【Article by International College of Innovation】

The Introduction to Global Studies course, an English-taught course offered by Assistant Professor Chiang, Shun-nan of the International College of Innovation (ICI) at National Chengchi University, held its third and final Round-Table Project of the semester on November 26. The session, titled “AI boom vs. Energy Transition: Can they Coexist?”, explored the potential tensions—and possibilities for coexistence—between the rapid expansion of artificial intelligence (AI) and global energy transition efforts. Through cross-disciplinary data analysis and policy comparison, students examined the environmental pressures of AI’s energy consumption, low-carbon energy deployment, governance frameworks, and global inequality, ultimately developing eight distinct policy positionings that reveal the complex interplay between technological advancement and sustainability goals.

Two invited discussants—Professor Pien, Chung-pei, ICI faculty member and commissioner of Taiwan’s Carbon Fee Rate Review Committee, and Professor Chao, Chia-wei, Chairman of the Taiwan Association for Environmental Planning and Director of the Taiwan Climate Action Network Research Center—provided expert commentary. Their responses, spanning energy system transformation, AI governance, data-center electricity demand, and international political economy, helped ground student analyses within real-world policy and industry contexts.

This Round-Table adopted position analysis as its core learning method, guiding students to compare how governments, corporations, international organizations, and civil society actors adopt competing strategies in response to AI and energy challenges. Students recognized that many public issues cannot be reduced to binary positions, but instead involve intersecting and often competing perspectives. Over three weeks, each of the eight groups investigated one assigned stance and presented arguments supported by concrete data, case studies, and identification of key global actors. These positionings included:

• Slowing down AI development due to its potential to undermine renewable energy transition goals.
• Significantly expanding nuclear energy investment to simultaneously support the energy transition and rising AI electricity demand.
• Embracing AI’s potential to enhance energy efficiency and accelerate decarbonization.
• Viewing both the AI boom and the energy transition as deepening global inequalities and digital colonialism.
• Prioritizing AI-driven economic growth supported by continued fossil fuel use, suggesting a more gradual and pragmatic energy transition.
• Relying on market incentives and corporate self-regulation—such as net-zero commitments, carbon offsets, and renewable power purchase agreements—to resolve energy challenges.
• Implementing energy-aware regulations to ensure AI development aligns with national and global energy transition goals.
• Reconsidering high-tech expansion through a “sufficiency and justice” lens, questioning whether continued growth is desirable or necessary.
   

Students’ presentations demonstrated growing skill in evidence-based argumentation. Group 1 used data on AI’s escalating electricity use to argue for slowing AI development; Group 6 emphasized that strengthening renewable energy markets could incentivize companies to advance AI while supporting energy transition; Group 7 argued that government-led regulation is essential to ensure AI genuinely contributes to decarbonization; and Group 2 proposed nuclear energy as a viable path for balancing AI growth with energy transition. In contrast, Group 3 presented empirical evidence to suggest that AI could enhance energy production and consumption efficiency, while Group 5 contended that the economic benefits of AI justify prioritizing its development. Additional groups investigated deeper structural concerns: Group 4 highlighted how AI’s infrastructure and resource extraction disproportionately benefit the Global North while externalizing environmental and social burdens to the Global South, and Group 8 employed a “sufficiency” framework to question the necessity of unrestrained technological expansion.

During the second-hour discussion, Professor Chao contextualized student arguments using the latest data from the International Energy Agency (IEA), emphasizing that although electricity demand from AI is rising, it still represents a relatively small share of total global consumption. His comments helped students refine their understanding of data interpretation and policy relevance. Professor Pien focused on the importance of structured argumentation through the
C–R–E (Claim–Reason–Evidence) model, reminding students to anticipate counterarguments and propose feasible solutions consistent with their assigned stance.

Students posed thoughtful questions during the Q&A session, addressing issues such as global inequality in climate governance, the responsibilities of developed countries, how students might formulate meaningful solutions, and whether rapid AI competition could undermine countries’ net-zero commitments. Their questions reflected both their deep engagement with the discussants’ perspectives and their serious concern for the global implications of AI and energy transitions.

In the final activity, students were reorganized into mixed groups to collaboratively develop a “position map” synthesizing the eight perspectives. This exercise required them to analyze tensions and potential alignments across positions and visually represent their learning outcomes. Following the activity, Professor Chiang remarked, “From the group presentations to the expert exchanges and the final round-table task, it is clear that students have grown tremendously this semester. They are beginning to form their own perspectives, think critically, collaborate effectively, and engage deeply with global issues—this is the beginning of becoming true university learners.”

Reflecting on the three Round-Table Projects, students progressed from foundational understandings of global governance and local manifestations of globalization (Round-Table #1), to youth engagement in climate governance and COP processes (Round-Table #2), and finally to the institutional and ethical dilemmas surrounding AI and energy transition (Round-Table #3). Through case analysis, position comparison, and cross-group dialogue, students moved from “understanding the world” to “analyzing the world,” and began to position themselves as emerging global citizens.

By fostering interdisciplinary discussion and critical engagement with international issues, the Introduction to Global Studies course equips first-year students with essential competencies in global governance, independent reasoning, and collaborative learning. Round-Table #3 marks the conclusion of this semester’s core learning journey and symbolizes students’ readiness for deeper exploration in sustainability, technology, and public policy.