The hidden environmental cost of our digital habits: What we learned from users about video streaming’s impact

How our daily TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram habits quietly impact the planet, and what we can do about it.

When we think of pollution, images of smoggy skies or single-use plastics might come to mind. But what about our daily scrolling and streaming? In reality, the Internet is a major, yet “invisible polluter” [11]. And video streaming, think TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram, is the main culprit, dominating global internet traffic and quietly ramping up our collective carbon footprint[13][14][16].

We conducted a research to understand: Do people actually know about the environmental impact of their streaming habits? And if they do, what could change? Our research shares surprising insights and suggests practical paths forward for designers, companies, and everyday users.

Our Research: Listening to the Users

We interviewed young adults (18–26) in Germany, France, and the UK, all heavy users of TikTok, YouTube, or Instagram. They cared about the planet — most rated environmental sustainability as important (3 out of 5 or higher) — and made conscious offline choices, like buying second-hand or saving energy.

Revealing the True Cost of Streaming

But when it comes to online life, the numbers are striking:
The internet now accounts for 5% of global electricity use and 3.7% of global carbon emissions — more than the aviation industry [8]. Most of this energy is used by data centers, network infrastructure, and our own devices [17]. Video streaming alone is responsible for an enormous chunk of this consumption. For example, just one hour on TikTok generates about 158g of CO₂. That’s almost 58kg a year for an hour a day — equivalent to driving a car more than 144 miles (233 km) [19]. To put it in perspective, 10 million monthly page views on tiktok.com/explore creates as much CO₂ as 5,045 trees absorb in a year [21].

Despite these facts, public awareness is extremely low. This “invisible” impact is rarely discussed, especially when compared to more tangible activities like flying or driving [11][18].

Before our presentation, none of our participants linked their streaming to environmental harm. When shown facts and relatable comparisons (e.g., “watching TikTok is like driving a car” or “this is more CO₂ than flying”)[8][21], the reaction was even stronger: “It’s quite crazy because for one app you need that many trees to offset the carbon and there’re so many different social media apps.”

This shock was echoed by others, as the numbers suddenly became real and personal.

Insights That Changed Minds

• Environmental awareness doesn’t translate online. Despite valuing sustainability, none of the participants had considered video streaming as an ecological issue — mirroring findings from recent studies[10][18].
• Concrete comparisons matter. By translating CO₂ emissions into relatable terms (trees, cars), users suddenly “got it” — and felt motivated to change[15][21].
• Platform differences surprise people. Learning that TikTok’s carbon footprint is much higher than YouTube’s, despite offering similar content, sparked concern and curiosity about the technology behind each service[19].
• Intentions change — habits are harder. Participants said they’d consider reducing screen time, switching to lower video quality, or using fewer devices. But streaming was so integrated into their routines that they weren’t sure change would last[9][23].

How Design Can Nudge Greener Streaming

Our findings point to concrete, human-centered design opportunities:

• Feedback drives awareness. Participants wanted apps to show stats about their own usage and emissions — a notification, personal dashboard, or even a simple message (“You’ve streamed for X hours = Y trees”) [22].
• Convenient, actionable prompts. In-app nudges (e.g., “Switch to lower quality for less CO₂?”) would make sustainable choices easy and top-of-mind [19][22].
• Regular reminders, not one-offs. One exposure wasn’t enough — consistent, well-designed feedback and education are needed to turn awareness into habit [23].

Why Most People Don’t Change — And How We Might Help

“[Video streaming] is such an eye opener for me, it’s not like a necessity, I’ll just do it because I’m just bored and have nothing to do. But I know I could find other ways to spend my time and it will actually help the environment.” — One participant shared.

Even after learning the facts, convenience and routine often won. Many participants questioned whether individual actions made any difference — echoing the challenges cited in other studies of environmental behavior[10][18]. Despite good intentions, changing deeply embedded digital habits is hard — especially when these platforms are designed to be addictive. Still, the more visible and personal the feedback, the more likely people were to try changing their habits, even just a little.

What’s Next? The Case for Human-Centered, Green UX

Digital pollution may be invisible, but its impact is real and growing. By designing for awareness and ease, we can help millions of users make small, meaningful changes. Our research suggests that feedback, comparison, and gentle nudges — rooted in human-centered design — can shift habits over time[15][22][23].

The Feedback Loop Gap

Participants repeatedly asked for personal consumption feedback — they wanted to know their own impact in real-time. Imagine if your streaming app showed you:

• Your daily/weekly carbon footprint
• Equivalent comparisons (miles driven, trees needed)
• Simple actions to reduce impact (lower quality options, platform suggestions)

Making Sustainable Choices Convenient

One participant suggested pop-up messages asking if you want to lower video quality for environmental reasons. Without these prompts, sustainable options remain buried in settings menus that most users never explore.

The key insight: people are willing to make environmentally conscious choices, but those choices need to be convenient and visible.

