Carbon Footprint of Streaming: Figures and How to Reduce It

The carbon footprint of streaming has become one of the most debated numbers in the digital economy, with published estimates for a single hour of video ranging from around 36 grams to more than 400 grams of CO2 equivalent ^[2]. That hundredfold gap says less about streaming itself than about how the calculation is done. Data centres and data transmission networks together account for roughly 1% of global energy-related greenhouse gas emissions, and video makes up the large majority of internet traffic ^[1]. This article sets out the verified figures, explains why the early headlines were misleading, breaks down what actually consumes energy when a video plays, and details concrete ways to reduce the carbon footprint of streaming.

What the carbon footprint of streaming actually measures

The carbon footprint of streaming refers to the greenhouse gas emissions generated by delivering and watching video over the internet. Three distinct stages are involved: the data centres that store and encode the content, the transmission networks that carry it, and the end device on which it is watched. The confusion in public debate comes largely from mixing these stages, or from attributing the full energy cost of a fibre network or a television set to a single streaming session.

According to the International Energy Agency, viewing devices are responsible for the largest share of the energy used during streaming, at around 72%, followed by data transmission networks at roughly 23% and data centres at about 5% ^[1]. In other words, most of the footprint sits in the living room, not in a distant server farm. This matters because it reframes where reductions are most effective. A useful comparison is the way emissions are apportioned in an audiovisual production: understanding which stage carries the impact is the first step, exactly as it is when dissecting the emission scopes of a production.

The figures: how much CO2 one hour of streaming emits

The most widely cited reference figure comes from the Carbon Trust, which estimated that one hour of video streaming in Europe generates on average around 55 grams of CO2 equivalent ^[3]. Independent reviews place the central estimate even lower: the IEA revised its own figure for an hour of streaming down to about 36 grams, from an original estimate of 82 grams ^[2]. Carbon Brief, reviewing the evidence, put a typical hour of streaming on the order of tens of grams rather than hundreds ^[2].

To make the number tangible, the Carbon Trust framed an hour of streaming in Europe as roughly equivalent to boiling an electric kettle a few times, or driving a car a few hundred metres ^[3]. The figure is real but modest at the level of a single household. The picture changes at global scale: the aggregate footprint of the largest platforms runs into millions of tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year, because billions of hours are watched ^[2]. Both statements are true at once, which is why the topic is so easily distorted.

Why early estimates were so wrong

The headline figures that circulated at the start of the streaming debate were inflated by methodological errors. The most influential came from a report that, after correction, was revised down by a factor of about eight, because of a unit error confusing bits and bytes ^[2]. Once that correction was applied, a claim of well over a kilogram of CO2 for half an hour of video fell to a fraction of that ^[2].

Two structural reasons explain why old estimates run high. First, network energy use does not scale in a simple linear way with the volume of data: much of a network’s electricity is consumed whether it carries one video or a thousand, so dividing total energy by total data overstates the marginal cost of an extra stream ^[1]. Second, the energy efficiency of data centres, networks and devices has improved rapidly, so figures based on older hardware overstate today’s impact ^[1]. Any figure quoted without a source and a date should therefore be treated with caution.

What drives streaming emissions: devices, networks, data centres

Because the viewing device dominates the footprint, screen choice is the single largest variable a viewer controls. Streaming on a large television consumes far more energy than the same content on a laptop, and dramatically more than on a smartphone ^[2]. The gap between a big screen and a phone can be an order of magnitude or more, which means device selection often matters more than resolution or platform.

The infrastructure side is where the trend line is worth watching. The IEA estimates that data centres already account for around 1.5% of global electricity consumption, and it projects that demand could roughly double over the second half of this decade, driven far more by artificial intelligence workloads than by video streaming itself ^[4]. The European Commission likewise flags data centres as an energy-hungry challenge for the grid, with consumption on a steep upward path ^[5]. Streaming is not the main engine of that growth, but it shares the same infrastructure, so the carbon intensity of the electricity powering these facilities will shape the footprint of every stream.

Source of shares: IEA ^[1]. The table shows why advice focused only on server farms misses most of the footprint.

How to reduce the carbon footprint of streaming

Reducing the carbon footprint of streaming is mostly about the viewing device and viewing habits rather than about avoiding video altogether. The most effective actions are practical and cost nothing.

Matching the screen to the need is the first lever: watching on a phone or laptop rather than a large television cuts energy use substantially ^[2]. Adjusting resolution to the screen also helps, since streaming in high definition on a small device consumes more data for no perceptible benefit. Downloading content once over Wi-Fi rather than re-streaming it repeatedly over mobile networks reduces transmission energy, and turning off autoplay avoids powering the whole chain for content nobody is watching. Choosing platforms that power their infrastructure with renewable electricity addresses the data-centre share, even if that share is small ^[1]. For organisations, the same logic scales up: the choice of a hosting provider and of streaming settings for internal video can be embedded in a broader digital sustainability policy, in the same way a business chooses the right sustainability software platform.

Streaming and the audiovisual and events sector

For the media, entertainment and events industries, streaming is not only a personal habit but a distribution channel and a production reality. The footprint of watching content is the visible tip; the larger and more controllable emissions sit upstream, in the making of that content. A single high-end shoot mobilises transport, energy, catering and equipment across a supply chain, and those posts typically dwarf the downstream footprint of any individual viewing session.

Film and TV production

Streaming platforms commission vast volumes of original content, and each title carries the emissions of its production. This is where measurement frameworks matter most. In France, EcoProd’s Carbon’Clap calculator, built on ADEME emission factors, is a widely used reference for the audiovisual sector, while the Albert standard plays that role in the United Kingdom ^[3]. Since new obligations came into force, a production seeking support from the French CNC must submit a carbon footprint of the work, which pushes streaming commissioners to account for the impact of what they fund. Studios that treat distribution efficiency and production measurement as one continuum can act on both, as detailed in TheGreenshot’s overview of carbon calculators in audiovisual and its practical guide to cutting the carbon footprint of an AV production.

Live events and streamed broadcasts

Live events increasingly reach audiences through streaming, from concerts to corporate conferences and sports. The on-site footprint (temporary power, crew and audience mobility, catering, waste) generally far exceeds the emissions of the online audience watching the feed. Organisers who quantify both sides can decide where reductions pay off, rather than fixating on the digital tail. A structured measurement approach, as used behind the scenes of a production studio’s carbon footprint, turns intuition into an auditable figure aligned with the GHG Protocol methodology.

GreenPro, TheGreenshot’s carbon tracking tool, automates data collection for productions and events, producing footprints aligned with Albert, CSRD and the GHG Protocol without manual entry. For teams distributing content through streaming, it links the measurable emissions of production to a credible sustainability story. Learn more about TheGreenshot.

Conclusion

The carbon footprint of streaming is real but frequently exaggerated: a typical hour sits in the range of tens of grams of CO2 equivalent, most of it consumed by the viewing device rather than by data centres ^[3]. The headline-grabbing figures of the past came from methodological errors that have since been corrected ^[2]. The most effective way to reduce the carbon footprint of streaming is to watch on a smaller screen, match resolution to the device, and favour renewable-powered platforms. Looking ahead, the variable to watch is not video demand but the surge in data-centre electricity use driven by artificial intelligence, which will shape the emissions of the shared digital infrastructure on which all streaming depends ^[4].

FAQ

Going further with TheGreenshot