On 2022-04-08 14 h 35, Julian Andres Klode wrote:> I think individual
travel to DebConf and similar events is somewhat> out of our control, as
is the personal behavior of individual> submitters.
I'm not an expert on estimating CO2 output, but I'm pretty sure DebConf
is our largest contribution to CO2 emissions, mainly because of air travel.

The question I've been asking myself these past few years is: "Are
in-person DebConfs worth it?" I think the answer is very clearly yes.

I don't think Debian would be as successful if it were not for DebConf.
It's a very special time of the year and it bolsters collaboration and
helps us fix hard problems.

Even though Debian is not perfect, I believe our project offers a
glimpse of a different future, a viable alternative where individuals
and collectives have control over the technology they use. This to me is
part of the solution to climate change.

To quote Serge Latouche -- a very influential proponent of degrowth -- I
feel Debian is necessary to helps us « décoloniser l'imaginaire » (decolonize the way we imagine things).

As such, I'm ready to defend the fact we should still continue to hold
DebConfs in person around the world each year.

Cheers,

--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Louis-Philippe Véronneau
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ pollo@debian.org / veronneau.org
⠈⠳⣄

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hi

it just occurred to me that despite the climate crisis about to
destroy us all we don't really have anything in place to monitor
and reduce our carbon emissions.

I believe we need to commit ourselves to reducing this, but I fear
the only way this could happen is via a general resolution amending
the constitution for climate goals, so it becomes binding. Though
some documents, like the machine usage policies can be amended by
the DSA team without any such complexities, and similarly other
delegated teams can be re-delegated if necessary, and money can
be allocated by the DPL to a climate impact study.

# Actions

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.

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.

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.

Mindfulness: We should ensure that people are mindful of the resources
provided to us by sponsors, and their impact on the environment, and
encourage to reduce CO2 footprint. 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.


# Things out of our control

I think individual travel to DebConf and similar events is somewhat
out of our control, as is the personal behavior of individual
submitters.
-
--
debian developer - deb.li/jak | jak-linux.org - free software dev
ubuntu core developer i speak de, en

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEET7WIqEwt3nmnTHeHb6RY3R2wP3EFAmJQgG0ACgkQb6RY3R2w P3H/IQ/+Nj608Z5KS5vhq8wuImM/EZKrwr1lvBBlYB30V4J6p/wh86g+7ZAIf2pI HRldNqLHGpmn3jmaBALMqrdrmk5L+QJ17lxtnd3nRUyFHDwUWDSBq4+j50SXmHIr MFaNko3jxhpptltxG55pB4uQxQ38yc3+D3qwEMZdeBFdhgemlpzQxs8TOxckur3c tIX1hcnJkEI22b0ZrjWdHCUC7DXpmUuHDNun6BYzn5nJ7i1t/fa1gttrD1gaucr4 oeLU/VYPiOg94vYWhEIZc0LMnPZM85+oDS2EXWZ5LTnI4blln9+rx86y1NpiT8za n2L7zUdv1oUecNfwsInXvX6JFMsSIVkh/TxWS/FPGJGu+7adss66C2F+UBWv2lIE 4HouZhAti7+OVTo2aY7aFVPAPW8mW/FoYRTjoSSWhK2+pbcUorDqp5gikmVS+uux MbbMa9WTRo8x585hH/yLz+KxvTDuu5dlBJXGmgAFljtCfh8HgSKvUswDO5rqX+9F KAowe+ogZ7Dv3CgL7WiufbT12L4b4it/N1NVddC8ok3TMjiy4xWMB3rODHSqY2uJ Mj53Wh4wCvFEGyXEuxY9sba9YOH9utRqmGvBIm3ltIObe0cWpgoM2ip2GYy7mc8f YceDBlpk8qLFs7kTTkvofBzAoyi+flPrrZNP5zuuuUfscfXir4g=
=XMzA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Ori

On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 02:52:18PM -0400, Louis-Philippe V�ronneau wrote:

On 2022-04-08 14 h 35, Julian Andres Klode wrote:> I think individual
travel to DebConf and similar events is somewhat> out of our control, as
is the personal behavior of individual> submitters.
I'm not an expert on estimating CO2 output, but I'm pretty sure DebConf
is our largest contribution to CO2 emissions, mainly because of air travel.

