For my first post, I wanted something impactful. Something that gave me this so-called “Oh s***, I have to write about this” reaction to fuel me for a first (hopefully not last) short article. And guess what, I found that fuel — and time!
Earlier this year, WiredUK shared an insightful article about Netflix’s carbon emissions. As I have been investigating IT sustainability for some time now, I struggle to find data to estimate online activities’ carbon emissions.
Most enterprises showed strong stances; this is true, but finding data…? Not that easy. And yep, it did not say “relevant” or “accurate”, just data.
I like the article for different reasons because it shows that:
- A new major pure player is on the green move
- It takes more than a mere estimation to understand the whole extent of online habits
- It reminds me that we are at the very beginning of online practices maturity and regulations (I like to call it the Stone Age of the Internet)
Thus, first, it did provide some data I could use (delivered by an organisation called DIMPACT, partially industry-funded though, so let’s be cautious). Primarily, it shows VOD/streaming big boys are finally on their way to a more sustainable mindset.
Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and Facebook have announced over the last couple of years big moves (most of them promised to be carbon neutral by 2030, for instance), but the silence of VOD pure players has been, in my opinion, quite loud.
YouTube made some (lukewarm?) statement as WiredUK already wrote about here, but I always found it awkward that pure players kept silent on such things as carbon footprint. Remember that internet traffic represents around four per cent of global GHG emissions (equal to pre-COVID-19 aviation traffic).
This article also stresses that it is hard to debunk one online action’s actual carbon footprint impact. Today, tracking the carbon footprint of a specific “online action” such as purchasing a t-shirt or watching a video is a tremendously complex task.
It depends on so many parameters (location, devices, infrastructures, etc.), and ultimately this is not easy to take all the chain of actions into account.
On top of that, most companies do not wish to share such data publicly, so finding reliable numbers is not always easy. But that’s for another day …
Also Read: Streaming wars: Why are streaming giants spending big bucks on acquiring content
In the article, Netflix claims that one hour of streaming on its platform in 2020 used less than 100gCO2e (a hundred grams of carbon dioxide equivalent)— that’s less than driving an average car a quarter of a mile.
I am pretty sceptical about this figure, but that’s not the point in the end. Netflix stating they are thinking about “weighing their carbon footprint” is already excellent news and should be followed by better estimations from now on.
Most of you probably did not see that last year, but The Shift Project (a French think tank for sustainability) shared a rough estimation of Netflix’s impact on the environment. Carbon Brief replied— fiercely — to re-estimate the numbers on this paper.
The Shift Project made a couple of mistakes; Carbon Brief helped them pointing them out. And now, the discussion is on, and things are on the table. Aside from some errors, they use two mindsets for their reckoning, and this is the exciting part because it does require arguments to agree on something, right finally?
Speaking of the Devil, Carbon Brief is supposed to publish white papers by the end of summer (I am writing this in May) to investigate in-depth Netflix’s carbon emissions. I am super hyped to read it because it should deliver a consistent set of data for future endeavours.
–
Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. Share your opinion by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic.
Join our e27 Telegram group, FB community, or like the e27 Facebook page
The post Netflix on the (green) move? Why its time to rethink the environmental impact of big tech appeared first on e27.