This is highlighted in a new study by carbon accounting specialist Greenly, which looked at greenhouse-gas emissions linked to music streaming. Focusing on Spotify, the global leader in the sector, the analysis reveals the true scale of the carbon footprint generated by our daily playlists.
The results show that total emissions linked to music streaming on Spotify are expected to reach 187,040 tonnes of CO2 equivalent this year – an increase of 67% since 2021.
Greenly’s investigation reveals a major gap in Spotify’s official calculations. Since 2023, the platform has no longer included the electricity consumption of user devices in its carbon footprint, thus obscuring a significant portion of its actual climate impact.
To put this back into the equation, Greenly’s experts reconstructed the platform’s complete carbon footprint by extrapolating based on the evolution of user numbers.
Between 2021 and the first quarter of this year, Spotify saw its user base skyrocket from 406 million to 678 million. This growth is automatically accompanied by a proportional increase in emissions: from 112,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent in 2021 to an estimated 187,040 tonnes in 2025.
In terms of individual use, this footprint represents 1.04g of CO2 equivalent per hour of music listening. An average Spotify user would therefore be responsible for 276g of CO2 equivalent per year.
While this figure may seem insignificant on a personal scale, it takes on a whole new dimension when multiplied by the hundreds of millions of users of the platform.
This digital pollution stems from the impressive technological arsenal required for streaming to function. From servers and data centres to transmission networks, each link in the chain consumes electricity, which is still largely derived from fossil fuels.
Music streaming certainly generates fewer emissions than video streaming, but its daily consumption by millions of users ultimately weighs heavily on the global carbon tally.
As Alexis Normand, CEO and co-founder of Greenly, explains, digitisation is often perceived as carbon-neutral. “However, digital modes of consumption such as streaming still rely on tangible physical infrastructure, which continue to be powered by fossil fuels. Occasionally, this makes it harder to fully appreciate the ecological impact of one’s actions,” he says.
The issue could become even more serious with Spotify’s strategic evolution: last year, the platform introduced the option to view music videos for certain tracks, marking a shift towards a much more energy-intensive format. One hour of video produces up to 55g of CO2 equivalent, which is more than 50 times the amount produced by one hour of audio streaming.
This feature is currently limited to the platform’s 268 million Premium users. But if Spotify were to expand its catalogue of music videos or encourage visual consumption, the impact could be dramatic.
In a scenario where all Premium users switch from audio to video, annual emissions would jump to 3.92 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent.
However, these figures only represent a fraction of the music market: Spotify accounts for only around 32% of global music streaming and only 23% of all listening, across all formats (including radio, YouTube, and free streaming). The overall impact of audio streaming is, therefore, much greater.
The ease of access to streaming has multiplied global music consumption. The disappearance of physical media, often presented as an ecological advance, may have been offset by the boom in listening volumes.
Indeed, this study reminds us of an uncomfortable truth: even our most dematerialised pleasures leave a very real carbon footprint.