How bad for the climate is bingeing Netflix?

One hour of streaming Netflix creates emissions equivalent to driving a car for a quarter of a mile, the company says

As you settle in for a sixth consecutive episode of Bridgerton, Schitt’s Creek or Unsolved Mysteries, have you dared consider what all this unadulterated, carefree streaming is doing to the planet?

It’s a question that Netflix will soon be able to answer. While the streaming giant, which reported revenue of $6.6billion last quarter, has not yet announced an emissions reduction target, the company says it will be revealing goals in the coming weeks.

Netflix is getting to grips with its carbon footprint thanks to a new online tool called DIMPACT. Developed by a team at the University of Bristol, it is being partly funded by the streaming giant and other industry participants like the BBC, Sky and ITV.

Using the data, Netflix has revealed some stats on its emissions for the first time. The company says that one hour of streaming uses less than 100g CO2 equivalent (emissions from all greenhouse gases, not just CO2). Wired reports that this is similar to driving a car for a quarter of a mile, or running a 1,000-watt air-conditioning unit for 15 minutes in the US (and for 40 minutes in Europe). 

But with more than 203 million people now subscribed to Netflix, it’s hardly insignificant.

Read more:

• Far-right is co-opting environmentalism to justify anti-immigration and anti-Semitic views 
• UK ‘halfway to net zero’ due to dip in emissions caused by coronavirus pandemic
• How bad is bitcoin for the environment really?
• Climate change disproportionately affects women – but they can also provide the solution

In the past, reports of Netflix streaming emissions have been inflated. A flawed 2019 study by a French think-tank suggested that a half-hour of Netflix accounted for 1.6kg of CO2, the same as driving nearly four miles. Analysis by the International Energy Agency (IEA) and World Economic Forum (WEF) found the figure had been exaggerated by up to 90 times.

The Information and Communications Technology (ICT) sector makes up about 4 per cent of global electricity consumption, and 1.4 per cent of global carbon emissions. (Transportation accounts for 14 per cent and the agricultural sector is 24 per cent, for comparison.) But to keep global heating well below 2C compared to pre-industrial levels, as set out by the Paris Agreement, it’s going to be incumbent on all industries to pull their weight.

A growing number of tech giants have pledged to reduce their carbon footprint. Microsoft says it will be carbon negative by 2030 while Facebook has committed to reaching net zero in the same period. Apple has pledged that by 2030 the company will be 100 per cent carbon neutral across supply chain and products.

There is a growing expectation for companies to reduce carbon pollution across their entire business model, meaning up and down the supply chain, including emissions produced by suppliers and customers.

DIMPACT performs complex calculations to provide media companies with a full picture of those emissions. Dr Daniel Schien, a creator of the tool and lecturer in computer science at Bristol University told The Independent that partner organisations wanted to accurately report emissions but also figure out “what can be done to make the delivery of those services less impactful”.

“We are helping them to understand the energy consumption of their entire system across data centres, networks and user devices,” he said.

Dr Schien said that while some media organisations have been active in tackling their carbon footprint, there has been a lack of transparency by the majority.

This has been partly due to the incredible difficulty of calculating emissions. Back in 2008, Tesco CEO Sir Terry Leahy announced a plan for “carbon footprint labelling” on products, only for the project to be abandoned a few years later as it was too time-consuming, and had failed to garner uptake across supermarkets.

But the idea of carbon labelling is now very much back on the agenda in all sectors, said Christian Toennesen, senior partner at Carnstone consultancy, which specialises in sustainability and is part of the DIMPACT project.

“The fast-moving consumer goods sector is a little ahead of the digital and media sector, perhaps because they’ve been scrutinised more but I have no doubt whatsoever that it will come to [carbon labelling],” he told The Independent. “It’s a matter of when, not if.”

Streaming video currently has a relatively low carbon impact due to improved energy efficiency of data centres, networks and devices. However efficiency gains could be wiped out by new tech like artificial intelligence and blockchain which require vast amounts of power.

Tech companies can still make changes to reduce the environmental impact of streaming such as powering their operations on renewables and improving video compression. A 2019 study found that emissions were reduced when YouTube music videos were audio-only.

Consumers will reduce their individual carbon footprint by streaming at lower resolutions, using smaller devices and screens, and connecting via WiFi not mobile networks. Holding onto hardware for longer periods of time means less impact as production makes up more than two-thirds of lifecycle carbon emissions.

Then there’s the question if consumers would feel more accountable, or possibly change their habits, if provided with individual emissions data from Netflix, and other streaming services.

Providing this information will likely remain the decision of companies, says Mr Toennesen, who doubted it would ever be regulated.

“It will be at the discretion of the likes of Netflix, Spotify or BBC i-player to tell audiences the carbon impact of whatever program they’re watching,” he said. “You can’t do it as a third party and get the level of detail and technical understanding to do it well.”

But rather than be a risk to companies, he viewed it as a commercial advantage. “It’s more part of a tale of transparency, and building climate literacy in the population,” he said. “That’s something to develop as climate change impacts more and more, and we need to make big decisions on how we live and what we do with our time.”