Re: [Manycouches] Daniel presentation @ 113

[Daniel Migault <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

We are mostly talking about reducing the number of IETF meetings as three
meetings represents on average 12 673 tonnes of CO2 / year. It is
measurable. It is a main source of upstream emissions in corporate
organizations (see [1]). We have a direct impact on it. It is a direct
offset and it shows the path to other organizations.

I do agree that we need to focus on the solutions that have the most
potential. This is especially where offset can be challenged and the reason
to publish a sustainability and corporate responsibility report for the
IETF - as did Ericsson recently for example [1].

As a side comment, the evocation of the kerosene lamps - at the shmoo
meeting resonated with me a bit with a 1000'nish wealthy people asking 1.3
billion of (poor) people to replace their lamp so we can travel. I would
like to clarify that the intent was to illustrate that one needs to focus
where it has the most impact.

The potential that protocol represents remains to be shown. I am happy that
those raising such assertions share their data, publications. So far - as
mentioned in the session - my understanding is that most emissions come
from the extraction, manufacturing and transport of the products. As a
result, I am relatively not optimistic on the impact of a section "Carbon
emissions considerations" - but happy to be wrong.

Yours,
Daniel

[1]
https://www.ericsson.com/en/about-us/sustainability-and-corporate-responsibility/sustainability-report

On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 11:29 AM Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Jay,
>
> Thanks for your message.  Please see below.
> On 12.04.22 11:56, Jay Daley wrote:
>
> 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 100% agree.  And I further agree that we MUST meet.  I opine that we
> should meet in person LESS but when we do meet, we SHOULD offset our
> impact.  What we SHOULDN'T do is think of offsets as a pure substitute.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> Good to know.
>
>
>
> 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/  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.
>
> As I wrote, I didn't provide a specific recommendation.  That's because I
> could see this working in quite a number of ways forward, and I'd like to
> see shmoo explore them.  A few possibilities include the following:
>
>    - Mandatory virtual interim meetings at a certain tempo
>    - Mandatory in-person interim meetings
>    - Raising the requirements for working groups to meet in person,
>    including at the plenary meetings.
>       - Required controversy
>       - Virtual meetings held
>    - A cap on the number of in person meetings for working groups.
>
> These are just a few possibilities, and it is by no means an exhaustive
> list.
>
> I realize figuring our way forward here would wreak havoc with our
> conference planning, and with the lives of the people who provide us an
> excellent experience, but at least to me, the risks of not acting are too
> high.
> Eliot
> _______________________________________________
> Manycouches mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manycouches
>


-- 
Daniel Migault
Ericsson