Streaming music is worse for the environment than CDs, vinyl: study

[Anonymous]

In the height of the digital age, streaming may seem like the furthest we may ever advance in terms of listening to music.



Why? Because it's simple, it's accessible and it's much more affordable than any other format.



These convenience factors may seem enticing, however, by no means is streaming music a more viable green alternative to the ever-dwindling physical music format.



That's right, according to 'The Cost of Music' — a joint study penned by the University of Glasgow and the University of Oslo — listening to music online takes more of a toll on our environment than it does to actually create physical music, whether that be CDs, cassettes or vinyl LPs.



Major services like Spotify, Apple Music, Tidal and SoundCloud are dominating the industry not only because they're cheap, but because the era of the album is essentially no more.



In the digital age, Top 40 radio hits and Billboard charts consist typically of singles and features only — which renders a majority of new albums obsolete.



Many of these singles are released exclusively to digital platforms, which doesn't even allow for an alternative listening method.



The beauty of streaming is that it provides listeners with the newest and trendiest music at the snap of a finger, as opposed to physical albums which cost a lot more, and in comparison, restrict the listener to what they're listening to.



As a result, streaming has paved the way forward for a massive amount of music listeners — especially young ones.



Unfortunately for these listeners, however, they are unintentionally helping to increase greenhouse gas emissions across the globe, according to the recent study.



Before the digital age, plastic consumption was the biggest concern in how music affects the environment. But now, more than ever, the industry is contributing an unprecedented amount to climate change.



While vinyl, cassettes and CDs used millions upon millions of kilograms in plastic to be created since the 1970s, that usage has almost doubled as a result of streaming.



How? Because the generation of electricity required to store, transmit, download and stream music digitally has produced greenhouse gases at a much higher rate, according to the study.



An associate professor in music from the University of Oslo, Dr. Kyle Devine, said, "These figures may suggest that the rise of downloading and streaming is making music more environmentally friendly. But a very different picture emerges when we think about the energy used to power online music listening."



"Storing and processing music online uses a tremendous amount of resources and energy," he added, which has a high impact on the environment."



In the American recording industry alone, plastics have been cut down from 58-million kilograms in 1977 to only 8 million in 2016, however, the energy required to sustain all platforms of the digital age is causing an alarming amount of damage, more than the plastic ever did.



"From a plastic pollution perspective," continued Dr. Devine, "the good news is that overall plastic production in the recording industry has diminished since the heyday of vinyl."



"From a carbon emissions perspective, however, the transition towards streaming recorded music from internet-connected devices has resulted in significantly higher carbon emissions than at any previous point in the history of music."



According to "The Cost of Music," greenhouse gases were recorded at 140-million kilograms in 1977, 136 million in 1988 and a whopping 157 million in 2000, but 2016's estimates came in between 200- and 350-million kilograms in the U.S. alone.



The study was published ahead of next week's highly-anticipated Record Store Day in hopes to raise awareness on the impacts of streaming.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5150481/streaming-music-bad-environment/">https://globalnews.ca/news/5150481/stre ... vironment/">https://globalnews.ca/news/5150481/streaming-music-bad-environment/



Will TIDES and Rockefeller foundations use their vast financial resources to block music downloading services like they have Canada's oil and gas sector.

[Anonymous]

Call me a denier, but I'm not going to stop downloading songs I like.

[Anonymous]

In the height of the digital age, streaming may seem like the furthest we may ever advance in terms of listening to music.



Why? Because it's simple, it's accessible and it's much more affordable than any other format.



These convenience factors may seem enticing, however, by no means is streaming music a more viable green alternative to the ever-dwindling physical music format.



That's right, according to 'The Cost of Music' — a joint study penned by the University of Glasgow and the University of Oslo — listening to music online takes more of a toll on our environment than it does to actually create physical music, whether that be CDs, cassettes or vinyl LPs.



Major services like Spotify, Apple Music, Tidal and SoundCloud are dominating the industry not only because they're cheap, but because the era of the album is essentially no more.



In the digital age, Top 40 radio hits and Billboard charts consist typically of singles and features only — which renders a majority of new albums obsolete.



Many of these singles are released exclusively to digital platforms, which doesn't even allow for an alternative listening method.



The beauty of streaming is that it provides listeners with the newest and trendiest music at the snap of a finger, as opposed to physical albums which cost a lot more, and in comparison, restrict the listener to what they're listening to.



As a result, streaming has paved the way forward for a massive amount of music listeners — especially young ones.



Unfortunately for these listeners, however, they are unintentionally helping to increase greenhouse gas emissions across the globe, according to the recent study.



Before the digital age, plastic consumption was the biggest concern in how music affects the environment. But now, more than ever, the industry is contributing an unprecedented amount to climate change.



