Did you know that, as humans, we actually have a finite decision-making capacity per day? As the hours go by, our resolve and rationale are slowly degraded one decision at a time: first it’s “to gym or not to gym,” then “should I walk or take the bus to work?” followed later on by “can I really be bothered to cook?”
Ergo, by the evening our judgment has often gone severely downhill, so it’s no wonder that our fried brains are, time and time again, incapable of overcoming arguably the worst dilemma of them all: What should we watch on Netflix?
“I really don’t know, there’s too much choice, we’ve been here for 25 minutes now – just put something, literally anything on!” – sound familiar?
However, given the carbon-intensity of video streaming, perhaps a more important question, one that will alleviate both the evening arguments and environmental impact, is: Should I watch Netflix, Disney+, Snapchat or TikTok in the first place, or is it bad for the planet?
Of course, almost every daily decision has an impact on your personal carbon footprint, but while watching this evening’s 4th episode of “The White Lotus” from the comfort of your sofa, perhaps think about this:
While there is no plume of smog coming out of your TV screen (hopefully), there are in fact real-life CO2 emissions associated with the noisy computer fan that fires up on a shelf in a giant data centre somewhere, thousands of miles away, as you click “play.”
In fact, according to the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) September 2022 report, the data centers and transmission networks that facilitate streaming accounted for 1-1.5% of the world’s total electricity consumption and 1% of the planet’s total energy-related GHG emissions (0.6% of total global emissions) in 2021.
As a result, IEA now advises that in order to align with the Paris Agreement’s net zero targets, the data industry must halve these emissions by 2030.
Prudently, as streaming platform subscription prices go up, we question whether the endless streams of B-rate movies, lip-syncing videos and souffle tutorials are really worth the considerable dent they make in our monthly budgets.
Whereas, perhaps what we should really be asking is: What kind of damage are my five expensive entertainment subscription plans really doing to the planet’s rapidly shrinking carbon budget?
The bottom line: An excessive video streaming or scrolling habit is definitely bad for you, your wallet and your waistline, but given it also has a hidden yet notable carbon footprint, it’s also possibly bad for the planet.
Impakter Index evaluates sustainability of streaming
In light of this, yesterday Impakter launched the third collection of Impakter Index sustainability reports (see the previous Automotive and Fashion and Beauty Care reports), this time focused on the Apps and Entertainment sector.
Impakter Index sustainability reports are designed to be a reliable and accessible go-to source of independent information that offers insight into how companies are contributing to a more sustainable future, and in them you can find a comprehensive “Sustainability Scorecard” and A-F sustainability rating for each company analysed.
This latest set of reports provides a deep dive into the sustainable practices of the world’s biggest streaming giants like Netflix, Disney+, Snapchat and TikTok.
If you’re simply here to learn more about the sustainability efforts of these streaming platforms, then scroll down to the “Which platform should you watch it on?” section.
Otherwise, if you’re interested to first understand how to calculate the carbon footprint of your existing only-one-or-two-episodes-a-night habit, then stay tuned.
Couch potato carbon footprint
Working out the carbon footprint of streaming a video is complicated. It may seem like the only energy costs stem from the light, heat and sound produced by the screen, but there are in fact a whole host of emission sources further upstream of the familiar:
Before video content is delivered to your device, it passes through an extensive labyrinth of complex technological systems, all of which are owned, operated and updated by different actors at different times.
This makes calculating the upstream, downstream and embodied emissions of video streaming, all the way from the director shouting “Action!” to you crying at the end of watching “Roma” on your laptop, pretty tricky.
The IEA has, however, done just that. Based on the data available, IEA estimates that one hour of video streaming has an energy cost of around 0.08kWH per hour and emits approximately 36g of CO2.
To put this into perspective, 36g of CO2 would be absorbed by a singular tree in around half a day, so if you watch an average-length movie or two back-to-back hour-long episodes, you would need to plant at least one tree in your garden to sequester your emissions.
Alternatively, if you’re not much of a horticulturist, then you could also hook your TV, laptop or phone up to an electric bike, because an average one-hour workout would more than offset your streaming habits, and you can also afford to eat all the snacks you like whilst watching – win-win.
