[jeffbee]

Why do we need such a thing? Operating cost is proportional to energy, carbon emissions are also proportional to energy. Making your information systems cost less also makes them emit less carbon. The information industry has a clear and direct economic incentive to reduce carbon intensity, and all large operators do catalog and reduce GHG emissions.

[jamescrowley]

> Why do we need such a thing?

For starters, growing numbers of companies are required to report on their own emissions, which includes software - and therefore having agreed standards on how to measure this would seem a good way forward to me?

> carbon emissions are also proportional to energy

Reducing energy usage reduces carbon emissions, but they are not proportional. Highly dependent on the grid composition, time of day you draw the energy, and any behind-the-meter infrastructure.

> and all large operators do catalog and reduce GHG emissions.

To take AWS as an example, they still do not report scope 3 emissions for customers (due 'early 2024') - without which, these 'catalogued' numbers are essentially meaningless given how understated they are.

[wmf]

...companies are required to report on their own emissions, which includes software...

Just be careful not to double-count hardware and software emissions.

[bradleybuda]

There is a lack of political will to do the screamingly obvious thing and put a price on carbon emissions.

[khimaros]

it's also insufficient. we need businesses to take responsibility for the full product lifecycle, including the waste steam, recycling of consumer packaging, etc.

[zx8080]

Should "startup" be defined as "business" in this context? Just to be sure.

[khimaros]

yes

[isodev]

Take OpenAI for example, they decided to skip on paying for content for training their models and by doing so substantially reducing their costs. Does this make ChatGPT more “green”? Does it mean when OpenAI is made to pay for all their copyright infringement that it becomes “less green”?

And what about technology which is controversial, causing a lot of discussions online (all those people spending energy to post comments…)?

I think cost has nothing to do with it.

[drdrey]

because the cheapest energy is not necessarily the cleanest

[jeffbee]

That may be, but the awkward method used by this initiative says that PPAs don't count, so if you literally spin off a subsidiary to build a solar array for your new datacenter, and use a PPA to buy all of its output, that doesn't matter and you are supposed to use the regional grid carbon intensity. It is hard to imagine why anyone would adopt that method.

[jamescrowley]

Most solar arrays that are built still feed into the general electricity grid, as I understand it. So while the PPA has likely enabled the construction of the solar, you'd still need to consider the overall carbon intensity of the grid at the time of energy consumption - and hence the SCI incentivising direct reductions by making software carbon aware, and encouraging higher efficiency.

If the data centre entirely off-grid, the SCI permits using your own grid intensity factors.

I'm not clear on the scenario where the solar is directly connected to the data centre 'behind the meter', or if there are other forms of peak shaving, while still drawing on the grid when needed - does anyone else care to comment/clarify the standards intentions there in terms of incentives?