Re: Travel Considerations
On Oct 12, 2007, at 11:24 PM, Fred Baker wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I asked James this privately, but if we're going to get into an off- topic discussion of global warming, I'll ask it publicly to whoever has a good answer. We all agree that global warming is happening. If you go to the terminal moraine, the farthest south that the ice went doing the largest or perhaps the most recent ice age, and you don't see any ice, the earth is provably warmer than it once was. That said, do we not see ice at the terminal moraine because people drive SUVs, or because warming and cooling is something that has been happening since God created the earth? In the latter case, specifically what scientific evidence do we have that our current global warming event (which started in the 16th century, which was a mini-ice-age) is related to emissions? What scientific evidence do we have that changing emissions behavior will change global warming in any way? ridiculously off topic - you have been warned Dear Fred; As a physicist who worked a little in climate change in the late 1980's, let me give a capsule answer and then shut up. I will look, in turn, at the Greenhouse effect, at the CO2 changes, and at possible effects of the ongoing human forcing of the climate. If the Earth's atmosphere did not trap heat, the mean surface temperature would be well below freezing. This math is not too difficult; you know the solar constant (input heating), mean albedo and rotation rate (the Earth warms during the day, cools at night by radiation) and you set up a spherically uniform model, which can be solved analytically. Instead, the Earth's mean surface is above freezing. (Supposedly, at this moment as I write the globally mean surface temp is 6.72 C, but the annual average is more like 14 C. The Northern hemisphere, having a good deal more land, dominates the annual cycle.) The difference between observed and no-atmosphere predicted mean temperatures for the Earth is about 40 C. This difference is caused by the so called Greenhouse effect, the blockage of IR radiation out from the Earth's surface. (Actual Greenhouses work mostly by stopping convection, not IR heat loss.) This blockage is mostly due to CO2, but Methane (from cows!) and other trace gases are also important, as is water vapor due to its prevalence. The simple uniform models do a reasonable job predicting the average lunar temperature; the lunar mean surface temperature is -50 C, which shows what an atmosphere can do for you. Thus, there is no doubt of the existence of the Greenhouse effect; not only does the physics work out approximately well not only for the Earth and Moon, but also for Mars (a little Greenhouse, but noticeable) and Venus. Venus is a very interesting case, being so similar to the Earth in size and composition. On the Earth, CO2 is mostly in certain rocks, like limestone, then dissolved in the Oceans, then in the Atmosphere, by a relative proportion of roughly 10,000:50:1. On Venus, a comparable amount of CO2 is all in the atmosphere, and, as a result, the surface is very hot (mean temperature ~ 460 C). This is _not_ primarily due it being closer to the Sun, if it had terrestrial oceans and a terrestrial atmosphere, it would be a temperate place. (By isotopic evidence Venus used to have oceans, but it lost them - note that the rocks that contain CO2 here would mostly give it up at 400+ C - apparently, once Venus heated up all the CO2 went into the atmosphere and now it can never cool down.) So, we have 4 objects (Earth, Moon, Venus, Mars), 3 of which have Greenhouse effects, and for all 4 of which we can calculate the observed surface temperatures reasonably well from fairly simple first principles. So, I regard the greenhouse effect as about as well proven as anything in planetary physics. You might have seen in the press that we just passed the 50th anniversary of Sputnik 1; this being launched as part of the IGY. As another part of the IGY, we started measuring CO2 from the top of Mauna Loa, Hawaii, on a daily basis. This is not only the longest CO2 measurement series, but it's also a good place to do it, as the top of the volcano is above the local effects, and samples air mixed over a good portion of the Northern hemisphere. These and other data show without a doubt that the CO2 is rising, and match reasonably well with estimates of human forcing. Other trace gases are also important, and they are also increasing (such as methane from increased beef production). Now, it is true that when you go a little further into the physics, things get messy fast. There are sources and sinks of everything. (If the top 50 meters of the oceans warm, will that increase or decrease the dissolved CO2 ?Will increased CO2 make forests grow faster and thus absorb more CO2 ? What about
Re: Travel Considerations