The question I've been asking myself these past few years is: "Are
in-person DebConfs worth it?" I think the answer is very clearly yes.

Yes, I got 0 benefit from the 2020 debconf, did not attend 2021, but
every in-person debconf yielded interesting apt discussions with
eventual useful outcomes.

Rotating DebConf between continents is a bit problematic from a CO2 perspective, but then it also enables some people from those continents
to join in the first place, and I think that's valuable to have.
--
debian developer - deb.li/jak | jak-linux.org - free software dev
ubuntu core developer i speak de, en

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 08/04/22 20:35, Julian Andres Klode wrote:

Hi

it just occurred to me that despite the climate crisis about to
destroy us all we don't really have anything in place to monitor
and reduce our carbon emissions.

I believe we need to commit ourselves to reducing this

in Italian user list we have discussed this topic from another point of
view: program language used and how it is used.

Starting from this 2017 study https://greenlab.di.uminho.pt/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/sleFinal.pdf

you can see that you can consume more or less energy depending of the
program language selected for implementing a program.

In the study, in 2017, they have found that in the test program you consume: 1.00 C
1.03 Rust
1.34 C++
1.70 Ada
1.98 Java
2.14 Pascal
2.18 Chapel
2.27 Lisp
2.40 Ocalm
2.52 Fortran
...
3.14 C#
3.23 Go
...
4.45 JavaScript
...
21.50 TypeScript
...
29.30 PHP
...
46.54 JRuby
69.91 Ruby
75.88 Python
79.58 Perl

so a program in Perl consume 79.58 time energy that the same program in
C. Naturally the program must be written in the same "way".

Rewriting a program in another language can be a very bad solution...
probably some part of the program can be written in another program
language that use less energy... but also this can be a bad solution.

Rewriting a program that is used only few second, that is executed
sporadically and is written in Perl is a non sense because don't reduce
energy usage too much and the effort, to do that, can be too much.

If you go to the university site you can see that there are a lot of
article and study:
https://greenlab.di.uminho.pt/

for example they have taken some app and modified the source to consume
less energy, gaining about 40% of energy reduction.

In the tools section
https://github.com/greensoftwarelab/Energy-Languages

there is also a sonarcube plugin to calculate programs energy debt.

I think that this can be a better solution: have something that
calculate the energy debt of all programs and a number that indicate the average usage in a machine to calculate how much energy per
server/desktop he can consume less.

Also: Datacenter consume about 1% of all our planet energy https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-data-centre-energy-demand-by-data-centre-type-2010-2022
https://www.iea.org/reports/data-centres-and-data-transmission-networks

Also: KDE Eco - Building Energy-Efficient Free Software
where German Environment Agency give a released the award criteria for obtaining eco-certification with the Blauer Engel label for desktop software https://eco.kde.org/

So, I think that if Debian must think about climate change, probably it
must be focused on energy efficiency to gain more results.

Ciao
Davide
--
Database: http://www.postgresql.org
GNU/Linux User: 302090: http://counter.li.org
Non autorizzo la memorizzazione del mio indirizzo su outlook

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2022-04-08 20:35:27, Julian Andres Klode wrote:

it just occurred to me that despite the climate crisis about to
destroy us all we don't really have anything in place to monitor
and reduce our carbon emissions.

Agreed.

I believe we need to commit ourselves to reducing this, but I fear

Also, agreed.

I think Debian should commit to become carbon neutral, and then become
climate positive, and make that clear to others so that it may encourage
other projects to do the same.

I think the path to doing this starts with the commitment from the
project. If we can get that commitment, then we are a long ways towards
making this happen.

Then it is about determining the organization's carbon footprint. There
are organizations that can assist in determining this (eg. Offsetra).

