This data story explores the environmental impact of social media use, focusing on emissions from user activity and data centers across different regions and platforms.

The Hidden Environmental Cost of Social Media

Important: The information provided in this article, including calculations and estimations, is based on our research and data analysis, and only aims to contribute to discussions around the carbon footprint of social media platforms. These estimations are derived from the best available data and should be viewed as contributory insights rather than definitive facts. 

Social media has transformed the way we communicate, connect, and consume content. Platforms like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube are now integral to our daily lives, with billions of users engaging in endless scrolling, sharing, and video streaming. However, while these platforms bring convenience and entertainment, they also come with an often overlooked environmental cost: the energy required to keep these platforms running. 

Behind every social media post or video is a vast digital infrastructure, powered by data centers and servers that consume significant amounts of electricity. Much of this electricity is still derived from carbon-intensive sources such as coal, oil, and gas, meaning that each digital action contributes to global carbon emissions. This hidden environmental impact, driven by both companies and their users, has become a growing concern in the context of climate change. 

In response, many of the world’s largest social media companies have committed to ambitious sustainability targets, with goals to achieve net-zero emissions across their operations. But while these corporate efforts are essential, they represent only part of the story. A portion of emissions still stems from the energy used by billions of social media users as they interact with these platforms - particularly when they stream videos or use energy-intensive devices such as laptops. 

This data story will explore the dual responsibility of social media companies and their users in addressing the environmental impact of the digital world. We will begin by examining the corporate sustainability efforts of some of the leading platforms - Meta, X (formerly Twitter), TikTok, Snapchat, and Youtube - before diving into the emissions linked to everyday social media usage. By analyzing the carbon footprint of both companies and users, we’ll shine a light on how social media contributes to global emissions and what can be done to reduce its environmental impact.

At Greenly, we believe that the terms "net zero" and "carbon neutrality" are often misunderstood and overused by companies, especially in industries like tech and social media. While many organizations set ambitious net-zero targets or claim carbon neutrality, these goals are inherently complex and imperfect. The challenges of accurate greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting, reliance on carbon offsets, and the limitations of carbon capture and storage (CCS) mean that true net zero or carbon neutrality is not yet realistically achievable at the company level.  

As we see with social media platforms, most of which are both growing their user bases and expanding energy-intensive data center operations, achieving meaningful emissions reductions requires a much broader, more systemic effort. Instead of claiming to be “net zero”, companies should focus on being "net-zero compatible", aligning their strategies with the global goal of limiting climate change, while ensuring transparency in their emissions reporting and acknowledging the uncertainties that remain in carbon removal and offsetting. 

No description has been added to this video.
Transcript
Follow along using the transcript.

Greenly - The go-to carbon accounting platform for your business!

Meta’s (Facebook, Instagram, Threads) Sustainability Strategy

Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Threads, has positioned itself as a leader in sustainability within the tech industry. In 2020, Meta announced that it reached a significant milestone by purchasing more renewable energy than it used across all its global facilities, aligning with its long-term mission to promote sustainability and contribute to a zero-carbon economy. While this achievement covered Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions, which include direct emissions and electricity use, the real challenge lies ahead: addressing Scope 3 emissions across its value chain, which make up 99 percent of its total carbon footprint. 

However, while commendable, this milestone covers Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions only, which include direct emissions and electricity use, the real challenge lies ahead: addressing Scope 3 emissions across its value chain, which make up 99 percent of its total carbon footprint.

Meta’s own 2023 sustainability report highlights that the company’s rapid growth has outpaced its ability to decarbonize effectively, with Scope 3 emissions reaching 8.5 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent in 2022 and 7.5 million tonnes in 2023. Despite efforts to engage suppliers and promote renewable energy, Meta acknowledges that achieving net zero across its entire value chain by 2030 will be “difficult,” relying heavily on carbon removal (a solution that is far from ideal and carries significant challenges) to offset emissions beyond its direct control. 

Meta’s success in reducing emissions across its global operations comes from focusing on Scope 1 and 2 emissions, which include direct emissions from its operations and indirect emissions from purchased electricity. The company has aligned its long-term goals with the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi), ensuring that its climate actions contribute to the global effort to limit warming to 1.5°C. However, the real challenge is tackling Scope 3 emissions, which are notoriously more difficult to control as they come from its supply chain and other indirect sources. 

Meta has set the highly ambitious goal of achieving “net-zero emissions across its entire value chain”, including Scope 3 - by 2030. This will require the company to work closely with suppliers and partners to reduce emissions across various categories, from purchased goods to transportation and employee commuting. The complexity of managing Scope 3 emissions highlights the need for systemic changes across the tech supply chain, as these emissions represent the bulk of Meta’s total carbon footprint, amounting to 7.4 million metric tons of CO2e in 2023.

Renewable Energy Investments and Emissions Reduction

Between 2017 and 2023, Meta reduced its operational greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by an impressive 94%, thanks in large part to its substantial investments in renewable energy. The company has emerged as one of the largest corporate buyers of renewable energy globally, with more than 11,700 megawatts (MW) of contracted renewable energy. By the end of 2023, 76 of Meta’s 98 renewable energy projects were operational, allowing the company to match 100% of its electricity use with renewable sources such as wind and solar power.

These renewable energy investments have made Meta’s data centers some of the most energy-efficient in the industry. With an average Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE) of 1.09 and Water Usage Effectiveness (WUE) of 0.20, Meta’s data centers stand as a benchmark for sustainability. These operational efficiencies have helped Meta avoid 16.4 million metric tons of CO2e emissions since 2021. However, increased efficiency often triggers the "rebound effect", where greater efficiency leads to higher overall demand - driving more energy consumption and data use. This is particularly relevant for the fast-growing IT and digital sectors, where rapid expansion into areas like AI and the metaverse could significantly amplify resource needs.

Tackling Scope 3 Emissions: The Supplier Engagement Program

Recognizing that the majority of its carbon footprint lies in its Scope 3 emissions, Meta has launched the Net Zero Supplier Engagement Program. This initiative encourages suppliers to set their own science-aligned emissions reduction targets. By the end of 2023, 28% of Meta’s suppliers had committed to these targets, with a goal of increasing this figure to two-thirds by 2026. Meta is also promoting circularity practices and renewable energy adoption across its supply chain to reduce its reliance on carbon-intensive processes. 

In addition to operational efficiencies and supplier engagement, Meta is investing in carbon removal projects to address residual emissions that are difficult to eliminate. The company has committed to several nature-based and technological carbon removal initiatives, including partnerships with companies like CarbonCapture and Heirloom for Direct Air Capture (DAC), and Charm Industrial for biomass carbon removal. These projects aim to sequester CO2 from the atmosphere and store it underground, providing long-term solutions for hard-to-abate emissions. 

However, carbon removal and offsetting come with significant challenges. These solutions are often costly, energy-intensive, and not yet scalable enough to address emissions at the required global scale. Additionally, reliance on such methods can create a false sense of progress, potentially diverting attention from the urgent need for direct emissions reductions. Critics argue that while carbon removal plays a role in climate strategies, it should complement - not replace - meaningful, immediate action to reduce emissions at their source. 

While Meta’s progress on sustainability is commendable, the company faces ongoing challenges, particularly as it expands its operations into data-heavy areas like artificial intelligence and the metaverse. As these technologies require significant energy and computational power, they risk increasing Meta’s carbon footprint unless matched with continued investments in clean energy and emissions reduction.

Meta has acknowledged these risks and claims to be conducting regular climate risk assessments to evaluate both physical and transitional risks across its operations. The company is also working to embed climate resilience into its governance and business strategy to prepare for the challenges that lie ahead. 

Join us for an informative keynote session as we delve into Meta's remarkable journey towards sustainability. Discover how Meta, a leading organization, has navigated the challenges and embraced sustainable practices across their operations. 

Gain valuable insights into their strategies for reducing environmental impact, promoting social responsibility, and driving positive change. Explore innovative approaches, partnerships, and initiatives that have shaped Meta's sustainable transformation. Don't miss this enlightening session that promises to inspire and empower individuals and organizations on their own sustainability journeys.

Check out all our other upcoming events here - https://sustainability-live.com/

Follow the Sustainability stories further...
LinkedIn:   / sust.  .
Twitter:   / sustainabltymag  
Facebook:   / sustainabltymag  
Instagram:   / sustainabil.  .
Website: https://sustainabilitymag.com/

Powered By: https://www.bizclikmedia.com/
Transcript
Follow along using the transcript.

Meta's Dharmesh ‘DJ” Jani Discusses Meta’s Path to Net zero at Sustainability Live London 2023

X’s (Formerly Twitter) Sustainability Commitments

Before its rebranding under Elon Musk’s ownership, Twitter had established a clear set of sustainability commitments, aiming to reduce its carbon footprint through various initiatives focused on renewable energy, waste reduction, and sustainable operations. However, since its rebranding to X and the significant changes in leadership and strategy, the status of these commitments has become uncertain, leaving questions about the future of the company’s environmental efforts. 

Pre-Acquisition Sustainability Commitments

In the years leading up to 2022, Twitter (now X) made some progress toward its sustainability goals. The company had pledged to reach carbon neutrality in its data centers by 2022 and reduce its overall environmental impact through a number of key initiatives, including:

Carbon Offsetting: Twitter had committed to offsetting emissions from employee travel and large company events, funding global green energy projects through initiatives like Cool Effect. This was part of its broader sustainability strategy, which also included transitioning to low-carbon operations.

Waste Reduction: By 2020, Twitter aimed to eliminate single-use plastic at events and introduce 100% recycled paper products in all of its offices. In addition, the company focused on composting and green building certifications, with a goal of having 95% Green Certified offices by 2025.

Data Centers: The company identified its data centers as the largest contributor to its carbon footprint and aimed to shift all data center operations to 100% carbon-neutral power by 2022. This included improving energy efficiency and transitioning to renewable energy sources for its global infrastructure.

Renewable Energy in Offices: Twitter also planned to power 100% of its directly leased buildings with carbon-neutral energy by 2025, further demonstrating its commitment to reducing operational emissions.

These efforts placed Twitter among the tech companies striving to reduce their environmental footprint through operational efficiencies and carbon-neutral energy procurement.

However, since Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter in 2022 and its rebranding as X, the focus on sustainability appears to have shifted. With Musk’s public emphasis on free speech and platform profitability, the status of Twitter’s pre-existing sustainability goals remains unclear. Key executives responsible for sustainability efforts were among those let go during the company’s restructuring, raising concerns about whether the company will continue to prioritize these initiatives.

To date, there have been no major updates on the continuation of carbon neutrality goals for data centers or any new sustainability reports detailing X’s environmental strategy. The ambiguity surrounding the future of X’s sustainability efforts is a stark contrast to Twitter’s prior commitment to decarbonizing its operations and adopting more sustainable practices.

Challenges Ahead: Data Centers and Growth

Even before the acquisition, one of Twitter’s most significant challenges was decarbonizing its data centers, which accounted for the bulk of the company’s emissions. As X continues to grow, particularly in areas like video content and live streaming, the demand for data center capacity and energy will only increase. Without a clear plan for reducing the emissions associated with its energy sources, this expansion could significantly increase X’s overall carbon footprint.

Musk’s involvement in sustainable ventures like Tesla and SpaceX suggests that sustainability might remain a focus, but his support of Donald Trump (who has called climate change a hoax and rolled back environmental regulations) casts doubt on his environmental commitments. This raises questions about how his leadership will align with genuine sustainability efforts and whether his companies, including X, can balance environmental goals with shifting priorities.

Opportunities for Future Sustainability Initiatives

While X’s sustainability path is uncertain, there are several areas where the company could potentially re-engage with environmental efforts:

Renewable Energy for Data Centers: Continuing to prioritize green energy sources for data centers could help X maintain its commitment to reducing its operational emissions, even as the platform grows.  Like other major tech companies, X could re-engage with renewable energy partnerships to support decarbonization across its operations, leveraging Elon Musk’s extensive involvement in the clean energy sector.

Green Building Certifications: Expanding the focus on Green Certified offices and sustainable waste management practices across its global locations could help X remain aligned with industry standards for corporate environmental responsibility.

For now, the future of X’s environmental strategy remains unclear. The lack of updated reports or communication about sustainability initiatives under Musk’s leadership has left many wondering whether the company will continue its path toward reducing emissions, particularly in its energy-intensive data centers.

Without a clear commitment to these goals, X risks falling behind other tech companies that are pushing forward with aggressive climate strategies. As the world becomes more aware of the carbon footprint of digital platforms, X’s environmental responsibility will likely come under greater scrutiny in the coming years.

TikTok, owned by ByteDance, has rapidly grown into one of the world’s most popular social media platforms, driven by its short-form video content and highly engaging algorithm. However, the platform’s heavy reliance on video streaming has made it one of the more energy-intensive platforms, contributing to a substantial environmental footprint. To address this, ByteDance has committed to achieving “net-zero emissions in their business operations by 2030”, focusing on reducing operational emissions and transitioning to renewable energy. Despite these efforts, TikTok faces unique challenges due to its massive global user base and energy-hungry infrastructure.  

As discussed earlier, true carbon neutrality remains an aspirational concept rather than an achievable reality for companies. Nonetheless, ByteDance has announced its goal of working towards operational carbon neutrality by 2030, reflecting the mounting pressure on tech companies to address their environmental impact. To reduce its carbon footprint, the company plans to reduce its operational emissions by 90% and transition to 100% renewable energy for its data centers. 

The use of renewable energy sources in data centers is critical, as electricity usage accounts for the vast majority of TikTok’s carbon footprint. Given the energy-intensive nature of video streaming, this transition will play a key role in reducing the platform’s overall environmental impact.

ByteDance’s sustainability strategy places a strong emphasis on the environmental impact of its data centers, which support TikTok’s vast library of video content. As of 2023, ByteDance has made significant strides in greening its operations, including the establishment of a data center in Norway that will run on 100% renewable energy. This facility is expected to serve as a model for future data centers, focusing on both high energy efficiency and the potential for heat reuse, which helps to reduce the overall energy demand.

It’s intended that the Norway data center will boast a Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE) of less than 1.2, making it among the most efficient in the industry. However, despite these advancements, TikTok still lags behind other major tech companies in terms of transparency around its climate goals. Organizations like Greenpeace East Asia have highlighted TikTok’s slower progress in disclosing comprehensive sustainability metrics compared to other tech giants, calling for more detailed reporting on its decarbonization roadmap.

