Rethinking Sustainability in the Age of Streaming

The recent sessions on the sustainability of digital streaming held by the great team from GreeningofStreaming did a lot to help people understand the reality of digital sustainability within the streaming industry.

The work they are doing is correcting a lot of misconceptions, not least the revelation that reducing streaming bitrate doesn't necessarily equate to a reduced carbon impact on networks, which are designed for peak demand and therefore maintain a consistent power usage. If you didn't attend and are interested, here are three key points they covered that are worth examining in further detail:

1. Bitrate Reduction and Its Impact

One of the critical revelations was the disconnect between streaming bitrate and the carbon footprint of networks. Too many analysts and "specialists" have long preached that reducing bandwidth consumed reduces emissions. The reality is very, very different.

Networks are designed for peak demand, which means they consume the same power irrespective of their data load. The perceived correlation between bitrate reduction and network-related carbon emissions is essentially about managing peak demand. If your streaming platform has the highest peak audience in a given country, you might indeed influence positive change. However, merely reducing the bitrate of streams might not yield significant emission benefits, contrary to popular belief.

2. Device Production vs Use

The second insight highlighted the environmental implications of device production versus device use. The environmental impact from device production is substantially higher, meaning extending the lifespan of devices can have a disproportionately positive effect on sustainability. As a result, an ill-advised move would be to adopt a highly efficient modern video codec prematurely, thereby rendering a generation of consumer devices obsolete. This emphasises the need for optimising digital services for increasingly older devices.

3. Energy Dynamics of Encoding

The third observation centered around the energy usage of video encoders. While it may seem intuitive to switch to encoders that consume less energy, particularly if your emissions and power costs are soaring, this decision could backfire. If the decoding process requires even marginally more power, the compounded effect on a large audience could be significant. This is where Scope 4 considerations come in—altering our practices to minimise downstream emissions might offer the streaming industry a considerable opportunity for enhancing sustainability.

My Conclusion

That the relationship between streaming and sustainability is more complex than it appears. Making a real difference calls for a nuanced understanding and a strategic approach to adopting sustainability measures.