Here we go Copious amounts of data...graphs...formulas...models...scientists predicting doom and humans are the cause. Where have I heard this before? Oh yea, the Club of Rome. Their copious amounts of data, graphs, models and formulas, predicted mass starvation and that economic growth would grind to a halt in the late 20th century. This was right before the largest peacetime expansion of the global economy in history! And wasn't there a coming Ice Age being predicted back then? It is quite anthrocentric to attribute things we cannot fully explain to humans but if humans are increasing the amount of C02 in the atmosphere and it is CO2 that is causing the increase in global warming then there is a simple thing each and everyone of us can do that will certainly make a win for the planet: stop breathing. Before anyone suggests I go first I will confirm suspicions that while I do not doubt that temperatures are rising I do doubt that human behavior can change it. And while we're recommending books let me recommend the fantastic The Vision of The Annointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy by Thomas Sowell, ISBN: 0-465-08994-1, Harper Collins. Dan. On Fri, October 12, 2007 10:55 pm, Marshall Eubanks wrote: On Oct 12, 2007, at 11:24 PM, Fred Baker wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I asked James this privately, but if we're going to get into an off- topic discussion of global warming, I'll ask it publicly to whoever has a good answer. We all agree that global warming is happening. If you go to the terminal moraine, the farthest south that the ice went doing the largest or perhaps the most recent ice age, and you don't see any ice, the earth is provably warmer than it once was. That said, do we not see ice at the terminal moraine because people drive SUVs, or because warming and cooling is something that has been happening since God created the earth? In the latter case, specifically what scientific evidence do we have that our current global warming event (which started in the 16th century, which was a mini-ice-age) is related to emissions? What scientific evidence do we have that changing emissions behavior will change global warming in any way? ridiculously off topic - you have been warned Dear Fred; As a physicist who worked a little in climate change in the late 1980's, let me give a capsule answer and then shut up. I will look, in turn, at the Greenhouse effect, at the CO2 changes, and at possible effects of the ongoing human forcing of the climate. If the Earth's atmosphere did not trap heat, the mean surface temperature would be well below freezing. This math is not too difficult; you know the solar constant (input heating), mean albedo and rotation rate (the Earth warms during the day, cools at night by radiation) and you set up a spherically uniform model, which can be solved analytically. Instead, the Earth's mean surface is above freezing. (Supposedly, at this moment as I write the globally mean surface temp is 6.72 C, but the annual average is more like 14 C. The Northern hemisphere, having a good deal more land, dominates the annual cycle.) The difference between observed and no-atmosphere predicted mean temperatures for the Earth is about 40 C. This difference is caused by the so called Greenhouse effect, the blockage of IR radiation out from the Earth's surface. (Actual Greenhouses work mostly by stopping convection, not IR heat loss.) This blockage is mostly due to CO2, but Methane (from cows!) and other trace gases are also important, as is water vapor due to its prevalence. The simple uniform models do a reasonable job predicting the average lunar temperature; the lunar mean surface temperature is -50 C, which shows what an atmosphere can do for you. Thus, there is no doubt of the existence of the Greenhouse effect; not only does the physics work out approximately well not only for the Earth and Moon, but also for Mars (a little Greenhouse, but noticeable) and Venus. Venus is a very interesting case, being so similar to the Earth in size and composition. On the Earth, CO2 is mostly in certain rocks, like limestone, then dissolved in the Oceans, then in the Atmosphere, by a relative proportion of roughly 10,000:50:1. On Venus, a comparable amount of CO2 is all in the atmosphere, and, as a result, the surface is very hot (mean temperature ~ 460 C). This is _not_ primarily due it being closer to the Sun, if it had terrestrial oceans and a terrestrial atmosphere, it would be a temperate place. (By isotopic evidence Venus used to have oceans, but it lost them - note that the rocks that contain CO2 here would mostly give it up at 400+ C - apparently, once Venus heated up all the CO2 went into the atmosphere and now it can never cool down.) So, we have 4 objects (Earth, Moon, Venus, Mars), 3 of which have Greenhouse effects, and for all 4 of which we can calculate
Re: Travel Considerations
Please save the planet by working on a better Internet, not by posting to an off-topic mail thread. Jari ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Travel Considerations
Jari Arkko wrote: Please save the planet by working on a better Internet, not by posting to an off-topic mail thread. Perhaps the IETF should consider purchasing carbon credits for each standards track document produced :) Darryl (Dassa) Lynch ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Travel Considerations
You're assuming that if 1000 people decide not to fly to Prague some weekend that the number of planes burning jet fuel to fly there will be different. I don't think so. Maybe you can start a Boycott Prague The Spoke City campaign which, if wildly successful, will reduce demand to fly there by some discernable amount and thereby reduce the number of planes flying there and the amount of jet fuel they would've burned. Well, as long as the planes that aren't flying to Prague aren't used to fly to Heathrow or Frankfurt or some other hub city. Also doubtful. I do not intend on making ietf-discuss into a forum for discussing the pluses and minuses resulting from a degree centigrade temperature change but let me just say that the planet wins is a somewhat dubious statement. Dan. On Fri, October 12, 2007 7:32 am, Eric Burger wrote: Here is an interesting optimization problem: it turns out the most polluting part of a conference is people taking jets to fly to the conference. Minimize that and the planet wins. Favors hub cities over spokes, like San Diego or Prague, where you can't get there from here, no matter where here is. See http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/318/5847/36.pdf Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Travel Considerations
