Hi all,
First, I'd like to thank the IETF LLC for measuring the carbon footprint over the years and the events - I was hoping someone would do something like that for any kind of conference / event and then provide a way to compare/improve this metric.
Here's the thing : are we sure the IETF's footprint is not already zero?
I fully understand the notion of "current best practices" about this type of calculation - my question is mostly related to - are these best practices applicable to the IETF meetings? Are the laws of big numbers applicable to a tiny (compared to all air traffic) group of people? And if not - what should we do? (Probably nothing?)
Maybe I'll be adding to the "noise" in this discussion, but there has been a question that's been bothering me for a while, and it is touching my level of incompetence on the subject.
I have never chartered an airplane to go to a meeting, and none of the people I know have done so. I don't know of any hotel having been built for an IETF meeting, and although I tend to eat out more at in-person meetings, I try sticking to 3 meals a day (cookies don't count).
Did London, or Prague, or Singapore see bigger planes arrive for the IETF? Or more of them?
Air transportation doesn't seem to be "elastic enough" for a single meeting of 2k-4k people somewhere around the world to make any difference. During the lockdowns there were planes flying empty, just to keep the slots at the airports occupied! (how crazy is that!)
My take on that is that even if we go entirely online, the real net effect will be 0.
On paper there will be a difference, of course.
And in-person meetings seem so much more productive to me.
The real question that bothers me is - can the IETF do anything about it? (even if we wanted to)
- We're obviously not going to be able to just say "hey, we're all good - the system is not elastic, so nothing to do here"
- Get a draft about this and liaise to the organizations that provide the BCP in carbon footprint estimation, so that the core of the issue is addressed.. which sounds like a difficult topic.
- Something else?
Cheers,
Alexander
On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 10:13 PM Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Eliot has a point. As long as the community instructs the LLC to organize f2f meetings every four months, carbon offsets are about all they can do, unless we also instruct them to invest in a large fleet of pedal-powered airships.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 22-Mar-23 09:48, Eliot Lear wrote:
> 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.pdf
>>
>>> On 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 onadmin-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
