Matrix Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 In brief: Those who remember when music came on CDs, cassettes, and vinyl records might think that in today’s digital age the industry isn’t as harmful to the environment. Surprisingly, they might be wrong. According to a new report, the move from physical media to downloads and streaming has seen an increase in greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). The report, called The Cost of Music, comes from a collaboration between the University of Glasgow and the University of Oslo. It states that while the recording industry’s use of plastics has fallen from 61 million kilograms to around 8 million kilograms between the years 2000 and 2016, the amount of GHG it produces has increased significantly. During vinyl’s heyday of 1977, 58 million kilograms of plastic was used by the industry, translating to 140 million kilograms of GHGs. During the peak of CD sales in the year 2000, 157 million kilograms of GHG was produced. In 2016, the amount of plastic used had decreased eight-fold, but downloads and streaming were producing between 200 and 350 million kilograms of GHGs. Digital music services require a massive amount of power for storing all their content, and there’s also the electricity people use when downloading and streaming. Additonally, consuming digital music today is cheap, with most services charging around 1 percent of the weekly US salary, meaning consumers are using the likes of Spotify more than ever before. The researchers aren’t trying to stop people from listening to music; they just want people to be aware of the hidden environmental costs behind their behavior. “We hope the findings might encourage change toward more sustainable consumption choices and services that remunerate music creators while mitigating environmental impact,” said Dr. Matt Brennan, a Reader in Popular Music at the University of Glasgow. View Original Article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luisam Posted April 9, 2019 Share Posted April 9, 2019 8 hours ago, DonyMach1 said: During vinyl’s heyday of 1977, 58 million kilograms of plastic was used by the industry, translating to 140 million kilograms of GHGs. During the peak of CD sales in the year 2000, 157 million kilograms of GHG was produced. In 2016, the amount of plastic used had decreased eight-fold, but downloads and streaming were producing between 200 and 350 million kilograms of GHGs. Uuugh... So according to this, the conclusion is that listening Spotify increases greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs)!!! OK, I don't listen Soptify but I find these "satistics" rather unclear and not convincing, Are they really impartial or, as I believe, tendentious? Some so called, autodefined or autopromoted "environmentalists" find contaminating effects even in their own shadow just to have some justification to publish "new finds" in papers!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matrix Posted April 9, 2019 Author Share Posted April 9, 2019 @luisam brother I am just as confused as you about this article I only posted it in the hope that one of our learned members could shine a light on how they could come to this conclusion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
debebee Posted April 10, 2019 Share Posted April 10, 2019 same guys who say eating big macs has increased greenhouse gases 😄 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karlston Posted April 10, 2019 Share Posted April 10, 2019 IMO wIthout some quantification to back up the claims, it's just speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhjohns Posted April 10, 2019 Share Posted April 10, 2019 It all depends on how the energy is produced. Do you get your energy from green sources, and nuclear which have no carbon emissions or from oil, anc coal? The same holds true with electric cars. How is the energy actually produced. If you want to truely be green then get some solar panels, and windmills. Even the production of these has its costs. Nothing is as it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radpop Posted April 10, 2019 Share Posted April 10, 2019 Not surprised at all. Listening but especially storing and processing music online uses a tremendous amount of resources and energy, which have a high impact on the environment. Copyright issues are turning music listening towards streaming which is much more environmentally oppressive than downloading music only once. Listening of music has also increased rapidly because of cheap music and handheld listening devices. We need greener energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luisam Posted April 10, 2019 Share Posted April 10, 2019 14 hours ago, DonyMach1 said: @luisam brother I am just as confused as you about this article I only posted it in the hope that one of our learned members could shine a light on how they could come to this conclusion I'm not blaming YOU in any way, even appreciate your information. coming from an accredited support like Techspot.com. It's just MY modest opinion, without any scientific support! 10 hours ago, dhjohns said: It all depends on how the energy is produced. Do you get your energy from green sources, and nuclear which have no carbon emissions or from oil, anc coal? The same holds true with electric cars. How is the energy actually produced. If you want to truely be green then get some solar panels, and windmills. Even the production of these has its costs. Nothing is as it seems. An excellent observation but the joke is that a virginally pure enviromentalist can't be pleased by any energy source. He only would live really happy as a prehistoric caveman! Nuclear energy is DANGEROUS for human, hidroelectric source modifies environment due to flooding of extense areas for reservoirs and endangers fluvial bioma, electric transmission cables and towers produce dangerous electomagnetique emissions, eolic energy and windmills is danderous for birdies, geotermic energy modifies soil consistency, use of tides can affect marine life and whales, solar energy increases global warming, solar panels represent hazards for use and habitat loss, water use, and the use of hazardous materials in manufacturing them, also might exterminate bees and other valious insects etc etc etc... NOTHING IS GREEN ENOUGH Now, seriously, I guess that the really cheap and unlimited energy source will be, if ever developed, the fussion energy. Just take two hydrogen atoms, join them in one helium atom and you get a mini-sun! The problem is how to do this on large scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.