Streaming hurts more than it helps
Hi everyone!!
In today’s blog post I will be introducing you to how the digital music is considered to be one of the most pollutive forms of music.
As the means of listening to music shifted from physical to digital, it was expected that the plastic usage would drop as well. While many saw this as a step in the right direction in terms of its environmental impact on plastic pollution, it simultaneously created a new problem that is argued to be even more detrimental to our environment.
According to a study lead by professor Kyle Devine of the University of Oslo, there was a drop in the amount of plastic used from 61 million kg in the 2000s to about 8 million kg in 2016 as can be seen in figure 1 below. This drop corresponded with the rise in digital music as there was a decreasing demand for people to buy it in its physical form.
Figure 1
However, while the drop in plastic usage reduced the amount of plastic pollution caused by the music industry, there was a hidden environmental impact that came with digital music consumption. It is a common misconception that the streaming of music causes no negative environmental impacts when in fact, all streaming services depend on a network of energy-intensive server farms consisting of computers that generates large amounts of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. According to the study, there was an estimated rise in GHG emissions from 157 million kg in the 2000s to 205 million kg in 2016 which corresponded with the rise of digital music.
Figure 2
Therefore, streaming is not as green as we might think. While the carbon footprint of physical forms of music such as Vinyl and CDs will remain the same over time, the carbon footprint of digital music is influenced by the number of times the song/album is played. The streaming of music requires a tremendous amount of energy to store and process which causes a very large impact on our environment. Dagfinn Bach, author of ‘The dark side of the tune: the hidden energy cost of digital music consumption’ wrote that ‘streaming an album over the internet 27 times can use more energy than the manufacturing and production of its vinyl equivalent’.
The energy that is needed to make streaming available to everyone is powered by intensive server farms (as seen in the pictures below). According to The Asean Post, ‘These warehouses run 24 hours a day every day, producing heat that needs to be continuously cooled. This entails a massive amount of electricity, which in most cases relies on fossil fuels for its generation’. Therefore, the burning of fossil fuels to help power these server farms are what cause the large amounts increase in greenhouse gas emissions seen in figure 2.
I hope this post enlightened you and gave you a new perspective on the issue and true impacts that digital music has on the environment. Streaming plays a major role in our society today, providing music to the ears of millions across the globe. However, more can be done to reduce the negative environmental impacts of streaming, and it all starts with small step, such as pre-downloading music, that can make a big impact on this earth we call home.
References:
Is Music Streaming Bad For The Environment?. The ASEAN Post. (2020). Retrieved 30 September 2020, from https://theaseanpost.com/article/music-streaming-bad-environment.
Brennan, M., & Devine, K. (2020). The cost of music. Popular Music, 39(1), 43-65. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/popular-music/article/cost-of-music/DEC6AA100C191D510213F9086CF094CC
Blistein, J., & Blistein, J. (2020). Is Streaming Music Dangerous to the Environment? One Researcher Is Sounding the Alarm. Rolling Stone. Retrieved 30 September 2020, from https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/environmental-impact-streaming-music-835220/.