Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.project > #12766 > unrolled thread

We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.project

Contents

  We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Julian Andres Klode <jak@debian.org> - 2022-04-08 20:40 +0200
    Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Louis-Philippe Véronneau <pollo@debian.org> - 2022-04-08 21:00 +0200
      Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Julian Andres Klode <jak@debian.org> - 2022-04-08 21:20 +0200
    Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Davide Prina <davide.prina@gmail.com> - 2022-04-08 23:00 +0200
      Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2022-04-13 19:30 +0200
        Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2022-04-29 09:50 +0200
          Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2022-04-29 11:30 +0200
    Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality micah anderson <micah@riseup.net> - 2022-04-10 17:40 +0200
      Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2022-04-20 11:40 +0200
        Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2022-09-21 08:10 +0200
          Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Martin <debacle@debian.org> - 2022-09-21 09:40 +0200
          Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2022-09-21 14:30 +0200
    Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org> - 2022-04-13 11:40 +0200
      Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Steffen Möller <steffen_moeller@gmx.de> - 2022-04-13 14:40 +0200
        Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> - 2022-04-13 17:10 +0200
          Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Steffen Möller <steffen_moeller@gmx.de> - 2022-04-13 17:40 +0200
            Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Steffen Möller <steffen_moeller@gmx.de> - 2022-04-13 18:50 +0200
          Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2022-04-13 17:50 +0200
          Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2022-04-13 17:50 +0200
          Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Martin <debacle@debian.org> - 2022-04-20 21:00 +0200
            Bits&Bäume Conference about digital sustainability (Berlin, October; CfP deadline 7 June) Laura Arjona Reina <larjona@debian.org> - 2022-05-13 08:50 +0200
    Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Gard Spreemann <gspr@nonempty.org> - 2022-04-13 20:00 +0200
    Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> - 2022-04-21 06:10 +0200
      Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2022-04-21 06:50 +0200
      Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Julian Andres Klode <jak@debian.org> - 2022-04-30 10:10 +0200
    Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2022-05-13 18:00 +0200
      Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2022-05-13 19:30 +0200
      Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <odyx@debian.org> - 2022-05-15 11:00 +0200

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#12819 — Bits&Bäume Conference about digital sustainability (Berlin, October; CfP deadline 7 June)

Hi all

El 20/4/22 a las 19:48, Martin escribió:
[...]

> 
> I suggest to form an informal team first, where people can gather ideas.
> Julian, maybe you can organise a BoF at DebConf about this issue?
> I'll be there and be assured, I'll travel by train.
> 
In this message: https://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/2022-May/013321.html

there has been a recent call for proposals related to free software for the Bits&Bäume Conference.
Maybe it is of interest for gathering or exposing ideas.
The conference will happen in October in Berlin, and the call for proposals deadline is 7 June.
You can find more info in the link above or in https://bits-und-baeume.org

If anybody sends a proposal and it is accepted, ping the publicity team and we will be happy to micronews Debian's participation in this event (this works for other events too :-) ).
If a BoF for DebConf22 is planned, and if any of the attendants considers attending Bits&Bäume too, maybe they can send a proposal for the Bits&Bäume Conference too to explain in October the discussion that happened in DebConf or whatever result of the DebConf event was.

HTH
-- 
Laura Arjona Reina
https://wiki.debian.org/LauraArjona

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12784

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi. I do share your worry and your overall sentiment, but:

Julian Andres Klode <jak@debian.org> writes:

> For example, people could be encouraged to batch bug fixes into larger
> uploads rather than uploading them immediately, use compression
> algorithms that emit less CO2.

I suspect that if every DD who spent any extra time doing this batching
instead worked those extra minutes at $dayjob and donated one percent of
their extra income to the right place would do more to mitigate climate
change. Or if they just distracted someone in the street and had them
stop streaming TikTok for a mere second :-)

I really don't mean to criticize a well-meaning desire to do something
about a terrible problem, but I think we must be vary of approaches that
fiddle with the margins of the problem instead of making real strides.


Just my two øre.


 Best,
 Gard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12811

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, 2022-04-08 at 20:35 +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:

> Budget: We need to determine our current CO2 emissions as a project,
> and then define a roadmap to carbon neutrality by an acceptable date,

I would be wary of the legitimacy and effectiveness of carbon offset
products. In Australia the carbon credit/offset scheme was recently
revealed to be fraudulent in many cases and I would not be surprised if
it were found to be similar in other countries. I think a better path
would be to work on transitioning our energy usage to renewable sources
and reducing our energy requirements.

