Host Chris Adams is joined by Asim Hussain to dive into The Week in Green Software, exploring the environmental impacts of artificial intelligence and how the growing adoption of AI technology affects carbon emissions, as well as the growing complexities in the measurement and reduction of these. They discuss a primer on AI's direct environmental footprint, regulatory trends in Europe and the US, and the complexities surrounding the renewable energy credits tech companies use to offset emissions. The conversation touches on real-time cloud data initiatives, carbon accounting in AI, and the future challenges of balancing sustainability with technological innovation.

TRANSCRIPT BELOW:
Asim Hussain: Three, four years ago, everybody treated all carbon offsets the same. They didn't realize there was nuance between them. Now that's changed. Everybody needs to now pay attention to the same thing in terms of renewable energy. If you do not pay attention to the fact that there is a lot of variability in a lot of this stuff, it's all going to get tarnished with the same brush in the future and any renewable energy claim is not going to be trusted.

Chris Adams: Hello, and welcome to Environment Variables, brought to you by the Green Software Foundation. In each episode, we discuss the latest news and events surrounding green software. On our show, you can expect candid conversations with top experts in their field who have a passion for how to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of software.

I'm your host, Chris Adams.

Hello, and welcome to the Week in Green Software, where we bring you the latest news and updates from the world of sustainable software development. I'm your host, Chris Adams. This is our news roundup show in the Green Software Foundation podcast. So we aren't doing a domain expert news roundup. Deep dive where we go into a deep narrow subject, but rather we're taking a more broader view.

So we'll try to add some context and commentary to the stories that have been shared with us that we discuss with our guests. With me today is my friend, colleague and mushroom enthusiast Asim Hussain of the Green Software Foundation. Asim, it's really good to see you again. How are your holidays?

Asim Hussain: Yeah, it's been quite a long time off and just gently dipping my toes back into the swing of things. Glad to be on the show. It's a nice gentle introduction back into the world of green software. So, glad to be here again, Chris. Asim Hussain, I'm the executive director of the Green Software Foundation.

And yeah, I spend my day probably similar to you thinking about how to advocate for green software. What do we need? What do we want? What are the questions that need to be answered and what are the levers that we need to pull to get action taken in this space?

Chris Adams: Reduce the environmental impact of digital services. Yeah. Okay, cool. Thanks. I should introduce myself as well. Hello, folks. My name is Chris Adams. I am the executive director of the Green Web Foundation. That's a smaller, a different organization. We are a Dutch non profit focused around reaching a fossil free internet by 2030.

And we do that using open as a lever. So we do loads and loads of stuff with open source, open culture, and things like that. As a quick reminder, we're going to share all the stories that we have and any projects or things that come up, we'll add to the show notes. So if you want to continue your quest to learn more about green software and how to reduce the environmental impact of digital services yourself, just look at podcast.greensoftware.foundation to see this. If you're looking in Spotify or some of the other podcast tools, you might not be able to see the links. So please do go to the website to see the show notes and you will be rewarded with diligently prepared links and helpful notes, and a transcript as well.

Alright then, so, I guess, Asim, I've introduced our News Roundup format, we kind of know what we're going to do, we've done this a few times, I assume you're sitting comfortably, shall we begin?

Asim Hussain: Yeah. Yes. Yeah. Let's go for it.

Chris Adams: Alright, okay, so the first story I see here is actually a post from, from Sasha Luccioni, Bruna Trevelin, and Margaret Mitchell, Hugging Face the Environmental Impacts of AI - A Primer.

So, this is one thing we had shared, and, Asim, I'm going to ask you, you've had a chance to look at this, what made you think this was actually worth discussing, and what would you draw people's attention to if they'd heard about this? And how would you, like, persuade people this is worth a read, for example?

Asim Hussain: Well, I suppose if you're new to the space and I think there's a lot of people out there who, for whom are kind of surprised to find out that AI has an environmental impact. So this is, I mean, A lot of this stuff, obviously we've been talking about different components of it over the last couple of years, but I think it's a really good, it's actually a great summary of the different components of what makes environmental impacts of software.

It's also got information there about what are some of the legislation coming down the pipeline? What are the, some of the actions that you can do? And some some things there. So I think it's a really good kind of primer for people. I think it's the title, is the title Primer? It

Chris Adams: Yes,

Asim Hussain: Yeah. So it does what it says on the tin. And I think it's probably could do as a really great introductory piece of information. It's got some great links there as well.

Chris Adams: Yeah, the thing that it might be worth just focusing on briefly, or one thing that leapt out at me when I looked at this is that it talks about the direct environmental impacts of AI specifically. So rather than talking about AI for good, or like "isn't it great that you could use AI to, say, make it easier to deploy renewable energy, or do this, or do that?" Right?

