Scaremongering without real absolute numbers.

The reason no real numbers are shown is because CO2 emission by a household due to streaming video is negligible.
Per user wattage in these data centers is really low.

Data centers aren't big power consumers.

Is streaming less energy intensive than someone driving to the video store to rent or buy a plastic disk?
Is streaming less energy intensive than Netflix mailing plastic disks back and forth?

Same for e-mail? More or less energy than snail mail?

Bucky called this ephermerlization, the decreasing amount of physical stuff to deliver the goods and services we want.

Captain Bucky O'Hare?

No, Buckminster Fuller.

It was a joke.

I stopped reading at "Greenpeace."

Dead people are even more environmentally friendly.

Please, die for Mother Earth.

/s

See, that selfish wavelength is the problem and it's all to common, if you want to do nothing more than consume and make no positive impact on the future just do both the current and future a favor by reducing your impact further by not existing.

You first. Oh, before you go, could you find a witch to burn? We haven't had one of those in a long time.

I sure miss those days. sigh.

Population is one of the multipliers I agree there, but saying you don't give a damn post mortem is pretty selfish.

Not saying otherwise, sounds reasonable, it was the screw the future perspective which seemed ill willed.

Solution; if you're going to watch something more than once download it to a hard drive. Use an 5watt USB powered drive and a 3-8watt media player... Not a 100 watt cable/gaming box or streaming.
I rare if ever stream, it's a disgustingly wasteful trend of temporary mental consumption and expedience.
Cable, netflix, youtube, not unless it's my only option for a given material.

Cool. You are indeed the ultimate energy saving hipster.

I presume your entire house is solar, you have chosen to avoid having kids (multiply their wasteful habits over generations, you anti-environmental parents!!!), you walk everywhere or ride an organically built bike shipped to you under a fair trade license, you only EVER buy local food (OH GOD THE CARBON) and I am not even sure how you are typing this without feeling immense guilt over either the massive 200-300W consumption of a desktop computer or the horrific environmental impact your phone has during its construction.

I am not sure I've ever read anything more arrogantly idiotic where environmentalism is concerned, but I'm approaching 40 so I've probably forgotten a lot of idiocy.

Extremist.. Just because I suggest an efficient means of viewing in no way makes me a stereotype. Do you prefer mercury in your food? How about starvation? Is shortening the existence of mankind a lifestyle goal?

Wut?

Ha. The environment whack jobs remind me of religious zealots with their constant guilt trips and condescension toward others.

Another Selfish shameful disgrace of a perspective.

There's nothing so pitiful than a green nut job that insults strangers on the internet to protect their Earth religion.

You can say nuts but you can't say inaccurate. Seems you're the one with insults.

There's nothing nuts about being considerate, you fossil.

You called the guy a moron and told him to stfu to protect your religion and got on your soapbox about starvation and Human extinction. Dramatic much?

No time 4u plad man.

U mad bro? You should really try reading aloud the things you write to get some perspective sometime. Who the hell obsesses over whether to store information or stream it in order to save mother gaia? Or heads into talking about starvation and Human extinction in a tech article? Disciples of the green religion, thats who.

First, I'm not mad in the least. 'Green religion' you literally got me crackin up there, that's a new one to me.
Long ago when downloading became available it was a great way to get music for a person like msyelf that listens to hundreds of bands and would find CDs/Tapes bulky/inconvenient to keep/use. Then came the iPod and it was cemented, thousands of song could fit in my pocket instead of filling an entire room as many albums only had a few favorite songs. Soon after came the age of digital video, I already had plenty of DVDs and Tapes but once everything became widely available online digitally it was also a no brainer. It started with SouthPark and a 16GB flash drive and expanded into a much larger library, 500gb USB powered internals and later 2TB. So once more instead of a room full of DVDs and Seasons I could carry my drive and media player in one hand and hook it to any TV.
As streaming struck popular it always seemed wasteful to basically redownload something every time you watched it, or ship disks around the country. These days there is a much wider variety than you could find in any video store at your fingertips online, it's practical, functional, and ecological so it just seems the sensible route to take.
As much as I do respect the Earth as a host and realize what comes of wasteful action I be no means am religious in any form.
You might come to respect what enables your ability to live as it will not only better your times here but that of generations to come.
I apologize for getting worked up earlier I was really under the gun at work, I'm also sorry to diffuse the argument I'm sure you'd view a heated one more fun.

