving *technologists*, *civil society*, and *financial experts* to ensure *clarity*, *consumer protections*, and *public literacy*, positioning *crypto* as a tool for *remittances*, *savings*, and *digital ownership* rather than speculative profit. # *Easy/Short SUMMARY*: Criticism of *AI* and *crypto*’s energy use in *Pakistan* is less about *climate* and more about fear of *technological disruption*. The *two-gigawatt* allocation for *AI data centers* and *crypto mining* faces misplaced outrage. *Pakistan* should embrace *sustainable tech* with *transparent energy use* and *green infrastructure*. *Crypto* needs a *transparent regulatory framework* for *financial inclusion*, not elite profit, with *public literacy* and *consumer protections*. # *SOLUTIONS of The Problem*: ## *1. Ensure Energy Transparency* Demand *data centers* disclose *energy* and *water use* for accountability. ## *2. Integrate Clean Energy* Incentivize *renewable energy* for *AI* and *crypto* infrastructure. ## *3. Develop Green Infrastructure* Invest in *sustainable systems* to support *emerging technologies*. ## *4. Advocate Global Protocols* Push for *binding environmental protocols* at *UN* or global forums for *tech sustainability*. ## *5. Create Consultative Regulation* Build *crypto regulations* with *technologists*, *civil society*, and *financial experts*. ## *6. Promote Financial Inclusion* Design *crypto systems* for *remittances*, *savings*, and *digital ownership* for the unbanked. ## *7. Enhance Public Literacy* Educate the public on *crypto* to ensure informed participation. ## *8. Establish Consumer Protections* Implement *safeguards* to protect *crypto users* from exploitation. ## *9. Avoid Elite Capture* Prevent politically connected actors from monopolizing *crypto benefits*. ## *10. Balance Innovation and Sustainability* Align *AI* and *crypto growth* with *environmental* and *social goals*. # *IMPORTANT Facts and Figures Given in the article*: - *Pakistan* plans to dedicate *two gigawatts* of power to *AI data centers* and *crypto mining*. - Criticism of *AI* and *crypto* focuses on *energy* and *water consumption*. - *Crypto* can enable *financial inclusion* for millions without access to *traditional banking*. # *IMPORTANT Facts and Figures out of the article*: - *AI data centers* globally consume *1–2%* of total electricity (*IEA*, 2024). - *Crypto mining* accounts for *0.4%* of global energy use (*Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index*, 2024). - *Pakistan*’s renewable energy share is *4.1%* of total power (*NEPRA*, 2024). - *60%* of *Pakistan*’s population lacks access to *formal banking* (*World Bank*, 2023). - *Global AI market* projected to reach *$1.8 trillion* by 2030 (*Statista*, 2024). - *Pakistan*’s internet penetration is *40%* in 2024 (*PTA*, 2024). # *MCQs from the Article*: ### 1. *What is the main criticism of AI and crypto in Pakistan according to the article?* A. Security risks *B. Energy and water consumption* C. Lack of regulation D. High costs ### 2. *What does the author compare AI prompts’ energy use to?* A. Online gaming *B. Netflix binge-watching* C. Cloud storage D. E-commerce ### 3. *How much power is Pakistan dedicating to AI and crypto?* A. One gigawatt *B. Two gigawatts* C. Three gigawatts D. Four gigawatts ### 4. *What does the article suggest instead of shutting down AI and crypto?* A. Banning new technologies *B. Steering them responsibly* C. Ignoring energy concerns D. Limiting public access ### 5. *What is a proposed benefit of crypto for Pakistan?* A. Increased taxation *B. Financial inclusion* C. Energy conservation D. Political control # *VOCABULARY*: 1. *Sanctimonious* (منافقانہ) – Pretending to be morally superior 2. *Alarmism* (خوفناک پیش گوئی) – Exaggerated warnings 3. *Extravagant* (فضول خرچ) – Wasteful or excessive 4. *Scrutiny* (جانچ پڑتال) – Careful examination 5. *Performative* (نمائشی) – Done for show or effect 6. *Inertia* (سستی) – Resistance to change 7. *Masquerading* (بہروپ بھرنا) – Pretending to be something else 8. *Frontier* (سرحدی) – Cutting-edge or new areas 9. *Siphoned* (چوری چھپے نکالنا) – Diverted secretly 10. *Bureaucracy* (نوکر شاہی) – Administrative system 11. *Imperatives* (لازمی امور) – Essential priorities 12. *Stringent* (سخت) – Strict or rigorous 13. *Speculative* (قیاسی) – Based on guesswork or risk 14. *Remittances* (ترسیلات زر) – Money sent by migrants 15. *Guardrails* (حدود) – Protective boundaries 16. *Gatekeeping* (راستہ روکنا) – Controlling access 17. *Legitimate* (جائز) – Lawful or genuine 18. *Marginalise* (حاشیے پر دھکیلنا) – Exclude or sideline 19. *Consultation* (مشاورت) – Discussion for decision-making 20. *Inclusive* (شمولیتی) – Including all groups 📢 *Attention Please!* We appreciate your commitment to acquiring knowledge through our summaries. Please be reminded not to remove the attribution label affixed to this article. It is crucial to acknowledge the source and the effort invested in creating this summary. We discourage any unauthorized distribution without proper credit. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. 🔍 ⚡ *Explore More Summaries, Solutions, and Vocabulary Meanings* 💡 Join our WhatsApp Channel for timely and comprehensive summaries of the latest articles, along with well-crafted solutions and helpful vocabulary meanings. Click the link below to join now 🔗 [Dawn Article Summaries](https://cssmcqs.com/dawn-editorials-articles-summary-for-students-pdf-download/) *WhatsApp Channel Link*: [https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Va7tT3o35fLnJeFbpS2y](https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Va7tT3o35fLnJeFbpS2y) --- *www.dawn.com* *‘Powering the future’* *Asad Baig* *6–8 minutes* “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. Pakistan’s newfound enthusiasm for crypto doesn’t have to follow the chaotic arc seen elsewhere. 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 AI data 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-setting bodies, 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 arc 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 writer is the founder of Media Matters for Democracy. Published in Dawn, June 2nd, 2025