To give you an idea of what you’re getting yourself into here:
- One episode of “Emily in Paris,” “The Office” or “Friends” = 18-minute e-bike workout
- One episode of “Homeland,” “Squid Game” or “Narcos” = 40-minute e-bike workout
- Full-length “Nightcrawler” or “Taxi Driver” = One-hour 30-minute e-bike workout
- Full-length “Call Me by Your Name” or “Moneyball” = One-hour 47-minute e-bike workout
However, let’s face it, neither the e-bike nor tree-planting options are necessarily realistic.
So, to better understand how one can curb the environmental impact of a movie marathon or the many lost hours on TikTok, we first need to better understand what factors need to be accounted for when estimating the CO2 emissions produced by streaming a video.
Where do we start? Well, before we get into the nitty gritty of it, let’s first begin with the question we all want answers for:
What should you choose to watch?
Unfortunately, although it would be nice to alleviate the daily dilemma of what to watch and let your climate conscience guide you, the type of content you end up watching (other than in terms of duration) doesn’t actually change its environmental impact. So no help with that one.
Where have the good old, “sorry, all copies of ‘Bladerunner’ are already rented, but ‘Minority Report’ is on half-price,” days of Blockbuster gone? Life was easier then.
Which platform should you watch it on?
Whether we’re talking about a 3.5-hour biopic or a 15-second clip, most streaming platforms use on-demand cloud-based computing services to house and distribute their virtual flicks, with one particularly clean cloud standing out from the crowd: Amazon Web Services (AWS).
AWS is the world’s top purchaser of corporate renewable energy, and 85% of its operations’ total energy consumption (30.9 TWh) came from renewables in 2021. What’s more, AWS aims to up this to 100% renewables by 2025, and has also pledged to become water positive by 2030.
The good news is that the popular streaming platforms, Netflix, Disney+ and Snapchat are among some of AWS’ millions of customers.
So, to help decide whether to go for a simple movie on Netflix or more of a #cookingfails montage on TikTok tonight, let’s take a look at the findings of Impakter Index’s Sustainability reports to see what kind of sustainability commitments these streaming platforms are making.
Netflix wants to “to entertain the world”
Impakter Index Sustainability Scorecard Rating: B (Outlook: Positive)
(Read the full report here)
The analysis carried out by the Impakter Index arrived at several conclusions underpinning the B (positive) score achieved by Netflix.
First, by focussing on increasing its server efficiency and renewable electricity use (the biggest inflaters of its carbon footprint), Netflix has shown a significant commitment to monitoring and reducing its environmental impact.
In fact, in aiming for a net-zero carbon footprint, Netflix was found to prioritise renewable energy sources and sustainable materials, pledging to cut its Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 45% by 2030.
Second, the company also purchases carbon offsets, engages in reforestation projects such as REDD+, is a member of DIMPACT (a project to help calculate the carbon footprint of streaming), and has many sustainability certifications.
Aside from curbing its carbon footprint, the Impakter Index analysis also highlights the fact that Netflix prioritises sustainability in day to day operations.
They use compostable products, donate excess food, reduce single-use plastics, and in 2021, fueled their global offices and self-managed productions with 100% renewable electricity.
In addition, the Index report notes that Netflix promotes a sustainable work ethic and lifestyle for its employees, though as stated in the report, at present the company somewhat lacks social targets.
Nevertheless, the report cites Netflix’s efforts towards a total of nine of the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals
Lastly, the Index report pointed to a large quantity of sustainability-focused content on the platform, e.g., “Sustainability Stories” in partnership with COP26, which the company hopes will inspire climate activism and action around the world.
Disney+ is “where dreams come true”
Impakter Index Sustainability Scorecard Rating: C (Outlook: Positive)
(Read the full report here)
Like Netflix, the Impakter Index analysis found that Disney+ (as well as the entirety of the Disney franchise) prioritises sustainability, and has shown extensive commitment to curbing emissions, conserving and safeguarding the environment, reducing waste and operating ethically.
Notably, by 2030, Disney aims to achieve net zero emissions for its direct operations through investment in natural climate solutions, low-carbon fuels, 100% carbon-free electricity and initiatives that tackle avoided emissions.