Finally, deciding on a way to reconcile that footprint. This may be the contentious aspect, as not everyone will agree that the different
mechanisms that exist are the right ways to do this, but perhaps we can
delay this discussion until it is clear that Debian is committed to
making this happen.

micah

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 08:35:27PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:

Hi

it just occurred to me that despite the climate crisis about to
destroy us all we don't really have anything in place to monitor
and reduce our carbon emissions.

I believe we need to commit ourselves to reducing this, but I fear
the only way this could happen is via a general resolution amending
the constitution for climate goals, so it becomes binding.

I do have a problem with your approach of demanding strong action.

Combined with your refusal to apply it where it might not be convenient
for you.

Your principles do not matter much when you are demanding something from
other people.

Your principles do matter when they are inconvenient for YOU.

...
# Actions
...
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.

If your goal is only carbon neutrality in 2035 or 2040,
there is no discussion required from us before 2030.

If your roadmap should already include short-term reductions,
an obvious low-hanging fruit will be not to cause hundreds of
people from all over the world to fly to India in 2023.

...
# Things out of our control

I think individual travel to DebConf and similar events is somewhat
out of our control, as is the personal behavior of individual
submitters.

Debian paying for plane travel is 100% inside the control of Debian.
A policy that Debian no longer pays for plane travel would be an
obvious first step.

Abolishing DebConf bursaries for plane travel would not even require
a general resolution.

How to hold conferences is also completely inside the control of Debian.

It would not even require a general resolution for the DebConf team to
decide that DebConf is no longer held in-person to reduce our carbon
emissions.

A "binding general resolution amending the constitution for climate
goals" implies abolishing support by Debian for in-person conferences.[1] Otherwise it would be like the deplorable corporate greenwashing
practices by deplorable managers who are claiming to support climate
goals while refusing to take any action that might reduce their profits.

cu
Adrian

[1] An exemption for already confirmed DebConfs might be appropriate.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The idea is good.

There is Debian as an organisation that could immediately shift activity towards renewable resources. There are carbon neutral compute centers.
And there is something close to carbon neutral travel if investing extra
money in these tree planing institutions.

An interesting reference is IKEA (https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2021/ikea-renewable-energy/718146), producing more solar energy than it uses.

While I see no problem with the services of Debian to turn carbon
neutral, Debian should think of ways not to end here. What else could we do?

Steffen

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

While I see no problem with the services of Debian to turn carbon
neutral, Debian should think of ways not to end here. What else could we do?

please do not transform Debian in an activist project (i wont comment
on the carbon neutrality proposal). Debian has one goal: provide a
universal operating system. this is where it starts and this is where
it ends, and that's all the "else" that we can do.

You're free to support all your passions, missions and projects
OUTSIDE of Debian. The Debian project is not your echo chamber for
your activism.

Thanks,
--
Sandro "morph" Tosi
My website: http://sandrotosi.me/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi
Twitter: https://twitter.com/sandrotosi

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 13.04.22 17:01, Sandro Tosi wrote:

While I see no problem with the services of Debian to turn carbon
neutral, Debian should think of ways not to end here. What else could we do?

please do not transform Debian in an activist project (i wont comment
on the carbon neutrality proposal). Debian has one goal: provide a
universal operating system. this is where it starts and this is where
it ends, and that's all the "else" that we can do.

You have a point. And I can agree that Debian should not do anything
that is not part of being an universal operating system.

You're free to support all your passions, missions and projects
OUTSIDE of Debian. The Debian project is not your echo chamber for
your activism.

Let me rephrase this. What else can a universal operating system do for
climate neutrality?

Steffen

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 11:01:04AM -0400, Sandro Tosi wrote:

While I see no problem with the services of Debian to turn carbon
neutral, Debian should think of ways not to end here. What else could we do?

please do not transform Debian in an activist project (i wont comment
on the carbon neutrality proposal). Debian has one goal: provide a
universal operating system. this is where it starts and this is where
it ends, and that's all the "else" that we can do.