They're talking about, "no, there's an environmental impact that you still need to address regardless of whether you use something for good or for bad," and it seems to be focusing primarily on that kind of stuff. So as a responsible engineer, these are the things to think about. These are the kind of, what you might call an impact criteria, like there's carbon emissions, there's water, there's other things like that.

And generally this is from one of the kind of most trusted hands-on group who are like at the coalface for all this stuff. I mean, maybe, is coalface the correct term?

Asim Hussain: Yeah. I always use that term as well. And then I'm like, actually, that's a

Chris Adams: Maybe if you're in, maybe if you're in US AWS East, it's coalface and then if it's on AWS west, it's hydro face.

I dunno. 

Asim Hussain: I use coalface and then if I don't, then I sometimes use front lines and I'm like, "actually, that's not a good term as well." We need a term which doesn't have a war Metaphor

Chris Adams: or industrial revolution connotations

Asim Hussain: Metaphor.

But anyway, it's at the cutting edge!

Chris Adams: Yes.

Asim Hussain: Cutting edge. There you go.

Chris Adams: Okay. That, that, that will do for me. Alright then. Okay. That's the first thing. I think on a following from this, when I was reading this. I quite like that it actually touched on some of the regulatory drivers that you have, because it's very common for people to talk about the AI Act, because that's probably the first piece of legislation, but it also calls out stuff taking place in Spain, and taking place in the US, and it shows that there's a kind of growing, I guess, regulatory trend to basically say, "well, If you're going to have this piece of technology in society, then we need to have a data informed discussion about what impacts it might actually have."

So we can talk about, okay, where is it responsible to deploy this? But also just like, okay, how do we actually mitigate this? Because, I don't know, it seemed like cars are useful. And the fact that cars are useful doesn't mean that we don't talk about seatbelts, right? You still have to talk about them being safer, regardless of how useful they are, basically.

So it's really nice to have a trusted organization sharing some information like this in a relatively roundabout in a, in my view, quite concise fashion. But if you look at the set of footnotes, wow, there's so much stuff that you can dive into if you wanted to kind of go down that rabbit hole, basically.

Asim Hussain: Yeah it's a very well researched, almost a state of the art paper. And also say like, I think it's also good to know, because people don't, yes, there's regulation coming down the pipeline, and some of that stuff is more mature than other regulation. But I think when you're working inside large enterprise organizations, this is the kind of stuff that gets people to pay attention.

You can be talking for ages about, "hey, look, there's the carbon impact, it's having a... we should be looking at our AI usage" and sometimes that can land and sometimes that can't, but a regulation or the threat of a future regulation is something that I've seen personally open a lot of doors. It doesn't kind of complete the internal sale of, "we need to invest in mitigating the impacts of our AI use." But it's certainly, I've seen it kind of open up a lot more doors because regulation is something that a lot of organizations pay significant attention to, and it's also something that they will, Invest time before the regulation comes out to look at it and put effort into it.

So I, I look at that, right. And it's kind of, it's great to see those regulations that I wasn't aware of. So I'll be obviously using this as it's a great primer for me as well, but this is a really good way of capturing people's attention. So then you can have that more refined conversation about, well, how are you using your AI?

Let's have a conversation about it. How is it, how is future regulation going to affect you? So it's a really good way of opening that door. And if you're inside an organization and you are a little bit concerned about the consumption of AI that you're having, I think for me personally, like pointing out the regulation that's coming down the pipeline does open a lot of doors, enables some conversations with leaders.

Chris Adams: This actually might be a kind of somewhat appropriate time to mention some of the kind of policy stuff we're doing, because I, so in addition to doing the podcast here, I help co-chair the policy working group. And we've, I think we've, we, we're likely to be getting quite a I'm going to put a policy radar out to see precisely this kind of stuff coming up.

Because, yeah, if you didn't know, I mean, okay, today is the 6th of September, and, you've seen this whole energy efficiency directive thing in Europe, right? So, in nine days time, every datacenter that uses more than 500 kilowatts of power draw has to start reporting and posting in public all of their absolute energy use, absolute water use, the amount of energy coming from renewable energy, how much of it comes from the kind of credits that you might buy which are unbundled, how much is coming from a power purchase agreement, so the kind of green energy that you've purchased directly.

There's all this new stuff. There are some caveats around this. So not every single organization will have to, we'll probably publish, but we basically have a regulation that's saying, "look, this has to happen now in nine days at the time of this recording. So when this goes out, it probably will have already happened.

And like this gives you an idea that if you didn't know this is happening, then you probably will, we do need to know this because this is written into the law in lots and lots of countries now. Well, all across Europe, for example, and I suspect this is the kind of thing we might see in other parts of the world because when you look at the figures and look at the data that people are currently basing policy on, it's really hard to figure out what the environmental impact of, say, data centers might be or what the growth is going to be.

And if you want to plan for a grid or plan for hitting some climate targets, this is the kind of stuff you need to actually be knowing about.