On Oct 12, 2007, at 10:32 AM, Eric Burger wrote: Here is an interesting optimization problem: it turns out the most polluting part of a conference is people taking jets to fly to the conference. Minimize that and the planet wins. Favors hub cities over spokes, like San Diego or Prague, where you can't get there from here, no matter where here is. See http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/318/5847/36.pdf If the Internet really uses 9.4% of total US electricity consumption, as is claimed here, http://uclue.com/index.php?xq=724 then the problem is much worse than travel to IETF meetings. Regards Marshall Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Travel Considerations
Eric Burger wrote: Here is an interesting optimization problem: it turns out the most polluting part of a conference is people taking jets to fly to the conference. Minimize that and the planet wins. Favors hub cities over spokes, like San Diego or Prague, where you can't get there from here, no matter where here is. Ecological arguments merely add to the list of reasons that major international hubs are the better choice. Additional travel time for each participant. Typically additional travel cost. Travel connections, that introduce subsantially higher risks of delays, lost luggage, etc. Fragile air linkage -- fewer carriers and fewer flights means that it is easier to interrupt service. The only logistical factor that can be in favor of secondary venues is cost. If the on-site costs are low enough, they might offset the travel factors that increase the cost. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Travel Considerations
Whoops. Didn't realize it. I'll see if I can get permission to post it. Summary is the vast percentage of emissions related to conferences is key fuel. -- Sent from my wireless e-mail device. Sorry if terse. We all need lemonade: see http://www.standardstrack.com/ietf/lemonade for what lemonade is. - Original Message - From: Stewart Bryant [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Eric Burger Cc: ietf@ietf.org ietf@ietf.org Sent: Fri Oct 12 07:59:42 2007 Subject: Re: Travel Considerations Eric Burger wrote: See http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/318/5847/36.pdf Which seems to be only available to those prepared to pay. Stewart Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Travel Considerations
Eric Burger wrote: See http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/318/5847/36.pdf Which seems to be only available to those prepared to pay. Stewart ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Travel Considerations
Wow, has this conversation wandered into the weeds, or what? Time out for station identification; this is the Internet Engineering Task Force. Thanks! -- Eric Gray Principal Engineer Ericsson -Original Message- From: James M. Polk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 3:18 PM To: Dan Harkins; Eric Burger Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Travel Considerations Unfortunately, using this logic -- I can buy a tank and get 2 gallons-to-the-mile mileage because the rest of the planet (or at least America) is still buying SUVs that get horrible mileage too, since there will be nearly an unmeasurable difference to global warming if I drive my tank or not... so why not drive it anyway. There is an individual responsibility to change what we each can change to help. As an organization, we can have a greater positive affect if we reduce demand for such spoke flights by only flying to hub sites of major airlines -- if we're going to continue to meet in person. If other organizations see ours as an example, and do the same, then the positive affect is greater on us doing the right thing... Doing the right thing in mass has to start somewhere -- why does it have to start somewhere else here? It's Friday... At 01:30 PM 10/12/2007, Dan Harkins wrote: You're assuming that if 1000 people decide not to fly to Prague some weekend that the number of planes burning jet fuel to fly there will be different. I don't think so. Maybe you can start a Boycott Prague The Spoke City campaign which, if wildly successful, will reduce demand to fly there by some discernable amount and thereby reduce the number of planes flying there and the amount of jet fuel they would've burned. Well, as long as the planes that aren't flying to Prague aren't used to fly to Heathrow or Frankfurt or some other hub city. Also doubtful. I do not intend on making ietf-discuss into a forum for discussing the pluses and minuses resulting from a degree centigrade temperature change but let me just say that the planet wins is a somewhat dubious statement. Dan. On Fri, October 12, 2007 7:32 am, Eric Burger wrote: Here is an interesting optimization problem: it turns out the most polluting part of a conference is people taking jets to fly to the conference. Minimize that and the planet wins. Favors hub cities over spokes, like San Diego or Prague, where you can't get there from here, no matter where here is. See http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/318/5847/36.pdf Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Travel Considerations