You're free to support all your passions, missions and projects
OUTSIDE of Debian. The Debian project is not your echo chamber for
your activism.

Thank you for posting this. I did not respond to the initial message
because it was difficult for me to do so constructively. You have
captured the essence of how I feel about this. Let's remain focused on
the main goal.

Regards,

-Roberto
--
Roberto C. S�nchez

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 11:01:04AM -0400, Sandro Tosi wrote:

While I see no problem with the services of Debian to turn carbon
neutral, Debian should think of ways not to end here. What else could we do?

please do not transform Debian in an activist project (i wont comment
on the carbon neutrality proposal). Debian has one goal: provide a
universal operating system. this is where it starts and this is where
it ends, and that's all the "else" that we can do.

You're free to support all your passions, missions and projects
OUTSIDE of Debian. The Debian project is not your echo chamber for
your activism.

I guess our users stop being a priority when they die by the millions due to the disruption of our climate.

--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEErEg/aN5yj0PyIC/KVo0w8yGyEz0FAmJW7O8ACgkQVo0w8yGy Ez04Og//V1F8rjm2gSmUa/8cgH8PSVmMAd6Un4Irw7BicdR8s2xccy1PoQFDRDWo KGbXKTgb9Xs8lQHVZVVDc2Hb3acW7Lr7+JuT/ZWsVv/4a1pDQYjd+sHZj4BWaBNH /OYgi+Z5NkCdmCdRxMr70t0pPg7w5kWdQB3CTATQK99oa6Ys/DAsyCPM0y3fI0pK +E+WT+gAv5Af7LjD87UCNaHfRfqkGP6iG7n+cAJGcGeWWzwObp+8po7eRRPoM9d8 I4qEd+qOZHZeld+oP1vhGjEPUuHTBuOFoXRqrkobVDTmB2y66JnJyIqjjz9GB/Nz AcF0PP2tzuY66SDm5yH0EUes7GbsH09hNuRjHF3jvfKuJeyvkpebtsZWZyPGXaa7 qpA/uu92gaj/6pfILrJoRoVM1+FP9nYcdHetdACnyWz/ig40S5qzypvxxjZCJEW5 oWF6DytarNTDiQWT4l+PYtK0O7AJ8zEsEi1U0ckHf9jB7vgHXMIWXFHXWJuuh36S Wm+0mQz6QSsDhlSd9hSSCBFsIc243eABugYYO0tjVs029tf9hWkMT40aDRpuounG 0WkmG6YD3CC/K3GMm+RN

On 13.04.22 17:29, Steffen Möller wrote:

On 13.04.22 17:01, Sandro Tosi wrote:

While I see no problem with the services of Debian to turn carbon
neutral, Debian should think of ways not to end here. What else
could we do?

please do not transform Debian in an activist project (i wont comment
on the carbon neutrality proposal). Debian has one goal: provide a
universal operating system. this is where it starts and this is where
it ends, and that's all the "else" that we can do.

You have a point. And I can agree that Debian should not do anything
that is not part of being an universal operating system.

I have seen more heated (pun intended) discussions on Debian's lists
than this one.

You're free to support all your passions, missions and projects
OUTSIDE of Debian. The Debian project is not your echo chamber for
your activism.

Let me rephrase this. What else can a universal operating system do for climate neutrality?

Was hoping for some external input. To mind come:
 * monitoring systems (I know of a provider of professional wind
turbine monitoring systems that reside on the wind turbines and run Debian)
 * billing systems for community-organised shared resources

I presume that most software tools that ship with inverters, power walls
etc are just accessible via some web interface. Nothing too much for us
to do, I presume. But whenever there is an Open API etc we could
possible point to such a Debian-compatibility.

Cheers,

Steffen

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Davide Prina <davide.prina@gmail.com> writes:

So, I think that if Debian must think about climate change, probably it
must be focused on energy efficiency to gain more results.

I agree that energy efficiency is probably the place where we could most directly contribute as a project while focusing on the things that we're
all good at. (I'm not discounting also talking about how we manage
conferences and travel, but that's more "we exist in the world" territory rather than the core focus of the project.)