TikTok’s primary environmental challenge comes from its video-heavy platform, which consumes significantly more energy than text or image-based platforms. The sheer volume of videos, many of which are hosted on energy-intensive servers, makes TikTok one of the most environmentally costly social media platforms on a per-user basis. For example, streaming short videos on TikTok contribute to higher emissions per minute of use compared to platforms like Twitter or Facebook, which rely more on text and images.

With global daily active users spending an average of 45.8 minutes per day on the platform, TikTok’s carbon footprint continues to grow. The platform’s reliance on video streaming, autoplay features, and the continuous delivery of algorithm-driven content creates a substantial energy demand that is difficult to mitigate.

Project Clover and Sustainability Initiatives

To address its growing environmental footprint, ByteDance has launched Project Clover, an initiative aimed at combining security, privacy, and environmental goals. A key component of this initiative is TikTok’s commitment to building more sustainable infrastructure in Europe, where data centers like the one in Norway will serve as a benchmark for renewable energy use and operational efficiency.

Project Clover focuses on improving energy efficiency, particularly within data centers, while also addressing broader sustainability concerns. However, while these steps are promising, ByteDance has yet to release a comprehensive sustainability report that details how it plans to tackle emissions throughout its entire supply chain, including the production and distribution of digital content, which is a critical factor for achieving net-zero emissions. 

Looking Ahead: Challenges to Decarbonisation

TikTok faces a series of significant hurdles in achieving its net-zero goal by 2030, particularly given its high user engagement and reliance on energy-intensive video content. The expansion of TikTok’s operational footprint in cloud services and data centers will require continued investment in renewable energy, efficiency improvements, and emissions reduction strategies throughout its supply chain. These efforts are critical for ByteDance’s contribution to China’s national climate targets of peaking GHG emissions by 2030 and achieving carbon neutrality by 2060.

While TikTok has made some progress toward greening its operations, particularly with its renewable energy-powered data centers, the platform’s heavy reliance on video content and its expansive user base present significant challenges. To make progress towards its climate targets, TikTok will need to continue investing in energy-efficient infrastructure, improve the transparency of its sustainability metrics, and address its broader supply chain emissions. In the coming years, ByteDance’s success in reducing TikTok’s carbon footprint will be critical for the platform’s sustainability journey.

Snapchat, owned by Snap Inc., has committed to becoming “net negative for carbon emissions by 2030”, aiming to remove more carbon from the atmosphere than it emits annually. While Snap claims to have achieved carbon neutrality in 2021 - offsetting its emissions since inception in 2011 to balance out its environmental impact - it's important to recognize that no company can truly be "carbon neutral" or "net zero" in the absolute sense. Achieving these goals often relies on offsets and complex reductions that don’t address the full scope of a company’s environmental footprint. Nonetheless, Snap’s strategy includes significant investments in renewable energy, carbon removal projects, and emissions reductions across its value chain, reflecting broader efforts by tech companies to reduce their impact on the climate. 

Feasibility aside, Snap’s goal to become net negative by 2030 is a bold move that sets it apart from many other tech companies. To reach its 2030 target, Snap plans to remove more carbon from the atmosphere than it generates each year. This will involve continuing to offset emissions with “high-quality” carbon credits while also increasing efforts to reduce emissions at the source - particularly within its supply chain and data center operations.

Renewable Energy and Operational Emissions Reductions

As part of its commitment to reducing emissions, Snap has transitioned to 100% renewable energy across its global offices. This was a key step in reducing Scope 1 and 2 emissions. Snap aims to cut its Scope 1 and 2 emissions by a further 25% by 2025 compared to its 2019 baseline. To further reduce its operational carbon footprint, Snap has implemented energy efficiency measures in its offices and data centers.

Snap’s data centers, like other social media platforms, are among its largest energy consumers. While Snap has already achieved a 30% reduction in Scope 1 and 2 emissions from its 2019 levels through efficiency upgrades and renewable energy procurement, the platform's growing user base and demand for features like augmented reality (AR) and video content will continue to drive energy consumption.

Scope 3 Emissions and Value Chain Initiatives

One of Snap’s key sustainability challenges lies in its Scope 3 emissions, which account for the majority of its carbon footprint. These emissions come from its broader value chain, including suppliers, product distribution, and user activity. Snap has committed to reducing its Scope 3 emissions by 35% per unit of value added by 2025. This involves working with suppliers to ensure they meet emissions reduction targets and improving the efficiency of their supply chain.

Additionally, Snap has invested in improving the energy efficiency of its cloud storage and data center operations, helping to avoid increases in emissions linked to data storage despite significant growth in daily active users. These efforts align with Snap’s goal of reducing emissions across its extended supply chain.

To offset the emissions it cannot immediately eliminate, Snap claims to be investing in high-quality carbon offset and removal projects. According to the company, these projects are geographically diverse, supporting initiatives such as:

Renewable energy projects in countries like India and Turkey.

Forest restoration efforts in Brazil and Paraguay.

Social impact projects, such as clean cookstove programs in Ghana, which reduce emissions while improving local communities’ quality of life.

By 2030, Snap plans to invest $10 million in carbon removal projects, a key part of its strategy to achieve its net-negative carbon emissions goal. While carbon removal is an important tool for addressing climate impact, it highlights a broader challenge: carbon offsetting, though valuable, is not a perfect solution. Companies cannot rely solely on offsets to counteract their emissions, they must focus on reducing emissions across their entire value chain. As Snap continues to expand its global user base and operational footprint, its commitment to carbon removal must be paired with efforts to directly reduce emissions in its operations, energy use, and supply chain.

Snap has made significant progress toward its sustainability goals, but challenges remain. With an expanding user base and the increasing popularity of features like augmented reality (AR) and multimedia content, the platform’s energy consumption will likely grow. Balancing user demand with sustainability commitments will require continued innovation in energy efficiency and renewable energy adoption.

Snap’s goal of becoming net negative by 2030 sets a bold ambition for the tech industry. While the company has made significant progress in achieving carbon neutrality and reducing operational emissions, the path to net negative remains challenging. Greenly’s position reflects the reality that no company can truly achieve net zero, as carbon offsetting and removal projects alone cannot fully neutralize emissions or address all environmental impacts. 

For Snap, the road ahead will require even greater efforts, especially in tackling Scope 3 emissions - those from its supply chain and product use - as well as scaling renewable energy adoption and improving operational efficiencies. While carbon removal projects are a valuable tool, they cannot replace the urgent need for direct emissions reductions across Snap's entire value chain. If Snap can balance growth with meaningful emissions reductions, it will continue to set an example for the tech industry, but achieving true sustainability will require more than just offsetting.

 YouTube’s Carbon Footprint and Energy Use

As part of Google’s suite of services, YouTube shares the infrastructure of Google’s energy-efficient data centers. However, despite these efficiencies, Google’s total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2023 amounted to 14.3 million metric tons of CO2e across Scopes 1, 2, and 3, marking a 13% increase from the previous year. This rise was largely driven by the growing energy demands of its expanding data center operations. While YouTube’s specific emissions are not disclosed separately, it is reasonable to assume that the platform contributes to this overall increase, given its reliance on the same infrastructure and its growing user base and video streaming demands. 

A significant portion of YouTube’s operations involves video streaming, which requires large amounts of energy for data storage and transfer. Google’s data centers, which power YouTube, are central to mitigating these impacts. In 2023, Google’s data centers achieved an average Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE) of 1.10, meaning they are approximately 1.8 times more energy efficient than the average data center. PUE is a measure of how efficiently a data center uses energy - Google’s lower PUE number indicates that less energy is being wasted on non-computing processes like cooling.

