Also vinyl, once manufactured, will last for decades in the least.
I didn’t suggest streaming didn’t require a powered device, I said that listening to a physical recording still requires the use of a powered device.
I’m happy to be proved wrong but I would be flabbergasted, frankly. The efficiencies in delivering streaming services are very high - it’s computationally isignificant - most of what you’re utilising, from souce to delivery is negligable, right down to the internet. The biggest impact by far will be the device you’re listening to it on.
The packaging material alone for a single CD probably outweighs a lifetime of streaming load for a single person. They call it ‘plastic pushing’ in the business for a reason.
Edit: I did a quick Google and there is some interesting info out there. One thing worth noting is that a lot of big data centers owned by companies like Apple and Google use renewable energy sources. CD factories don’t.
On a per-unit basis, streaming has a far lower carbon footprint than any physical format. Estimates put the carbon footprint of an hour of media streaming at around 55 grams of CO2 equivalent, while CDs are over three times that , and vinyl and cassettes release over 2 kilograms of CO2 a unit.
Can’t speak to the accuracy of the above info but it gives an idea.
It goes on to note:
If you listen to an album for more than five hours, streaming is worse for the environment than a CD
So you need to plan ahead I guess 
There are defintiely albums I’ve listened to a lot more than that, and some I defintiely haven’t. Physical is good for the stuff you really care about.
What? No, definitely not. Streaming is hugely wasteful, even if the per unit cost is lower than with physical formats.
It’s a complicated discussion but I don’t think saying ‘No’ to data is helpful in us moving forward with the debate, as you’re not disagreeing with anything I’ve said
There are more than 2 ways to cut a cake, and the per unit production cost is only part of that.
I’ve never seen piles of MP3’s in rubbish tips or taking up shelf space in a charity shop.
It’s a good thing to be thinking about - it’s clear that physical media makes sense as an investment in certain circumstances, but labelling streaming as ‘hugely wastefull’ is true only in certain contexts.
2 Likes
You’re simplifying it too much. While you won’t see an MP3, you’re definitely seeing cables, routers and other parts of the infrastructure needed to maintain streaming globally.
Every stage of music streaming requires energy. Server farms, located all over the world, contain rows and rows of hard drives that store data, such as text messages, photos and the contents of music streaming platforms like Spotify and Apple Music. These hard drives require huge amounts of energy to power and to keep cool.
When you stream a song, data is transmitted from a server farm to a more local access network via underground and undersea cables, which also use energy. Once the data is local, it will be cached – kept for a certain amount of time – at a more local server, reducing errors and lags should you want to stream the song again. Once the song reaches your device, it relies on a wi-fi or other internet connection, as well as a charged phone or laptop. The process may be “invisible” in a way that the manufacturing of vinyl, formed of a derivative of crude oil, is not, but it still requires energy.
On a positive note, perhaps die-hard vinyl fans will be able to make life rafts from their precious collection when the sea levels rise. 
2 Likes
au contraire… think the heat is getting to you
I’m accepting that it’s nuanced - you are claiming that it’s black and white.
But no I’m not forgetting that, I’m also not forgetting the machinery and factories required for CD production, which are often made in places without the same regulation as the streaming services you’re likely to enjoy, also end up in that dump - we could play that game all day.
And you now appear to be linking me articles that I’ve quoted from so it’s clear this won’t be a productive conversation 
2 Likes
It’s odd that you’d say something contradicted in an article you quoted? MP3’s not ending up in rubbish heaps or taking up shelf space in charity shops is plain wrong as both discarded hard drives and smart phones are much more numerous than vinyl or cd players ever were.
Again from the article you supposedly quoted:
In a 2019 article for the Conversation, George and co-author Deirdre McKay calculated that if you listen to an album more than 27 times, it makes better environmental sense to buy that album on CD rather than to stream it. Speaking to the New Statesman in October 2021, George said she had revised that calculation, using updated numbers on carbon reporting figures for plastic (used for both a CD and its case) and for media streaming. Her conclusion? Listening to an album via a streaming platform for just five hours is equal in terms of carbon to the plastic of a physical CD. The comparative time for a vinyl record is 17 hours.
I never stopped buying cds the biggest issue with them is finding the one I want to listen to under the car seats when stuck in traffic.
2 Likes
When you stream a song, data is transmitted from a server farm to a more local access network via underground and undersea cables, which also use energy. Once the data is local, it will be cached – kept for a certain amount of time – at a more local server, reducing errors and lags should you want to stream the song again. Once the song reaches your device, it relies on a wi-fi or other internet connection, as well as a charged phone or laptop. The process may be “invisible” in a way that the manufacturing of vinyl, formed of a derivative of crude oil, is not, but it still requires energy.
For what it’s worth this sounds super complicated but you have to remember that those 1’s and 0’s are piggybackying with other data, in a way that might make them literally 0 cost - like an SMS message. Just because someone is charging you for it doesn’t mean it has a tangible cost.
It’s not invisible, I’m fully aware of it, it’s just nowhere near the impact of something being boxed in cardboard and shipped across Europe.
But as we concluded several messages up, there’s a fairly simple calculation for the per unit cost - however that doesn’t factor in several thigns that would make streaming appear more efficient, not the other way round.
Yea, this is what I wrote:
I didn’t say that.
Have some ice water dude
1 Like
Might be, right. You were so sure in your previous messages, now it’s more like, this is how it might be, this is how I feel like it is. And now there’s an impact, where in your previous message there was none? Also would like to see calculations of music shipping vs. cost of streaming, but since there aren’t probably any I’ll just disagree with your gut feeling on this one.
As you said, this discussion is fruitless as you have no sources, just a obtuse claim of “complexity” while stating opinions as facts.
This is what it looks like when someone gains new information and adjusts their perspective. I started with an assumption, and I’ve arrived at a new conclusion. Learning is fun!
4 Likes
I’m glad this discussion has been a learning experience for you.
Only a shame it couldn’t have been for all of us.
4 Likes
1 Like
Interestingly Robert Henke argues the exact opposite: „if CDs are stored with care, and if your CD player is in a good shape, they will last 30 years. 95% or more of my CDs from the 1990 or earlier still play fine, and i did not treat some of them well.“
Now we’re cooking! Get enough solar panels on there you might be able to sell energy back to the grid.
I don’t think 30 years is enough for a physical format. I have a lot of vinyl from the 60s and 70s that play like they were brand new. I have books that are over 100 years old.
Then again tapes only last for a few decades as well, but what I think is positive about tapes is how the sound changes over time as you listen to it. It’s a very personal experience to have an older tape that sounds a bit worn.
3 Likes
A response to claims that personal consumption habits have a negligible impact compared to industry emissions:
While large oil companies like ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, and Chevron are the biggest emitters of greenhouse gas emissions, we consumers are complicit. We demand the products and energy made from the fossil fuels they provide. One scientist found that 90 percent of fossil fuel companies’ emissions are a result of the products made from fossil fuels.
Source: Columbia Climate School
3 Likes
Right, but it’s a big sleight of hand to blame consumers for increased emissions. There will be no large scale change without a centralized effort to reduce emissions and outright ban most fossil fuels. Capitalism in a nutshell, blaming the consumer for wanting what the big companies manipulate us to want.
7 Likes