Firefox vs Safari

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

Supporting comparison page

Firefox

Browsing

22g

CO2 / HOUR

Higher emissions

Safari

Browsing

20g

CO2 / HOUR

Data-backed comparison

Summary

When comparing Firefox and Safari, Firefox generates significantly more CO2 emissions per hour (22g) than Safari (20g). Both applications rely on devices, networks, and server infrastructure, which all contribute to their environmental impact.

Why the gap happens

Firefox is modeled at 22g CO2 per unit, while Safari is modeled at 20g, so the visible gap is 2g in the current dataset.
Both products sit in the Browsing category, so the difference comes from the per-product estimate and page-level methodology fields rather than a category change.
The estimate treats Firefox as a general-purpose browser where tab count, video-heavy pages, extensions, and session length are the main practical drivers.
Open tabs, video-heavy pages, and extensions can keep CPU and memory usage elevated.

What to act on first

Because Firefox is higher in the current model, start there: Close unused tabs and disable heavy extensions you no longer need.

Firefox is currently modeled at 2g CO2 more per unit of use than Safari.

Deep dive into their footprints

Read the full Firefox report Read the full Safari report

Comparison takeaways

Firefox is modeled at 22g CO2 per unit, while Safari is modeled at 20g, so the visible gap is 2g in the current dataset.

Both products sit in the Browsing 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 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