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12812

Le Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 11:38:20AM +0800, Paul Wise a écrit :
> 
> I would be wary of the legitimacy and effectiveness of carbon offset
> products. In Australia the carbon credit/offset scheme was recently
> revealed to be fraudulent in many cases and I would not be surprised if
> it were found to be similar in other countries. I think a better path
> would be to work on transitioning our energy usage to renewable sources
> and reducing our energy requirements.

I fully agree.  I recently started to assess my own energy consumption
(in joules which is the International System of Units standard; but note
that 1 kWh = 3.6 MJ by definition) and found it to be way more
straightforward than estimating CO2 emissions, while at the same time
being very useful to provide estimates of scales (to decide where to put
the efforts) and of success (how much reduction is achieved).  And
reduction is a simple but impactful goal, as reduction of polluting
energy is a gain, and reduction of green energy used by ones is an
opportunity for others to replace polluting energy by the green one
being saved.

I work in a university of science and technology where high-performance
computing is among our heavy equipments, and I calculated that the
energy I spend at work is one order of magnitude higher than what I
spend in my private life, even including intercontinental flights to
visit my family.  I would be very excited to find a way to know if
efforts such as reducing container size or passing -O3 to the scientific
software we package has any chance to make a visible impact on how we
can reduce the environmental cost of our research.

Have a nice day,

Charles

-- 
Charles Plessy                         Nagahama, Yomitan, Okinawa, Japan
Debian Med packaging team         http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med
Tooting from work,           https://mastodon.technology/@charles_plessy
Tooting from home,                 https://framapiaf.org/@charles_plessy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12818

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 11:38:20AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Fri, 2022-04-08 at 20:35 +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> 
> > Budget: We need to determine our current CO2 emissions as a project,
> > and then define a roadmap to carbon neutrality by an acceptable date,
> 
> I would be wary of the legitimacy and effectiveness of carbon offset
> products. In Australia the carbon credit/offset scheme was recently
> revealed to be fraudulent in many cases and I would not be surprised if
> it were found to be similar in other countries. I think a better path
> would be to work on transitioning our energy usage to renewable sources
> and reducing our energy requirements.

You only compensate what you can't transform, in any case. Either via
Gold Standard projects or buying away CO2 emission rights from the
industry (if available).

-- 
debian developer - deb.li/jak | jak-linux.org - free software dev
ubuntu core developer                              i speak de, en

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12820

On 4/8/22 20:35, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> Sponsors: When receiving sponsored resources like electricity, we
> should inquire about the carbon footprint of those resources, and
> what the sponsor's approach to environmental affairs is.

Most of the time, "green energy" is just "green washing". If you buy 
"green energy" in France or Swiss (these are the only places I know for 
sure what's going on), you get a higher electricity bill, and a slot in 
the green energy consumers. But the electricity may well come from the 
nearby coal power plant, even if you bought a slot of green electricity.

IMO, you're much better off fighting this at another level: lobbying 
your government to do what you think is right.

> Budget: We need to determine our current CO2 emissions as a project,
> and then define a roadmap to carbon neutrality by an acceptable date,
> I think 2035 or 2040 are commonly referenced. This is likely to be
> exponential. We should use project funds to hire an expert consulting
> firm to do this for us.

If I had my say, I would vote against (wasting) money for such an 
expert, and wasting contributor time on this. I'm tired of reading about 
CO2 emission in the data center, when old servers are just trashed, and 
when electricity production is out of the control of the data center 
owner (see above).

I pushed my company to recycle old server and re-use them as long as 
possible, and we went from a 10 years lifetime to 15. That's IMO a much 
nicer and efficient approach for protecting the environment than just 
the green-washing CO2 propaganda.

> Monitoring: Once we have determined our CO2 emissions and defined a
> roadmap, we need to constantly monitor our CO2 emissions to make sure
> we stay on target. I propose quarterly environmental impact reports.

A quarterly environmental impact that only takes CO2 into account is 
only part of the reality. Do you have any idea about the environmental 
impact of mining these rare minerals needed to produce a server? Another 
example: producing the aluminum needed for a server chassis use a huge 
amount of electricity.