Unfortunately, using this logic -- I can buy a tank and get 2 gallons-to-the-mile mileage because the rest of the planet (or at least America) is still buying SUVs that get horrible mileage too, since there will be nearly an unmeasurable difference to global warming if I drive my tank or not... so why not drive it anyway. There is an individual responsibility to change what we each can change to help. As an organization, we can have a greater positive affect if we reduce demand for such spoke flights by only flying to hub sites of major airlines -- if we're going to continue to meet in person. If other organizations see ours as an example, and do the same, then the positive affect is greater on us doing the right thing... Doing the right thing in mass has to start somewhere -- why does it have to start somewhere else here? It's Friday... At 01:30 PM 10/12/2007, Dan Harkins wrote: You're assuming that if 1000 people decide not to fly to Prague some weekend that the number of planes burning jet fuel to fly there will be different. I don't think so. Maybe you can start a Boycott Prague The Spoke City campaign which, if wildly successful, will reduce demand to fly there by some discernable amount and thereby reduce the number of planes flying there and the amount of jet fuel they would've burned. Well, as long as the planes that aren't flying to Prague aren't used to fly to Heathrow or Frankfurt or some other hub city. Also doubtful. I do not intend on making ietf-discuss into a forum for discussing the pluses and minuses resulting from a degree centigrade temperature change but let me just say that the planet wins is a somewhat dubious statement. Dan. On Fri, October 12, 2007 7:32 am, Eric Burger wrote: Here is an interesting optimization problem: it turns out the most polluting part of a conference is people taking jets to fly to the conference. Minimize that and the planet wins. Favors hub cities over spokes, like San Diego or Prague, where you can't get there from here, no matter where here is. See http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/318/5847/36.pdf Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Travel Considerations
On 10/12/07 3:31 PM, Eric Gray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Time out for station identification; this is the Internet Engineering Task Force. I tend to think of it as at least in part an engineering question. Obvious questions about tradeoffs and whatnot, and then the question of engineering for errors/exceptions. What are the consequences of assuming x and being incorrect? What are the consequences of being incorrect about the alternative? etc. Melinda ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Travel Considerations
Hi James, I think you're missing the point. I'm not advocating being wasteful because everyone else is. I'm saying that this effort is futile and will not result in _any_ win for the planet. Your analogy to driving an SUV is incorrect because not driving the SUV (or driving an electric car instead) results in less emissions. A trivial amount but every little bit helps. Flying 1000 people to Frankfurt instead of Prague does not result in any less emissions. Encouraging other organizations to follow our lead-- having 1 people scattered over the course of a year fly to a hub instead of through the hub to a spoke-- won't either. The demand is still there to fly to places like Prague and San Diego and airlines typically fly at less than 100% capacity, sometimes significantly so. If you think there is an individual responsibility to change what you can then please don't waste your effort on something that won't have any effect! Do something that will make a difference. I for one would rather fly to (spoke) Prague than (hub) Frankfurt; to (spoke) San Diego than to (hub) Chicago; and anywhere (spoke) on God's green earth (yes, it's still green in spite of the IETF World Tour) than (hub) London. Dan. On Fri, October 12, 2007 12:17 pm, James M. Polk wrote: Unfortunately, using this logic -- I can buy a tank and get 2 gallons-to-the-mile mileage because the rest of the planet (or at least America) is still buying SUVs that get horrible mileage too, since there will be nearly an unmeasurable difference to global warming if I drive my tank or not... so why not drive it anyway. There is an individual responsibility to change what we each can change to help. As an organization, we can have a greater positive affect if we reduce demand for such spoke flights by only flying to hub sites of major airlines -- if we're going to continue to meet in person. If other organizations see ours as an example, and do the same, then the positive affect is greater on us doing the right thing... Doing the right thing in mass has to start somewhere -- why does it have to start somewhere else here? It's Friday... At 01:30 PM 10/12/2007, Dan Harkins wrote: You're assuming that if 1000 people decide not to fly to Prague some weekend that the number of planes burning jet fuel to fly there will be different. I don't think so. Maybe you can start a Boycott Prague The Spoke City campaign which, if wildly successful, will reduce demand to fly there by some discernable amount and thereby reduce the number of planes flying there and the amount of jet fuel they would've burned. Well, as long as the planes that aren't flying to Prague aren't used to fly to Heathrow or Frankfurt or some other hub city. Also doubtful. I do not intend on making ietf-discuss into a forum for discussing the pluses and minuses resulting from a degree centigrade temperature change but let me just say that the planet wins is a somewhat dubious statement. Dan. On Fri, October 12, 2007 7:32 am, Eric Burger wrote: Here is an interesting optimization problem: it turns out the most polluting part of a conference is people taking jets to fly to the conference. Minimize that and the planet wins. Favors hub cities over spokes, like San Diego or Prague, where you can't get there from here, no matter where here is. See http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/318/5847/36.pdf Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Travel Considerations
If 1000 fewer people board planes, I'm pretty sure it consumes some trivial amount less in jet fuel, simply due to the lighter weight of the plane. But that difference would be more than made up by the proximity of the hotel to the airport and available mass transit to it, which would put San Diego's Sheraton pretty high up on the list. Also, there is probably some proportional relationship of how many people attend the IETF meetings compared to the reachability of their locations; so having it at hub airports may be worse, and we should really have it at less accessible destinations... such as an island in the middle of a big ocean. Therefore, I vote for Kauai, Hawaii, as the future permanent host island. -hadriel -Original Message- From: Dan Harkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 5:03 PM To: James M. Polk Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Travel Considerations Hi James, I think you're missing the point. I'm not advocating being wasteful because everyone else is. I'm saying that this effort is futile and will not result in _any_ win for the planet. Your analogy to driving an SUV is incorrect because not driving the SUV (or driving an electric car instead) results in less emissions. A trivial amount but every little bit helps. Flying 1000 people to Frankfurt instead of Prague does not result in any less emissions. Encouraging other organizations to follow our lead-- having 1 people scattered over the course of a year fly to a hub instead of through the hub to a spoke-- won't either. The demand is still there to fly to places like Prague and San Diego and airlines typically fly at less than 100% capacity, sometimes significantly so. If you think there is an individual responsibility to change what you can then please don't waste your effort on something that won't have any effect! Do something that will make a difference. I for one would rather fly to (spoke) Prague than (hub) Frankfurt; to (spoke) San Diego than to (hub) Chicago; and anywhere (spoke) on God's green earth (yes, it's still green in spite of the IETF World Tour) than (hub) London. Dan. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Travel Considerations
On 10/12/07, Hadriel Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If 1000 fewer people board planes, I'm pretty sure it consumes some trivial amount less in jet fuel, simply due to the lighter weight of the plane. But that difference would be more than made up by the proximity of the hotel to the airport and available mass transit to it, which would put San Diego's Sheraton pretty high up on the list. Also, there is probably some proportional relationship of how many people attend the IETF meetings compared to the reachability of their locations; so having it at hub airports may be worse, and we should really have it at less accessible destinations... such as an island in the middle of a big ocean. Therefore, I vote for Kauai, Hawaii, as the future permanent host island. +1 -hadriel -Original Message- From: Dan Harkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 5:03 PM To: James M. Polk Cc: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Re: Travel Considerations Hi James, I think you're missing the point. I'm not advocating being wasteful because everyone else is. I'm saying that this effort is futile and will not result in _any_ win for the planet. Your analogy to driving an SUV is incorrect because not driving the SUV (or driving an electric car instead) results in less emissions. A trivial amount but every little bit helps. Flying 1000 people to Frankfurt instead of Prague does not result in any less emissions. Encouraging other organizations to follow our lead-- having 1 people scattered over the course of a year fly to a hub instead of through the hub to a spoke-- won't either. The demand is still there to fly to places like Prague and San Diego and airlines typically fly at less than 100% capacity, sometimes significantly so. If you think there is an individual responsibility to change what you can then please don't waste your effort on something that won't have any effect! Do something that will make a difference. I for one would rather fly to (spoke) Prague than (hub) Frankfurt; to (spoke) San Diego than to (hub) Chicago; and anywhere (spoke) on God's green earth (yes, it's still green in spite of the IETF World Tour) than (hub) London. Dan. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf -- Clint (JOATMON) Chaplin Principal Engineer Corporate Standardization (US) SISA ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
RE: Travel Considerations
