Is your Netflix queue destroying the environment?

http://www.slate.com/id/2196651/?from=rss

by terpua • 18 years ago

26 36 18 years ago

Are there people who actually worry about such things? Do they worry about the HVAC systems in their 3500 sq ft houses?

chadgeidel• 18 years ago

My parents worry about the HVAC in their (more than) 3500 sq ft house. Not worry in the sense that "we might not be able to live" but worry in the sense that "turning down the upstairs thermostat a few degrees sure saves a lot of money."

ars7• 18 years ago

People work way too hard on these analyses, just compare the price. The cheaper one is better for the environment.

Edit, sorry should have added this before: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=346912 explains my statement (so I don't have to retype it).

josefresco2• 18 years ago

By your (hopefully sarcastic/tongue-in-cheek) logic, oil is a green fuel as it's cheaper (currently) than solar/wind/geo-thermal.

ars7• 18 years ago

No not sarcastic. Except for pollution the cheaper one really is better for the environment. Please read my post I just linked.

Building a windmill, or solar panels (not sure about geo-thermal) costs a tremendous amount of resources, and energy. So yes, except for CO2 emissions oil actually can be better for the environment. Do please remember that there is more to the environment than CO2. It takes at least 10-15 years for a windmill to pay back it's environmental costs. And for solar panels it's something like 30 years (infinity actually since they don't last that long).

randallsquared4• 18 years ago

Ideally, price would completely capture that information. Of course, in reality, pollution imposes a cost on others, but it's hard to calculate the external cost, because, like crime, the cost isn't paid by the decision-maker, and unlike crime, the actual cost is very small (individually).

In any case, there's no way to actually avoid all costs being imposed on others from your actions (waste heat, if nothing else), so it's unclear to me what's to be done about it.

whacked_new2• 18 years ago

Do you consider brand markup to be an edge case? If not, how would you explain it?

ars7• 18 years ago

Brand name products usually use fancier packaging, they spend money on advertising (direct mail fliers for example), the extra profits encourage more waste in the company since they can afford it, while generic manufactures will go to great lengths to be very efficient. And if money is not spent there it goes to larger marketing budgets, and finally if nothing else to profits, and larger salary. Larger salary usually means larger home, etc, and all that goes with it. So, no, it's not an edge case.

PS. The environment should not be your only reason for choosing or not choosing something to buy. But comparing the price will help you avoid greenwashing.

anewaccountname2• 18 years ago

Cars without catalytic converters are cheaper than cars with them...

ars7• 18 years ago

I guess you didn't actually read the post. I said: except for pollution.

josefresco2• 18 years ago

"30 minutes spent reordering your queue in a well-lit, climate-controlled room with the computer running"

They're assuming a lot to come to that conclusion. What about 15 minutes spent (because that's all it takes) on Netflix on my laptop in my CF light bulb lit room that isn't climate controlled?

rglullis• 18 years ago

Not only that, but you being in a climate-controlled room and the computer running is a sunk cost. You'd be doing something else anyway.

On the other hand, a typical blockbuster store, well-lit, climate-controlled is not.

jerf• 18 years ago

The only real reason to sweat something like that is if it's really and truly your biggest impact.

My company is flying me most of the way across the continental US next week. While I shouldn't and don't interpret that as a carte blanche to stop caring about the environment, it does make fiddling around the edges rather a waste of my time. I've already plucked the low-hanging fruit (efficient computing with laptops, CFCs in my house, taking care of the insulation).

pragmatic• 18 years ago

Seriously?

When the depression hits, the one benefit is that crap like this will go on the back burner.

electromagnetic• 18 years ago

I live in ontario, my blockbuster runs off nuclear/hydroelectric power. I somehow think it beats out the mail trucks Netflix would be using if they expand into Canada. So for me Blockbuster's energy costs are effectively zero to begin with except possibly the minute increase in heat created by the accelerated decay of nuclear isotopes.

wmf• 18 years ago

It's not about Blockbuster's energy, it's about the energy used when you drive to Blockbuster.

mdasen2• 18 years ago

Factors:

1. USPS truck vs. your car. The USPS is going to be coming by your house whether you get Netflix or not and the weight addition is negligible. You driving to the video store causes an increase in emissions.

