Ádám EszterOn 16 March the Alma Mater University "It's About People 2026" conference hosted a pivotal online scholarly panel titled "AI and the Right to a Healthy Environment: From Constitutional Guarantees to Planetary Well-being." This session, which focused on the complex interplay between emerging digital technologies and ecological preservation, was organized by the Algorithmic Constitutionalism Research Group and was moderated by Boldizsár Szentgáli-Tóth, Senior Research Fellow at ELTE CSS Institute for Legal Studies, and principal researcher of the Algorithmic Constitutionalism Research Group. The discussion sought to bridge the gap between algorithmic innovation and environmental law, exploring how artificial intelligence can be transitioned from a resource-heavy industry into a catalyst for upholding constitutional rights and ensuring the long-term health of our planet.
The panel featured a distinguished group of international scholars who brought a multidisciplinary approach to these pressing global issues. Contributing to the discourse were Professor Leila Neimane from the University of Latvia and Professor Neringa Gaubiene from the University of Vilnius, both of whom offered critical insights into the legal frameworks and regional implications of tech-driven environmental governance. They were joined by Professor Ferenc Jordán of the University of Parma, who addressed the biological and ecological dimensions of planetary well-being in the digital age. Rounding out the panel were Professor Kristóf Fenyvesi and PhD candidate Orsolya Tuba, both representing the University of Jyväskylä, who provided perspectives on the intersection of education, research, and sustainable development.
The session commenced with an analysis by Professor Leila Neimane regarding the evolving intersection of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and environmental jurisprudence. Professor Neimane contended that the pervasive integration of AI across governance and economic sectors necessitates a critical evaluation against stringent ecological parameters. She argued for a departure from traditional, tech-centric discourse, advocating instead for a legal framework where digital innovation is inherently constrained by the concept of "planetary boundaries" and the fundamental right to a healthy environment.
A central pillar of her analysis addressed the "AI paradox", the inherent tension between the technology’s capacity for ecological mitigation and its significant physical footprint. While AI provides indispensable tools for climate modelling, biodiversity monitoring, and energy optimization, Professor Neimane highlighted that the infrastructure supporting these systems, including data centres and global hardware supply chains, exacts a heavy toll on energy, water, and raw materials. This creates a risk where the digital solutions deployed to protect the environment may simultaneously exacerbate the very pressures they are intended to alleviate.
Furthermore, the presentation identified a systemic deficiency in current regulatory landscapes, noting that prevailing AI legislation focuses primarily on data privacy, safety, and market competition while neglecting environmental externalities. To rectify this "governance blind spot," Professor Neimane proposed a conceptual framework predicated on the dual pillars of ecological limits and environmental justice. This approach emphasizes intergenerational equity and the constitutional necessity of algorithmic accountability. She concluded that managing the environmental impact of AI requires a paradigm shift in digital governance, wherein courts and regulators treat ecological footprints as a core component of accountability rather than a peripheral concern. Ultimately, the research underscored that the sustainable evolution of AI demands a multidisciplinary synthesis of digital policy and environmental science, framing AI as a profound legal and ecological challenge that necessitates a fundamental reimagining of the global regulatory landscape.
The discourse was further advanced by Professors Ferenc Jordán and Kristóf Fenyvesi, who posited that humanity has surpassed critical ecological thresholds through systemic over-exploitation and the disruption of natural habitats. Professor Jordán advocated for an epistemological shift from linear causality toward a holistic systems perspective, emphasizing the necessity of understanding nature’s hierarchy through complex network models. By analysing functional diversity and ecosystem stability, he argued that researchers can identify the "switchers" – pivotal points that precipitate dangerous regime shifts in the environment. In this context, AI and advanced mathematical modelling were presented as indispensable computational tools capable of mapping the intricate ecological networks that define socio-ecological systems. Through examples such as carbon flow networks and plant-pollinator maps, Jordán illustrated how AI facilitates the visualization of the intersection between human markets and biological systems, offering a data-driven path toward ecological recovery.