Asim Hussain: But it's also useful because we've been having these conversations for a while about, I think we spoke on the podcast a couple of times in the past and when we were developing the SCI specification, it came up a lot like do you include the data? How much of the data center do you include? But the biggest problem was, is that you don't know.

If you decided to put into the specification, you've got to include certain, the concrete or whatever it is that goes into data center. If that data is not public, then what's the point of putting into specification? That's why these regulations, that specific regulation is so interesting. I'm interested to see what actually happens in nine days time and the quality of data that comes out.

The conversations I've had in the past, because when this first started being discussed, I was chatting to a lot of, not data center operators, but people that worked with data center operators. And obviously it kicked up a storm and everybody's like, well, I need this data. How do I get this data?

What is the minimum level of information I can provide to like meet? And that's where it gets really interesting for me. What is the minimum level of information I need to provide to meet the regulation? And I think in nine days time, we're going to find out what is the minimum level of information that people have figured out that they

Chris Adams: Yeah, they can get away with,

Asim Hussain: that they can get away with? Because when I had that conversations, I don't know where it landed now, to be honest with you, but they were like, is it at the building level? Is it at the rack level? You know, it's, and it was like, it's at the building level is where I was left at. So I think the more and more this regulation comes along and it kind of surfaces this data to us, then we can then use that data to make more informed choices, hopefully not from a consumer level.

I think it should be from a, not from an end user level, but from the people who use data centers and make make different choices.

Chris Adams: I think you're right. Okay, what we'll do, we'll share some, a couple of links to this, because this is something we've discussed in a few places, there's one or two working groups where this has come up, in particular, because there's also, on the, just, just before we move on from this, there's a whole, there's a current kind of, in my view, an interesting discussion going on about, okay, with this, in Europe at least, with this AI act, yes, it says that you need to talk, you need to disclose the training data, the energy used for training a model, right?

But it's not totally clear if you need to also track the inference, right? So if you think about the training part, and I've shared a link to a blog post where I've basically highlighted the bits of the law that make me think that you might need to track inference, or at least disclose some information about likely inference because you can think of like the training part as like the energy going into making a car and then the inference figures as a bit like the car's mile per gallon for that model, for example. And well yeah, well it's not totally clear yet and we've seen the law passed and we'll figure out yeah.

Asim Hussain: Cause I assume the only, I'll be honest with you. I assumed included inference. The only time I did it was when I just like read your article and I was like, oh, hang on. That's and that's where these things get very interesting to me. I mean when I was in working in enterprise like organizations and I've one of the things that was always interesting to me was whenever I asked questions or got meetings together, like "let's talk about, we've got some questions about the, how do we calculate this figure to meet with this specification?" And there's almost always legal got involved and lawyers got involved. And I was always kind of, I'm like, "I don't need to speak to a lawyer. I need to speak to an engineer."

Why am I speaking to a lawyer? Because it's all about, "let me read this text. What can we interpret from this text? What do we need to give?" So I assume just because everybody just, we know inference is where most of the emissions are these days, I just assumed it was that, but you've now actually read the text and gone, the text has, is interpretable.

Chris Adams: Well, yeah, because you think about like when this initiative was written ages ago, like a few years ago, it's gone through this massive kind of gestation process, right? And a couple of years ago, when we hadn't really got to this point where AI is being deployed in the same way, like, was it November 2023?

That was like 100 million users. OpenAI had gone from zero to 100 million users in five months. And maybe last week? We should share a link to Simon Willison's blog post because he wrote about this quite eloquently. He's like, well, OpenAI have just mentioned that they're now at 200 million weekly users. So that's like doubled in a single year. So we've gone from, so inference is now a significant part of the story in a way that it wasn't previously, basically. So it may be that the law, when it was written two years ago and began that process through it, it might not have been such a concern. And this is the thing that we're, this is why it seems a bit unclear, and I think we'll probably end up with a test case that will set a precedent for people to figure out what they should be sharing or what you might need to share if you're building new foundational models in future.

Asim Hussain: I mean, I can tell you that, that preChatGPT kind of announcing, it was very well known that inference was significant, as in way more than training for any, like, I can't reveal too much, but you know, it was known very much that that was the case and a lot of effort had been put into mitigating, not from a carbon emissions perspective, just from a cost and energy, but just all of that stuff.

So it's kind of known, it might not have been in the zeitgeist, it might not have been in the kind of the public discourse because it's so much easier to talk about this big training runner. Maybe there's just more public data about that because inference in a way, if you think about it, is going to be pretty private.

Because that's inference is basically telling everybody the business end of your where you're making money from, and they'll probably keep that pretty private. So yeah, maybe it just wasn't well known, but it was true and well known, I think, to anybody in the kind of the AI space that inference was a pretty big deal prior to this.

But yeah, it makes sense. Yeah, these acts take a long time. So yeah, a couple of years ago, all we were talking about was training. It was a good, it was a good headline to discuss. Yeah.

