Re: [Manycouches] Daniel presentation @ 113

[Vittorio Bertola <[e-mail]>]

> Il 12/04/2022 11:56 Jay Daley <[e-mail]> ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
> 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. I am all in favour of donations from the IETF to any carbon offsetting mechanism. I just want to add that there is a global regulatory trend to include additional carbon taxes into the cost of air travel, so it may be that our emissions are offset already when we buy the ticket. Still, the more the better.



Also, in philosophical terms, I do take issue with Daniel's comment during the presentation that travelling in person is "20th century" and travelling virtually is "21st century". Actually, when people are asked what progress would be to them, many mention the ability of being able to travel more, and more freely, and know other cultures better. One would hope that by seeing more of the world the IETFers would generally be more open minded, at least if they manage to get out of the hotel every now and then :) And I do feel sometimes that this community is narrow minded and scarcely diverse.



Moreover, there are parts of the world where foreign tourism is an essential part of the local wealth - basically what allows people to get out of poverty. This does not apply to meetings in North America or Europe (except South-Eastern Europe), but Bangkok, for example, would be one of those cases. Under this viewpoint, if we are so concerned about the world, we may want to prefer meeting in places where the money we bring, even if at the price of travel, creates good socioeconomic value. Though they are also likely to be the ones that involve longer travel in average... But the point is that pollution is not the only social impact of business travel and not the only factor to consider to make "ethically good" choices.
> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 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. > 
> This is a one-size-fits-all approach which is unfair and rather dangerous. Many of us, including myself, have made choices to reduce their environmental footprint long ago. Others maybe move all the time in a 2.5-ton SUV and will already have polluted like three or four Germans without even buying the ticket. All in all, it is the individual who has to be responsible and choose where to allocate their environmental impact and how to minimize it. If we proceed with the hybrid model, people and companies that feel like they have to stop travelling will be able to do so, while others who choose to allocate their CO2 to travel will also be able to do so, and everybody will be happy. The problems start when some people want to push their own personal assessments onto the entire organization.
> 
> 
> 
> This is an important issue and I share the objective, though my personal assessment is that we cannot reduce the meetings in person at least for the next 2-3 years, while the social damage of the pandemy is being recovered. I am just worried that, like other non-technical topics in the recent past, this issue will prompt a divisive discussion in which people who disagree with the trend will be singled out and questioned at a moral level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- vb.