I don’t know about you, but I love my iPod nearly as much as I love my children. Putting my music collection onto the computer and relegating that bulky CD collection to a long-forgotten corner of the loft has proved a revelation, as has leaving my music playing on shuffle and not having to get up every hour to insert a new CD. I’ve always believed that the digital music revolution is good for the planet, because a downloaded album is free of the emissions and materials associated with CDs. All I had ever considered was the energy consumed by my computer when I download and subsequently listen to my new album. It would appear, though, that things are not quite so clear cut. A number of reports have highlighted various issues that can affect the impacts associated with purchasing music. I shall attempt to cover them in this article, and answer the question: Is it better for the planet to download music as opposed to buying CDs?
What is downloaded music?
Just in case there are any technophobes reading this, I shall explain what I mean by downloaded music – yes I appreciate a technophobe probably won’t be looking at this website, but I am also using this as an opportunity to clarify that I do not agree with file-sharing websites. I think they are damaging the music industry and open you up to a range of nasty stuff – viruses, spyware, etc. – being passed onto your computer. By downloaded music I mean from authentic music sellers, such as iTunes or Amazon MP3. When music is purchased this way, the album is sent electronically to your computer without the need for a CD. You can then play the album directly from your computer or load it onto an MP3 player, such as an iPod, which can then be played via headphones or an MP3 dock. I usually just play my music at home straight from the computer connected to some decent speakers.
What studies tell us so far
There have been a number of studies done on this subject and I shall convey the main findings below. These studies have covered energy use, emissions and material use in the production and transport of CDs, cases, booklets, etc. and the server and computer operations associated with MP3.
A report on the carbon emissions and energy usage of CDs and MP3s [1] found that a CD bought at the shops could use as much as 52MJ (mega joules) of energy and produce 3200g of CO2 per album, whereas an album downloaded and listened to on a computer would use 7MJ of energy and produce 400g of CO2. These are the highest and lowest scenarios (of 6) and the report makes it clear that different forms of purchase, delivery and use will affect these figures. Nonetheless, in its summary the report states that purchasing music digitally reduces the energy and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions associated with delivering music to customers by between 40 and 80% [1].
A study into the resources consumed by the two options [2] found that a CD purchased from a store accounted for 1.56 kg of abiotic material intensity (raw materials), a CD purchased online is 1.31kg. A downloaded album consumes 0.67kg, but if you are a using dial up connection, as opposed to broadband, then the figure can rise to as much as 5.50kg. If music is listened to via streaming (Spotify, last.fm. etc.) then it will exceed the material intensity after the third listen. Another study [3] showed that the CD production phase accounts for 0.83kg of the (total) abiotic material consumption. Interestingly, this study also showed that music ownership amongst the young is preferably on an MP3 player or computer, whereas as the age increases (30+), the CD or other hard copy is preferable. I believe this is highlighting the trend that ownership is headed more towards MP3 and that the mainstream production CD’s days are numbered.
So, to reiterate those figures; an album on CD, bought from a shop will consume 1.56kg of raw material, use 52MJ of energy and produce 3200g of CO2.
An album downloaded from the Internet will consume 0.67kg of raw material, use 7MJ of energy and produce 400g of CO2.
Therefore a downloaded album consumes less than half the materials, uses around 7 times less energy and produces 8 times less CO2 emissions.
There are, however, many variables that can affect these figures, and I shall cover these below.
The variables
In all of the studies there have been a number of extenuating factors mentioned, while some have not been accounted for at all. For example, the high turnover of MP3 players was referred to in one study as being a factor that could significantly increase the impact of downloaded music. What follows is a quick look at some of the other variables. Please note that this is not an academic study – I am simply thinking on the subject and trying to address some of these issues in answer to my question in the title.