Chris Adams: Useful insight from the inside tracker team, alright. So there's one thing you mentioned actually, we're just on the subject of inference. There is this, in my view, really interesting project right now, EnergyStarAI, which is a project which is, you see a few names associated with, so, Sasha Luccioni, Sara Hooker, Régis Pierrard, Emma Strubel, Yacine Jernite, I think, Carole-Jean Wu, and one of our own at the Green Software Foundation, Boris Gamazaychikov.

He's at Salesforce and he's been one of the people who's writing publicly about a bunch of this stuff and also about like, quite, the small models as well as large models. And it's, I was really pleased to see his name actually. So. Hi Boris, if you're listening to this. This is a really good story to look at, because this essentially is talking about inference and saying, "well, let's find ways to make this visible for people" two years later now, basically, and say, "well, let's see if we can find ways to introduce some of the incentives to go for more efficient inference," the same way we've done with Energy Star in other kind of industries, for example.

Asim Hussain: There's really interesting, I'll try and get her on the podcast, actually, she's from IBM, her name's slipping me, so I'm not as good as names with you, you can just rattle them off, but I'll make sure to put it in. Because yeah, there's Energy Star for AI, but we're also, there's conversations inside the foundation as well now, kind of looking at SCI and how do you apply SCI to AI and kind of, there's a lot of overlap with a lot of this work as well.

But what's interesting is there's this real question about what to do when it comes to inference and training. Like if you were to report that. How do you report that for a model? And the point that was raised, and I thought it was so, because I never thought of it before, which is, if you've got a foundational model, you've done the training, you've done a big training run for a foundational model, and you're now then running inference on that, when you report, let's say, I don't know how any, I think Energy Star is just going to be like a good bad kind of label, where SCI is more like a score, like a carbon per prompt or something like that.

How do you apportion the training into the, do you include the training every time you call it? Because if you do, there's a really interesting thing that happens, which is these foundational models, like if you're using an open source model and you just, that costs 10 000 to run. Do you include that in your AI solution and then just say like, "Oh, I'm three, three grammars per prompt?"

Then somebody else uses that foundational model. Do you then divide that by two and say, well, now you're, you

Chris Adams: talking about double counting kind of question, right?

Asim Hussain: And then like, if that is how the measurement eventually lands, then if you're an unscrupulous organization, all that you would do is try and get as many people to use this foundational model as possible to then dilute your numbers.

And so I think one of the, one of my little bugbears, and it comes up quite often, is the assumption that something that works in the physical realm will work in the digital realm. And one of the things I try and educate people as much as possible is that stop trying to take something that has worked in the physical realm and apply it to digital because there's so many ways it just doesn't work.

If you're thinking about training like a scope 3 embodied carbon physical device thing. You can't divide a chip in two and I give you half and you, it's like, that chip's yours, but you can do that in the digital realm. So there's this whole supply chain accounting aspects of digital emissions, which, it just needs to be thought of differently in the world that we're in. And if you don't think about it differently, you can then have, I call them unintended, we used to call them gaming, like when people were developing the SCI, like one of the conversations we'd have on the calls is, how is somebody going to game?

How is somebody going to take SCI,

Chris Adams: Carbon Intensity here, right? Yeah, okay.

Asim Hussain: how is somebody going to game the side? That's kind of a lot of the conversations we had at the start. Cause obviously everybody was like, we want to make sure if we develop a standard, people aren't going to then

Chris Adams: Abuse it,

Asim Hussain: it. And therefore the standard has no respect in the world.

And so like a lot of how, like a lot of how I kind of work with the standards projects here is I'm a bit of an annoying devil's advocate. I love it actually because I kind of walk in and go "here are 10 ways I can hack this standard to present a better score without actually doing anything." And so I think that's some of the things we need to think of as we think of SCI for AI, as you think of Energy Star, as you think of these other things is yes, there's this happy path that everybody's a good actor,

it will work and it will give you the right signal, but we need to think about the non-happy part, where people might not even necessarily be bad actors. It's just death by a thousand cuts. You're working in an organization, you've got a deadline, you've got a bonus you have to meet, there's a customer that you're going to have to get or you lose your business.

And so you're just death by a thousand cuts. So yeah, we have to be very careful as we explore like SCI for AI and Energy Star and anything really in this space, which is talking about measuring emissions. Because if you don't think through those unintended consequences, that's a problem. And that's one of the ones I have is like, is if you're including training, how do you apportion that?

You might not actually want to include training. You might actually want a separate. You actually, you might actually only want to measure the inference, because that gives a truer figure.

Chris Adams: So to cap this off, I'm going to, as we move to the next story, I'm going to link, share two links which might be useful for this. So the first is the link to the Meta Llama 3.1 8B, their model card. They literally say "the methodology used to determine energy use and greenhouse gas emissions can be found here."