The Index analysis also highlights that the company proactively offsets any remaining emissions through purchase of carbon credits.
However, the analysis did find that Netflix beats Disney when it comes to adoption of clean energy, and as a result, Disney is scored “mediocre” rather than “good” and receives an overall “C” rating in the Impakter Sustainability Index.
Disney+ is however, still rated with a “positive” outlook in the Index report, and there are several reasons for this.
Looking beyond emissions reductions, the Index analysts found that Disney has invested $120 million in environmental conservation efforts since 1995 through its Disney Conservation Fund, and has also reduced the use of plastics by up to 80%, scoring well on the Index’s scorecard for sustainable materials.
In fact, in its dedication to corporate social responsibility and promotion of diversity, equity, and inclusion, Disney even prevailed over Netflix, with the Index report confirming that Disney is making progress towards an impressive 15 out of 17 UN SDGs.
Disney has also won countless Environmental Media Association awards for its nature-focused storylines that help to generate awareness for climate change and inspire people to act, e.g., “I Am Greta,” “Secrets of the Whales,” and “The Last Ice.”
Unfortunately however, the company was also found to have been involved in a number of scandals that don’t align with its environmentally and socially responsible image. Notably, its support of groups that opposed the US climate bill and its political ties with anti-LGBT establishments, again shedding light on the reason why it scored “C.”
Snapchat: “life’s more fun when you live in the moment”
Impakter Index Sustainability Scorecard Rating: C (Outlook: Neutral)
(Read the full report here)
Now, let’s be honest, watching “Snaps” of your friends is significantly less culturally enlightening than a good series in Netflix or Disney+. But given that Snapchat’s videos are much shorter, are watched on a smaller screen, and mostly rely on efficient 5G network connectivity, these videos are most likely less carbon intensive.
In terms of sustainability as a company, the Index report found that Snapchat has similarly shown commitment to addressing climate change, both through shrinking its footprint and making its products more energy efficient.
In fact, although across the board the company received a “C” rating (with outlook defined as Neutral) in the Impakter Sustainability Index, Snapchat did rank in the highest category for clean energy use due to successfully switching to 100% renewable electricity.
Like its streaming peers, the Index report finds that Snapchat has pledged net negative carbon emissions by 2030, and has also upgraded the energy efficiency of its buildings, reduced global energy consumption per user by 17%, and reduced its Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions by 50% and Scope 3 emissions by 40%.
Related Articles: Electrifying the Roads: Overview of the Electric Vehicle Industry | How Close Are The Most Sustainable Car Brands To Achieve Net Zero by 2050? | The H&M Greenwashing Scandal: Has Business Learned the Lesson?
Additionally, alongside 200 other companies, the report also highlights Snapchat’s signing of “The Climate Pledge,” an initiative to reach net-zero carbon by 2040, 10 years ahead of the UN target of 2050, as well as their progress towards 11 of the UN’s SDGs.
Also worth noting is the fact that Snapchat invests up to $1 million every year in credible carbon offsets like those of the Puro Standard projects, and have even attempted to become retroactively carbon neutral by calculating and offsetting emissions as far back as the company’s 2011 launch.
As such, despite a growing user base, Snapchat’s impact has remained neutral.
Finally, although the report cites significant concern about Snapchat’s gender pay gap, in general the company was found to embrace honesty and transparency in its environmental, social, and governance (ESG) reporting.
What if our eyes could see more? Scan this spot with your Snapchat camera to start exploring the unseen world around you. pic.twitter.com/CFji0gtJKL
— Snapchat (@Snapchat) January 27, 2023
TikTok ironically wants you to “make every second count”
Impakter Index Sustainability Scorecard Rating: F (Outlook: Negative)
(Read the full report here)
When it comes to, arguably, the most popular short-video streaming platform, TikTok, the window into the company’s corporate sustainability commitments was found to be nothing short of opaque.
In the US, TikTok uses 100% Oracle cloud infrastructure; in Europe, data is stored at a data centre in Ireland, and the company recently announced plans to build two more centres on the continent soon. However, there is still thick fog surrounding TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance’s networks, servers and operations.