A somewhat tedious and not-sexy but possibly effective place that we could focus is on ensuring modern power management features are correctly
enabled and working properly in Debian installations out of the box. My understanding is that Linux has gained quite a few facilities for reducing power consumption, not all of them are automatic, and there are some
complex interactions with other system components such as the desktop environment. There may be some low-hanging fruit here that would help
Debian consume less power by default, or places where there is no one
right decision but we could provide a low-power option to users who want
it.

This also has the advantage that, whether or not the specific framing of
this thread is inspiring to a given Debian contributor, everyone wants
longer laptop battery life and lower power bills for their data centers.

--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

--=-=-Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQJGBAEBCgAwFiEEz8XvhRCFHnNVtV6AnRFYKv1UjPoFAmJXDuYSHGdzcHJAbm9u ZW1wdHkub3JnAAoJEJ0RWCr9VIz6IpUQANK9e6hI1PXsPo+jFx9TCrYybypI4/fh FktbtZaU40CfayroFoWjYMm3I3fbPVzBgLa/+NRng3hR2/xaKQSeeZbNOoyjJVbA 6mL1nZSdh2obeov5X6+EjZrIxs4IWmmVo+ZvhUJ5YuVZ/hVz2TffLcmGamIZZH/M tCQaAs+FXX7Dmd7dG58CFfoHFzX5FacnxElADte8fy2SpUxkZDtCj2QKalS8sRb4 HcjbVEXk98kosBm8w+kZ2ozaHWgQstdPHBoPPkA3ZriFhojPY40FwFz2RLHIIP95 wFZ7TWwcclqtl2oDg3pD7SItFKRTDMWdMI3FymGILUUGsnAA3v2ghoQ3HONa4Sn9 H3zYOj6Q9f0avsK4MCwEbni59TL/L4aMb37YN06uah2fSzhfjBjmRuwdQmcsBaix TfuHMqDsAjkAuWW0sIG4+pp28fNJSY2KoI9QY1igCKgprMMjkdl/Viqh4Ekb2Mp1 XF/KDIhKAfElEQGp6nQoPVAMcaI/A+uiJUJfve2VrRHiJDmAbVB6XzIWpu9WtM/K URAt/zeso0Yfbj4vdTAXvfpB69TG5+lp7MV3gAJIIeu5cxGL9n3zHmDgBVOK2xdX JYn5uaItlT7zyS5lUlTT1sUk33MCNBkGuj2FYQ91rzCRv4v52gXE0ubRtobVFU/h
1E9CTVhd61xF
=p6I5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 11:22:24AM -0400, micah anderson wrote:

On 2022-04-08 20:35:27, Julian Andres Klode wrote:

it just occurred to me that despite the climate crisis about to
destroy us all we don't really have anything in place to monitor
and reduce our carbon emissions.

Agreed.

I believe we need to commit ourselves to reducing this, but I fear

Also, agreed.

+1 from me!

I think Debian should commit to become carbon neutral, and then become >climate positive, and make that clear to others so that it may encourage >other projects to do the same.

I think the path to doing this starts with the commitment from the
project. If we can get that commitment, then we are a long ways towards >making this happen.

Other early steps should include establishing a sub-project/group to
coordinate discussion and actions around the issue.

Then it is about determining the organization's carbon footprint. There
are organizations that can assist in determining this (eg. Offsetra).

I think this is a big part of the work required: but, the other side of
it is the software we provide that is used by others. An improvement on
that side of things would have a great deal more impact than on our own infrastructure.

Finally, deciding on a way to reconcile that footprint. This may be the >contentious aspect, as not everyone will agree that the different
mechanisms that exist are the right ways to do this, but perhaps we can
delay this discussion until it is clear that Debian is committed to
making this happen.

Makes sense to me.

--
Please do not CC me for listmail.

