Re: [Manycouches] Daniel presentation @ 113 - carbon emissions

[Daniel Migault <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alexandre,

You can also find all IETF graphs here:
https://mglt.github.io/co2eq/IETF/IETF/

The co2eq repo can be found here:
https://github.com/mglt/co2eq

Yours,
Daniel

On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 9:02 AM Alexandre Petrescu <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> I agree and thank you for the numbers.
>
> Le 12/04/2022 à 18:43, Daniel Migault a écrit :
> > Hi,
> >
> > We are mostly talking about reducing the number of IETF meetings as
> > three meetings represents on average 12 673 tonnes of CO2 / year.
>
> 12673 tonnes?
>
> I found 1500 tonnes, or roughly 1.500.000 kg CO2, to be needed for 500
> IETFers return travelling Paris-NYC for all 3 IETFs a year.
>
> Air France calculator https://corporate.airfrance.com/fr/co2/calculateur
>
> Alex
>
> 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
> > <
> 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]
> > <mailto:[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/
> >>     <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.
> >           o Required controversy
> >           o 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] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manycouches
> >     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manycouches>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Migault
> > Ericsson
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Manycouches mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manycouches
>
> _______________________________________________
> Manycouches mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manycouches
>


-- 
Daniel Migault
Ericsson