As one of the people who made a stink about this, I would rather we not criticize the LLC for doing what they can to (a) quantify the situation (yay!) and (b) at least try to offset some of the damage that WE cause. Yes, the community is causing the damage by getting onto planes in the first place. Some of that hard to avoid. Let's face it: we sometimes have differences that really need face time and not just FaceTime. That should not be used as an excuse to unnecessarily travel, and I encourage WG chairs and ADs to question the need for in person time at every opportunity.
Eliot
On 21.03.23 17:19, Greg Wood wrote:
Hi Christian, Thanks for your note. A few points that are explained more thoroughly in the blog post and the report [1]: 1) “...changing how the IETF operates, such as by reducing the number of in-person IETF meetings, are out of scope for this [IETF LLC] effort as those should be community-led discussions.” 2) A significant part of the project was and is to calculate the carbon footprint of IETF operations, which would, it seems, be a foundation for community considerations about reductions. And, of course, reduction and offsetting are not mutually exclusive. Finally, I want to be clear that “PR gain” was definitely not a motivator for, nor a goal of, this project. While skepticism about carbon offsetting is not unwarranted, I can say with confidence that the IETF LLC staff, Secretariat and other people who have worked on the project were and are focused on doing what we can to improve the actual situation, and not just appearances. IETF participants have fairly consistently indicated they are in favor of being more environmentally sustainable, and this seems like a reasonable step towards that goal, while also being in scope for the IETF LLC. Regards, -Greg [1] https://www.ietf.org/blog/towards-a-net-zero-ietf-next-steps/, https://www.ietf.org/media/documents/IETF-Carbon-Neutral-Strategy-20230216.pdfOn Mar 21, 2023, at 11:15, Christian Huitema <huitema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: I am pretty disappointed to see the IETF LLC investing in the "carbon offset" strategy, let alone paying consultants to produce an expensive report. Carbon offset is basically all about PR -- an excuse for not reducing the carbon footprint of an organization. The actual benefits for the planet are mot often illusory, and quite often straightforward scams. Let's please focus on the harm reduction part, not the PR maximization part. -- Christian Huitema On 3/21/2023 6:42 AM, Greg Wood wrote:Hello, Built with input from the IETF community, we now have an initial approach and tools for calculating the IETF’s carbon footprint and a strategy for carbon offsetting. For 2023, we will implement this approach with data already available and seek to further improve it for future years. A blog post provides additional information and a link to a full report is at: http://www.ietf.org/blog/towards-a-net-zero-ietf-next-steps/ We hope to explore options for improving carbon footprint calculations and to gather additional information about the community’s preferences for carbon offsetting during a side meeting during the upcoming IETF 116 meeting: Pacifico North Room G301 8:30 JST on 30 March 2023 (23:30 UTC on 29 March) https://ietf.zoom.us/j/86826219211?pwd=QjhvdkY5YmxIWi9YeE9iMzFReFh3dz09 Meeting ID: 868 2621 9211 Passcode: ietfco2 Details are also available on the IETF 116 side meeting wiki: https://wiki.ietf.org/meeting/116/sidemeetings Further discussion is also encouraged on admin-discuss@xxxxxxxx mailing list (and reply-to for this email has been set to that list). Please feel free to contact me directly if I can provide additional information. -Greg – Greg Wood Director of Communications and Operations IETF Administration LLC ghwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