Additionally, Google is committed to achieving 24/7 carbon-free energy (CFE) across its global operations by 2030, a target that includes YouTube. This means that every hour of YouTube’s data processing will eventually be powered by renewable energy sources like wind, solar, or geothermal, rather than relying on fossil fuels. As of 2023, Google reached 64% CFE on average across its data centers, even while expanding its energy consumption.

Sustainability Initiatives Within YouTube

In terms of initiatives directly tied to YouTube’s sustainability impact, Google’s environmental strategy has introduced several innovative solutions:

Carbon-Intelligent Computing: Google has developed a system that aligns computing tasks, including YouTube’s video processing and storage, with times when renewable energy sources are most abundant. This "carbon-intelligent" system helps reduce emissions by optimizing the timing and location of energy-intensive activities to take advantage of clean energy.

Efficient Infrastructure: Google’s data centers, which support YouTube, are designed to minimize energy use by employing machine learning models that adjust energy consumption in real-time. These centers have been upgraded to use water-conscious cooling methods and implement innovations like AI-driven efficiency improvements, further reducing the overall energy demands.

Reducing Embodied Carbon in YouTube’s Operations

One of the physical infrastructure projects related to YouTube is its new YouTube campus in San Bruno, California, which will incorporate sustainable building practices. Google plans to use low-carbon construction materials such as carbon-sequestering concrete, reducing the embodied carbon of the campus by 50% compared to traditional materials. This reduction is part of Google’s effort to lower the carbon footprint of its physical offices and facilities, which also benefits YouTube as it continues to expand.

Google has set the target of working towards net-zero goals by 2030. This will directly benefit YouTube’s carbon footprint. As part of this strategy, Google is not only reducing its operational emissions but is also investing in renewable energy projects, such as solar and wind farms. In 2023, Google contracted 4 GW of new clean energy generation capacity, which will support platforms like YouTube by reducing their reliance on fossil fuels for electricity.

YouTube’s sustainability initiatives are deeply intertwined with Google’s overall environmental strategy. The platform benefits from Google’s energy-efficient data centers, carbon-free energy goals, and cutting-edge technologies aimed at reducing emissions and increasing efficiency. Moreover, YouTube contributes to climate education and awareness through its content policies and partnerships, positioning itself as both a user of green technology and a promoter of environmental advocacy. As Google continues to advance its sustainability goals, it’s hoped that YouTube’s carbon footprint will be further reduced, supporting a more sustainable future for digital content platforms.

From Corporate Responsibility to User Impact: Why User Behaviour Matters

While it’s clear that social media companies are taking significant steps to reduce their operational emissions, there is another side to the environmental impact of social media that often goes unnoticed: user behavior. Billions of people around the world spend hours every day interacting with platforms like Meta, TikTok, X, and Snapchat, but few consider the environmental consequences of their digital habits. 

Behind every post, comment, and video stream lies an extensive network of servers, data centers, and power-hungry infrastructure. These systems require massive amounts of energy to run, and much of that energy still comes from fossil fuels. Even the most sustainable companies can’t fully eliminate the emissions generated by their users. The more time people spend online, the greater the energy demand, and the higher the emissions. 

When we think of carbon footprints, we often think of tangible activities like driving or flying. But the digital actions we take every day - scrolling through social media feeds, streaming videos, and even sending messages - also have a hidden carbon cost. Each activity draws on data centers that store, process, and deliver content, many of which rely on energy that contributes to global greenhouse gas emissions. 

For example, streaming a single video on a platform like TikTok or YouTube requires data to travel across networks, consuming energy at every stage, from the data center storing the video to the device playing it. Platforms like Facebook and Instagram, which rely heavily on photo and video content, also contribute to high energy demand as users scroll through their feeds. These seemingly small activities, when multiplied by billions of users, create a significant environmental footprint.

Although companies like Meta and Google (YouTube’s parent company) have made progress in reducing their own operational emissions, the reality is that these efforts address only part of the equation. Scope 3 emissions, which include emissions generated by users’ interactions with these platforms, remain difficult to mitigate. For example, Meta’s achievements in reducing emissions in its direct operations don’t account for the energy used by its billions of daily users.

To reduce the overall environmental impact of social media, companies must also find ways to engage users in sustainability efforts. This could mean optimizing platforms to be more energy-efficient, encouraging users to limit their time on energy-intensive activities like video streaming, or even providing insights into the carbon cost of digital interactions.

From Data Centers to Devices: Energy Use at Every Level

Another factor contributing to user-driven emissions is the energy consumed by the devices we use to access social media. Whether it's a mobile phone, tablet, or laptop, each device requires electricity to function. The environmental impact of social media can vary significantly based on the device being used, with larger devices like laptops typically consuming more energy than smartphones. 

As we’ll explore in the following sections, the type of device used, the energy grid powering that device, and the specific platform being accessed all influence the overall carbon footprint of social media use. A user in the US, for example, where the energy grid is still heavily reliant on fossil fuels, generates more emissions by using social media than a user in France, where nuclear power dominates.

Emissions linked to social media use across the UK, US, and France

Defining the Problem: Social Media’s Hidden Environmental Impact

Social media has become an integral part of our daily lives, connecting billions of users across the globe. With platforms like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube, we now spend countless hours scrolling, sharing, and engaging. But while we’re often aware of the time we spend online, few people consider the environmental footprint of their digital activities. 

Behind every post, video, or comment lies a network of servers, data centers, and energy-hungry infrastructure keeping these platforms running. These digital networks consume significant amounts of electricity, much of which is still generated by fossil fuels. This means that every swipe and click, no matter how small, contributes to global carbon emissions.

In this section, we will explore how much environmental impact our social media habits truly have, by looking at the emissions tied to various platforms in three key regions: the UK, the US, and France. Through this analysis, we aim to uncover which platforms and countries have the greatest digital carbon footprint, shedding light on how seemingly harmless online activities can contribute to climate change.

👉 Let’s dive into the numbers and reveal the hidden costs of our social media usage.

Methodology: How We Calculated Social Media's Carbon Footprint

To estimate the environmental impact of social media, we followed a detailed approach based on energy consumption data per minute of usage for various platforms. Here’s a breakdown of the methodology:

We gathered the energy consumption data (in mAh per minute) for the most popular social media platforms, including Twitter (now X), Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, Snapchat, and YouTube. The data reflects the average power required to load and display content. Each platform has distinct energy needs based on the type of content served, with video-heavy platforms like TikTok consuming more energy than text-based ones like Twitter.

To reflect real-world usage, we took into account the energy consumption for two types of devices: laptops and mobile phones. As user habits vary, we assigned different device usage percentages per platform, e.g., 100% mobile use for TikTok and 63% laptop use for YouTube. 

To calculate the carbon footprint of each platform, we applied regional emissions factors (kgCO2e/kWh) for three key markets: the US, UK, and France. These factors were derived from the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) 2023 report and reflect the carbon intensity of each country’s electricity grid.

The analysis is based on average global daily use (in minutes) for each platform, sourced from user data reports. The number of active users in each country was also factored in to calculate the total emissions per platform in each region.

For each platform, we calculated the energy consumption per minute and then multiplied this by the average daily usage time. This energy consumption figure was then converted to carbon emissions using the regional emissions factors, producing estimates for the daily, weekly, and annual carbon footprint per user, as well as for entire countries.

