Music is one of the most universal human experiences, yet its environmental cost is among the least examined. Whether it is the thudding bass of an open-air concert, a radio broadcast, or a playlist streamed from a data centre thousands of kilometres away, every format of musical consumption carries a carbon burden.
The industry’s footprint spans the entire chain — from production and distribution to disposal — and it is far larger than most listeners appreciate.
The phrase “green music tour” has become fashionable in recent years, suggesting that the industry is waking up to its responsibilities. Yet good intentions have not always translated into meaningful reductions.
Scrutiny of the full supply chain — from the raw materials used to press a vinyl record to the electricity consumed by a server farm delivering a Spotify playlist — reveals a consistent pattern of overlooked environmental harm.
Digging into each format, from the cassette tapes of the 1980s to today’s cloud-based streaming services, exposes a consistent pattern of overlooked environmental harm.
Even the billboards and banners that promote live events carry their own unaccounted footprint. Almost everything we do in the name of entertainment has an environmental implication — and being a music lover does not exempt one from that reality.
Streaming’s hidden toll
Digital streaming is now the dominant mode of music and video consumption worldwide, and its carbon footprint is substantial. According to research by Greenly, video streaming generates approximately 55 grams of CO₂ equivalent per hour.
READ MORE: Noise Pollution Is Affecting Our Health. Here’s How We Can Fix It
The Information and Communication Technology sector — of which streaming forms a major part — now accounts for roughly 1.9 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, a figure comparable to the aviation industry’s share.
The platforms most familiar to listeners — Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Spotify, YouTube, Disney+, Apple TV, and Deezer, among others — are collectively responsible for an enormous volume of data traffic.
Greenly estimates that a Netflix user generates approximately 17.2 kg of CO₂ equivalent per year through streaming alone, whilst an Amazon Prime Video user generates around 13.5 kg annually. Even audio-only streaming on Spotify produces an estimated 276 grams of CO₂ equivalent per user per year.
The infrastructure underpinning streaming is the primary driver of these emissions. Data centres — the vast server farms that store, process, and distribute digital content — consume enormous quantities of electricity for computation, storage, and cooling.
The Guardian has reported that actual data centre emissions may be as much as 662 per cent higher than what major technology companies officially disclose.
Data centre construction also requires land clearance that can disturb vegetation, wildlife habitats, and agricultural land. The cooling systems they depend upon generate additional emissions beyond the energy consumed by the servers themselves.
READ MORE: The Loudness of Faith: Finding Freedom From Religion
These physical and operational impacts are rarely factored into the carbon accounting that platforms publish voluntarily.
It is also worth noting that the data underpinning global estimates is inherently incomplete. Emissions figures for streaming in the Global South — including informal listening habits across sub-Saharan Africa — are largely estimated rather than empirically measured.
The real-time carbon cost of streaming in under-monitored regions remains a significant blind spot in global climate accounting.
The old school
Before streaming, music was a physical commodity, and its environmental legacy endures in landfills and waterways around the world. Vinyl records, compact discs, cassette tapes, and DVDs were the dominant formats from the 1980s through to the early 2000s. Each carried its own carbon cost in manufacture, distribution, and end-of-life waste.
Research from Keele University found that a modern vinyl record contains approximately 135 grams of PVC material, producing around 0.5 kg of CO₂ per unit.
CDs, made from layered polycarbonate and aluminium, cannot be recycled because their mixed-material construction makes separation technically difficult and economically unviable. Estimated annual emissions from physical music formats reached between 150 and 200 million kg of CO₂ equivalent per year during peak production years.
READ MORE: Why Tanzania Should Demand a Strong Global Plastics Treaty
What makes discarded physical media particularly troubling is its persistence in the environment. In landfill conditions, PVC records and polycarbonate discs can leach plasticisers into the surrounding soil and groundwater.
The UNEP has documented how chlorinated plastics release harmful chemicals into soil that subsequently seep into groundwater systems, affecting agricultural productivity and drinking water quality.
Over time, physical media fragments into microplastics — particles small enough to enter food chains, water supplies, and the human body. Research from Harvard School of Public Health confirms that microplastic exposure can damage cells, DNA, and immune function. Stanford Medicine has linked it to increased risks of cancer, heart attacks, and reproductive disorders.
Legacy media waste — cassette tapes, VHS cassettes, and compact discs — enters the environment through informal dumpsites, e-waste dismantling yards, open burning, and flood-driven dispersal.
The World Health Organisation has identified open burning of e-waste as particularly hazardous, releasing toxic pollutants that contaminate air, soil, and water. The problem is especially acute in rapidly urbanising cities where waste-management infrastructure has not kept pace with consumption.
Live music’s cost
The environmental impact of live music is perhaps the most visible, yet it too is frequently underestimated.
READ MORE: How Letting Fruits Rot Can Make Money And Help the Global Climate
According to a study by Energy5 and the University of Glasgow, the global live music industry releases approximately 540,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases annually — equivalent to the yearly emissions of around 60,000 households. A single three-day music festival generates, on average, 500 tonnes of carbon emissions.
Fan travel is the dominant driver of live music’s carbon footprint. REVERB’s concert travel research shows that audience members generate 38 times more emissions than artist and crew travel combined. Limited public transport access to festival sites means most attendees arrive by private car or aeroplane, dramatically amplifying the total footprint.
On-site diesel generators — used when venues are not connected to the electricity grid — emit not only carbon dioxide but also nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons.
These pollutants carry direct consequences for air quality and human health. Waste compounds the problem: Coachella produced approximately 1,764 tonnes of waste in 2021, of which only 20 per cent was recycled.
Single-use plastics are ubiquitous at live events, from water bottles to merchandise packaging. Approximately one-fifth of all camping tents brought to festivals are abandoned, and as these PVC structures degrade, they contribute to the microplastic burden in surrounding soils and waterways.
PVC production itself generates harmful by-products, including dioxin, a chemical linked to cancer, immune system damage, and hormonal disruption.
So what now?
Reducing the environmental impact of entertainment requires action at multiple levels simultaneously. For streaming, the most immediate lever available to individual users is resolution management: downgrading video quality from 4K to HD can meaningfully reduce the carbon cost of each session.
Platforms must also be pressed to publish transparent, independently verified emissions data and to accelerate their transition to renewable energy.
For physical media, the priority is keeping legacy materials out of the environment. Communities and local authorities should establish dedicated e-waste collection points that explicitly include cassette tapes, CDs, and DVDs.
Open burning must be actively discouraged, and public awareness campaigns should explain why these seemingly inert items are persistent pollutants capable of releasing toxic compounds when incinerated.
For live music, the path forward lies in systemic changes to how events are planned and powered. Venues and promoters should prioritise sites accessible by public transport and invest in grid-connected or renewable-powered infrastructure.
Audiences bear a share of responsibility too: choosing lower-carbon travel options and holding organisers accountable for their environmental commitments are meaningful acts.
The challenge is real, and the resources available to address it are unequal — particularly in lower-income contexts. Yet information and awareness remain the most accessible tools.
Responsible disposal, waste sorting, and informed consumption choices cost nothing beyond attention and intention, and the same principle applies to the agencies and institutions that set the rules within which those choices are made.
Emanueli Ndossi is an environmental governance specialist and science communicator with deep experience in Tanzania’s regulatory and sustainability landscape. He is available at emmanuelindossi@gmail.com. These are the writer’s own opinions and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of The Chanzo. Do you want to publish in this space? Contact our editors at editor@thechanzo.com for further clarification.