The Bigger Picture: Small Changes, Massive Impact

This research revealed something important about how we perceive environmental impact. We’re trained to think about physical objects — cars, plastic packaging, fast fashion — but digital pollution remains invisible.

Yet for young people who spend 3+ hours daily on video platforms, streaming might be their largest individual environmental impact. The problem isn’t just individual consumption; it’s the scale. With billions of users and hours of daily engagement, small changes in streaming behavior could have massive environmental benefits.

Moving Forward

We’re not suggesting everyone delete their streaming apps (though that would help the planet). Instead, we need:

• Awareness: More people should understand the environmental cost of their digital habits
• Transparency: Platforms should show users their environmental impact
• Choice: Sustainable options should be convenient and accessible
• Design responsibility: We need to consider environmental impact in product design decisions
• Regulation: As many participants agreed, truly sustainable change will require more than voluntary action from individuals and platforms. Regulation is essential for setting standards, enforcing transparency, and ensuring that environmental responsibility becomes the norm, not the exception.

The participants in our study were genuinely motivated to change once they understood the impact. But motivation fades without regular reminders and convenient alternatives.

As designers, developers, and digital citizens, we have the power to make digital experiences more sustainable. The question isn’t whether we can reduce the environmental impact of streaming — it’s whether we will.

---

This research was conducted by Nhi Dam, Margarita Chuloy, and Leonhard Glomann and received Best Paper Award recognition at AHFE 2024. The findings offer valuable insights for anyone interested in the intersection of user experience design and environmental responsibility. Full research article can be accessed on ResearchGate

---

References

[1] Carbon Footprint Calculator by Carbon Footprint. https://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx

[2] Social Carbon Footprint Calculator by comparethemarket. https://www.comparethemarket.com.au/energy/features/social-carbon-footprint-calculator/

[3] Ferreboeuf, H., Berthoud, F., Bihouix, P., Fabre, P., Kaplan, D., & Lefèvre, L. (2019). Lean ICT, Towards Digital Sobriety. The Shift Project. https://theshiftproject.org/en/article/lean-ict-our-new-report/

[4] Website carbon Calculator V3. (2024). https://www.websitecarbon.com/

[5] Lindner, J. (2023, December 16). Must-know internet traffic statistics [latest report]. GITNUX. https://gitnux.org/internet-traffic-statistics/

[6] Marks, L. U., Clark, J., Livingston, J., Oleksijczuk, D. B., & Hilderbrand, L. (2020). Correction: Streaming Media’s Environmental Impact. Media+Environment.

[7] Suski, P., Pohl, J., & Frick, V. (2020). All you can stream: Investigating the role of user behavior for greenhouse gas intensity of video streaming. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on ICT for Sustainability.

[8] Gan, Y., Xu, T., Xu, N., Xu, J., & Qiao, D. (2021). How Environmental Awareness and Knowledge Affect Urban Residents’ Willingness to Participate in Rubber Plantation Ecological Restoration Programs: Evidence from Hainan, China. Sustainability.

[9] Yadav, S. (2022). Digital Sobriety: Solution for digital pollution Anda Tool for promoting environmental sustainability. BSSS Journal of Computer.

[10] Bassi, I., Gori, E., & Iseppi, L. (2019). Assessing environmental awareness towards protection of the Alps: A case study. Land Use Policy.

[11] Grinstein, A., Kodra, E., Chen, S., Sheldon, S., & Zik, O. (2018). Carbon innumeracy. PLOS ONE, 13, e0196282.

[12] Yu, Y., & Bhatti, S. N. (2014). The cost of virtue: reward as well as feedback are required to reduce user ICT power consumption. Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Future energy systems.

[13] Peña, È. G., & Jensen, R. H. (2023). The Character of Eco-feedback Systems for Energy Communities. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Communities and Technologies.

[14] Grolemund, G., & Wickham, H. (2014). A Cognitive Interpretation of Data Analysis. International Statistical Review, 82.

[15] Qin, Y., Omar, B., & Musetti, A. (2022). The addiction behavior of short-form video app TikTok: The information quality and system quality perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 13.

[16] Ye, J. H., Wu, Y., Wu, Y., Chen, M., & Ye, J. (2022). Effects of Short Video Addiction on the Motivation and Well-Being of Chinese Vocational College Students. Frontiers in Public Health, 10.

[17] Stephens, A., et al. (2021). Carbon Impact of Video Streaming. United Kingdom. https://policycommons.net/artifacts/2387662/carbon-impact-of-video-streaming/3408674/

[18] WDR2021. (2021). Cisco Visual Networking Index, 2017–2022. https://wdr2021.worldbank.org/stories/crossing-borders/

[19] Ceci, L. (2023, August 29). Time spent on TikTok 2022. Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1294986/time-spent-tiktok-app-selected-countries/

[20] Shewale, R. (2024). YouTube statistics for 2024 (users, Facts & More). DemandSage. https://www.demandsage.com/youtube-stats/