Whoa. those are a lot of words.

Give it 2 minutes of your time you'll make it :)

I like it the most when they start in with the "denier" business. You can hear echoes of the Spanish Inquisition when they really get going. They are completely unaware of what drives them. Just as severe toilet training leads to compulsive cleanliness, knowledge of their own mortality drives their "end of the world" fears. They cannot be argued out of their "beliefs". They know that they are doomed and want to repent.

Environmentalists need to choose their battles. This article and your comment seem to demonize something that virtually everyone does and suggest a solution that would save a fraction (video) of a fraction (data) of a fraction (technology) of a fraction (electricity and manufacturing) of a fraction (carbon) of our species' harm to the planet. That kind of attack tends to induce one of several reactions. Almost nobody is going to change their habits and spend money because someone berated them with statistically insignificant concepts. Most people are going to shrug and move on. But a significant minority will use this info to ridicule environmentalism in general and extrapolate the futility of all proposed solutions. Yes, it all adds up, but pursuing causes like this one can do more harm than good.

I didn't demonize anything. I said I stream when I must, and when attacked for thinking 'eco', I responded.
No harm was done.

"disgustingly wasteful" is a pretty strong term if you're trying to win hearts and minds.

Meh, bit exaggerated but then again it's just how it came off the tip of my tongue typing, and it as a trend, as a whole is disgustingly wasteful to me personally, as a trend as oppose to more efficient means it's a backyard swimming pool full of coal every day, would that not disgust you?
Just remember, 1kWh is .8-1.05 pounds of coal..

You know Piaget's Theory of Conservation(perceiving identical volumes in different shaped cups as more or less)?
That's kinda how I look a waste, it's a spatial intelligence thing, I'm mindful of the equivalence of a given action.
With the top 100meters of the ocean tripling in mercury since the industrial revolution and that being within every drop of rain, every breath of air, ounce of food, I find it something to take into consideration.
http://www.epa.gov/mercury/...

I stream when I must . . .

Nobody must stream. It isn't necessary to live, like water. In view of this comment, everything else you have said is worthless.

Your comment was both a waste of time to type and read. You owe me and yourself 2 minutes.
Go back to your judgemental political/conventional websites where you belong.
It's sad, as wired's story quality has sank so has the bar of it's commenters. I come across 10x more ignorant replies here than any other scientifically charged site.

Your sites ability to edit a post on a smartphone is horrid.

Another scaremongering crock of shîte article. Given all the scandals recently (notably U of East Anglia fiddling data) and admission that actually projections aren't all that accurate after all I have become very skeptical.

Do you have no concept of scale? There is a whole lot of streaming going on, and of course video streaming uses a decent amount of power, but whatever helps you dismiss the article so you can sleep soundly..

I'm not speaking about the article, I'm speaking generally; man-made global warming isn't the harbinger of the apocalypse many would like us to think it is.

But hey, whatever helps you feel superior and self-satisfied compared to the rest of us mere mortals.

Mankind is hastening their own demise. An escalation of atmospheric rotation rate and instability will make what may have took a millenia take just a century. Deny all you want but it won't shift the winds. By 2070 you'll feel like a moron if you're still alive. Heck there may be a malthusian catastrophy by 2022..

Also if you think my arguments purpose is to make me feel superior you couldn't be more lost as to whom I am, I posture for no one.