They've linked to it and they said "since Meta is openly releasing these models, the training energy use and greenhouse gas emissions will not be incurred by others." So they're basically saying you don't need to count that part. That gives an example. We'll share a link to that. The other thing we'll share a link to for the show notes is actually the Asim, for this software, carbon, yeah, this is

Asim Hussain: Yeah, this is my unintended.

Chris Adams: This is a good example because this is where you've basically said, this is me, like, red teaming this approach, and these are the ways I can basically, in bad faith, try and engage with this example.

And this will probably be useful for people who are looking at this, to get an idea of, like, how some of these standards or some of these conventions are being developed. Alright, shall we move to the next story? Because it kind of does relate a little bit to, basically, tweaking numbers to present a view of the world, basically.

So this story is now, how tech companies are obscuring AI's real carbon footprint. This is a story from Bloomberg, I believe. Asim, do you want to introduce this one?

Asim Hussain: So yeah, so I thought, well, the reason this kind of popped up on my radar was, I forgot what I posted on LinkedIn, but I was posting, I started posting a bunch of information on LinkedIn about the use of, the use of RECs and the effectively like kind of renewable claims that organization makes and how it's in a really frustrating way, it actually puts us in what we're doing in kind of competition with this very important energy transition, because the argument I'm making is, look, you can either do two things and then we'll talk about AI.

Let's keep it to AI. You can either make your AI model more efficient, so it consumes less energy. Or, you can do absolutely nothing, and just buy offsets, energy offsets, RECs, whatever you want to call them, to mitigate, theoretically, your energy offsets, your energy consumption. And that's kind of like being this "Are we friends?

Are we not friends?" How do we like, we want to support the energy transition, but at the same time, like we really want to advocate for more energy efficiency. So, and I think one of the things we've spoken about is that there's, when you do make these renewable energy claims, like one of the things that you do with all types of offsets to kind of avoid a greenwashing claim, you have to have that additionality component to your offset, which for the audience means that how do you, if I'm saying this thing is offsetting your emissions.

What is it a litmus test to say that is a true statement and is basically, are you actually adding? So for a renewable energy credit, it's like, if you weren't about this renewable energy, would that thing have happened?

Chris Adams: So you're talking about the counterfactual here, right? So you're trying to compare something against. This is, you see a load of this in the hydrogen circle, in the hydrogen, in the world of hydrogen, because Just like datacenters, hydrogen electrolysis, like the electrolyzers use loads and loads of energy, right, and one way that you can do that is just by plugging them into the grid, right, and there's various people doing various things to say, well, I'm just going to buy a bunch of, say, renewable energy credits, right, and that's going to make that count as green, and there's, that's, in some ways, that's kind of somewhat problematic because, essentially,

Asim Hussain: coal to make hydrogen.

Chris Adams: Yeah, that's not exactly what all, you're, in many cases, you're a, you're burning coal to make hydrogen, so the actual net, it's a net loss in climate terms. But also, the, there's been a big fight in the kind of hydrogen world of, to have like this notion of three pillars. Where you basically, if you're going to have something, if you're going to count something as green hydrogen, then you need to be talking about new infrastructure being added to the grid to provide that new supply.

You can't just use, you can't just take from the existing stock of green supply and then count that as green. And this is one of the things that we've seen, like, I don't, Amazon made the news, I think a few weeks, a while, because they basically acquired a data center from a company called Talon, I believe, where they're right next to a nuclear power station, right?

So this, that you, there are some people saying, "oh, this is great, isn't it good that Amazon's using a bunch of clean power," but then you've got to think about, well, okay, who was that clean power going to before? Was it going to the grid? Like, there's a whole discussion there about this. Yeah, so there's a whole set of things to be talking about and this is why this is such a kind of fraught area, basically.

Asim Hussain: I mean, but I think the way to bring it back to something that people understand is when we talk about carbon offsets, I think now it's more understood that it's kind of like you, you have carbon removal offset. So you can plant a tree. Right? And then you planted the tree, that tree will grow, and there's issues there.

That tree will grow and also suck carbon from the atmosphere. And you can say that's a carbon credit of planting a tree. Or, there's carbon avoidance offsets. And there's many various, and there's actually very good variants of carbon avoidance offsets. But there is a variant of a carbon avoidance offset where I've got a tree.

And you pay me not to cut it down. And so where's the additionality? If I'm actually planting a tree, it's happening. I'm planting a tree. I'm adding additional kind of capacity in carbon removal. And in the renewable energy markets it's exactly the same. You can have renewable energy. Which if you buy means a renewable power plant is going to get built and you can have renewable energy which is just kind of sold and if you buy it or you don't buy it there's no change nothing's going to happen there's no more new renewable plants going to get built. Only one of them has that additionality component and so, therefore, only one of them should really be used in any kind of renewable energy claims.

But both of them are allowed in terms of renewable energy claims. So in terms of what this article is talking about, when they're saying "tech companies obscuring AI's real carbon footprint," they're actually talking about companies using what's called those unbundled RECs, which is those RECs which do not have that additionality component.