Here is an interesting optimization problem: it turns out the most polluting part of a conference is people taking jets to fly to the conference. Minimize that and the planet wins. Simple solution. Only allow people to attend if they take a train or bus to the conference. Enforce this by including tickets for train or bus (your choice) when registering to attend a conference. It makes trans-continental conferences impossible (although you might add an ocean liner option) but that is not necessarily a bad thing. What is wrong with have several different continental chapters of the IETF, given that all decisionmaking is supposed to be done online, not in meetings? --Michael Dillon P.S. if you look at a map of Europe, Prague is rather centrally located an makes an ideal location for a green conference like this. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Travel Considerations
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Mr Chairman, I have a suggestion. I suggest that we have a BOF at the next IETF on heat transfer issues, and subsequently open a working group. It can deal with this issue right after it solves the leakage current problem in fine lithography silicon, which I imagine contributes quite a bit to the use of electricity by the Internet. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iD8DBQFHEDqZbjEdbHIsm0MRAn8DAKDJqy0i4AFofEMKBGrmaWs1c0yOsACgqKx+ NHxE0PUARkk7FPcMiPJuGzE= =8u8Y -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Travel Considerations
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I asked James this privately, but if we're going to get into an off- topic discussion of global warming, I'll ask it publicly to whoever has a good answer. We all agree that global warming is happening. If you go to the terminal moraine, the farthest south that the ice went doing the largest or perhaps the most recent ice age, and you don't see any ice, the earth is provably warmer than it once was. That said, do we not see ice at the terminal moraine because people drive SUVs, or because warming and cooling is something that has been happening since God created the earth? In the latter case, specifically what scientific evidence do we have that our current global warming event (which started in the 16th century, which was a mini-ice-age) is related to emissions? What scientific evidence do we have that changing emissions behavior will change global warming in any way? On Oct 13, 2007, at 12:03 AM, Dan Harkins wrote: Hi James, I think you're missing the point. I'm not advocating being wasteful because everyone else is. I'm saying that this effort is futile and will not result in _any_ win for the planet. Your analogy to driving an SUV is incorrect because not driving the SUV (or driving an electric car instead) results in less emissions. A trivial amount but every little bit helps. Flying 1000 people to Frankfurt instead of Prague does not result in any less emissions. Encouraging other organizations to follow our lead-- having 1 people scattered over the course of a year fly to a hub instead of through the hub to a spoke-- won't either. The demand is still there to fly to places like Prague and San Diego and airlines typically fly at less than 100% capacity, sometimes significantly so. If you think there is an individual responsibility to change what you can then please don't waste your effort on something that won't have any effect! Do something that will make a difference. I for one would rather fly to (spoke) Prague than (hub) Frankfurt; to (spoke) San Diego than to (hub) Chicago; and anywhere (spoke) on God's green earth (yes, it's still green in spite of the IETF World Tour) than (hub) London. Dan. On Fri, October 12, 2007 12:17 pm, James M. Polk wrote: Unfortunately, using this logic -- I can buy a tank and get 2 gallons-to-the-mile mileage because the rest of the planet (or at least America) is still buying SUVs that get horrible mileage too, since there will be nearly an unmeasurable difference to global warming if I drive my tank or not... so why not drive it anyway. There is an individual responsibility to change what we each can change to help. As an organization, we can have a greater positive affect if we reduce demand for such spoke flights by only flying to hub sites of major airlines -- if we're going to continue to meet in person. If other organizations see ours as an example, and do the same, then the positive affect is greater on us doing the right thing... Doing the right thing in mass has to start somewhere -- why does it have to start somewhere else here? It's Friday... At 01:30 PM 10/12/2007, Dan Harkins wrote: You're assuming that if 1000 people decide not to fly to Prague some weekend that the number of planes burning jet fuel to fly there will be different. I don't think so. Maybe you can start a Boycott Prague The Spoke City campaign which, if wildly successful, will reduce demand to fly there by some discernable amount and thereby reduce the number of planes flying there and the amount of jet fuel they would've burned. Well, as long as the planes that aren't flying to Prague aren't used to fly to Heathrow or Frankfurt or some other hub city. Also doubtful. I do not intend on making ietf-discuss into a forum for discussing the pluses and minuses resulting from a degree centigrade temperature change but let me just say that the planet wins is a somewhat dubious statement. Dan. On Fri, October 12, 2007 7:32 am, Eric Burger wrote: Here is an interesting optimization problem: it turns out the most polluting part of a conference is people taking jets to fly to the conference. Minimize that and the planet wins. Favors hub cities over spokes, like San Diego or Prague, where you can't get there from here, no matter where here is. See http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/318/5847/36.pdf Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org