So I’ll begin with the above issue. It has been noted that consumers change MP3 players far more than CD players, thus increasing the footprints of MP3 music. However, we must not forget that it is not only digitally purchased tracks that are played on MP3 players. People also buy CDs to convert to MP3 with the intention of listening to them on their MP3 players. Also, these upgrades we seem to be constantly making to support our digital lifestyle would probably occur even without the music issue, as we seem to be ever-searching for that faster internet connection, better gaming experience or simply attempting to keep up with technology.
We must also account for those of us who buy an album from iTunes and then burn it onto a CD to take to a friend’s house or to play in the car. Doing this will increase the footprint of your downloaded track quite significantly. Of course this can be avoided by simply taking the music to a friend’s on an MP3 player/portable hard drive or buying a car stereo that can connect directly to an MP3 player – which most of them do nowadays.
Waste from CDs was not covered by any study, I guess because they are a collectable, non-disposable item. However, one look at a local allotment, with all those CDs strung up to scare the birds, will tell you that we do throw CDs away, and as such the waste created enters the environment. This doesn’t happen with MP3 albums.
If jewel CD cases are replaced with cardboard ones the impact of a CD will drop, not only in the production phase, but also if the CD is disposed of, as a paper case can be recycled.
When we consider global implications the variables change again. Imagine if you will, that a band records an album which is then sent to the CD factory for pressing. If, for instance, the Japanese market is to be supplied with this album, then xxx CDs have to be shipped around the world, either by sea or air. This consumes large amounts of energy, creates pollution and emits carbon. If, however, this band decides to release their new album in a digital format, then the Japanese fans will all have to buy their albums digitally, thus saving on the impacts associated with transporting bulky CDs halfway around the globe.
Then, of course, there are the qualitative factors. Many people get a buzz from the collecting aspect of music, proudly showing off skyscraper CD towers full of every limited edition and white label ever recorded. You can’t do that with MP3. There’s also the argument that when purchasing an album, it’s desirable to have something tangible in our hand and what if the computer goes pop and we loose our beloved (and expensive) music collection. Two words here people: Back Up. Conversely, CDs can be scratched, stolen or lost in the same way that MP3s can disappear with the drop of a virus, so I don’t think that argument holds much water. Finally, let us not forget the prized CD booklet. Many people don’t want to lose this little gem that you don’t get when you download an album. I have to admit that half of the time I don’t see the point of the booklet. Great if they have the lyrics printed on them, but so often they are just a collection of abstract photos of either the band or nothing of any relevance to the album whatsoever. MP3 albums are starting to come with a digital (pdf) booklet, which is a far more eco-friendly way of doing things. I believe that we should be pressing the record companies to see more digital booklets.
I was going to provide some hints and tips as to how best to avoid energy and material consumption when using and sharing MP3s. However, it started to look like I was advocating copying and sharing music, so I scrapped that idea. So I’ll just say this: Use you common sense; if you can avoid burning CDs and keep the music as an electronic file that will be played either on a computer or portable MP3 player, then you really will minimise the impact your music listening has on the planet.
One last quick word while we’re on the subject of music; if you’re a festivalgoer then you may want to look at the green festival awards [4]. These awards are given to festivals based on such things as not giving out plastic water bottles, the amount of ethical food stands present and the materials used to build the festival compounds. It’s an interesting website if you’re a live music lover with a concern for the planet and well worth a look before you buy your tickets for next season.
In summary then…
Even though there are many different scenarios concerning the purchase of music and many other factors affect the associated impacts, all of the studies do confirm that downloading music as opposed to buying it on CDs is better for the environment. Downloading music uses about half of the raw materials and produces less that half the CO2 emissions compared to buying a CD. While there may be many reasons for us to keep buying those little silver discs, the fact of the matter is that downloading is the future and it’s better for the planet. Nine times out of ten it’s cheaper too. So in keeping with ESW’s ethos; switching to MP3s really will save energy, money and carbon.
References
[1] http://download.intel.com/pressroom/pdf/cdsvsdownloadsrelease.pdf
[2] http://www.forumforthefuture.org/files/DigitaleuropeMusiccasestudy.pdf
