For instance, by moving towards HTTP/3, if we reduce the RTT to establish a connection, that's less CPU time spent on establishing the connection, less electromagnetic radiation (fiber optics / wireless) required, since now x less packets need to be transmitted etc.
I do think using available funds for further advancing the goals of IETF directly would be a better use - you could argue that IETF is producing carbon offsets as a direct consequence of its work!
I am not sure if IETF's contribution would be measurable, but here is a study done on energy efficiency of programming languages which is an interesting read: https://haslab.github.io/SAFER/scp21.pdf
Regards, Raghu On 3/22/23 05:53, Ross Finlayson wrote:
Isn’t it also conceivable that each IETF meeting, on average, leads to the adoption of technologies that *reduces* the world’s carbon consumption, making the overall global carbon footprint of an IETF meeting *negative*? And that perhaps having an in-person IETF meeting increases this effect - so much so that the overall global carbon footprint of an in-person IETF meeting is even more negative than that of a fully-remote IETF meeting? Should this be the case, will participants in an in-person IETF meeting be compensated for their attendance :-) :-) Ross.
Attachment:
OpenPGP_0xA1E21ED06A67D28A.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
