Re: Greening of Streaming

Hi Neil,

<<
If we reduced a website's homepage from say 3MB to 500KB, that will not
directly reduce emissions in the network because the overall energy needed
to pump data around the internet will not be affected by that reduction;
the various pieces of hardware will still be turned on regardless of
whether that reduction occurs or not. This might be overly simplistic, but
is that broadly true?
>>
Yes. That's it. Environmental impacts will occur whether or not you use the
network, as 80% of the impacts are concentrated in the manufacturing of
internet user boxes/gateways and their power consumption. The boxes remain
ON 24 hours a day whether we use them or not. Regarding the core network of
telecom operators, which concentrates 20% of the impacts, it is the same
situation: the network is deployed and turned ON whether it is used or not.
<<
Depending on how we achieved that reduction (e.g. image compression,
removal of JS etc), can we be confident that we will have reduced battery
drain or power usage on the person's device? If we really want to push this
point, we could think about how that helps elongate the life of devices? By
that I mean, reducing the strain on devices to download and execute
excessive code will help them last longer.
>>
On the Internet user's smartphone/computer side, it is manufacturing that
concentrates the impacts. We must therefore avoid prematurely triggering
terminal obsolescence. An old smartphone or computer connected to the end
of a DSL line will have more difficulty displaying a 3 MB image in an
acceptable time than a 500 KB image.

<<
I've seen it mentioned before that the thing that increases emissions in
the network is when new hardware has to be deployed to cope with high peak
loads. Given that page weight has increased 77% on desktop and 149% on
mobile
<https://httparchive.org/reports/page-weight?start=2015_12_01&end=latest&view=list>,
do you think that this level of increase has played a part in increasing
that peak load? To ask it another way, perhaps more provocatively, if there
had been significant decreases to the average page weight, do you think
network emissions would have reduced as a consequence? The IEA
says: Estimated global data centre electricity consumption in 2022 was
240-340 TWh, or around 1-1.3% of global final electricity demand, which is
a 10-55% increase from 2015.
>>
There is clearly a correlation between the weight of content accessed from
the Internet and the updating of the hardware constituting the network. In
30 years, we have gone from connection at 2.4 KB/s to 24 MB/s without the
TTFB improving considerably. The bigger the pipes, the more we fill them. See
Wirth's law on this subject.

<<
I've also seen papers where the conclusion is that network devices increase
their power consumption by a tiny fraction when data transfer through them
increases (this might be out of date thinking if that latest research says
that there is no increase at all?). A conclusion that some have drawn is
that website page size therefore doesn't matter when thinking about the
emissions caused by websites. But with a tiny fraction of power increases
based on data passing through the network, a 60% increase in internet users
and those users consuming increasingly large websites/software, could data
transfer/file size be an important factor alongside aggressively blocking
bots, carbon aware computing, genuine renewable energy powered data
centres, minimising data centre footprint etc etc?
>>
The most important parameters - those that determine the amount of
environmental impacts - are, in descending order:
1. size and depth of the DOM,
2. number of HTTP requests,
3. content's weight.

Best,
Fred


Le lun. 13 nov. 2023 à 18:21, Neil Clark <neil.clark@tpximpact.com> a
écrit :

