Spotify vs YouTube

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

Supporting comparison page

Spotify

Streaming

CO2 / HOUR

YouTube

Streaming

46g

CO2 / HOUR

Higher emissions

Data-backed comparison

Summary

When comparing Spotify and YouTube, YouTube generates significantly more CO2 emissions per hour (46g) than Spotify (2g). Both applications rely on devices, networks, and server infrastructure, which all contribute to their environmental impact.

Why the gap happens

YouTube is modeled at 46g CO2 per unit, while Spotify is modeled at 2g, so the visible gap is 44g 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.
This estimate reflects one hour of YouTube viewing and bundles together platform infrastructure, network delivery, and playback on a consumer device.
Device choice can be as important as the platform itself, especially when a TV or console is involved.

What to act on first

Because YouTube is higher in the current model, start there: Stream at the lowest quality that still feels good for the context.

YouTube is currently modeled at 44g CO2 more per unit of use than Spotify.

Deep dive into their footprints

Read the full Spotify report Read the full YouTube report

Comparison takeaways

YouTube is modeled at 46g CO2 per unit, while Spotify is modeled at 2g, so the visible gap is 44g 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.

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