While the voluntary market does not hurt, its price of a tonne of CO2 remains quite suspicious compared to other programs. A typical price on the Voluntary market is 12 USD per tonne while scientific work[4], ETS[5], or climeworks respectively estimates that price to 150 EUR, 100 EUR, and over 1 000 USD [6][7].
The main issue I see is that offsetting is only one of the components of a net-zero strategy [1] which should prioritize its effort in reducing emissions. The blog [2] mentions that reducing the number of in person meetings is not in scope. A possible alternative way to remove these emissions associated with travels could be to encourage remote attendance. Making remote participation free could be such an example. In [3], I exposed that the cost of such a strategy is largely covered by our Sustainability Sponsor Oracle Cloud Infrastructure and does not seem to present any major economic risk. Other aspects may also consider guidance so WG meets in person only when necessary... Tool enhancement....
In a word, if LLC does not prioritise in-house emissions reduction, this could raise serious doubt about the significance of the carbon offset strategy. Such a program may even be perceived as a way to remain unsustainable.
Finally, I am wondering if the offset program is expected to be funded by the Sustainability Sponsor.
Yours,
Daniel
[1] https://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2022-01/Oxford-Offsetting-Principles-2020.pdf
On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 6:59 PM Christian Huitema <huitema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 3/21/2023 3:40 PM, Charlie Perkins wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> I do not intend to express any opinion on the merits of carbon offsets,
> IETF investigations, etc. However:
>
> On 3/21/2023 3:06 PM, Alexander Pelov wrote:
>>
>> 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?
>
> This is a good example of the "tragedy of the commons". Every consumer
> may feel that no one will experience any pain if they just take a little
> bit.
Individual choices to matter.
The problem that Alexander Pelov mentions is not new. I remember
studying it in economic classes pretty much just after the relation
between demand, supply and prices. If I am in the station, the gates of
the train are about to close, nobody else will come in, and there are
empty seats, why wont the railroad company just let me in without a
ticket? The short answer is "because capitalism", but the long answer is
that the number of cars in the train and the frequency of the trains
depend on expected traffic -- schedule too few and you loose market
share, schedule too many and you loose money.
Same goes for planes, or for that matter for elections. Your individual
vote alone cannot probably change an election, but if many people vote
the same way the result will indeed change.
-- Christian Huitema
Daniel Migault
Ericsson
