TORONTO -- Looking for an excuse to turn your camera off during the next virtual meeting, besides Zoom fatigue? Tell the boss it鈥檚 saving the planet.

A new environmental study from Purdue University, Yale University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found turning off the camera during Zoom or video meetings helps reduce a person鈥檚 carbon footprint of the call by 96 per cent.

鈥淢any times in meetings, there鈥檚 only one person speaking or when I鈥檓 teaching in class, all the cameras are on. This is not necessary,鈥� Kaveh Madani, who led the study, which was , told CTVNews.ca in a video interview on Sunday.

The study also found streaming content in standard definition instead of high definition can cut down carbon dioxide levels of that activity by 86 per cent, which Madani said was 鈥渟ignificant when you consider there are millions of us watching videos from around the world.鈥�

, it鈥檚 the first study of its kind to analyze the carbon, water and land footprint associated with internet infrastructure and video use, with the findings being pertinent as more people have shifted to working remotely and because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

鈥淎 lot of us don鈥檛 know about our how impactful our actions are鈥� and how much we can help by taking simple, very simple actions and small steps,鈥� Madani, an environmental scientist said, calling the study a 鈥渇irst step鈥� in order to do that.

For example, a gallon of gasoline burned from a car emits about nine kilograms of CO2, but just an hour of videoconferencing can create up to 10 per cent of that (or one kilogram). Additionally, that same video meeting could require between two to 12 litres of water and a land area the equivalent to the size of an iPad Mini.

The authors explained the carbon footprint is largely due to how internet data is stored and transferred; as well as how data processing uses up a lot of electricity, which in turn, has carbon, water and land footprints.

Madani acknowledged that connecting over video is how many are coping with lockdowns, but he urged people, internet companies and their regulators to keep refining the 鈥渦nintended consequences鈥� of their actions, especially in the internet age when more people are connecting online.

鈥淚t is good that we don鈥檛 drive to meetings and we can meet each other over Zoom or other applications, but it doesn鈥檛 mean we can鈥檛 do better than this,鈥� Madani, a visiting fellow at the Yale MacMillan Center, said. 鈥淪o before it gets too late, we want to warn people about consumerism in the digital world and the thing we might not be paying attention to.鈥�

The study found a number of countries have reported at least a 20 per cent increase in internet traffic since March, and if that trend continues by the end of 2021, it would require:

  • A forest roughly three times the size of Prince Edward island -- or 18,500 sq. km -- to sequester the emitted carbon;
  • 300,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools worth of water associated with data processing and transmission;
  • And a land footprint the size of Los Angeles

INTERNET SECTOR NEEDS 'TO BE MORE TRANSPARENT': AUTHOR

The researchers examined how many resources were associated with a gigabyte of data used by YouTube, Zoom, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, TikTok and 12 other platforms, as well as in online gaming and web surfing.

The findings were rough estimates based on publicly available and third-party data from Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Iran, Japan, Mexico, Pakistan, Russia, South Africa, the U.K. and the U.S. But the authors urged for more public data on internet uses to be released by countries.

鈥淭hese are the best estimates given the available data. In view of these reported surges, there is a hope now for higher transparency to guide policy,鈥� Roshanak Nateghi, a Purdue professor of industrial engineering, .

Madani agreed, saying, 鈥渨e need to make this sector more responsible鈥� some of them report their carbon footprint, but that鈥檚 not enough.鈥�

Although there was a , before COVID-19 lockdowns, the internet carbon footprint made up . But authors pointed out that even that small proportion should be examined.

鈥淚f you just focus on one type of footprint, you miss out on others that can provide a more holistic look at [the] environmental impact,鈥� Nateghi said.

He and the authors also urged more transparency from internet service providers, streaming services and app developers so consumers can make more informed choices and get a better sense of how their internet use fits in with their other habits affecting the environment.

鈥淯nless we ask for that sort of information, service providers [and application companies] might not provide that because it affects their profitability,鈥� Madani said. 鈥淏ut we have learned that we can make profit while also doing good things for the environment.鈥�

鈥淗opefully there would be a day that we can make a choice between two or three service providers based on their environmental footprints.鈥�

Correction:

Backstory: