Re: [admin-discuss] Next steps towards a net zero IETF

[Alexander Pelov <[e-mail]>]

Dear Julian, all,

My point is that if we make policy choices about the way IETF will
function, I'd love for that to have a real impact.

If in 2023 there is 0 net effect on the CO2 emissions, I don't see the
point in going in full online meeting mode. Same for 2024, 2025.. well -
until it makes an actual impact!

I think it requires more strength to state an inconvenient truth - and deal
with it - than to have a good feeling about something, which does not solve
the problem.

Cheers,
Alexander


On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 11:59 AM Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On 21.03.2023 23:29, Bob Hinden wrote:
> > John,
> >
> >> On Mar 21, 2023, at 3:08 PM, John Levine <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> It appears that Andrew Sullivan  <[e-mail]> said:
> >>> To begin with, of course, actually building in some cost from carbon
> emissions requires two things: (1) an analysis of how much carbon an
> >>> activity creates and (2) a commitment to spending that additional
> money. ...
> >>
> >> In case it wasn't clear, I think it is a fine plan to figure out what
> >> the IETF's carbon budget is, and to look at the costs of changing that
> >> budget by possible changes to the way we work.
> >
> > I tend to agree, but thought that Alexander Pelov’s comment was
> interesting.   If we decide to not have a face to face meeting, is there
> any actual saving in carbon emissions.   The same planes fly, the same
> hotels have meeting, etc.    I am sure there is a theoretical saving on
> paper, but it’s not clear that any actual emissions are reduced.
>
> That seems to be a very weak argument. If everybody argues this way,
> indeed nothing will happen.
>
> Best regards, Julian
>
>