> Hey Dom and Frédéric,
>
> Sorry about being late to this email string!
>
> I am very far from a data centre or networks expert so I am trying to come
> at this from the perspective of explaining it to others in a similar
> position to me whilst also trying to encourage action on emissions
> reduction. So here goes a few points which I would love your opinion on.
> I'm not trying to disagree with anything said so far on this thread, I just
> want to highlight some of the nuances in the debate because I do think
> reducing data transfer is a good thing when looking at how to reduce the
> impact the digital industry has on the planet.
>
>    - If we reduced a website's homepage from say 3MB to 500KB, that will
>    not directly reduce emissions in the network because the overall energy
>    needed to pump data around the internet will not be affected by that
>    reduction; the various pieces of hardware will still be turned on
>    regardless of whether that reduction occurs or not. This might be overly
>    simplistic, but is that broadly true?
>    - Depending on how we achieved that reduction (e.g. image compression,
>    removal of JS etc), can we be confident that we will have reduced battery
>    drain or power usage on the person's device? If we really want to push this
>    point, we could think about how that helps elongate the life of devices? By
>    that I mean, reducing the strain on devices to download and execute
>    excessive code will help them last longer.
>    - I've seen it mentioned before that the thing that increases
>    emissions in the network is when new hardware has to be deployed to cope
>    with high peak loads. Given that page weight has increased 77% on
>    desktop and 149% on mobile
>    <https://httparchive.org/reports/page-weight?start=2015_12_01&end=latest&view=list>,
>    do you think that this level of increase has played a part in increasing
>    that peak load? To ask it another way, perhaps more provocatively, if there
>    had been significant decreases to the average page weight, do you think
>    network emissions would have reduced as a consequence? The IEA
>    says: Estimated global data centre electricity consumption in 2022 was
>    240-340 TWh, or around 1-1.3% of global final electricity demand, which is
>    a 10-55% increase from 2015.
>    - I've also seen papers where the conclusion is that network devices
>    increase their power consumption by a tiny fraction when data transfer
>    through them increases (this might be out of date thinking if that latest
>    research says that there is no increase at all?). A conclusion that some
>    have drawn is that website page size therefore doesn't matter when thinking
>    about the emissions caused by websites. But with a tiny fraction of power
>    increases based on data passing through the network, a 60% increase in
>    internet users and those users consuming increasingly large
>    websites/software, could data transfer/file size be an important factor
>    alongside aggressively blocking bots, carbon aware computing, genuine
>    renewable energy powered data centres, minimising data centre footprint etc
>    etc?
>
> I know that jumps around a lot but I think this is such an important
> debate; maybe a call is best for this!? I don't want it to be simplified
> down to "data transfer doesn't matter" and equally I don't want to use an
> overly simplified approach to calculations based on data transfer alone.
>
> I think there are lots of solutions to the impact of the digital industry
> and, whilst I want to be realistic about the scale of it's impact, I really
> think the weight of the code we're producing as an industry is a vital part
> of the puzzle. I feel a bit uneasy about drawing attention to the
> production of devices like TVs because that isn't in the sphere of
> influence of the software industry. Yes it's important to debate but I want
> us to focus on what we're sending to those devices. We're in every gram
> counts territory with the climate emergency and I want to empower different
> people/organisations/industries who have different capabilities to
> contribute meaningfully.
>
> Cheers
>
>
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 at 15:03, Frédéric Bordage <info@greenit.fr> wrote:
>
>> Hello Dom,
>>
>> You are right. On fixed links (FTTH / xDSL), there is no linearity /
>> correlation between the quantity of data exchanged and the associated
>> environmental impacts. In France, the most in-depth study ever carried
>> out on this subject demonstrates this “linearity bias”. We carried out
>> this LCA as part of the implementation of article 13 of the AGEC law. All
>> French telecom operators have shared their data.
>>
>> On the other hand, there is the beginning of a correlation between data
>> quantity and env. impacts on 4G / 5G mobile links.
>>
>> At the end of the day, the key point is to avoid traffic jams during peak
>> hours so as not to have to deploy a new physical network (migration from 4G
>> to 5G for example or from ADSL to fiber for example). Because it is the
>> deployment of the physical network which concentrates the environmental
>> impacts, particularly the last mile/local loop.
>>
>> Furthermore, another LCA that we carried out on streaming formally
>> demonstrates that it is the production of the TV which concentrates 70% to
>> 90% of the environmental impacts. The results are more balanced in the
>> smartphone / mobile scenario.
>>
>> Best, Fred
>>
>> Frédéric Bordage
>> GreenIT.fr founder
>> +33 6 16 95 96 01
>>
>> Created in 2004, GreenIT.fr is the non-profit association that brings
>> together the experts at the origin of digital sobriety, digital service
>> eco-design and slow.tech initiatives. GreenIT.fr leads the Club Green IT and
>> co-founded the NegaOctet.org (LCA consortium). Every year we publish the
>> Benchmark Green IT.
>>
>> Last books published (French)
>> Ecoconception web, les 115 bonnes pratiques, Eyrolles, 2012-2022 (4ème
>> éd.)
>> Tendre vers la sobriété numérique, Actes Sud, 2021
>> Sobriété numérique les clés pour agir, Buchet-Chastel, 2019
>>
>> Le ven. 29 sept. 2023 à 10:42, Dom Robinson <dom@id3as.co.uk> a écrit :
>>
>>> Hi folks
>>>
>>> I run an organisation www.greeningofstreaming.org
>>>
>>> The Guidelines just out caught my eye
>>> https://www.w3.org/community/sustyweb/2023/09/07/web-sustainability-guidelines/
>>>
>>> I would love to chat a bit more about this.
>>>
>>> Fundamentally research we have carried out and continue to carry out is
>>> clearly showing that in the distribution networks energy is not
>>> proportional to data traffic.
>>>
>>> This is a common misunderstanding. It leads to digital media companies
>>> being quite wed to the idea that saving data saves the planet.
>>>
>>> We are seeing no evidence that not sending data reduces energy
>>> consumption. We have been measuring events like the world cup streaming
>>> online and more, and network energy is not related to traffic, it is
>>> related to the peak provisioned capacity of the network. Much looks to be
>>> similar in cloud.
>>>
>>> It might be worth exploring that theme and thinking about it in terms of
>>> some of the guidelines you have been publishing..
>>>
>>> Do let me know if you would like to find out more
>>>
>>> Kind regards
>>>
>>> Dom
>>> --
>>> Dom Robinson
>>> www.id3as.co.uk
>>> www.greeningofstreaming.org
>>> uk.linkedin.com/in/domrobinson
>>> Meet >> https://calendly.com/id3as
>>>
>>>