Stop Global Warming

Cut Music's Impact on Climate: Download your tunes

Published August 20, 2009 @ 08:11AM PT

Chart of carbon impacts of varied music delivery methods

Digital downloads have been blamed for eviscerating the music industry's profit model -- but compared to commerce in compact discs, they're great for the climate.

Get your latest Black Eyed Peas, Beyonce or Lady Gaga via the internet, and you'll cut the energy and carbon dioxide overhead by 40 to 80 percent over distribution of a physical CD, according to a new report commissioned by Microsoft and Intel.  The savings come in getting rid of physical packaging, delivery, and the compact disc itself; the range of impact depends upon whether the customer burns the music to a CD.

If you walk to the music store instead of driving, however, the CO2 emissions are about equal with downloading and burning, say the researchers.

So take heart, old-school consumers: If you prefer browsing for new tunes in the aisles instead of online, forestall green guilt by putting on your sneakers and going to the store under your own power.  (Consider it a new form of sneakernet.)

Also, downloads of around 260 MB or greater use enough internet energy to make them comparable in carbon pollution with the download and burn scenario, say the report's authors.

"However, as file sizes and Internet energy use are increasing, Internet energy efficiency is also increasing," they write, "thus it is unlikely even in the case of large file transfers for digital downloads to use more energy or produce more CO2 emissions than delivering music via CDs."

Share this Post

Related Posts

Comments (9)

  1. Jamaka Petzak

    Downloading music makes sense from various standpoints, but it does need to be regulated somehow so that the ARTISTS aren't exploited and bypassed in the profitmaking.  After all, without them, there wouldn't be any music downloads.

    Posted by Jamaka Petzak on 08/23/2009 @ 11:20AM PT

  2. Reply to thread
  3. Claude Spiro

    No kidding! As the son of a successful freelance singer, I can attest to the importance of enabling artists to make a living from their work. This is accomplished in part by what is referred to as residuals, which reward freelance singers everytime their material is aired.

    What is unfortunate is that musicians don't usually have this extra source of income. Suffice it to say that their union (AFM) is not up to par with the singers' (AFTRA).

    Singers and musicians lead a hard life--contrary to popular belief. They deserve the same kind of compensation the rest of us deserve.

    Posted by Claude Spiro on 08/23/2009 @ 01:30PM PT

  4. Emily Gertz

    I agree completely!

    When I want to buy an album, my first impulse is to find out if the artist is selling a download directly, so that more of my dollars end up in the artist's pocket.

    Posted by Emily Gertz on 08/23/2009 @ 04:08PM PT

  5. Jenifer Lewis

    But what about the album cover?  I want the album cover!

    (Am I dating myself or what?)

    Posted by Jenifer Lewis on 08/24/2009 @ 07:02AM PT

  6. Emily Gertz

    I hear you!  But I think album art is going the way of chemical photography: it'll continue to be appreciated by only a few enlightened souls.

    Posted by Emily Gertz on 08/24/2009 @ 09:46AM PT

  7. Reply to thread
  8. Sara Cleveland

    In addition to the issue of compensation for the artists, when you download you lose 90% of the music quality because of compression.  If you don't care about how your music sounds, go ahead & download.  I buy most of my music CDs at 2 brick and mortar stores that I access by taking public transit part of the way and walking the rest of the way.  I also buy much of this music as used CDs, and when I'm tired of them, I give them to my local public library so that others can enjoy great music. 

    Posted by Sara Cleveland on 08/24/2009 @ 08:36AM PT

  9. Emily Gertz

    The mass transit and walking is apparently as low carbon as digital downloading, so kudos.

    I've generally found that for my non-audiophile's purposes, buying pop and rock in digital downloads doesn't result in any appreciable loss of audio quality. And I love not having to deal with storing more physical disks.  

    But I'll usually still buy classical or contemporary composers (Steve Reich, Phil Kline, etc.) on CD.  

    Posted by Emily Gertz on 08/24/2009 @ 09:44AM PT

  10. William Feagin

    I have to admit I'm one of those old-school souls who loves nothing more than to have an actual "hard copy" on hand - as yet, you can't get the photos and liner notes downloaded along with the music.  I also don't think that's going away anytime soon, thanks to the refusal of vinyl, as a format, to die, and the introduction of new hi-def/hi-res audiophile CD formats (the hybrid SACD and the newer Blu-spec, along with the SHM [Super High Material] CD).  The plastic parts can be manufactured using greener plastics - anyone seen the plastic drink cups manufactured from corn?  I'm sure the same could be done for CD jewel cases and DigiPaks, although an even smarter way to go is the mini-LP cover.

    Posted by William Feagin on 08/25/2009 @ 03:53PM PT

  11. Jessy Hernan

    Downloading does seem to make more sense, but what about all of the chemicals and resources needed to make computers, ipods, etc.? Also, many of these items are not being produced in the United States, some in countries with lax or no standards for pollution and livable wages. 

     

    I dont know if the society that is in charge right would be willing, or even knows the best way, to make music "green."

     

     

    Posted by Jessy Hernan on 08/29/2009 @ 08:14PM PT

  12. Reply to thread

Add a Comment

For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.

Author

Twitter Feed

Emily Gertz

Emily is a journalist and editor covering the environment and science, and has been working in online news, community and content since 1994.

close

This user's Profile page is not public. They have restricted it to only their friends.

Already a Member?

Create an Account

You must create a Change.org account to complete this action.
If you already have an account click here.