Is it still morally acceptable to use streaming services like Netflix or play computer games because of the environmental impact?

According to the latest studies, the Internet is just as much Co2 as all air traffic

May I ask why do you ask this question if you are concerned about the environment? Electricity is also consumed with this question and its answer.

The problem is certainly not electricity consumption, but how it is made. If it is generated from renewable energy sources, there's of course no CO2 problem.

What does "today" mean? Netflix hasn't been around for long.

I think everyone should know that for themselves. The whole is important. When I drive the car every day, keep the lights on, constantly order food, fly a lot, etc. My Co2 footprint is of course enormous.

If I ride the public transport or bike, eat seasonal products and don't get the car out for every meter, I can also stream a film in the evening with a clear conscience.

If you pay attention to the environment / climate, you should set priorities.

Yes, and the eruption of the volcano https://www.volcanodiscovery.com/de/aktuell-aktive-vulkane.html has released three times as much CO2 as mankind has had since it existed.

You have to make the right comparisons.

This hysteria can hardly be endured…

Well, the CO2 balance of the Internet corresponds to the CO2 balance of the electricity with which it is operated. If it improves, the CO2 production through the Internet is reduced.

Netflix and Co is only part of the data traffic through the Internet, IOT devices are increasing and also email, social media etc. Have a large share of the total data volume.

However, this does not include the pure power consumption of your PC, because during the time you ask this question, your PC produced more CO2 than the Internet by transmitting this question.

Of course, you can stop doing entirely without TV, computers and the Internet, whether it benefits you or the environment is another question. I would rather consider it more important to make electricity generation CO2 neutral.

This is just fake news. Some Facebook post claims alternative facts and people just believe it. The CO2 emissions from volcanoes are 200-300 million tons annually. CO² emissions from people are 30-35 billion tons annually. That is 100 times more than all volcanic activities combined.

Forbid the volcanoes!

The volcanoes will then be extremely interested. XD XD XD

Now what? ^^

https://www.spektrum.de/news/vulkane-stecken-nicht-hinter-co2-anstieg/1677466

Volcanoes are very healthy! The air up there! Excellent! As in a climatic health resort!

https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/wirtschaft-und-umwelt/2019/10/29/nein-vulkane-verursachen-nicht-mehr-co2-als-menschen

And even if the volcanic CO2 were more, we shouldn't take this as an opportunity to blow more CO2 into the environment. We can't change volcanic eruptions, but we can change our CO2 emissions.

You have to put things correctly in relation to each other. The only reason why streaming generates more CO2 than air traffic is because a lot more people stream than fly much longer. You can watch Netflix for a very, very long time until you get the CO2 emissions of a flight from Frankfurt to London.

Avoiding streaming for the climate only makes sense if you do something that is more climate-friendly instead. If you go on an excursion instead to go somewhere, it is not more climate-friendly. If you read a book instead, it's not more climate-friendly. If you go to a concert instead, it's not more climate-friendly. If you go shopping instead, it's not more climate-friendly. You understand what I mean.