Re: We need to define a path for Debian to climate neutrality
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
Reply to: