Re: Next steps towards a net zero IETF

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 22-Mar-23 15:10, Christian Huitema 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.
> 
> 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.

Correct. If somebody could uninvent BitCoin, for example, that would save
vast quantities of wasted energy. But BitCoin would not exist without
the Internet.
  
> 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'll just comment that a reduction in the number of -00 drafts might
be a good thing - less wasted effort. Possibly a reduction in the number
of new RFCs would be good, too, because technology churn (often known as
"progress") can lead to new types of energy expenditure. It's very hard
to evaluate the energy balance of what we do. But we should try.

Anybody want to evaluate the worldwide energy cost of *not* trimming
the old text or the Ccs on long email threads?

    Brian