Comparison of Energy Consumption Across Platforms

Not all social media platforms are created equal in terms of energy consumption, primarily due to the nature of the content they serve. Platforms that rely heavily on video content, such as TikTok and Snapchat, have significantly higher energy demands compared to those that focus more on text and images, such as Twitter or Facebook. 

For example, TikTok consumes 15.81 mAh per minute, which is almost double the consumption of Twitter, which uses 10.28 mAh per minute. This significant difference stems from the way video content, especially high-definition video, requires constant data streaming and processing. Each second of video content consumes more energy than text or image-based updates. In comparison, YouTube, another video-heavy platform, consumes 8.58 mAh per minute, slightly lower than TikTok due to differences in how the platform processes and stores content. 

Platforms like Instagram and Facebook fall in the middle of this spectrum. Instagram’s 8.9 mAh per minute consumption is still relatively high due to its visual content, including photos and stories, but it’s notably lower than TikTok’s consumption. Facebook, which combines text, images, and videos, has a consumption of 12.36 mAh per minute, making it more energy-intensive than text-heavy platforms but less so than those with video-dominated feeds.

<table border="1" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 100%;">
    <thead>
        <tr>
            <th>Platform</th>
            <th>Energy Consumption per Minute (mAh/min)</th>
        </tr>
    </thead>
    <tbody>
        <tr>
            <td>Twitter/X</td>
            <td>10.28</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>Instagram</td>
            <td>8.9</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>Facebook</td>
            <td>12.36</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>TikTok</td>
            <td>15.81</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>Snapchat</td>
            <td>11.48</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>YouTube</td>
            <td>8.58</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>Threads</td>
            <td>10.28</td>
        </tr>
    </tbody>
</table>


Source: https://greenspector.com/en/social-media-2021/ 

Users of video-centric platforms like TikTok and Snapchat are responsible for higher energy consumption and, consequently, more emissions per minute of use compared to users on text/image-based platforms like Twitter or Facebook. This difference highlights the environmental impact of engaging with high-data-content applications, which require more infrastructure and energy resources to operate.

The type of device used to access social media has a substantial influence on the total carbon emissions associated with platform usage. Laptops, due to their higher power consumption compared to mobile devices, generally result in a larger carbon footprint for the same amount of time spent on social media. This device-specific variation adds another layer to the environmental impact of digital activities, especially for platforms with significant desktop or laptop usage.

For platforms like YouTube and Facebook, a significant portion of users access the content via laptops. For example, 63% of YouTube users access the platform on laptops, leading to a much higher energy consumption per minute compared to mobile use. The higher power demand of laptops translates directly into greater carbon emissions, even if the content consumed is the same.

In contrast, platforms like TikTok, which are primarily mobile-based, have lower overall energy consumption per user because mobile devices use significantly less electricity. TikTok, for instance, sees nearly all of its usage on mobile devices, which keeps its per-user emissions lower compared to platforms like YouTube.

The device used to access social media can significantly influence the overall emissions, with laptops generally having a much higher carbon footprint compared to mobile devices. Platforms like YouTube and Facebook, which have a larger share of laptop users, contribute more to emissions than mobile-heavy platforms like TikTok, even if the time spent on the platforms is similar. This difference highlights the importance of considering both the platform and the device when assessing the environmental impact of social media usage.

When assessing the aggregate annual emissions from social media use across different countries, it’s essential to recognize that variations arise not only from the carbon intensity of each country’s energy grid but also from the size of the user base. Directly comparing total emissions between countries with vastly different populations can misrepresent the data. To provide a more balanced perspective, it’s helpful to consider both total and per-user emissions. However, the data consistently reinforces that the carbon intensity of a country's energy grid plays a significant role in shaping the overall emissions profile.

In countries like the United States, where energy production heavily relies on fossil fuels, social media platforms generate significantly higher aggregate emissions. This is due to the large number of users coupled with the carbon intensity of the energy grid, which includes natural gas and coal. For example, Facebook generates approximately 107.43 million kg of CO₂e annually in the US. To put this into perspective, this is equivalent to the annual carbon footprint of approximately 6,800 average US residents. Even TikTok, with a smaller user base, produces 64.26 million kg of CO₂e annually, which is comparable to the emissions from about 4,000 people in the US. These figures illustrate the combined impact of high user volume and carbon-intensive energy.

In contrast, France, with a smaller user base and a cleaner energy grid reliant on nuclear power, demonstrates much lower aggregate emissions. For example, Facebook produces only 4.38 million kg of CO₂e annually, roughly equivalent to the annual carbon footprint of about 350 average French residents, while TikTok contributes 3.19 million kg of CO₂e annually, similar to the footprint of around 255 people in France. These lower figures reflect not only the fewer users but also the country’s lower carbon intensity, showcasing the substantial impact of cleaner energy sources on overall emissions.

The United Kingdom presents an intermediate scenario. While it has made significant progress in decarbonizing its energy grid through wind power and other renewables, its emissions remain higher than France's but lower than the US's. TikTok generates around 7.71 million kg of CO₂e annually in the UK, comparable to the carbon footprint of approximately 950 average UK residents. This illustrates the balance between user base size, high engagement levels, and a transitioning energy mix.

Emissions per Individual User: A Fairer Comparison

Looking at emissions on a per-user basis provides a clearer view of how a country’s energy grid affects social media’s environmental impact. This approach allows for a more accurate comparison between countries, independent of their user population size. 

These per-user figures highlight that users in countries with higher carbon-intensity grids, like the US, contribute more CO₂e per day than those in countries with cleaner energy sources, such as France. It’s important to note that these figures reflect only emissions from user device energy consumption and exclude emissions from data centers, which are significant and will be dealt with in a later section. 

Emissions per Individual User by Platform and Country (kg CO₂e/day): 

<table border="1" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 100%;">
    <thead>
        <tr>
            <th>Platform</th>
            <th>US (gCO₂e/day)</th>
            <th>UK (gCO₂e/day)</th>
            <th>France (gCO₂e/day)</th>
        </tr>
    </thead>
    <tbody>
        <tr>
            <td>Twitter/X</td>
            <td>0.9</td>
            <td>0.5</td>
            <td>0.2</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>Instagram</td>
            <td>0.6</td>
            <td>0.4</td>
            <td>0.1</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>Facebook</td>
            <td>1.2</td>
            <td>0.7</td>
            <td>0.3</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>TikTok</td>
            <td>1.6</td>
            <td>0.9</td>
            <td>0.3</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>Snapchat</td>
            <td>0.8</td>
            <td>0.4</td>
            <td>0.2</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>YouTube</td>
            <td>1.5</td>
            <td>0.8</td>
            <td>0.3</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>Threads</td>
            <td>0.2</td>
            <td>0.1</td>
            <td>0.0</td>
        </tr>
    </tbody>
</table>


Tables Showcasing How User Numbers Impact Overall Emissions:

