How do major music streamers compare on sustainability and carbon footprint?
Executive summary
Major music streamers contribute measurable greenhouse‑gas emissions mainly through data centers, network transmission and end‑user devices; studies and reporting place per‑hour streaming emissions around 55 g CO2e and estimate large aggregate footprints for services like Spotify (examples range into tens to hundreds of thousands of tonnes annually) [1] [2] [3]. Industry initiatives (Music Climate Pact, corporate renewable purchases) exist, but reporting shows disagreement about how much is reduced by offsets and renewable certificates versus actual emissions cuts [4] [5].
1. The footprint you can’t hear: how streaming creates emissions
Every streamed play requires storage, processing and transmission across data centres and networks and energy to power phones and speakers; that energy use is the source of the emissions debate in reporting and research [3] [6]. Analyses repeatedly stress that music uses less data — and so emits less per hour — than video, but the massive scale of listening pushes total emissions up regardless [7] [3].
2. Per‑hour and per‑stream figures: a common reference point
A widely cited figure for media streaming is roughly 55 g CO2e per hour; outlets from academic explainers to the Carbon Trust and New Statesman use this benchmark when comparing formats and consumption patterns [1] [8]. That per‑hour number is central to comparisons but reporters and researchers warn it’s an average that masks differences by codec, bitrate, device and geography [3] [1].
3. Big aggregate estimates and contested totals — Spotify as an example
Different reports give very different totals for a single platform. Ethical Consumer cites a 2025 study estimating Spotify’s footprint at 187,040 tonnes CO2e; other sources and company disclosures historically report lower or differently composed figures (server vs. user emissions), showing wide methodological divergence across studies [2] [9]. Available sources do not present a single, industry‑wide audited total that reconciles those differences.
4. Who’s responsible: platforms, clouds, networks, or listeners?
Reporting shows the largest share of emissions often lies outside platform offices: data centres (third‑party cloud providers), ISPs, and end‑user devices matter. Platforms point to cloud migrations (Spotify to Google Cloud) and renewable energy deals; critics point out reliance on renewable energy certificates and offsets that may not equal direct grid decarbonization [10] [5] [3].
5. Industry responses and commitments — progress and limits
The sector has formed initiatives such as the Music Climate Pact and platform programs promoting renewables and efficiency; journalists note these moves but emphasize the difference between claiming 100% renewable electricity (often via certificates) and eliminating residual fossil‑fuel electricity or reducing absolute emissions [4] [5]. Some reporting highlights practical user‑side advice — download frequently replayed tracks, use energy‑efficient devices — as ways to lower listener‑caused emissions [4] [9].
6. Comparing platforms beyond carbon: transparency and payout models matter
Environmental comparisons intersect with ethical and cultural critiques. Alternatives and smaller services (Resonate, Bandcamp, Jeeni, etc.) are presented as ethically preferable for artists; some reporting suggests those platforms may be more aligned with sustainability values, but available sources do not give comprehensive lifecycle carbon comparisons between these niche services and major streamers [11] [12] [13]. Available sources do not mention full, comparable carbon audits across these alternatives.
7. What the numbers miss: scope, methodologies and hidden agendas
Coverage repeatedly warns that different studies use different boundaries (Scope 1–3, user device energy, production, touring), bitrates and geographic electricity mixes, producing inconsistent results [3] [14]. Trade and advocacy groups urge “digital sobriety” while platforms emphasize technological fixes and offsets; both positions reflect implicit agendas — conservation advocates push reduced consumption and culture change, companies push technical decarbonization and offsets [8] [5].
8. Practical takeaways for listeners and journalists
If you want to reduce impact, reporting suggests practical steps supported across sources: reduce bitrate when possible, download repeated playlists, prefer energy‑efficient devices, and press platforms for transparent, audited emissions accounting rather than certificate‑only claims [4] [9] [5]. Journalists should demand consistent, auditable Scope 1–3 reporting from streamers and cloud providers to make meaningful comparisons [3] [5].
Limitations: sources disagree on totals and methods; many estimates rely on averages and corporate sustainability claims that use offsets or certificates — readers should treat single numerical claims (e.g., specific tonnes for a service) as study‑dependent unless accompanied by transparent methodology [2] [5] [3].