Video on demand, streaming… An Arcom study reveals the environmental impact of audiovisual uses

The audiovisual regulator is looking for the first time at the carbon footprint of streaming, viewing on a television or on a video-on-demand platform. By 2030, greenhouse gas emissions from audiovisual uses will increase by 30% if nothing is done.

Did you know that watching a television show, a series on Netflix or a video on YouTube were extremely polluting activities? This is what a study by Arcom, the audiovisual regulator, reveals, with supporting figures. An unprecedented study on the environmental impact of audiovisual uses in France.

Audiovisual uses include, for example, viewing on a television, whether live or recorded, on a video-on-demand platform, such as Netflix, Prime Video, etc., and on a video sharing platform, such as YouTube. , Vimeo or Dailymotion. This also takes into account listening to the radio (live or replay), music or streaming podcasts. On the other hand, the study does not focus on the environmental impact of the emails we send, video games, video conferences or even content published on social networks.

For one hour of consumption of an audiovisual product, a person emits between 6 and 57 grams of carbon dioxide, or the impact of a passenger on a TGV traveling 2 to 20 km. More generally, over the year 2022, audiovisual uses are responsible for 0.9% of France’s total carbon footprint and 2.9% of French electricity consumption. These are 5.5 million tonnes of CO2, which corresponds to a fleet of 4 million private vehicles.

It is not so much the use but the fact of buying a television, a smartphone or a computer that has a major impact on the environment. The problem is the manufacturing of these terminals. Hence Arcom’s number 1 recommendation to improve their repairability and durability, we must extend their lifespan. What is also destructive for the planet is that all these devices are very energy-intensive. Some more than others: a television consumes more than a transistor. Moreover, the impact of video on climate change is significantly greater than that of audio.

The most harmful to the environment remains linear TV, live TV. It represents 52% of the carbon footprint of audiovisual uses. Firstly because it is mainly watched on a television (the manufacture of which is very polluting), then because it is the most widespread mode of viewing, so logically, the more it is used, the less good it is for the environment.

But with equal use, it is video on demand which is the bad student. Conversely, replay television and digital radio are the most virtuous. If nothing is done, warns Arcom, by 2030, greenhouse gas emissions from audiovisual uses will increase by 30%. By combining eco-design and sobriety measures (for example, watching content on your smartphone while connected via Wi-Fi rather than 4G), the impact could be reduced by a third compared to today.