Comment

Comment on As Spotify moves to video, the environmental footprint of music streaming hits the high notes

mang0@lemmy.zip ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

You do realize that it’s harder to move to renewables if the energy required keeps increasing? Higher bandwidth usage requires expansion of internet infrastructure to account for peak usage which increases the amount of energy used, not only for the manufactured hardware (which will likely turn to e-waste at some point) but also to keep the infrastructure running. I highly recommend reading research about the sustainability of the internet.

source

Sort:hotnew top

antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
No, since the article doesn’t mention anything of that sort. I really, really doubt that in the world of crypto mining and AI training the average people streaming some music and music videos will make a substantial difference. Your degrowth-oriented approach sounds like it would just solidify the already highly monopolised market, as any new players or innovation can be met with the “wastes too much bandwidth” hammer, as is this new service by Spotify right here.

I highly recommend reading research about the sustainability of the internet.

This is the first article that I get on Google. Now, as they say, “I ain’t reading all that” (I probably wouldn’t understand most of it), but I did take a look at the abstract:

Decarbonising electricity would substantially mitigate the climate impacts linked to Internet consumption, while the use of mineral and metal resources would remain of concern. A synergistic combination of rapid decarbonisation and additional measures aimed at reducing the use of fresh raw materials in electronic devices (e.g., lifetime extension) is paramount to prevent the growing Internet demand from exacerbating the pressure on the finite Earth’s carrying capacity.

Sounds good to me! With no mention of having to limit our internet usage.

And if reducing bandwidth waste really were that important, it would have go both ways anyway, with the providers optimising their content (probably forced to do so by regulations in some way).

source
- mang0@lemmy.zip ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  
  Sounds good to me! With no mention of having to limit our internet usage.
  
  You don’t have the power to decarbonize all electricity or to create and enforce laws to reduce the rate of e-waste. Until this changes, you have the power to limit your bandwidth usage, which is something that would result in less e-waste and less energy usage (and inherently less carbon emissions since all electricity isn’t decarbonized). You’re essentially saying “the paper says you can fix the problem in the future so I don’t give a fuck about the problem now”, which is not very bright.
  
  And if reducing bandwidth waste really were that important, it would have go both ways anyway, with the providers optimising their content (probably forced to do so by regulations in some way).
  
  My god. This might be the most naive thing I’ve ever read. This would be like saying “if carbon emissions were really that bad, oil and coal would be illegal”. Guess what? The climate will be (and has already been) irreversibly damaged if we don’t drastically reduce the amount of carbon fuel being used and no regulations have successfully come close to getting the necessary drastic reduction. Turns out everything that’s bad doesn’t magically get solved by regulations, especially when rich companies which rely on e.g. carbon fuel and bandwidth have major influence over politics due to their massive amount of resources.
  
  source
  - antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    
    You don’t have the power to decarbonize all electricity
    
    From the article:
    
    Location also affects how carbon emissions are managed. Germany has the largest carbon footprint for video streaming at 76g CO₂e per hour of streaming, reflecting its continued reliance on coal and fossil fuels. In the UK, this figure is 48g CO₂e per hour, because its energy mix includes renewables and natural gas, increasingly with nuclear as central to the UK’s low-carbon future. France, with a reliance on nuclear is the lowest, at 10g CO₂e per hour.
    
    This is a massive difference, and clearly doable, nothing that would be limited to the distant future.
    
    So I get this right? I’m naive for expecting govt regulations to put companies’ behaviour under control, whereas you’re realistic by expecting hundreds of millions of people deciding to systematically minimise their Youtube/Tiktok/Spotify/Netflix/Zoom usage? Hmm, alright.
    
    And yet in an another comment you also expect that Spotify shouldn’t introduce video streaming, without any external regulation but out of pure goodness of their hearts?
    
    source