Re: [Manycouches] Daniel presentation @ 113

[Jay Daley <[e-mail]>]

Hi Eliot

The major point about offsetting, which I think we agree about, is that offsetting is an "after the fact" action, not a preventative measure.  I understand that some will say "what’s the harm in meeting X times, if we offset all the emissions" but, without commenting on the rights and wrongs of that, the response to that should not be to attack offsetting as a concept.  Instead, we should be taking the approach that it is vital for us to offset all of our emissions, whatever the level of those emissions.  In other words whether we meet three times a year or once a year, we should be offsetting those emissions.

When it comes to choosing the offsetting mechanism(s), the plan I outlined at shmoo was to bring in experts to hold some open sessions where they explain the various methods and help us make an informed choice.  As someone in shmoo pointed out, one of the largest aggregate emitters of carbon are kerosene lamps and schemes aimed at replacing those are direct offset schemes, not a carbon credit market.


When we discuss how often to meet in person, I strongly recommend looking at the data from our post-meeting surveys: https://www.ietf.org/how/meetings/past/ <https://www.ietf.org/how/meetings/past/>  Reading through all of those shows some clear data points:

- productivity at in-person meetings is, on average, much higher than remote meetings,.  Sure, we can’t quantify this and we don’t have the other links in the chain to measure if that increase in productivity leads to a reduction in effort elsewhere.

- the ability of people to come to in-person meetings depends very much on where the meeting is held.  If we drop down to one meeting per year then we will rotate through every region over a three year cycle and for many people that will mean they can only meet in person once every three years.  

Neither of those are meant to be "that’s why we should continue to meet 3x a year" arguments, just points to consider in the overall debate.


Finally, I have a strong suspicion that we are only talking about doing our part by reducing flying because it’s so visible a contributor not because it has the most potential.  Like Martin, it seems obvious to me that the biggest potential is in the protocols themselves, but that of course is hard to measure, hard to understand how design affects emissions, and hard to get people to look at.  Having said that, I can certainly see a point when RFCs have an "Carbon emissions considerations" section or something broader.

Jay

> On 11 Apr 2022, at 15:32, Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Signed PGP part
> Hi everyone,
> 
> Some time ago, I wrote the IETF about how I was embarrassed by my kid about how I was wrecking the future for the next generation by doing so much flying to meetings.  This turned into a draft called draft-lear-we-gotta-stop-meeting-like-this.  That draft just asked for us, primarily the LLC to begin to study the problem.  Jay has worked on that and looked at carbon offsets, amongst other things, and also sought to quantify the impact.
> 
> That's all goodness.
> 
> I support reduction of in-person meetings, and for reasons I will outline below.  I won't propose a specific course of action in this message, but I think my preference is pretty clear.
> 
> I listened to the recording of the shmoo meeting regarding Daniel's analysis, and I took from it several points. The points I took away were these:
> 
> By some models on average, individuals that attend three meetings per year create as much emissions as an average German in one year.
> There was a question of whether the recommendation should be from 3 meetings per year to 3 meetings every two years or 1 meeting per year.
> 
> I want to to express the same skepticism that Ted Lemon expressed about carbon offsets.  Carbon offsets are market-based approaches that attempt to hold constant or reduce overall carbon output.  These are very useful when there is no alternative for the emitter.  A good example would be a steel producer.  Our society needs steel.
> 
> When there are alternatives, the analysis is quite a bit more complex.  By the people voluntarily buying offsets, it makes a commodity of them, and creates a price, raising that price as their demand increases.  Those who have a choice are thus competing with those who don't have a choice, raising the latter's cost of goods and services, and discouraging those producers from participating voluntarily – and/or causing those who previously didn't participate in the market to do so, with the idea of increasing available inventory.  This invites a certain amount of gaming to take place, particularly if you as a producer know you are already going to reduce your emissions, perhaps due to slacking demand.  There are also potential moral hazards associated with establishing baselines; and additional challenges when viewing those baselines over time, such as whether they should reduce annually, thus reducing their availability and further increasing their price.  
> 
> I am not saying that carbon offsets should never be considered, but I don't think they should be considered a simple "Go To".  This ties to the point several people aligned to, that somehow we oughtn't do our part because we are a drop in a bucket.  This we may be, but the argument has led entire countries, such as the United States to not do their part, because they point to China in particular, and claim a competitive disadvantage.  We have no such excuse, really, even if we accept it as an excuse, which we shouldn't.
> 
> As to Martin's point, while I might agree that WebRTC has a beneficial impact on the environment, when used as an alternative to meet in person, what we do not know is whether WebRTC would have even been delayed by holding only one in-person meeting per year.
> 
> This leaves open the question of whether reducing to one meeting per year or three meetings every two years would make a difference.  Of course it would.  You may debate the model that Daniel used, but certainly there is a cost, and it is not a pittance.  The question is whether we can function as well as a community if we maintain a lower tempo of in-person meetings.  I would argue that we have the opportunity to work better.  IETF meeting time always comes at a premium, and working groups receive at most 3 hours time.  While that time may be necessary, it is rarely sufficient.  Interims for any active group are a requirement.  Virtual interims, in most cases.
> 
> I am not saying that hallway wg meetings are not important.  There is value there, but I don't know how to quantify it.
> 
> In fact all of this is, of course, my opinion; and not backed with a whole lot of data.  Daniel has provided some.  As a practical matter, I don't think we have a choice, but to reduce our plans for the number of in-person meetings.  Companies are not going to put up with the previous level of travel, and many individuals do not feel comfortable traveling.  Maybe that will change, but as we have seen, hybrid meetings themselves have their challenges.
> 
> There are other benefits to virtual plenary meetings that are not related to the environment, but we can debate those in other messages.
> 
> Eliot
> 
> <OpenPGP_0x87B66B46D9D27A33.asc>
> 
> 

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
[e-mail]