While vinyl, cassettes and CDs used millions upon millions of kilograms in plastic to be created since the 1970s, that usage has almost doubled as a result of streaming.



How? Because the generation of electricity required to store, transmit, download and stream music digitally has produced greenhouse gases at a much higher rate, according to the study.



An associate professor in music from the University of Oslo, Dr. Kyle Devine, said, "These figures may suggest that the rise of downloading and streaming is making music more environmentally friendly. But a very different picture emerges when we think about the energy used to power online music listening."



"Storing and processing music online uses a tremendous amount of resources and energy," he added, which has a high impact on the environment."



In the American recording industry alone, plastics have been cut down from 58-million kilograms in 1977 to only 8 million in 2016, however, the energy required to sustain all platforms of the digital age is causing an alarming amount of damage, more than the plastic ever did.



"From a plastic pollution perspective," continued Dr. Devine, "the good news is that overall plastic production in the recording industry has diminished since the heyday of vinyl."



"From a carbon emissions perspective, however, the transition towards streaming recorded music from internet-connected devices has resulted in significantly higher carbon emissions than at any previous point in the history of music."



According to "The Cost of Music," greenhouse gases were recorded at 140-million kilograms in 1977, 136 million in 1988 and a whopping 157 million in 2000, but 2016's estimates came in between 200- and 350-million kilograms in the U.S. alone.



The study was published ahead of next week's highly-anticipated Record Store Day in hopes to raise awareness on the impacts of streaming.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5150481/streaming-music-bad-environment/">https://globalnews.ca/news/5150481/stre ... vironment/">https://globalnews.ca/news/5150481/streaming-music-bad-environment/



Will TIDES and Rockefeller foundations use their vast financial resources to block music downloading services like they have Canada's oil and gas sector.

I'm willing to wager a significant percentage of the population in the West that downloads music believes climate change is the world's biggest challenge. They won't stop downloading music though.

[Bricktop]

Who pays for these useless "studies"?

[Anonymous]

Who pays for these useless "studies"?

Carbon tax grant money. ac_toofunny

[Anonymous]

Who pays for these useless "studies"?

I guess they think they're saving the planet.

[Anonymous]

I'd like to see the amount of CO2 the Paris UN agreement/climate summits dump into the atmosphere.

[Anonymous]

I don't download music, but I am going to start now.

[Bricktop]

Ukranian folk music from the middle ages isn't on any streaming service.

[Anonymous]

Ukranian folk music from the middle ages isn't on any streaming service.

 :MG_216:

[Berry Sweet]

Who pays for these useless "studies"?

Right!? They really are useless.  Its all about money and an agenda.

[Anonymous]

Who pays for these useless "studies"?

Right!? They really are useless.  Its all about money and an agenda.

I get your point, but I sill think it's ironic that streaming which most people think is environmentally friendly produces more C02 emissions than vinyl and CD's.

[Anonymous]

===



According to "The Cost of Music," greenhouse gases were recorded at 140-million kilograms in 1977, 136 million in 1988 and a whopping 157 million in 2000, but 2016's estimates came in between 200- and 350-million kilograms in the U.S. alone.



The study was published ahead of next week's highly-anticipated Record Store Day in hopes to raise awareness on the impacts of streaming.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5150481/streaming-music-bad-environment/">https://globalnews.ca/news/5150481/stre ... vironment/">https://globalnews.ca/news/5150481/streaming-music-bad-environment/



Will TIDES and Rockefeller foundations use their vast financial resources to block music downloading services like they have Canada's oil and gas sector.

Very interesting.  It's possible the study may be agenda-driven, but it still gives me a way to look at the matter that I simply hadn't considered.

[priscilla1961]

===



According to "The Cost of Music," greenhouse gases were recorded at 140-million kilograms in 1977, 136 million in 1988 and a whopping 157 million in 2000, but 2016's estimates came in between 200- and 350-million kilograms in the U.S. alone.



The study was published ahead of next week's highly-anticipated Record Store Day in hopes to raise awareness on the impacts of streaming.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5150481/streaming-music-bad-environment/">https://globalnews.ca/news/5150481/stre ... vironment/">https://globalnews.ca/news/5150481/streaming-music-bad-environment/



Will TIDES and Rockefeller foundations use their vast financial resources to block music downloading services like they have Canada's oil and gas sector.

Very interesting.  It's possible the study may be agenda-driven, but it still gives me a way to look at the matter that I simply hadn't considered.

Hello Peaches. ac_hithere

[Bricktop]

Who pays for these useless "studies"?

Right!? They really are useless.  Its all about money and an agenda.

I get your point, but I sill think it's ironic that streaming which most people think is environmentally friendly produces more C02 emissions than vinyl and CD's.

Only if you believe the study.



EVERY study should be considered with skepticism.



Like journalism, academia has become politically driven.