And then use buying them and then saying, "well, that's mitigating my environmental impact." And what the article is talking about is really, you should be looking at higher quality, Renewable Energy Credits, ones with more additionality components to it. And I think that's really interesting. There's actually also really, Olivier Corradi from, don't know if I'm pronouncing the second name correctly.

Electricity maps. Yeah, he, when I was talking about, he shared a really interesting article he'd written a year ago, which I thought was interesting as well. I'll share that here if you've got it. Yeah. He's actually advocating for like a more nuanced approach to looking at renewable energy in that there's additionality, then there's additionality, and then there's additionality.

There's like different levels of additionality. There's like, "this definitely 100 percent would never have been built unless you bought this renewable energy credit." And there's other ones like, "we may not have been able to build it, but we had some funding from here and there." So there's kind of different levels of additionality here as well, which I thought was really interesting also.

I'd never thought of additionality more than just a binary yes/no. And he was saying it's actually more of a score for a renewable energy credit. But

Chris Adams: Yeah, there's totally a continuum there. So the thing I might share for people who are looking for something actionable to work with here is basically the numbers that you often see reported by technology firms. There's all this, there's all this nuance hidden behind it. And there's one project called the Real-Time Cloud Project inside the Green Software Foundation, which essentially is a data set of the largest three providers.

So that's Amazon, Google, and Microsoft. And they've got the figures shown in both the kind of location-based figure, which is the closest thing you might think to, like, the physical location, the physical impact on the ground. They also talk about some of the market-based figures, which is what lots of firms like to use, like market-based on an annual basis.

But they also provide a few other details and a few other ways of talking about it, because some firms are now talking about hourly, basically hourly green energy versus annual green energy, with the idea being that you, it's a way to try and avoid making claims about saying, "I'm running a data center at night with certificates coming from a solar farm." This is inherently a little bit silly. So they address that stuff. So there's a, there's now, I think it's in the final stage of what's referred to as consistency review, where every member in the GSF is able to just say, "Hey, I object to this, or I'm not sure about this." And then, yeah, there'll be an open data data set for every single region from the three largest providers, which make up more than two thirds of the entire cloud market.

So you have some meaningful numbers that have come from the actual big providers themselves that you can actually, that we can work with.

Asim Hussain: And I think, like, I think basically my, I think the point I'm generally raising out, out there with another kind of, one of the reasons this article was very interesting to me, and especially the work that Realtime Cloud is actually interesting. Three, four years ago, everybody treated all carbon offsets the same.

They didn't realize there was nuance between them. Now that's changed. Everybody needs to now pay attention to the same thing in terms of renewable energy. If you do not pay attention to the fact that there is a lot of variability in a lot of this stuff, it's all going to get tarnished with the same brush in the future and any renewable energy claim is not going to be trusted.

So I was, I'm kind of a guiding and advising organizations to pay very close attention to kind of the type of renewable energy that you're buying. And be aware that because of podcasts like ourselves, there's generally, it's a Bloomberg article talking about this right now. It is now becoming very aware in the minds of a lot of people who care about this space, who listen to our podcasts, who are paying attention, that there is nuance here.

They're paying attention. And so as an organization, you need to pay attention to this as well.

Chris Adams: Cool. Asim, I'm just going to add this one thing because I realised I should have mentioned this. So I work in an organisation where we do track some of this stuff. We track the transition of the internet away from fossil fuels to greener energy. And, I've shared a link for the show notes. Because we're basically reviewing our own evidence that we accept for green hosting.

And we've linked to a couple of papers. And specific reports, which dive into this a bit more, which have kind of also prompted us to start looking at this. So, organizations like the Science Based Targets Initiative, we mentioned there. We talk about some of the other things that we, some of the nuances around RECs.

And yeah, this is, this will be something we'll be doing. So we're going to be essentially figuring out how to do this ourselves in the open over the next few months. So, Yeah, I guess it applies to small firms as well as large firms.

Asim Hussain: Yeah, yes, absolutely.

Chris Adams: All right, should we move to the next story? So, this is a story.

Researchers analysed 1 500 climate policies to find what works. And these are the lessons for Australia. I think this is the link you shared with me, Asim. There's a very kind of Australian centric kind of point of view, which, as someone born in a small mining town in Australia called Prospect, because what else would you name a mining town other than Prospect, because it's full... you? Yeah,

Asim Hussain: I didn't know you were born in Australia.

Chris Adams: Ah yeah, born in Australia, small mining town.

Yeah, I was literally born in a mining town called Prospect, and it's near One Tree Hill. Can you guess how many trees are on that hill? And it's next to Dry Creek. Can you guess the conditions of that river? Yeah, it's descriptive rather than creative, is the term I've heard people in Germany who do similar things talk about, actually.

