What’s better for the environment: Downloading songs or streaming them? You may be surprised.
A little post-Earth Day discussion: What’s better for the planet? Downloading songs or streaming them? Because each uses energy, there are the inevitable carbon footprints. So which generates fewer greenhouse gasses? Let’s unpack this.
- Data generation and transmission require energy to power computers, servers, routers, and so on.
- Receiving this data also requires energy, even if it’s just the battery in your phone.
People who study sort of thing maintain that a download is the way to go.
A download of one song and a stream of that same song requires the same amount of energy. However, playing a downloaded song on your device requires far less energy than streaming it again. If all the songs we all listen to were downloaded instead of streamed, it’s estimated that there were be an 80% reduction in carbon emissions when it comes to consuming music digitally. Oh, and your phone battery would last longer, too.
Our phones and laptops use twice the battery power to stream a song than they do to play a downloaded file. (The way around this is to have a subscription to a streaming service that allows for tracks to be resident on your device so you can listen offline.)
One more thing: If you stream an album over 27 times, it’s better for the planet to just go ahead and buy a physical copy of it, be it a CD or a vinyl version. So, yes: Buying music on a biodegradable piece of plastic is (counter-intuitively) better for Earth than streaming that same music.
One other thing: Buying a download or a physical copy means more money for the artist, too. Any questions?