2. Video store vs. factory. The video store has a lot of wasted space in it. All those aisles to browse in, all that lighting, AC, heat, etc. running from 9am-midnight or later. Netflix is probably open from 8am-4pm if not less in a factory that can be made really space efficient.

3. Labor. Here's an interesting premise: we all pollute by breathing. If we are doing something more productive, we can better justify that pollution. For example, no one would say that EMTs should walk a person to the hospital in an emergency - the use of the ambulance is justified by the importance of the situation. However, walk for less important things (if you live in a suitable area) to lessen pollution. Likewise, if we can reallocate labor to more important/productive things, it's better than if we have labor sitting behind a counter with no customers for hours on end. Netflix uses labor efficiently. Package everything up, get them out, go home. Vs Sit behind a counter for lots of idle periods doing nothing.

Netflix just works off a much more efficient model. More importantly, I think we're seeing that in a decade Netflix will be a purely virtual model. They're a smart company getting into the video on demand business so much. That will really cut down and, really, in this day we don't need physical media to transmit audio/video.

bmj• 18 years ago

This touches on a point that I make in almost any discussion of the environment and our impact on it: no matter what we do, we are going to negatively impact the environment. Yes, we can mitigate that impact (and I am completely in favor of doing so), but sitting around stressing about using Netflix isn't the way to do it. There's plenty of other low-hanging fruit that each one of us can pluck (sell your car, walk more places, cut down on general consumption).

I will say, however, that I appreciate Slate actually approaching this issue--many people seem to think that "electronic" equals "green" because there's no paper, no delivery, etc, etc. They forget, however, that there is a vast, (currently) energy dependent system that supports the internet.

mdasen2• 18 years ago

Yeah. Even when thinking about getting stuff shipped from Amazon I feel this way. UPS/FedEx are really efficient - they have to be. I mean, they choose their routes based on what will use the least gasoline! They have advanced software meant to save them money by limiting distances traveled, gasoline, trucks and labor used, etc. If I drive to Target, the goods still need to get to the Target in the first place and my driving isn't going to be as good as UPS'.

I really try to cut down on the easy things. Getting rid of single serving containers from the supermarket, reusing containers, etc. A nalgene is a bottle just like the bottle of bottled water. While an environmental scientist might be able to calculate out precisely what Netflix and Blockbuster use, there are some no-brainers that most people don't do - like turning the thermostat down and putting on some nice wool socks. Plus, I'm cheap and those energy/waste savers also tend to save money!

bprater• 18 years ago

One day, energy is going to be nearly free. Then none of this will matter.

pmorici• 18 years ago

The answer this guy is looking for is that both are bad for the environment and he should feel and extreme amount of guilt for causing a global environmental catastrophe. The solution of course is to get an AppleTV and rent your movies off iTunes.

jrockway• 18 years ago

It isn't destroying the environment, but it is pretty dumb that they have to mail me a CD instead of just letting me download a rip of the movie.

Instead, their "instant" offering is a low-quality, DRM-encumbered stream, with only the least popular movies available. Why would I pay for this when I can get the full 1080p versions mailed to me, or downloaded from Usenet?

noonespecial• 18 years ago

Not mentioned is any thought about the cost of making the discs and disposing of them when they wear out. I'm betting the netflix model allows more people to efficiently share fewer physical discs than the blockbuster model.

What is stupid is that the movies could be delivered completely over the internet with no physical disks at all but this hasn't happened despite the technology existing that would make it trivial to do so.

I'd say itunes movies is as green as it gets so far.

Is your Netflix queue destroying the environment?

Related Stories