SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Shift Project has released a report pointing the finger at online video as a significant, and growing, cause of greenhouse gas emissions.
From New Scientist:
The transmission and viewing of online videos generates 300 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, or nearly 1 per cent of global emissions. On-demand video services such as Netflix account for a third of this, with online pornographic videos generating another third.
[...] The authors call for measures to limit the emissions from online videos, such as preventing them from autoplaying and not transmitting videos in high definition when it is unnecessary. For instance, some devices can now display higher resolutions than people can perceive. The report says regulation will be necessary.
No word on the carbon footprints of HTTPS, JavaScript, or advertising.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by looorg on Sunday July 14 2019, @09:02AM (7 children)
Considering the amount of entertainment provided for a very large amount of the population 1% might not really be that much, or bad. It might actually be "cheap". If there had been no streaming and all these people should instead go out and about and do things to get their required form of entertainment or fun wouldn't that consume the same or just as much CO^2. Or do they just assume that if there was no streaming they would all just sit at home starring at the walls and do nothing? I think it might actually be a lot better if they stayed at home and just streamed all day long.
The numbers seem a bit odd but still 1/3 is On-demand video ala Netflix (sounds very high), 1/3 is Porn and the other 1/3 is EVERYTHING else? Can't porn be on-demand video? Waiting for the anti-piracy group staring to label stream-pirates as being anti-earth and environment ... It seems about stupid enough to actually work.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 14 2019, @09:12AM
Like people did in the 1950s to 1990s - "hang out", which generally involved lots of driving around, at least in wealthy countries.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Nuke on Sunday July 14 2019, @12:09PM (1 child)
Exactly this. Seeing how much time people spend looking at this stuff, I'm surprised and pleased to see it only creates 1% of CO2. If they were not sitting at home looking at Netfix or porn, I bet that they would be doing something that would create a lot more CO2, like driving to the cinema or flying to Bangkok every few weeks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 16 2019, @02:38PM
Bububut! I watch my neflicks porn WHILE flying to Bang-cock!
You insensitive clod!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday July 14 2019, @03:12PM
Compare the dollar cost of streaming an hour of video, to the dollar cost of driving for an hour to get to a cinema. The cost of streaming is vanishingly small. The carbon cost, ditto. Like you, I think the "think tank" must be off their meds.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by darkfeline on Sunday July 14 2019, @08:43PM (1 child)
I agree with the high resolution part though.
Video is extremely expensive data-wise, and high resolution video is quadratically more expensive. But higher resolution video does not produce quadratically more entertainment value.
1080 is more than sufficient. We don't need this 5K, 8K bullshit.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Monday July 15 2019, @04:09AM
Hear hear!
640k480p ought to be enough for anybody [quoteinvestigator.com](Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 15 2019, @03:01AM
I watch my pron in a small window, must be pretty low res compared to going full screen.
Just doing my bit...