Facebook vs Twitter / X

This comparison uses the current IdleForest model for Facebook and Twitter / X: their category, modeled CO2 per use unit, methodology notes, key drivers, and assumptions.

Supporting comparison page

Facebook

Social

65g

CO2 / HOUR

Higher emissions

Twitter / X

Social

36g

CO2 / HOUR

Data-backed comparison

Summary

When comparing Facebook and Twitter / X, Facebook generates significantly more CO2 emissions per hour (65g) than Twitter / X (36g). Both applications rely on devices, networks, and server infrastructure, which all contribute to their environmental impact.

Why the gap happens

Facebook is modeled at 65g CO2 per unit, while Twitter / X is modeled at 36g, so the visible gap is 29g in the current dataset.
Both products sit in the Social category, so the difference comes from the per-product estimate and page-level methodology fields rather than a category change.
The estimate treats Facebook as a media-rich social feed where autoplay, image loading, ads, and long mobile sessions are the main drivers.
Autoplay, recommendation loops, and image/video-heavy feeds extend session length.

What to act on first

Because Facebook is higher in the current model, start there: Disable autoplay and cut accidental scroll time where possible.

Facebook is currently modeled at 29g CO2 more per unit of use than Twitter / X.

Deep dive into their footprints

Read the full Facebook report Read the full Twitter / X report

Comparison takeaways

Facebook is modeled at 65g CO2 per unit, while Twitter / X is modeled at 36g, so the visible gap is 29g in the current dataset.

Both products sit in the Social category, so the difference comes from the per-product estimate and page-level methodology fields rather than a category change.

About IdleForest

IdleForest is a desktop app that plants trees in the background while your computer is idle. It uses your unused internet bandwidth to fund reforestation projects.

Connect Desktop App