Okay, so you shared this story, maybe you can introduce this one here, because I think it's quite relevant in this discussion, what we were just talking about in the previous two stories, actually.

Asim Hussain: Hmm. So I think it was just really interesting. It was an analysis of like 1500 climate policies and just really looking at what worked and what didn't work. And I thought it was interesting because we spoke a lot about, we've spoken a lot about things like carbon levies and things like that on this podcast.

But what I found interesting about this article was they, again, brought nuance to the discussion and saying, "actually there's different, different policies seem to work for different types of organizations and also combinations of policies seem to work better than individual policies." So a couple of interesting ones.

So one of the highlights I got, so some of the, in developed economies, some of the most successful cases were the results of two or more policies working together. So that could be like a ban or something, as well as like a carbon tax, kind of pulling those things together. Oh, for instance, like a great example they had here was like, for instance, example, a fuel efficiency mandate for vehicles combined with subsidies for developing like charging stations and things like that. So then you've kind of got the pressure on both sides. And another thing that was really interesting was cause we spoke about kind of carbon levies and pricing was particularly effective policy in sectors dominated by profit orientated companies, such as electricity and industry.

So I just think it was really interesting to kind of think through it from that perspective.

Chris Adams: So there's a really nice example, there's a few really good examples. Good concrete examples of this to make this, like, something you can, like, get your hands around. So in America, right, we've seen the Inflation Reduction Act. So that, in many ways, are kind of it's all carrot, no stick. So the idea is that there's massive amounts of subsidies for building out, like, for, like, EVs or building out new, kind of, battery gigafactories, all this stuff like that, or things which are essentially make deployment of renewables much, much more profitable than they otherwise would be, because they're gonna, because you have all these kind of subsidies saying, well, we're going to give you a production tax levy.

So for every unit of energy you produce, you'll be able to get, you'll be, you'll get a credit that you can actually apply. So your project over the entire length of it will end up being slightly more profitable. That, there's stuff like that, that you see, which is coming from one end. But we've also seen, In America, the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, they've got, they've now come in with a stick, or they're coming in with a stick now, to basically say, well, we're going to have to regulate carbon emissions.

And this now means that it's going to be all new kind of coal fired power stations or gas fired power stations, there'll be all these restrictions on how you should, how you can use them. And this is particular, the reason I raise this in America specifically is we were talking a little bit about AI before, right?

Now these regulations, I don't think that many technologists are aware of right now. They basically say if you're going to run a gas-fired power station, you need to fit loads of carbon capture and storage onto it, which is, broadly speaking, if it does work, it's not something that's really used in large amounts right now.

And what you currently see right now is you see lots of utility companies basically saying, "Oh, the only way we can possibly meet demand for AI is to build all this gas right now." And the problem with that is that ends up locking in all kinds of emissions. Because once you've built something, you have this incentive to kind of try and get your return back on building this in the first place.

And this feels like," I don't think people have realized just how much of a stick this is going to be, because as far as I can tell, all the laws from the EPA basically say, look, you can't build gas like this, and you can't actually do this." So we're going to have, we've got like this case of massive build out of AI coming up against all these regulatory forces as well.

And it's going to be quite a significant fight in the next 6 to 12 months, I think, because yeah, this is, we've now had the honeymoon period of all carrot. Like you said in this piece, and now we're coming up to the stick, which is the other part, to kind of make sure that you can, make sure the significant part of the US grid is going to be decarbonized by, I think it's the mid 2030s, basically, is what they're doing, that they're aiming for with this.

But we have the same thing in the UK as well, like, UK right now, we've got a target for, the UK has agreed to try and decarbonize the grid entirely by 2030, which is great for us as an organization because we, we want a fossil free internet by 2030. So we're like, "oh, thank God the UK is doing this." The UK government, one of the big kind of manifesto policies from Labour coming in, who've just won the election is "we're going to have a clean grid, entirely clean grid by 2030."

So five years, basically five years time, they're going to get rid of all the fossil, almost all the fossil gas generation, right?

Asim Hussain: How are they going to do that? 

Chris Adams: That's what we'll find out. But the thing I found out when I spoke to some people who, basically, this is actually all based on some modeling using a piece of software that we interviewed a chap called Iegor Riepin, he was talking about this in one of the episodes, we'll share a link.

That software was, basically, these kind of things were put together by some analysts on our laptop saying, well, this is what you can do. There's a report from Ember Climate where they, the report is called Escape from Gas, I think, or A Path Out of Gas. And this was one of the things that was written in 2022, when gas was super expensive, to say, "well, this is one thing you could plausibly do for this."

And yeah, when, the thing about policy, people reach for what's there. This turned into one of the things that one of the parties led on, and now we're going to see if we do see a fossil free grid and fossil free internet in the UK by 2030. Because, yeah, it's fascinating. I'm so, this is the most exciting, most excited I've been about UK politics in a very long time.

