4 ms·

Why are we propagating this kind of nonsense? What this does is take attention away from the real issues that we should immediately deal with. It shifts blame

by jwr 6y ago

Why are we propagating this kind of nonsense? What this does is take attention away from the real issues that we should immediately deal with. It shifts blame onto individuals and performs the old trick of providing a method to calm our conscience (I'm not watching videos in HD, so I'm good, we can go on as normal). This trick has been pulled on us rather spectacularly with plastics recycling: manufacturers print the recycling symbol on everything, we dutifully sort our garbage and put stuff into recycling bins, and we feel good continuing to use lots of plastic, even though all this does nothing for the planet. Not to mention that the actual carbon footprint difference in this case is likely completely insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

ath92 6y ago
It doesn't shift blame onto individuals, because: "Platforms and regulators should limit streaming resolution and default to SD, the authors urged." While I agree it probably won't do much, you could argue that streaming high definition video just to listen to a song is a bit pointless (and with YouTube apparently being the world's largest music streaming service, this is pretty common)
- praseodym 6y ago
  The annoying thing is that YouTube’s audio quality is linked to the selected video quality, so watching a music video in SD will often also result in inferior audio.
  - ubercow13 6y ago
    And turning off the video when you are listening to a song was until more recently disallowed on mobile, and is now a paid option.
a_imho 6y ago
Isn't that just the other side of the self deceit coin to have a peace of mind? If individual actions do not matter, climate change can not be our fault? I am on team Blame Others and tend to somewhat agree though. Paraphrasing David Graeber, if a small percent of the population controls most of the disposable wealth, the state of the world reflects how they think things should be.
- kevingadd 6y ago
  The vast majority of the climate change and pollution problems are the work of industry, not individuals. Individual actions are very meaningful but the individuals in control here are the ones making decisions at these companies, not the person deciding whether to buy a 4K TV or a 1080p TV.
Angostura 6y ago
Exactly which aspect is nonsense? I see this kind of kneejerk response too often. Yes digital streaming accounts for a tiny proportion of CO2 emissions, but if the report is correct and HD video streaming on a phone generates about eight times more in emissions than standard definition, then it is the kind of thing that service providers should be thinking about when developing services. These days ‘how can we minimise CO2 footprint’ should be standard step in service design. Information on where carbon costs are is useful
- tjansen 6y ago
  It all comes down to the CO2 footprint of energy production. Instead of finding 10000 things where you can shave off a few percent, without ever getting even close to 0, concentrate on getting energy sources that do not produce CO2.
- CalRobert 6y ago
  Indeed it should. We also need to get to a state where "minimising our CO2 footprint helps us stay in business" is a more likely statement than "minimising our CO2 footprint means our competitors destroy us and we all get fired". Incentives are _completely_ broken. Until we handle this at a government level we're effectively punishing people who are trying to do right by the planet.
- ben_w 6y ago
  8x $small_num is still very little. I prefer low definition for other reasons and will therefore do this anyway, but saving the environment (or improving any other metric) is function of cost and benefit — while switching to SD is low cost (in my case negative cost) it is also not beneficial enough to make a noticeable dent in annual emissions, given the more detailed estimates for energy cost in the following article: https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-is-the-carbon-footprint-of-streaming-video-on-netflix https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-is-the-carbon-foo...
  - johan_felisaz 6y ago
    I'm curious, what are your other reasons for SD ? Battery / data savings ?

by jwr 6y ago

ath92 6y ago

It doesn't shift blame onto individuals, because: "Platforms and regulators should limit streaming resolution and default to SD, the authors urged." While I agree it probably won't do much, you could argue that streaming high definition video just to listen to a song is a bit pointless (and with YouTube apparently being the world's largest music streaming service, this is pretty common)

praseodym 6y ago
The annoying thing is that YouTube’s audio quality is linked to the selected video quality, so watching a music video in SD will often also result in inferior audio.
- ubercow13 6y ago
  And turning off the video when you are listening to a song was until more recently disallowed on mobile, and is now a paid option.

a_imho 6y ago

Isn't that just the other side of the self deceit coin to have a peace of mind? If individual actions do not matter, climate change can not be our fault? I am on team Blame Others and tend to somewhat agree though. Paraphrasing David Graeber, if a small percent of the population controls most of the disposable wealth, the state of the world reflects how they think things should be.

kevingadd 6y ago
The vast majority of the climate change and pollution problems are the work of industry, not individuals. Individual actions are very meaningful but the individuals in control here are the ones making decisions at these companies, not the person deciding whether to buy a 4K TV or a 1080p TV.

Angostura 6y ago

Exactly which aspect is nonsense? I see this kind of kneejerk response too often. Yes digital streaming accounts for a tiny proportion of CO2 emissions, but if the report is correct and HD video streaming on a phone generates about eight times more in emissions than standard definition, then it is the kind of thing that service providers should be thinking about when developing services. These days ‘how can we minimise CO2 footprint’ should be standard step in service design. Information on where carbon costs are is useful

tjansen 6y ago
It all comes down to the CO2 footprint of energy production. Instead of finding 10000 things where you can shave off a few percent, without ever getting even close to 0, concentrate on getting energy sources that do not produce CO2.
CalRobert 6y ago
Indeed it should. We also need to get to a state where "minimising our CO2 footprint helps us stay in business" is a more likely statement than "minimising our CO2 footprint means our competitors destroy us and we all get fired". Incentives are _completely_ broken. Until we handle this at a government level we're effectively punishing people who are trying to do right by the planet.
ben_w 6y ago
8x $small_num is still very little. I prefer low definition for other reasons and will therefore do this anyway, but saving the environment (or improving any other metric) is function of cost and benefit — while switching to SD is low cost (in my case negative cost) it is also not beneficial enough to make a noticeable dent in annual emissions, given the more detailed estimates for energy cost in the following article: https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-is-the-carbon-footprint-of-streaming-video-on-netflix https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-is-the-carbon-foo...
- johan_felisaz 6y ago
  I'm curious, what are your other reasons for SD ? Battery / data savings ?