Most people are probably unaware of the connection between streaming music and its impact to the environment before hitting play on their devices. Sustainability and energy efficiency, however, concern the media industry and in particular the streaming sector.
Listening to music has never been easier or more accessible than today. Despite vinyl’s renaissance and the search for new best practices for a greener music business, music fans have made use of plenty of other ways to spend money, often on digital content. Besides, it’s much cheaper and even more practical to hold entire music collections in the palm of your hands.
The world, and particularly Europe, has been through a lot: the Covid-19 lockdowns, the so-called ‘post-pandemic’ era, the Russia-Ukraine war, a socio-economic crisis, an environmental crisis… it’s no wonder that all the above have affected us in multiple ways, including how we consume music. While binge-watching platforms had been boosted by lockdowns, the effect on music streaming has been less clear. With key music listening situations like the daily commutes, office and gym times being removed, consumers’ routines were disrupted, and so were their music consumption habits. The future, however, seems brighter for music streaming companies. According to Statista’s November 2022 report for Europe, revenue in the music streaming sector is projected to reach €3.94bn in 2023, and the number of users is expected to reach 165.1million by 2027.
It’s still unclear if both business and the environment can win.
It’s probably legit, but is it ethical?
The act of streaming music is essentially a transmission of data. The lack of a physical product doesn’t mean that streaming has no carbon use attached to it. There’s electronic use, servers involved, and the digital world does still have a carbon footprint.
It was back in 2015 when Greenpeace released the ‘Clicking Clean: A Guide to Building the Green Internet’, evaluating companies on the scope and level of detail that they make publicly available about the energy consumption of their IT infrastructure. At that time, among major streaming companies (Spotify, Pandora, SoundCloud), only Apple’s iTunes offered full transparency about its energy use. Fast forward to 2023, music streaming is gaining popularity, while CO2 emissions are rising and contributing to global warming.
In Europe, the key players in the online music streaming market are Amazon, Apple, Deezer, Google (owner of YouTube), Qobuz, SoundCloud, and Tidal. Companies have an ethical obligation – and an opportunity – to help to reduce the digital footprint, especially when it comes to the ongoing trend of using video when listening to music. The environmental impact of streaming video is rather difficult to estimate, mainly because it is distributed across many sources. Picture it: streaming a high-resolution copy of a ten-minute music video (500MB) is approximately 2.5 kWh. That’s about the equivalent of drying one load of laundry for almost one hour. And YouTube – with more than one billion viewing hours a day – would consume more than 600 TWh a year (2.5% of global electricity use). That’s about the amount of energy supplied to the Swedish energy system. It’s big.
Belgian European Climate Pact Ambassador Frédéric Donck, President of Digital Goes Green – an NGO committed to redesigning digital services with a green mindset, has stated “One thing they could do is look at user behavior and find people who use video streaming services just to listen to music. If you can identify those users, you can have the option just to play the music and not show the videos”. But it’s not just video music streaming. Downloading and streaming audio initially requires the same amount of energy. However, once the song is downloaded it requires less energy to play it again, while replaying a streamed song needs the same amount of energy as it did the first time.
Looking for solutions
Let’s start with the good news: Thanks to online music streaming, the music industry has effectively reduced its contribution to the problem of plastic waste. But that’s not the only issue. It all comes down to whether we are all actually willing to reduce internet activity to save energy and the environment. It’s all a matter of legislation, though, since monitoring our personal streaming accounts won’t solve the problem. Personal responsibility may be essential, but it may also shift attention away from meaningful actions and take the pressure off governmental policies. Companies need to be raising awareness, and they need to be more transparent.
On the bright side, Zero-Carbon from Germany aims to run a completely sustainable streaming platform, without emitting carbon emissions from data and cloud centres, and thus try to make a positive impact. UK-based Greening For Streaming is an association that brings the industry together to help create joined up thinking around end to end energy efficiency in the technical supply chain underpinning streaming services. Also Vilvit proposes building a global music repository, so that all music streaming services can access one energy-efficient source. The company is still at the drawing board and, according to its website, will be a hybrid of non-profit and for-profit elements.
In terms of the big players in music streaming, actions seem to have been taken as well, and it remains to be seen how efficient they will be. Spotify says that 353,054 tonnes CO2 was emitted in 2021, all scopes included, and 42% of its GHG emissions come from listener streaming. To negate the environmental impact of user activity, the company relies on offset initiatives. In its 2021 Environmental Progress report, Apple notes that its footprint has decreased by 40 percent since 2015, and plans to become carbon neutral by 2030. With more awareness, companies are motivated to take on more sustainable business practices, be responsible for their actions, and help the music industry to be as carbon neutral as possible.