They said by 2009 or something snow will be a thing of the past. I feel like a gullible moron for having believed their fascistic nonsense about how evil mankind is for so long. I assume you don't, because to change one's opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence requires a certain degree of humility and self-awareness.

Bad science isn't where my beliefs stem from. There isn't one single climate consensus I subscribe to. And most models account too little for solar and volcanic activity. Mine does not.
I guess I'll attempt to explain. Firstly I don't believe most of the scientific community understands what regulates hot/cool trends, air/ocean currents, droughts, ice ages, or even extinction events often times.
It all starts with the Sun, Sunspots and overall solar activity are probably the main factor which is multiplied or divided by the other factors in the deciding of overall conditions on Earth. Think of it as the 'Input' which can be compounded/multiplied by CO2, Aerosols, and Landmass exposure/color. While being decreased in effect/divided by Volcanic ash, Dust, Reflective atmospheric debris, Thermal absorption/saturation within layers both ocean and land. From the Sun's 'Input' the course of the coming trends is determined, to increase or decrease in speed oceanically/atmospherically, to create clouds via evaporation, or dissipate them by penetrating or dissolving them, or to charge them with gamma rays or positively charged Ions furtherly determining motion/flow, positive seeking negative and vice versa.
The Sun throttles up and down in 11 year cycles and every 11 of these cycles(120ish years) it has a drastic shift, more often than not a dip in sunspot/activity/radiance being either large or small. 2015 began this downward trend which I foresee lasting another 8 downward towards it's trough(2023) then heading back upwards the following 9 years towards the norm(2032).
Currently the Equator is is cooling as predicted, 3 feet of hail in Bolivia, 201 inches in 18 hours in a mountain town of Italy, multiple Typhoons in months they don't belong, etc etc.
Currently our CO2 is keeping us afloat during what would be a possibly global climate dive crippling crops and ocean currents. I firmly believe though that once we return to the large upswing towards the norm we'll overheat, buckling the currents, shifting freshwater content, and invariably shoving us irreversibly into an Ice Age.

Paul Ehrlich, is that you?

I have to admire your chutzpah with all the Warmist models breaking out below their 90% 'confidence' intervals.

You should really steer away from hitting keys before the books. I said nothing of global warming in the conventional sense. Yet you regurgitate the most common know nothing view on me like I had.
Right now we're cooling equatorally due to the Sun, saying things are changing has nothing to do with the conventional model you're suggesting I believe, which I don't.
I find it simply amazing how many arrogantly ignorant comments land on my posts to tell me I'm wrong when they don't even understand what I'm saying.
I really think that just like some people like to hear themselves talk so it is with typing, blabbing on like Cicadas for no reason at all.

It ain't gonna happen. Remember the Little Ice Age we were heading into in the 1970s? The only dilemma is that people use this "The Sky Is Falling" mantra to emasculate the developed world, supposedly in the name of protecting the underdeveloped world.

Not really, not emasculation in the least. Is there something wrong with cleaner air/food and a better chance of survival?
Also the 1970s weren't within the 120year-ish Solar minimum, dalton minimum for example. You might read my last reply to chrys expanding on my belief's justification.

That's "'who' I am" not "'whom' I am"...not really relevant...but I feel superior for recognizing that so I felt the need to proclaim it here in the comments:)

I deliberately chose whom, it was first who(I literally went back and changed it), I just liked the way it read, correct or not. Sometimes I do that, while being well aware of formal usage.
I also sometimes invent words if I feel it better fits a context, to me laws and rules come second to intention of creation. I'm an abstractionist of sort both in literary and digital art pieces.
I've got too much imagination for a coloring book life.
When I took geometry for example I used my own formulas, reworked variations with fractions instead of more basic means for angles and side solving.
When I chose to do the stock market and double my money in 3 months I looked for purchasing patterns of low beta commodities and predictable contracts in areas of growth. I beat mario 64 completely with backwards movement, I like a challenge. Always on my own terms. Nice attempted correction though but it was meant to be 'sic'.