<table border="1" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 100%;">
    <thead>
        <tr>
            <th>Platform</th>
            <th>US users (millions)</th>
            <th>Daily emissions (kg CO₂e)</th>
            <th>Weekly emissions (kg CO₂e)</th>
            <th>Annual emissions (kg CO₂e)</th>
        </tr>
    </thead>
    <tbody>
        <tr>
            <td>Twitter/X</td>
            <td>108.55</td>
            <td>101,675</td>
            <td>711,727</td>
            <td>37,111,478</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>Instagram</td>
            <td>166.2</td>
            <td>102,809</td>
            <td>719,660</td>
            <td>37,525,150</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>Facebook</td>
            <td>243.24</td>
            <td>294,332</td>
            <td>2,060,323</td>
            <td>107,431,175</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>TikTok</td>
            <td>107.8</td>
            <td>176,059</td>
            <td>1,232,413</td>
            <td>64,261,532</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>Snapchat</td>
            <td>89.6</td>
            <td>68,999</td>
            <td>482,996</td>
            <td>25,184,802</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>YouTube</td>
            <td>238</td>
            <td>350,377</td>
            <td>2,452,636</td>
            <td>127,887,448</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>Threads</td>
            <td>30</td>
            <td>4,890</td>
            <td>34,229</td>
            <td>1,784,776</td>
        </tr>
    </tbody>
</table>


<table border="1" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 100%;">
    <thead>
        <tr>
            <th>Platform</th>
            <th>UK users (millions)</th>
            <th>Daily emissions (kg CO₂e)</th>
            <th>Weekly emissions (kg CO₂e)</th>
            <th>Annual emissions (kg CO₂e)</th>
        </tr>
    </thead>
    <tbody>
        <tr>
            <td>Twitter/X</td>
            <td>25.6</td>
            <td>13,658</td>
            <td>95,605</td>
            <td>4,985,143</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>Instagram</td>
            <td>33.1</td>
            <td>11,662</td>
            <td>81,636</td>
            <td>4,256,755</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>Facebook</td>
            <td>37.1</td>
            <td>25,570</td>
            <td>178,992</td>
            <td>9,333,154</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>TikTok</td>
            <td>22.71</td>
            <td>21,126</td>
            <td>147,882</td>
            <td>7,710,964</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>Snapchat</td>
            <td>23.67</td>
            <td>10,382</td>
            <td>72,676</td>
            <td>3,789,553</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>YouTube</td>
            <td>56.1</td>
            <td>47,125</td>
            <td>329,877</td>
            <td>17,200,715</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>Threads</td>
            <td>6.5</td>
            <td>603</td>
            <td>4,224</td>
            <td>220,260</td>
        </tr>
    </tbody>
</table>


<table border="1" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 100%;">
    <thead>
        <tr>
            <th>Platform</th>
            <th>France users (millions)</th>
            <th>Daily emissions (kg CO₂e)</th>
            <th>Weekly emissions (kg CO₂e)</th>
            <th>Annual emissions (kg CO₂e)</th>
        </tr>
    </thead>
    <tbody>
        <tr>
            <td>Twitter/X</td>
            <td>16.1</td>
            <td>3,184</td>
            <td>22,288</td>
            <td>1,162,149</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>Instagram</td>
            <td>29</td>
            <td>3,788</td>
            <td>26,513</td>
            <td>1,382,442</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>Facebook</td>
            <td>47</td>
            <td>12,008</td>
            <td>84,054</td>
            <td>4,382,792</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>TikTok</td>
            <td>25.4</td>
            <td>8,759</td>
            <td>61,310</td>
            <td>3,196,860</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>Snapchat</td>
            <td>27</td>
            <td>4,390</td>
            <td>30,730</td>
            <td>1,602,330</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>YouTube</td>
            <td>50.2</td>
            <td>15,603</td>
            <td>109,224</td>
            <td>5,695,244</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>Threads</td>
            <td>0.44</td>
            <td>15</td>
            <td>106</td>
            <td>5,527</td>
        </tr>
    </tbody>
</table>
``


The data shows that aggregate emissions from social media use are driven by user base size and the carbon intensity of a country’s energy grid. The United States has the highest total emissions due to a large number of users and reliance on fossil fuels. Platforms like YouTube and Facebook contribute the most to the U.S.’s emissions, illustrating the combined effect of user volume and carbon-intensive energy.

France highlights the benefits of a cleaner energy grid. Despite a substantial user base, platforms like Facebook and YouTube produce much lower emissions due to France's nuclear-powered, low-carbon energy mix. This underscores how cleaner energy sources significantly reduce emissions.

The United Kingdom presents an intermediate case, with emissions lower than the US but higher than France. This reflects its progress in adopting renewables, though high engagement on video-heavy platforms like TikTok still impacts emissions.

Per-user emissions reveal that users in the US generate more CO₂e compared to those in France, emphasizing the role of grid composition. The analysis highlights that while user numbers drive overall emissions, the carbon intensity of the energy grid is a critical factor in determining the environmental impact. Shifting to cleaner energy sources can substantially reduce emissions, regardless of user volume.

Platform Usage Trends and Their Environmental Costs

Social media platforms highlight distinct usage patterns and energy demands, with video-heavy platforms emerging as the most environmentally costly. TikTok, despite having fewer users than Facebook or Instagram, generates a larger carbon footprint per user due to its reliance on continuous video streaming and high engagement times. Users spend longer on TikTok than on most other platforms, averaging 45.48 minutes per day, which, combined with the high energy consumption per minute, makes TikTok one of the most emissions-intensive social media platforms.

This high user engagement, paired with energy-hungry video content, results in TikTok being responsible for more emissions per user compared to text and image-based platforms. While Facebook and Instagram have larger user bases, their content mixes - comprising more text and static images - require less energy per minute than TikTok’s video-dominated feed. As a result, TikTok’s 15.81 mAh per minute of energy consumption leads to a higher cumulative carbon impact than platforms like Facebook (12.36 mAh per minute) and Instagram (8.9 mAh per minute).

The combination of video streaming, autoplay features, and algorithm-driven content delivery keeps users engaged for extended periods, contributing to TikTok’s disproportionately high environmental cost relative to its user base.

High engagement times and multimedia content, particularly video, drive up emissions, making platforms like TikTok some of the most environmentally impactful. Encouraging users to adopt less energy-intensive behaviors, such as reducing time spent on video-heavy platforms or limiting video autoplay features, can help reduce the carbon impact of social media. Additionally, promoting platforms that rely more on lighter content (e.g., text or static images) could further reduce emissions.

The environmental impact of social media usage is far from uniform, with significant variations depending on the platform, the device used, and the country’s energy mix. Video-heavy platforms like TikTok and Snapchat consume more energy per minute than text-based platforms like Twitter or Facebook, and this translates into a higher carbon footprint. Moreover, the country in which users are located plays a key role, with nations like the United States, where fossil fuels dominate the energy grid, showing much higher emissions from social media use compared to cleaner energy markets like France.

Platform Choice Matters: Users of video-centric platforms like TikTok and YouTube contribute significantly more to energy consumption and emissions compared to users of text/image-based platforms. Encouraging the use of platforms that consume less energy or limiting the time spent on high-consumption platforms can help reduce individual carbon footprints.

Device Impact: The device used to access social media also affects emissions. Laptops generally consume more electricity than mobile devices, which means that switching to mobile where possible can help reduce emissions.

Country-Specific Emissions: The carbon intensity of social media use varies widely depending on the country’s energy grid. Countries with cleaner energy sources, such as France, result in much lower carbon footprints for the same activities compared to countries with higher reliance on fossil fuels like the US.

Reduce Time on Video Platforms: Users can reduce their carbon footprint by spending less time on video-heavy platforms like TikTok or YouTube, where high data usage translates into greater energy consumption.

