Yes, these have all been taken into account on the calculations. But this is not really a valid point since the infrastructure for shipping records exists and would continue to exist if we all switched over to digital.
Not really, as MP3’s need electricity (and quite a lot of it), a device to play it on, speakers or headphones and all of those need to be upgraded every few years it seems. But yeah, once downloaded and assuming you don’t need to download it many times again (and not taking into account any gear used to listen to it), MP3 is the least wasteful format per play.
This conversation is sponsored by Shell, Exxon and the good people at Saudi Aramco. Proudly paying top dollar to keep you at each others’ throats while we burn it all since 1982.
Oh come on, plastic is a great material. If used correctly it’s not really that wasteful either. Like for example this green alternative to vinyl sounds great! Recyclable, too, so you could just dump all those shitty vinyl you made for your band and have someone else have a go.
Well damn, let’s just all go back to living in the Stone Age then. Green vinyl is pretentious and digital technology is draining resources. No more music, sorry. Also the manufacturing of instruments is probably terrible for some reason too, so let’s not have musical instruments anymore either.
Solutions are far more interesting than morality posturing from within a house of cards.
What? It’s easy to make, extremely durable and cheap. The problem isn’t plastic itself, it’s the fact the we use it for single use products on a massive scale. If we only used plastic for things that requires longevity we wouldn’t have any of the problems with plastic that we have now.
When I hear about mp3 or any other digital audio format, things like batteries or memory chips / ssd come into mind. A technics turntable don‘t need a battery because no one would take a turntable out for a walk or to the gym or driving around in a car .
For me doing a recordlabel for vinyl and digital, it would be very interesting to know the footprint of both formats. Ofcourse the prozess of manufacturing takes a lot of ressourcen, energy, also all the paper and printing for cover and labels etc. you get disc of oil at the end.
as an unsolicited broker taking part in this conversation, I would just like to say that there is high probability that this conversation isn’t about the environment but about privilege… in matters of privilege it’s always best to follow your own metrics less they negate the validity of one another within your own belief system, in other words, if you’re not regulating all of your privileges equally then what is the point of being a champion of regulating a single privilege? If you’re not following your own metrics and regulating your privileges equally then there is a chance that you might not have any concern about the original issue at all, and there is a possibility that you’re just expressing the superiority of your own privileges (unconciouslly) over the privileges of others which is something that you might not have been aware of.
It’s not just audiofools, I have unlimited content at my fingertips. I appreciate the mindful aspects of this physical media. I don’t buy rooms filled with them, I just love some albums.
Yes, one problem is definitely greenwashing of fossil fuels through scam “recycling” scenarios.
I don’t see how those are at all separable, considering in many areas of the United States, we allow for / optimize for citizens to not have potable water.
It’s interesting that the most efficient option - owning downloaded mp3s - is now made difficult and annoying by manufacturers who install minimum storage on devices and push us into using cloud services. There’s an assumption that we can and should be online 24/7 that disturbs me more than anything else in this picture and suggests a much broader thoughtlessness than emissions alone.
not separable from the issue at large I agree, but I was talking about when privilege came into the conversation it seemed like the environment took a backseat in the discussion…
The environment is a good thing, destroying the environment is a bad thing, but trying to define someone else’s basis of value is more often than not an endeavor in futility, and when that happens then the whole premise surrounding the assumption has to be questioned all over again.
I might think questionably about someone for only having 2 feet, and a collection of 500 pairs of shoes, but what I cannot do is determine the basis of their value in that shoe collection, it’s just not possible.
I’m sorry but that “privilege” argument reeks of classism. Nobody knows who is privileged and who works hard for what they have. It has absolutely nothing to do with developing an alternative manufacturing process for records which removes harmful material and processes. It also aims to be affordable. It seems like a step in the right direction to me.
I’m all for treating our planet better, but this seems like putting a bandaid on a bullet wound.
Seems real change would be a complete overhaul in consuming products in general, a massive industry paradigm shift.
We’re so far past the point of no return, I can’t imagine the majority of the population would be willing to do what it would actually take.
One of my favorite quotes goes something like, “What if we do actually save the planet, just in time for the sun to explode”
