Re: Next steps towards a net zero IETF

[Daniel Migault <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 10:11 PM Christian Huitema <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
>
> On 3/21/2023 6:39 PM, Raghu Saxena wrote:
> > That's a pretty interesting note, and one which I think deserves a
> > proper discussion. Considering how much more energy use is going towards
> > the internet everyday, I do believe IETF plays a crucial role in
> > increasing the efficiency (energy wise) of the internet.
> >
> > For instance, by moving towards HTTP/3, if we reduce the RTT to
> > establish a connection, that's less CPU time spent on establishing the
> > connection, less electromagnetic radiation (fiber optics / wireless)
> > required, since now x less packets need to be transmitted etc.
> >
> > I do think using available funds for further advancing the goals of IETF
> > directly would be a better use - you could argue that IETF is producing
> > carbon offsets as a direct consequence of its work!
>
> Efficiency increases are an obvious good thing but in the past,
> efficiency increases have been matched by increases in Internet usage,
> such as more videos or larger images, and I am not sure the total energy
> consumption decreased over time. If it did decrease, that means saving
> energy, but most of the energy saved comes in the form of electricity.
> Only a fraction of the electricity is produced by burning carbon based
> fuels, and that fraction is supposedly decreasing over time as cleaner
> techs replace burning coal, oil or gas.
>

Regarding the emissions associated with a phone or a cpu during its
lifetime, I think that most of these emissions happen during the
manufacturing and transport of the device/hardware - as opposed to the
device running. That is more or less what you are saying below.


>
> We could argue that tools such as video conferences do directly save
> carbon emissions by reducing the need for physical travel. That's
> plausible, but very hard to measure because the Internet also enables
> making friends in remote places, which is a very good thing but
> ultimately encourages more traveling.
>
> And then there is a counter argument that the Internet enables more
> international commerce, e.g., someone in America buying widgets from a
> producer in China through Amazon or Ali-Baba. These items have to be
> shipped across continents, so in a sense the Internet contributes to
> increased carbon emissions. I have no idea how all that balances, and I
> would indeed be delighted to read a good study. But that seems a job for
> ISOC, not the IETF.
>
> As far as the IETF is concerned, the direct challenge ought to be
> whether we can be as efficient while traveling less, or at least by
> relying less on long distance air travel. We did run a two years
> experiment during Covid, and the results have been mixed: work kept
> progressing, but some measures like number of version-00 drafts did
> regress. We have to do better!
>
I am questioning the metric here - especially if that is the only thing we
have found - as a 00 draft is probably the easiest way to justify the need
to travel ;-).


>
> -- Christian Huitema
>
>

-- 
Daniel Migault
Ericsson