Re: [Manycouches] Daniel presentation @ 113

[Daniel Migault <[e-mail]>]

Hi Vittorio,

On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 4:28 AM Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola=
[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> 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.
>

Just to clarify, the intention was to say that policies and settings that
were defined in a 20th century context need to be reconsidered and
considered 21th century. I am not saying traveling in person has no
benefits. I am saying that their associated CO2 emissions have probably
been ignored - or at least under-estimated - at the time meeting policies
were established in the 20th century. These cannot be ignored in the 21th
century.
Regarding your comment on diversity, virtual meetings  with a lower cost is
likely to make IETF participation more affordable and improve the diversity
within the IETF - not only outside.

A 21th practice seems to publish a Sustainability and Corporate
Responsibility report, and it would be good if the IETF considers
publishing it soon. It includes among other aspects human factors, social
aspects, direct economy impact, emissions that would make possible to
balance all aspects.



>
> 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 understand you are proposing that meeting location (and choice of hotels)
policies should consider a more sustainable approach.  While this seems to
be a different topic, it seems to me that it goes back to the need for the
IETF to publish  a SCR.

>
> 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.
>
> True, average can be seen as a one-size-fits-all approach but this seems
quite common. That is correct, we probably find one person emitting less
and one emitting more than the average. Emissions are likely
characterizing the country's  economy and in that case Germany and Poland
are relying on coal to produce energy more than other economies/countries.
There is no specific intention to target one country more than another.
Whether one person in the country has a SUV or not does not impact too much
on the number. As usual, this should not be taken as an encouragement to
buy an SUV, but what matters is the aggregate and the effort needs to be
collective.

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.
>
> You are not the only one willing to 3 in person meetings a year, however,
I have not seen any objective data to support the claims that we cannot do
less than three in person meetings.
I believe that by non-technical topics you mean non IETF specific technical
topics. But interestingly, I would agree that the lack of scientific or
technical arguments to justify keeping the IETF running as it has always
run  is an issue. I believe that analyses that concluded to reduce the
number of meetings are actually supported by some data and scientific
estimations - which I would rather qualify as technically founded. In that
sense bringing less subjective and non technical arguments would be
beneficial. I agree. The publication of a SCR would probably help heading
in the right direction and bring some technicality to support in person
meetings.

That said, I would be surprised the outcome of the SCR would be to continue
having 3 in person meetings a year.


> -- vb.
> _______________________________________________
> Manycouches mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manycouches
>


-- 
Daniel Migault
Ericsson