However, the presenters maintained a critical stance against "technocracy," warning that an absolute reliance on technological intervention is insufficient. Professor Jordán underscored that AI must be accompanied by profound cultural transformations, including the adoption of degrowth principles, increased self-control, and a significant reduction in the global ecological footprint. This necessitates an evolution of legal and social norms – originally designed for a significantly smaller human population – to address the current reality of eight billion inhabitants on a finite planet.
Expanding this dialogue into the pedagogical realm, Professor Fenyvesi critiqued the sterile, data-heavy utopian visions that frequently dominate future narratives. He argued that education must move beyond a narrow focus on "AI readiness" to foster a process of "unlearning" outdated habits and pluralizing our perspectives on the future. By integrating planetary well-being into educational policy, society can better navigate complexity and maintain a broader spectrum of future possibilities. Ultimately, the presenters concluded that the environmental crisis is a multidisciplinary challenge that demands a fundamental redefinition of the human position within the biosphere, supported by a legal and educational architecture that respects "more-than-human" narratives and rigorous ecological boundaries.
The third presentation, delivered by Professor Neringa Gaubiene, addressed a critical lacuna in the global discourse surrounding Artificial Intelligence: the pervasive disregard for the technology’s substantial ecological footprint. Gaubiene contended that while societal debate is largely preoccupied with labor displacement and existential risk, the environmental costs of large-scale computational infrastructure – specifically intensive energy consumption, hydraulic demand, and hardware lifecycle externalities – remain significantly under-scrutinized. She argued that the environmental dimension of AI necessitates a level of regulatory rigor commensurate with its economic and existential impacts. Analyzing the EU AI Act as a primary regulatory benchmark, Gaubiene identified a significant "regulatory gap" regarding sustainability. While the Act establishes a risk-based classification for fundamental rights and safety, it lacks an explicit environmental risk category and fails to mandate standardized reporting on carbon emissions or resource usage. Consequently, she advocated for the expansion of "AI literacy" – a mandatory requirement under the Act – to include an understanding of environmental consequences, enabling decision-makers to evaluate the necessity of AI deployment against its ecological costs. She concluded that AI regulation must be integrated with broader sustainability frameworks, such as the EU Green Deal, to ensure transparent and standardized environmental accountability.
Concluding the panel, Orsolya Tuba synthesized these legal and ecological perspectives through the introduction of "Planetary AI Literacy." Moving beyond conventional technical and ethical training, Tuba interrogated the scope of responsibility in AI deployment, positing that it must extend beyond anthropogenic needs to encompass the entire biosphere, ensuring the flourishing of both human and "more-than-human" entities. This perspective challenges the anthropocentric nature of the current Sustainable Development Goals, proposing "planetary well-being" as a more comprehensive framework. Tuba highlighted the global justice implications of AI, noting that the environmental burdens of training large-scale models – such as resource extraction and energy depletion – often fall on marginalized communities that do not benefit from the technology’s outputs. To address this, she advocated for a "pedagogy-first" approach to AI, which prioritizes critical inquiry into how digital convenience shapes societal values and potentially fuels unsustainable consumption. Ultimately, the panel’s deliberations converged on the necessity of "algorithmic constitutionalism," suggesting that the legal right to a healthy environment must be extended to the digital realm. By framing the ecological impact of AI as a fundamental constitutional issue, legal and educational systems can more effectively hold technological innovation accountable to the limits of the natural world.
In summary, the international assembly of panellists offered a comprehensive examination of the multifaceted intersections between the right to a healthy environment and artificial intelligence. The diverse range of insights presented underscores the significant potential for future cross-border research collaborations in this burgeoning field. Our research group remains steadfast in its commitment to investigating the complex interplay between constitutional environmental rights and emerging technologies, and we look forward to the continued evolution of the critical discourse initiated during this panel.
_________________________________________________________
This report was prepared with the support of the ELTE CSS Algorithmic Constitutionalism Lendület/Momentum Research Group (LP2024-20/2024), funded by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
_________________________________________________________
The views expressed above belong to the speakers and do not necessarily represent the views of the Centre for Social Sciences.