What’s more, as explained in the report, the company’s lack of sustainability reporting, activity, awards, and certifications, as well as its apparent non-compliance with the Paris Agreement, makes it exceedingly difficult to accurately judge the company and its users’ impacts.
What does emerge from this analysis however, is that the platform’s billions of users all over the world are surely responsible for a significant amount of CO2 emissions.
Therefore, Impakter Index Sustainability Scorecard for TikTok is empty, and the company receives the lowest possible rating: A resounding “F” (Outlook: Negative)
The Index report did however find a good degree of evidence that TikTok has proactively raised awareness for global issues on its platform, with environmental influencers like “EcoTok” – An account with over 116k followers – attempting to connect with viewers and inform them about climate change and its impacts.
The details of how the company are making progress towards seven of the UN’s SDGs is also explained within the report.
@eco_tok @queerbrownvegan breaks down how queer culture intersects with climate change 🌎 #ecotok #climatechange #queernature #climatecrisis
What other factors affect the carbon footprint of video streaming?
“Last mile” connections
Some devices are wired, some use WiFi, some use mobile network data such as 5G, and all of these final leg options have a different environmental impact (not to mention the political issues connected to 5G rollout, but that’s another matter).
Device
According to IEA, the good news is that the footprint of streaming a one-hour video is fairly comparable to that of boiling a kettle. However, not all screens were made equal – when it comes to which device you select to watch your film, show, reel or 15-second prank video on, bigger definitely does not equal better in terms of environmental impact..
CO2 emissions from 1 hour of streaming (excluding upstream emissions):
- Smartphone = 0.56g
- Tablet = 1.39g
- Laptop = 10.19g
- Television (50” LED) = 55.56g
Video Quality
Switching from SD to 4K requires more energy, and therefore it may be more environmentally friendly to watch in lower resolution.
Country
Where you’re watching from also matters, because different countries generate renewable and non-renewable electricity mixes in different proportions.
For example, according to IEA’s data on global electricity generation, China generates just over 30% of its electricity from low-carbon sources, the US just under 40%, Germany just over 50%, the UK just under 60%, whereas France generates around 90% of electricity from low-carbon sources.
Movie marathon in Paris anyone?
The bottom line?
Changes in behaviour, policy and corporate priorities are required.
The IEA has stated that the carbon footprint of streaming a video is relatively small in comparison to other activities, largely due to the improved energy efficiency of digital technologies and infrastructure.
But given that 60% of the world’s data was created in the past three years, and is expected to almost double again by 2025, will efficiency improvements be able to keep up with the expected surge in demand?
Changes at the individual, corporate and government levels will surely be required to minimize the growing global digital footprint.
That way, we can still enjoy three and a half hour movies, six seasons of “Breaking Bad” in one weekend, and viral TikTok videos, but in a way that prioritises sustainability, prosperity and the future generations of our planet.
How can you curb your video streaming carbon footprint?
- Watch content that promotes sustainability, environmentalism and climate change – more views encourages more production, which in turn translates into more action!
- Subscribe to platforms that prioritise sustainability and use eco-friendly cloud services, e.g., Waterbear which supports the NGOs making a difference on the ground.
- Where possible, watch on a smaller screen.
- Keep the resolution low, it feels vintage anyway, right? Who needs 4K.
- Watch in moderation – it’s better for you and the planet.
- Do not double-screen (i.e., mindlessly scroll through TikTok whilst watching back-to-back episodes of “The Last of Us,” as tempting as that may be).
- Watch content that is broadcast live, rather than streaming on-demand – it’s going to be played whether you tune in or not.
- Walk, cycle or take public transport to the cinema instead of streaming alone at home.
- Use the Zerofy app to help decarbonise your streaming habits.
- Move to France?
@bellviolett Amelie Poulain #ameliepoulain #cult #french #ameliepoulainedit #00s #audreytatou #ameliemovie #paris #foryoupage #fypシ #foryou #fyp
Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed here by the authors are their own, not those of Impakter.com — In the Featured Photo: Green screen on devices. Featured Photo Credit: Ron Lach/Unsplash
