Study: Streaming is bad for the environment (especially Taylor Swift)
When it comes to deciding which format is worst for the environment, most people will guess that it’s vinyl and CDs because they’re made of non-biodegradable plastic. Streaming has to be healthier for the planet, right? Well, no.
A study published on Hypebot shows that streaming is not a good thing when it comes to a carbon footprint. I quote:
- The 20 most-streamed albums in a single Spotify week generated 10.62 billion streams and used an estimated ~29.1 million kWh of electricity—roughly equal to the daily electricity use of ~1.0 million U.S. homes.
- Combined, streaming these albums during their record-setting weeks was associated with an estimated ~11.2 million kg of CO₂, using a U.S. average grid emissions factor.
Who’s the worst for the environment? Tay-Tay. Check out this chart.
There’s more, too. If you switch to lossless streaming, the carbon footprint goes up because you’re streaming more data. I quote:
- High-quality audio uses about 1.5× more energy than standard settings. For example, The Tortured Poets Department increases from using about 3.46 million kWh in a single week to roughly 5.19 million kWh when streamed at high quality.
- Lossless audio uses about 3× more energy than standard audio. That means TTPD jumps from 3.46 million kWh to approximately 10.39 million kWh, which is enough electricity to power about 358,000 U.S. homes for a day.
Read the whole study here.