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12821

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 05:38:13PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 4/8/22 20:35, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> > Sponsors: When receiving sponsored resources like electricity, we
> > should inquire about the carbon footprint of those resources, and
> > what the sponsor's approach to environmental affairs is.
> 
> Most of the time, "green energy" is just "green washing". If you buy "green
> energy" in France or Swiss (these are the only places I know for sure what's
> going on), you get a higher electricity bill, and a slot in the green energy
> consumers. But the electricity may well come from the nearby coal power
> plant, even if you bought a slot of green electricity.

Proof? References? I'm in Germany, and for the time I got
to decide, I chose a 100% renewable electricity provider.
I'm happy to know that my bill goes to someone deploying
renewable generation instead of coal plants.

I do believe them. If they get caught cheating, they can
say good-bye to their business. Whether "the electricity
comes from the nearby coal plant" -- the electrons never
leave the building, as you might know [0] :-)

It's about what investments your bill goes to, as I said
above.

> IMO, you're much better off fighting this at another level: lobbying your
> government to do what you think is right.

We gotta do both, I think.

> > Budget: We need to determine our current CO2 emissions as a project,
> > and then define a roadmap to carbon neutrality by an acceptable date,
> > I think 2035 or 2040 are commonly referenced. This is likely to be
> > exponential. We should use project funds to hire an expert consulting
> > firm to do this for us.
> 
> If I had my say, I would vote against (wasting) money for such an expert,
> and wasting contributor time on this. I'm tired of reading about CO2
> emission in the data center, when old servers are just trashed, and when
> electricity production is out of the control of the data center owner (see
> above).

You just put some assertions without backing them up in any way. And,
by the way: perhaps there are experts out there willing to do some
pro bono work for Debian.

> I pushed my company to recycle old server and re-use them as long as
> possible, and we went from a 10 years lifetime to 15. That's IMO a much
> nicer and efficient approach for protecting the environment than just the
> green-washing CO2 propaganda.

Another unwarranted slur. A computer has a lifecycle, and it makes
sense to take all into account. It does make sense to re-use for
some time, but it also does make sense to take the power consumption
into account (more modern servers tend to have better MIPS/power
ratios). This [1] source (alas, not dated -- copyright is 2022), for
example says that energy use is 34% of a computer's lifecycle.

> > Monitoring: Once we have determined our CO2 emissions and defined a
> > roadmap, we need to constantly monitor our CO2 emissions to make sure
> > we stay on target. I propose quarterly environmental impact reports.
> 
> A quarterly environmental impact that only takes CO2 into account is only
> part of the reality. Do you have any idea about the environmental impact of
> mining these rare minerals needed to produce a server? Another example:
> producing the aluminum needed for a server chassis use a huge amount of
> electricity.

Well, "huge" is not a number. There are studies out there (I tried to
provide an example) which try to get down to more concrete figures.

I think actually trying to assess "where are we" and "where do we want
to go" is a very commendable goal. I'm happy that people are trying.

Cheers

[0] If I remember correctly, electrons in copper move in the rough
   ballpark of 10^-6 m/s, so at 50 Hz they just wiggle around about
   1/50th of a micron. But my physics are pretty old, so glad to
   be corrected :-)

[1] https://sustainablecomputing.umich.edu/knowledge/life-cycle.php
-- 
t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12822

Le vendredi, 13 mai 2022, 17.38:13 h CEST Thomas Goirand a écrit :
> Most of the time, "green energy" is just "green washing". If you buy
> "green energy" in France or Swiss (these are the only places I know for
> sure what's going on), you get a higher electricity bill, and a slot in
> the green energy consumers. But the electricity may well come from the
> nearby coal power plant, even if you bought a slot of green electricity.

Electricity on wires is like water in tubes; it might be "green", but tastes 
equal. [0] What matters is what provider your payment gets wired to. The point 
of buying "green" energy is not to guarantee its provenance in your plug, it's 
to guarantee that the "green" providers get compensated for your energy 
consumption.

It doesn't make any sense to build separated electricity transport networks, 
to avoid accusations of "green washing".

It _does_ make sense to direct consumer energy bills' money to sustainable 
producers.

-- 
    OdyX

[0] I know I know, water systems are usually way less interconnected than 
electricity networks, and water doesn't taste universally equal.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.project

csiph-web