👱🏻 Jonathan Dowland
✎ jmtd@debian.org
🔗 https://jmtd.net

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2022-04-13 11:01, Sandro Tosi wrote:

please do not transform Debian in an activist project (i wont comment
on the carbon neutrality proposal). Debian has one goal: provide a
universal operating system. this is where it starts and this is where
it ends, and that's all the "else" that we can do.

You're free to support all your passions, missions and projects
OUTSIDE of Debian. The Debian project is not your echo chamber for
your activism.

I agree with your proposition, that Debian should focus on its goal to
provide a universal operating system. It should not become an activist
group for purposes other than free software. Debian must not participate
in occupying forrests or blocking motorways.

However, I do not see, that if Debian tries to become "carbon neutral"
(or better: just not too bad for the environment) itself, this would be activism of any form. None of Julians ideas sound like activism to me,
but more like what some companies start to do right now.

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.

Cheers

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEYQsotVz8/kXqG1Y7MRa6Xp/6aaMFAmJg0agACgkQMRa6Xp/6 aaPmmw//R/zLBAD1+Gp5iOg1jZV4zYInd/woDLoA9g7fNb/rwBahDvwNjNxbBj43 xsEQwOzR32NbDXiReea06EaA5pJ7FvMOoGTzYuyqiXLp6TnBvWyUjTiArvwRiLm7 tMYgEUwvPApAQ/kc6DIVz1KEK2fCsvTiSI5x/muzQfmlWCohVeQdR2gcSJbvzXCp zsfZcwxuXRhG8aRf8/NvoqpkVzo9plTS2sTsiEq6z6rIj0l36uu84pgMiOLOKJtw w0WduUuhxyOL1BCDt/mVk27mYcKfqNBSJSMc9MF6IgD3uKZI4h13CvtzMMt2ApHb 63ElUybRKHIl5mJM/2OQ4HacZyHf4pHFUJHm++GLusBUioq2YrZKom1co991dx23 thYlZH0vEvcuVmBPIDXwRRmYP+zfp/0nNlbBRJKA1uwrUjYOSr0J7yI/ZIS2xSI6 qK2Fk2uzDYK1I05GxbsldFqBpETVJDSeQeZw19iMEPEYt+eymXatAAuuvn6xAqp+ bQwYO8Iwcg1lFhGwGhw87n2akqX/wEoFrstKRZwZxrbjG/peZq/fG+z4kullfyYL k4UK9wJqY82J7DeRwO1KkFhFU9e9DVj1HjRrcW1WPM8V1nl2M6tXgg65BunhgbCR nua5Y1n7iVaIK7jsRFCfsZo9LLDDZzP9P0rWvlBh2bZcG+zpVUg=
=bN55
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 11:38:20AM +0800, Paul Wise a �crit :

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Am Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 10:20:16AM -0700 schrieb Russ Allbery:

This also has the advantage that, whether or not the specific framing of
this thread is inspiring to a given Debian contributor, everyone wants
longer laptop battery life and lower power bills for their data centers.

While I personally absolutely subscribe the need to reduce the carbon
footprint I think we should focus on those points (battery life and
power bill) since this also gets those persons on our side who do not
believe in climate crisis. I mean, it does not really matter why people
behave correctly as long as they do so. Thus I personally focus on
putting rather those terms in the subject.

Kind regards

Andreas.

--
http://fam-tille.de

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 09:19:33AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:

Am Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 10:20:16AM -0700 schrieb Russ Allbery:

This also has the advantage that, whether or not the specific framing of this thread is inspiring to a given Debian contributor, everyone wants longer laptop battery life and lower power bills for their data centers.

While I personally absolutely subscribe the need to reduce the carbon footprint I think we should focus on those points (battery life and
power bill) since this also gets those persons on our side who do not
believe in climate crisis. I mean, it does not really matter why people behave correctly as long as they do so. Thus I personally focus on
putting rather those terms in the subject.

