It would seem that streaming music is just as damaging to the environment as the production of CD's, if not more.

According to a report published by Think Tank, streaming an album online 27 times uses far more energy than the production of its CD equivalent. While you might think you wont listen to many albums that many times, there are some stats that might make you think again. The article says "On the day Bradley Wiggins rode to Olympic cycling gold, the BBC's iPlayer service delivered an incredible 2.8 petabytes-worth of streams - equivalent in storage terms to some 4million CDs or to watching 26 years of HD video, 24/7."

To go back to the CD comparison, since YouTube was launched in 2005 the rise in the amount of videos being uploaded to the site every minute is staggering. In 2008 thirteen hours of footage were posted every sixty seconds with that figure rising five times last year. Just doing some quick maths, and I could be wrong, but basing it on an average of 30 minutes a CD, that's the equivalent of 6480 compact discs manufactured every day. Or for the benefit of the 405 editorial team, around 6 million cat .gif's (I'm guessing).

Even if you aren't environmentally savvy, perhaps the cost of sustaining our hunger for the internet can get you thinking. The amount of traffic in the UK alone means the government are planning to spend £680m to improve the broadband infrastructure, but it wont be enough; a perfect example of our greed for faster internet can be perfectly mapped out by Apple's iPhone. Every year they make it faster but you never hear an iPhone user complain that their mobile is not fast enough. However, be sure that once they experience that speed upgrade they wouldn't want to give it back.

It will be very interesting to see what the future holds for our consumption of data and it's impact both financially and environmentally.