[Manycouches] Daniel presentation @ 113

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

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