I asked my partner if she'd support a move to twice yearly F2F at hubs (less flying overall, less flights per trip since hub-based) and teleconference even given the timezone consequences and she said emphatically yes. >From a personal perspective, I think we could reduce net carbon cost on our process and impact on family, if we went to two, stopped demanding multi-hop segment flight, and used remote processes more effectively. I hate to say it, but in the light of Christian Huitema's excellent research work on impact/delay I think its possible we'd actually be more productive, if we constrained our interminable wordsmithing, and avoided microphone queues. -George On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 6:25 AM Ted Lemon <mellon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I pretty much agree with this. I think we should really work on our telecollaboration fu regardless of what we think about agw and flying because our failure to do so is holding us back and making us less effective. > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Aug 1, 2019, at 4:02 PM, Toerless Eckert <tte@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Indeed. My examples of why Internet technologies have been a big > > reducer of energy consumption primarily also was focussed on > > non-meeting/collab examples like telecommuting, tele-services, > > e-transportation instead of physcial transportation and the like. > > And this was all just directed at Eliots question of > > how to explain to kids what the overall benefit is of what we do, > > which should be IMHO a question simple to answer for us. > > > > I have been frustrated for decades now about the lacking adoption > > of our own tele-collaboration dog-food, i just think while the > > energy-saving discussion is also very interesting in its own > > right, we probably make more progress on both of them if we start > > by not mixing them up. Because for example, we are doing the enery > > saving subject a bad service when we limit it to the conferencing > > use-case and vice versa. > > > > Cheers > > Toerless > > > > > >> On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 11:37:47AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote: > >> Noting Melinda's comment about what we actually do -- with while > >> I strongly agree, I've been intermittently following the > >> question of how improved two-way or multiway international > >> communication changes travel patterns. The story goes back to > >> the realization that, with email and (even) first-generation > >> list management and Usenet systems, communication and working > >> with someone halfway around the world could be as inexpensive, > >> and often as efficient, as working with someone who lived next > >> door. The number of international collaborations increased. > >> Because of the value of f2f conversations identified in a > >> different thread in the last few days, so did travel to > >> meetings that previously would have involved mostly or entirely > >> people from a rather small region. > >> > >> At least in retrospect (but there were scholars in the 80s and > >> earlier who predicted it), what would we expect? > >> > >> We tend to praise the increase in international collaborations > >> and other interactions and curse the increased travel, but they > >> may go together. > >> > >> john > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> --On Friday, 26 July, 2019 13:37 -0700 Jacob Hoffman-Andrews > >> <jsha@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >>>> In 2018, passenger activity increased by 6.1% to 8.2 > >>> trillion revenue passenger kilometres, and the number of total > >>> air passengers reached a record 4.3 billion (ICAO, 2019a). > >>> This activity growth is a slowdown from the 7.9% increase > >>> registered in 2017, however, with regional growth rates in > >>> 2018 ranging between 4.7% and 7.3%. > >>> > >>> I agree that online collaboration has the *potential* to > >>> reduce emissions. However, it is not fulfilling that > >>> potential. That's why we need to walk the talk and demonstrate > >>> how to collaborate effectively online, so other industries can > >>> adopt our methods and tools. > >> > >> > >> > > > > -- > > --- > > tte@xxxxxxxxx > > >
