Carbon Footprint Comparison
Amazon Prime Video vs YouTube
This comparison uses the current IdleForest model for Amazon Prime Video and YouTube: their category, modeled CO2 per use unit, methodology notes, key drivers, and assumptions.
Supporting comparison page
Amazon Prime Video
Streaming
CO2 / HOUR
YouTube
Streaming
CO2 / HOUR
Data-backed comparison
Summary
When comparing Amazon Prime Video and YouTube, Amazon Prime Video generates significantly more CO2 emissions per hour (55g) than YouTube (46g). Both applications rely on devices, networks, and server infrastructure, which all contribute to their environmental impact.
Why the gap happens
- Amazon Prime Video is modeled at 55g CO2 per unit, while YouTube is modeled at 46g, so the visible gap is 9g in the current dataset.
- Both products sit in the Streaming category, so the difference comes from the per-product estimate and page-level methodology fields rather than a category change.
- The estimate uses the same one-hour video-on-demand benchmark applied to streaming services, with device choice and resolution treated as the biggest variables.
- Device choice can be as important as the platform itself, especially when a TV or console is involved.
What to act on first
Because Amazon Prime Video is higher in the current model, start there: Stream at the lowest quality that still feels good for the context.
Deep dive into their footprints
Comparison takeaways
About IdleForest
IdleForest is a passive browser extension that plants trees while you browse, game, or stream. It uses your unused internet bandwidth to fund reforestation projects.
Start Planting Free