Re: [E-impact] Carbon-Intelligent Global Routing in Path-Aware Networks

[Vesna Manojlovic <[e-mail]>]

Hi Don, all,

On 09/05/2023 15:02, Dom Robinson wrote:
> acknowledge that it’s easier for accounting firms to correlate carbon to 
> data transfer, because Network economics account for money in terms of 
> data transfer. But there is no relation between carbon and GB.

If you isolate just one aspect (data transfer) then this might be true.

But there is relation between carbon & size of data *storage*.
(isn't there?) (see (*))

And in the other aspects of the whole "streaming" experience...
... and all those aspects could benefit form "degrowth", if we want to 
minimise "e-impact", to stay within the limits of Paris Agreement.


And, as you say yourself further on:

 >   Obviously this does not consider embedded emissions in the rollout and
 > physical deployment of such networks.

> In fact, counterintuitively there is a stronger argument that using 
> “more data” commercially drives a swift migration to new technologies, 

You say that as if it's a good thing ;-)

then all the older devices are either overheating, or have to be dumped, 
and have to be replaced with new devices... made from non-renewable 
materials, shipped across half-world, etc etc...

... which, of course, is out of the scope of what _we_ can do -- but, we 
can influence our own part of the process!


> which almost invariably, save energy once utilisation passes an 
> equivalent point on the legacy network.  Newer IT is almost invariably 
> more efficient.

I have to again refer to Jevons Paradox:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

"increases (in) the efficiency with which a resource is used ,
but the falling cost of use increases its demand,
increasing, rather than reducing, resource use."


> #catamongpigeons :)


(*)

Here's an interesting presentation, but I am not sure what the 
conclusion is -- I am curious what you read from it?

Energy optimisation in GÉANT
https://geant.app.box.com/s/budgt80vyjzlchxk16hs5v6b876r9iuf

 >> X5 capacity for same power draw
but
 >> Power growth ~10% p/a accounting for planned line cards



Regards,
Vesna