Dear Julian, all,
My point is that if we make policy choices about the way IETF will function, I'd love for that to have a real impact.
If in 2023 there is 0 net effect on the CO2 emissions, I don't see the point in going in full online meeting mode. Same for 2024, 2025.. well - until it makes an actual impact!
I think it requires more strength to state an inconvenient truth - and deal with it - than to have a good feeling about something, which does not solve the problem.
Cheers,
Alexander
On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 11:59 AM Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@xxxxxx> wrote:
On 21.03.2023 23:29, Bob Hinden wrote:
> John,
>
>> On Mar 21, 2023, at 3:08 PM, John Levine <johnl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> It appears that Andrew Sullivan <ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
>>> To begin with, of course, actually building in some cost from carbon emissions requires two things: (1) an analysis of how much carbon an
>>> activity creates and (2) a commitment to spending that additional money. ...
>>
>> In case it wasn't clear, I think it is a fine plan to figure out what
>> the IETF's carbon budget is, and to look at the costs of changing that
>> budget by possible changes to the way we work.
>
> I tend to agree, but thought that Alexander Pelov’s comment was interesting. If we decide to not have a face to face meeting, is there any actual saving in carbon emissions. The same planes fly, the same hotels have meeting, etc. I am sure there is a theoretical saving on paper, but it’s not clear that any actual emissions are reduced.
That seems to be a very weak argument. If everybody argues this way,
indeed nothing will happen.
Best regards, Julian