Optimise Device Usage: Encourage the use of mobile devices over laptops for social media access, particularly when high-energy consumption activities like streaming video are involved.

Promote Cleaner Energy Policies: Policymakers and companies should work to decarbonize electricity grids globally. The differences in emissions between countries like the US and France highlight how cleaner energy sources can drastically reduce the environmental impact of digital activities.

Encourage Platform Innovations: Social media companies should be encouraged to optimize their platforms for energy efficiency, such as by limiting video autoplay or implementing more efficient data storage and delivery methods.

By understanding and adjusting our social media habits, both individually and as a society, we can reduce the carbon footprint of our digital lives. Social media platforms and their users both have a role to play in creating a more sustainable future.

Data Centers: The Backbone of Social Media and Their Carbon Cost

The immense infrastructure that keeps social media platforms running - the data centers - represents a significant source of emissions, often unseen by the end user. Data centers are vast facilities filled with servers that operate nonstop, storing, processing, and transferring the data necessary for social media platforms like Facebook, TikTok, YouTube, and Twitter/X. These centers are essential for the seamless user experience we expect, but the energy they consume to meet rising demand translates into a substantial environmental cost.  

How Data Centers Contribute to Social Media’s Carbon Footprint

Each digital interaction - from uploading photos to streaming videos - relies on data centers to perform complex tasks. These activities require electricity, which powers servers and maintains cooling systems to prevent overheating. Due to the sheer volume of data processed, data centers can consume as much energy as entire countries. As digital consumption grows, the need for these energy-intensive centers only increases, intensifying their environmental impact. 

To better understand this impact, the following figures incorporate emissions from both user device activity and data center operations. A critical metric here is the emissions generated per minute of social media, which includes both data center activity and user generated emissions. For every minute spent using social media, approximately 0.0029 kg of CO₂e is produced. This figure, which includes 0.0020 kg CO₂e from data centers and an additional 0.0009 kg CO₂e from data transfer, highlights the hidden carbon cost of our digital interactions. 

Experts say the surging demand for energy in the U.S. is forecast to hit record-highs both this year and next year, straining the country's aging power grid and creating more planet-warming emissions. Part of the demand is from a growing number of data centers across the nation and the rise of artificial intelligence.

Each weekday morning, "CBS Mornings" co-hosts Gayle King, Tony Dokoupil and Nate Burleson bring you the latest breaking news, smart conversation and in-depth feature reporting. "CBS Mornings" airs weekdays at 7 a.m. on CBS and stream it at 8 a.m. ET on the CBS News app.

Subscribe to "CBS Mornings" on YouTube:    / cbsmornings   
Watch CBS News 24/7: https://cbsnews.com/live/
Download the CBS News app: https://cbsnews.com/mobile/
Follow "CBS Mornings" on Instagram:   / cbsmornings  
Like "CBS Mornings" on Facebook:   / cbsmornings  
Follow "CBS Mornings" on X:   / cbsmornings  
Subscribe to our newsletter: https://cbsnews.com/newsletters/
Try Paramount+ free: https://paramountplus.com/?ftag=PPM-0...

For video licensing inquiries, contact: licensing@veritone.com
Transcript
Follow along using the transcript.

How AI and data centers impact climate change

Regional Differences in Data Center Emissions

As we outlined in the previous section on user emissions, the environmental impact of social media use isn’t uniform across countries, it is shaped by the local energy grid's composition and the overall carbon intensity of energy production. To understand how these factors affect data center emissions, it’s useful to compare countries with different energy profiles. These figures show the carbon footprint per minute of use on mobile devices adjusted to include data center emissions:  

United States: 0.00292 kg CO₂e per minute

United Kingdom: 0.00291 kg CO₂e per minute

These figures highlight that while the majority of emissions stem from data center operations, the variation due to regional energy sources is relatively minor. However, we account for these differences, with the US’s reliance on fossil fuels contributing slightly higher user device emissions compared to France’s nuclear-based grid, which results in a marginally lower footprint. 

Platform-Specific Data Center Emissions for Mobile Usage

Understanding regional variations is only one piece of the puzzle. The type of content consumed on social media platforms can also impact the emissions associated with data center use. The data reveals slight differences across platforms due to their varying content demands. Video-centric platforms such as TikTok and YouTube generally incur higher emissions per minute because they require more data processing and transfer than text-based platforms like Twitter/X. The following breakdown reflects total per-minute emissions, including both user activity and data center emissions, across different platforms and regions: 

<table border="1" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 100%;">
    <thead>
        <tr>
            <th>Platform</th>
            <th>US (kg CO₂e/min)</th>
            <th>UK (kg CO₂e/min)</th>
            <th>France (kg CO₂e/min)</th>
        </tr>
    </thead>
    <tbody>
        <tr>
            <td>Twitter/X</td>
            <td>0.00292</td>
            <td>0.00291</td>
            <td>0.00290</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>Instagram</td>
            <td>0.00292</td>
            <td>0.00291</td>
            <td>0.00290</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>Facebook</td>
            <td>0.00293</td>
            <td>0.00292</td>
            <td>0.00291</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>TikTok</td>
            <td>0.00293</td>
            <td>0.00292</td>
            <td>0.00291</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>Snapchat</td>
            <td>0.00293</td>
            <td>0.00291</td>
            <td>0.00291</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>YouTube</td>
            <td>0.00292</td>
            <td>0.00291</td>
            <td>0.00291</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>Threads</td>
            <td>0.00292</td>
            <td>0.00291</td>
            <td>0.00291</td>
        </tr>
    </tbody>
</table>


Total Annual Emissions: The Scale of Data Center Impact

When scaling these per-minute emissions across entire user bases, the environmental impact becomes stark. With millions of daily users on each platform, the combined emissions from user devices and data center operations contribute millions of metric tons of CO2 annually. Below are the estimated annual data center emissions per platform by country: 

<table border="1" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 100%;">
    <thead>
        <tr>
            <th>Platform</th>
            <th>Annual Emissions (kg CO₂e)</th>
        </tr>
    </thead>
    <tbody>
        <tr>
            <td>YouTube</td>
            <td>9,612 million</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>Facebook</td>
            <td>7,986 million</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>TikTok</td>
            <td>5,254 million</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>Instagram</td>
            <td>5,421 million</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>Twitter/X</td>
            <td>3,999 million</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>Snapchat</td>
            <td>2,905 million</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>Threads</td>
            <td>799 million</td>
        </tr>
    </tbody>
</table>


<table border="1" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 100%;">
    <thead>
        <tr>
            <th>Platform</th>
            <th>Annual Emissions (kg CO₂e)</th>
        </tr>
    </thead>
    <tbody>
        <tr>
            <td>YouTube</td>
            <td>1,731 million</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>Facebook</td>
            <td>1,211 million</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>TikTok</td>
            <td>917 million</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>Instagram</td>
            <td>1,076 million</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>Twitter/X</td>
            <td>510 million</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>Snapchat</td>
            <td>384 million</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>Threads</td>
            <td>110 million</td>
        </tr>
    </tbody>
</table>


<table border="1" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 100%;">
    <thead>
        <tr>
            <th>Platform</th>
            <th>Annual Emissions (kg CO₂e)</th>
        </tr>
    </thead>
    <tbody>
        <tr>
            <td>YouTube</td>
            <td>548 million</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>Facebook</td>
            <td>426 million</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>TikTok</td>
            <td>311 million</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>Instagram</td>
            <td>393 million</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>Twitter/X</td>
            <td>183 million</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>Snapchat</td>
            <td>138 million</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
            <td>Threads</td>
            <td>40 million</td>
        </tr>
    </tbody>
</table>


These figures highlight how both user base size and energy grid composition impact total emissions. However, data centers make a substantial difference when considering total emissions. To illustrate this, let's compare user-only emissions to those adjusted to include data center contributions: 

YouTube: User-only emissions amount to approximately 127.9 million kg CO₂e annually. When data center emissions are added, this figure jumps to 9,612 million kg CO₂e annually, representing an increase of over 75 times. This total is equivalent to the annual carbon footprint of about 590,000 average U.S. residents.