Asim Hussain: I don't know. I might dampen it for you. I'm just not, I'm just not very, I'm just, there's a lot of manifestos that come out from governance when they join and there's a lot of disappointment in the years later when they, when it doesn't manifest, when their manifesto doesn't manifest.

Chris Adams: So this is the final thing that might come in, might be relevant. So the modeling that was used for this as the basis to say, "yeah, we can do this." This one thing that ends up being, so I'll share a post to it, which I end up doing a bit of research and speaking to some of the people about this. It's actually very conservative, more conservative than the National Grid's own

estimates about, specifically in our industry, demand size and batteries. So, these are the two big things that we're likely to see a massive increase in.

Asim Hussain: That's what gas is used for more like this is specifically to get rid of gas.

Right. 

Chris Adams: yeah, so the,

Asim Hussain: peaker plants and then therefore you can do a little demand, demand responsible.

Chris Adams: Partly that, the thing that they said is like, the, their plans basically are relatively conservative about the ability for demand side of reduction, making your, you know, Carbon Aware in stuff like that, right? And there is another thing that we've seen is that the UK government is actually being quite gung ho about deployment or deploying all these new data centers.

So I'm kind of thinking, is there a chance to actually say, "well, okay, if you're going to have this deployment of all these data centers, and you know that one thing you're going to need to have is a much more responsive grid, is there a path for all this kind of carbon aware infrastructure to actually serve some of the roles that you wouldn't have to typically rely on peaker gas plants to actually fit, to like kind of fit?"

There's a bunch of stuff there and I think we'll learn basically because, yeah, this has been a really ambitious goal and you've also got this other idea to like bring in something which, can be quite flexible, but only if you incentivize infrastructure to be flexible, because for the most part, we don't see an economic incentive passed down to the consumers of infrastructure to be using this right now.

So, yeah, maybe this is a help of one piece. Yeah.

Asim Hussain: Yeah, I mean, I think there's been, there was some really good work done kind of several years ago, and this will be really good because one of the things I've seen is that the, all the positive moves I saw kind of three years ago regarding new data center rollouts, hydrogen fuel cells, kind of building kind of a much more advanced data center seems to have gone back a little bit.

And yeah, You're right, I think data centers could lead the way in terms of demand response. I'm not even talking about compute demand response. You can just take batteries, you can fill data centers with batteries and then they can store and then they can do their own sucking from the grid when it's clean and powering their own infrastructure when it's dirty.

You know, there's, there's other solutions, which doesn't even necessarily need kind of a software,

Chris Adams: Yeah, exactly. I mean, this is one thing that we've seen in Ireland. There's precedent in Ireland where people have said, "if you're going to be connected to the grid, you need to be prepared to be kind of complementary or sensitive to the needs of the grid for this." So, I think there's actually room for this, and it will be really nice.

I think that this feels like, given such an ambitious target, it does feel like a role where you could actually tell a good story about green Software, and be part of the solution as opposed to part of the problem, because a lot of the discussions around like rolling out of digital infrastructure is basically saying we can't possibly meet this demand.

But if we accept that demand is dynamic, then there is a chance to actually fit this in, and that feels like definitely worth going for, particularly to kind of maintain this kind of social license for operation, particularly for technology firms.

Asim Hussain: And I think a lot of what you've just said over the last couple of minutes runs very counter to what we were saying before about, I mean, everything you just described, this is all related to that whole idea of additionality. It's all about how do we transition, truly transition the grid to be fossil free?

And you need solutions like this. Not necessarily buying unbundled RECs, but you need to actually, like, think through, "well, how do I how do I be a better citizen in the grid infrastructure, do demand response, be sensitive, not demand energy when everybody needs it and therefore we have to spin up a gas power plant or something like that."

So these are the kind of things you need to actually transition the grid.

Chris Adams: Asim, I think we might have fallen down a bit of a grid rabbit hole,

Asim Hussain: Yeah, we've done it again, haven't we?

Chris Adams: Yeah, so, we're gonna have to move on, I think we've come up to time, but Asim, it's really nice to see you again, I'm glad you had a nice holiday, and I guess we've got a bunch of new things to do this quarter, right? With various projects we have inside the Green Software Foundation, and in the other member organizations related to it.

Alright dude, it's Friday, so have a lovely weekend, and for those listening, we'll put all the links to everything we've discussed in there, and if there's something you didn't see, Please do let us know, and we'll make a point of adding it. Alright, thanks a lot folks.

Asim Hussain: Thanks, Chris. Bye.

Chris Adams: See you around soon. Bye! Hey everyone, thanks for listening!

Just a reminder to follow Environment Variables on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. And please, do leave a rating and review if you like what we're doing. It helps other people discover the show, and of course, we'd love to have more listeners. To find out more about the Green Software Foundation, please visit greensoftware.foundation. That's greensoftware.foundation in any browser. Thanks again and see you in the next episode.