
Is your Netflix queue destroying the environment? - terpua
http://www.slate.com/id/2196651/?from=rss
======
mdasen
Factors:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~~~
brentb
_Except for pollution the cheaper one really is better for the environment._

This is actually a great heuristic, but pollution is only part of the story. A
more general (and correct) statement would be "excluding externalities
(including pollution) the cheaper one really is better for the environment".

Externalities are basically costs or benefits (to society, the environment,
etc.) that aren't reflected in the price paid for an item. One really
important thing to note is that externalities extend far beyond pollution and
can be both positive and negative.

Pollution is one of the more visible negative externalities that get
discussed, but there are plenty of others (for example, driving a car involves
a host of negative externalities in addition to pollution such as increased
road congestion (longer commute times, more fuel burned in traffic, more
accidents)).

There are also plenty of positive externalities that often get ignored. Take
windmills, solar panels and hybrid cars. The positive externalities associated
with manufacturing these items include lower future manufacturing costs for
such items (and lower prices and environmental costs as a result) and
investment in R&D aimed at making electricity and/or transportation cheaper
(both in terms of environmental and financial costs). So even though solar
panels may currently be losing proposition environmentally, there are positive
externalities that make buying solar panels today (and thereby moving the
industry forward) a Good Thing for the environment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

------
pragmatic
Seriously?

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