Facebook: User-only emissions are approximately 426 million kg CO₂e annually. With data center emissions included, the figure rises significantly to 4,382 million kg CO₂e annually, showing nearly a 10-fold increase. This total is comparable to the annual carbon footprint of around 800,000 French residents.

YouTube: User-only emissions are about 540 million kg CO₂e annually. When data center emissions are included, the total rises to 1,731 million kg CO₂e annually, more than tripling the initial figure. This emphasizes the crucial role data centers play in total emissions and represents the footprint of around 300,000 average UK residents.

These comparisons underscore that while the size of the user base and energy grid composition are important, data centers significantly amplify emissions. Tackling the carbon footprint of digital activities requires strategies that target user energy consumption as well as the efficiency and sourcing of data center energy.

Future Directions: Mitigating Data Center Emissions

As the digital world continues to expand, social media companies are increasingly investing in ways to curb data center emissions. Several strategies are showing promise in reducing the carbon footprint associated with digital infrastructure:

Shifting to Renewable Energy: Many social media giants are pledging to transition their data centers to 100% renewable energy. For example, Google (which owns YouTube) has committed to achieving 24/7 carbon-free energy for its data centers by 2030, a move expected to substantially reduce YouTube’s operational emissions.

Energy-Efficient Hardware and Cooling Systems: Advances in server technology and cooling systems can reduce the energy needed to maintain data centers. Innovative cooling methods, like liquid cooling and AI-driven climate control, are becoming more common, especially in companies aiming to lead in sustainability.

Optimising Content Delivery Networks (CDNs): CDNs are geographically distributed servers that deliver content based on user location, which can reduce the distance data needs to travel, minimizing energy consumption. Optimizing CDNs can make content delivery faster and more energy-efficient, benefiting both users and the environment.

Reducing the Resolution of Video Content: Implementing adaptive streaming that adjusts video quality based on screen size or connection strength can decrease energy demands. Users watching on smaller screens may not notice a quality difference, while the energy savings from lower data demands are significant.

Encouraging User Engagement with Sustainable Practices: Platforms could also encourage users to adopt energy-saving practices, such as reducing autoplay on video content or limiting background refresh rates for mobile applications. By offering users more control over these settings, platforms can empower individuals to help reduce overall energy usage.


The Road Ahead for Data Centers in a Sustainable Digital World

Data centers are the linchpin of social media, enabling billions of users to stay connected, informed, and entertained. Yet, as they form the backbone of the digital world, their emissions represent a critical area of focus in the fight against climate change. The responsibility lies not only with social media companies to innovate and invest in greener infrastructure but also with policymakers to ensure that digital expansion aligns with global climate goals. 

By enhancing efficiency, adopting renewable energy, and optimizing data transfer processes, the social media industry can significantly curb the emissions associated with data centers. This path will be essential as we continue to rely on digital platforms for daily activities, aiming to strike a balance between digital convenience and environmental responsibility. 

When it comes to choosing host countries for the Football World Cup, environmental criteria are hardly part of FIFA’s selection criteria. Greenly looked at the official figures

The Carbon Footprint of the Football World Cup 2022 in Qatar

When it comes to choosing host countries for the Football World Cup, environmental criteria are hardly part of FIFA’s selection criteria. Otherwise Qatar, a leading exporter of fossil fuels and also the holder of the world record for CO2 emissions per person - 37 tonnes per capita in 2019 - would not have been chosen. 

But dubious carbon accounting, coupled with a claim from organizers that the event would be the first “carbon neutral” World Cup, raises questions about an event due to start right after the COP 27. Greenly looked at the official figures and did some fact checking.

According to its organizers, the Football World Cup is set to emit an estimated 3.6 million tonnes of CO2, but with little public data to corroborate this claim. 

3.6 million tonnes of CO2 is the equivalent of the annual emissions of Iceland. 

This is also the carbon footprint of the 2016 Rio Olympics.

Qatar accounts for the following emissions: 23% of emissions would be due to new construction, 52% to transportation, and 0,5% to broadcasting (perhaps the biggest underestimation) , the rest being due to hotels, catering and events planning.

However, little data shared by the organizers substantiates the estimated figures

Some organizations, the NGO Carbon Market Watch has questioned this accounting, claiming that real emissions could be 5 times higher, amounting to approximately 18 million tonnes of CO2.

Taking a more conservative view, Greenly estimates that the carbon footprint for the Qatar World Cup is approximately 6M tonnes of CO2, taking into account the footprint of the stadium construction, event broadcasting and transportation.

Nov. 20 is the opening day of the much anticipated FIFA World Cup in Qatar. The country is estimated to have spent roughly $229 billion on hosting the event, making it the most expensive World Cup ever, and more than four times as costly as all tournaments combined since 1990. 

But aside from the honor involved with hosting the biggest soccer tournament in the world, it could draw massive exposure to a country: an influx of tourism, the potential for foreign trade, new development and jobs. For Qatar, the tiny Gulf country needed stadiums and infrastructure and used 1.7 million workers, 90% foreign, to help get the country ready. 

The question remains, will the glory and questionable short- and long-term economic impacts outweigh the debt? Many experts say no.

Produced by: Darren Geeter
Senior Managing Producer: Tala Hadavi
Graphics by: Jason Reginato, Alex Wood

Chapters:
00:00 Introduction
1:20 Getting the bid
3:10 Economic impact
5:42 Long-term risks
9:22 Qatar
10:57 Future of hosting 

» Subscribe to CNBC: https://cnb.cx/SubscribeCNBC
» Subscribe to CNBC TV: https://cnb.cx/SubscribeCNBCtelevision

About CNBC: From 'Wall Street' to 'Main Street' to award winning original documentaries and Reality TV series, CNBC has you covered. Experience special sneak peeks of your favorite shows, exclusive video and more.

Connect with CNBC News Online
Get the latest news: https://www.cnbc.com/
Follow CNBC on LinkedIn: https://cnb.cx/LinkedInCNBC
Follow CNBC News on Facebook: https://cnb.cx/LikeCNBC
Follow CNBC News on Twitter: https://cnb.cx/FollowCNBC
Follow CNBC News on Instagram: https://cnb.cx/InstagramCNBC

#CNBC

Why Hosting The World Cup Is A Bad Idea For Countries

Data stories

Featured Stories

The Hidden Environmental Cost of Social Media

The Hidden Environmental Cost of Social Media

Paris Olympics

The Environmental Impact of the Eras Tour & Ways We Can Move Forward

How does Black Friday affect the environment?

The Sustainability of Apple Watches

The Carbon Footprint of the Football World Cup 2022 in Qatar