I don't know. I wouldn't recommend doing it "instead", just to not
scare off hypothetical climate change deniers. Although I think it
is a very good idea to mention those points: the project is so big
that every little synergy is worth a ton (of CO₂ :)

Cheers
--
t

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iF0EABECAB0WIQRp53liolZD6iXhAoIFyCz1etHaRgUCYmutLAAKCRAFyCz1etHa RuMjAJ9iJhFcDuCt+jQqhZsWZvLDaEBTlACfShGvZXyPATQvZElndJls1DOKfzE=
=xAZ8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEET7WIqEwt3nmnTHeHb6RY3R2wP3EFAmJs6IsACgkQb6RY3R2w P3E9Ow//St/7a05Q0rKN73Ynwnka5F4CrNBryAqKpZqmd2Vx4Uc9Ac9e/CuVWruV E3/G7tCnfawcnW75um92dlzc4cHCTaZNqhhEYxESR+y5shWnyo6fJopw6AM3YItv wPkzd6uMHxkMTkT5fuWOdYVIrAGSjkxrT49yQ5zYprcYF3+6DZseoEBjsJEVR4om V/MVPuj5/UR3RrqpBTzylFmZhyG3Gjm1filUDu1roF9hJ7ovAjYo9nzXmGnModZi PevdNl9inhrV9GwLt9F24CCWEh/AkwTKaNPXsvtWZYY58/BueOsATF4IHW6YfhKr ptv8OwbbbGJBv74VWFTtypjU9yHPjEgPzU3ugv7CH7Igx1b/OuZIHQoyt8IjYdbR pKhziqVvqYzKqnhN0XsvtfQVhDQMKueR0tsbE1smEIc99UOvGoqgCrVLDSYWbCvY WPWgMK24TV72jW8AN2JUS3RcRx/qrHt4XxPQ8rN2JXLKus0ZHk5xlcY9VeoE2OcI WUPJJin18GR9T0BxgH53WVyAk5jC2pFQ3IPrK4+4/rcHzegZAed6LhruXkeDfdyw 4YOdFByAhenKNM7IUJ0ew/+FjTWFJ/+MdMNdcyy3Gezc8hZqGSB9SGv7ptSFiqzw X5WUNPMt9XZVS+yer9QReBfvl7F47RfEnp+y6r4ejhF2frh+shI=
=luFK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Ori

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)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iF0EABECAB0WIQRp53liolZD6iXhAoIFyCz1etHaRgUCYn6QTwAKCRAFyCz1etHa RgHWAJ4mMb6QyenbaI2DTdnHHo7QgW0E8gCdHJdOzYmI/K0svqo89udF9CmxI9Y=
=H9nG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 10:36:34AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:

Other early steps should include establishing a sub-project/group to >coordinate discussion and actions around the issue.

I still think this. Perhaps starting with a dedicated mailing list; debian-sustainability or debian-climate or debian-?

Does anyone interested in this topic feel strongly for or against the
idea of creating a list to discuss taking it further?


Thanks,

--
Please do not CC me for listmail.

👱🏻 Jonathan Dowland
✎ jmtd@debian.org
🔗 https://jmtd.net

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2022-09-21 06:49, Jonathan Dowland wrote:

I still think this. Perhaps starting with a dedicated mailing list; debian-sustainability or debian-climate or debian-?

Does anyone interested in this topic feel strongly for or against the
idea of creating a list to discuss taking it further?

I don't feel strongly about it, but I would subscribe.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 06:49:59AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland a �crit :

On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 10:36:34AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:

Other early steps should include establishing a sub-project/group to coordinate discussion and actions around the issue.

I still think this. Perhaps starting with a dedicated mailing list; debian-sustainability or debian-climate or debian-?

Hi Jonathan,

I think that such a list could be very useful and I would join it,
hoping that eventually I will learn or acheive something that will
help to reduce the environmental footprint of my research center.

Just to clarify, in your opinion would each of the following topics be appropriate on this list ?

- Reducing the environmental footprint of the Debian project.
- Reducing the environmental footprint of systems running Debian.
- Using Debian to reduce the environmental footprint of individual or
societies.

If the answer is no, I would recommend to pick a name that clearly hints
to the preferred topic.

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)