36C3 - Reducing Carbon in the Digital Realm

36C3 preroll music

Herald: Our next speaker is Chris Adams,
and we were talking about reducing carbon

in the digital realm. How to understand
the environmental impact of the digital

products you built and take measurable
steps to green your stack. Floor is yours.

Chris Adams: Cool! applause Hello
everyone. First of all, can you folks hear

me in the back? Yeah. If you can just
raise your hands. Excellent, cooI! All

right. Hello everyone. My name is Chris
Adams. As you can see, Mr. Credit, Chris

Adams on pretty much every online ralley.
Please don't try to follow this link

because it's not actually gonna go
anywhere yet, but it will be up at the end

of this talk. I'm just going to introduce
myself. If you don't already know me, my

name is Chris Adams. I have a background
working in environmental kind of wacky

startups from Loco2, which was all about
trying to make trains easier to book than

planes. A.M.E.E, which was all about
putting kind of carbon calculation as an

API, so you could work out the carbon
footprint of anything. And now I spend a

bunch of my time working with the Green
Web Foundation, where our mission is to

basically make the web green. And I also
help organize an online community called

ClimateAction.tech, which as you can see
is for folk like yourselves who want to

work out how to do something about climate
in their day job and what they do. I've

got about 45 minutes with you and this is
a kind of rough outline for the day. I'm

gonna briefly give you a kind of primer on
how you measure carbon and why you might

measure that. I'll share with you a mental
model which I found useful for helping

think about what steps I can actually take
as professional working in this field; and

then I'll give you some pointers of where
to go next. If you feel compelled to do

something about, well, what is essentially
an existential challenge and the biggest

challenge we are already facing. So first
of all, measuring carbon! So, can you just

show you... raise your hands if you've
seen this before? Yes. The water cycle. So

you get the idea that we've got like a
water, kind of, evaporates, goes along

into the sky, then comes down and rains.
And then... generally it's best if it

doesn't go in one place because that's
that's a good thing. But generally we have

like cycles in nature and one of them we
have is for water and we also have

cycles elsewhere. And that's kind of why I
want to share with you here, because there

are also cycles around carbon. So what
you're seeing here is actually some freeze

frames of a really, really cool but
somewhat confusing video. And as I was

saying, kind of carbon works on a kind of
slower timescale that might have here. So,

this is an... this is basically a diagram
of all the carbon in the world with some

idea of proportions. All right? So, the
green stuff up here, this is us like we're

made of carbon. It turns out. So a tree.
Trees are made of carbon. And when living

things die and decompose, some of the
carbon ends in the atmosphere as we

decompose. The purple stuff here - this is
like the ocean. Fish are made of carbon,

too. And so are plants and everything like
that. And when they die, they sink down,

which is why you've got this massive
chunky like stock of carbon down here.

Eventually, some of that might become
sediment, then form rock, then end up in

this kind of black stuff around here,
which we kind of consider that the earth's

crust. So then at the top, we've got
carbon in the atmosphere. So you really

can't see it very well. But there is
carbon up here. This is kind of

atmospheric carbon, really. And there is
like if you watch this video that I've

linked to, you can see all moving around
as a cycle. But this is kind of wealth

carbon, really. So now in about 1850, we
started using a lot more energy. And

to meet that demand of all this energy, we
started burning fossil fuels in earnest as

well as burning wood for fuel. And you can
see the fossil fuels here as kind of stuff

that's kind of come out of here and is now
represented here. And we've also taken

some carbon in the earth and burn some of
that, and like... What is it? Where does

this all go? There's a clue in these
arrows on the screen. Right? Now if we

fast forward to 2017, it looks a bit more
like this. You've seen like there's less

of this red stuff down here because it's
got into here and because it's circulated

all the way around. We've ended up with
carbon in other parts of Earth. And, in

particular, you'll see that we have fewer
red dots down here, but we've got a lot

more around here, which is going to pushed
some of the carbon higher up here. So this

is kind of... if there's one thing I want
you to kind of really take away is that

when we talk about climate, it's really
about carbon. And we need as an industry

to be able to get good at understanding
how to reduce carbon more than anything

else. If we're going to be thinking about
climate. Now, I'll try and break this down

to a kind of simple way, which I found
really, really useful for this. There's a

lady on Twitter. Her name is Professor
Julia Kay Steinberger. She's awesome. She

has this really nice way. She recently
shared this thread on Twitter where she

basically explained how she explains kind of
climate change to her children who are 4

and 7 years old. And she basically did it
this way. She got like a globe, wrapped it

in some plastic and then said, well, this
is basically what happens. You understand

the idea of being wrapped up in things
getting warm and things getting too warm.

That's it. And like, that turned out to be
a really effective way for her to do it.

And it turned out if kids can get this
stuff, then I think we can. And I think

it's really, really useful for us to kind
of be aware that carbon is actually a thing

that we do need to be able to count, and
track and account for in our jobs. So

we've spoken about this on a planetary
scale, which isn't all that actionable.

But if we were to kind of bring this down
to organizational scale, where the most of

us might kind of work and more specific,
it might be easier for us to act upon. It

might look a little bit like this. There
are established ways to measure carbon

within an organization you work in and in
the same way that accountants might talk

about legal ownership of a company. There
are guidelines for talking about who has

responsibility for emissions when you're
reporting and deciding who should be

changed, who should be making reductions.
And I'm sure in this diagram here to

actually take some very, very dull, dry
material into something that we can relate

to, which is hot beverages and coffee.
And, generally, you can think of it like

this: if either these three kind of
scopes, there's this idea of scope 1

emissions, which is basically if I burn
fossil fuels to heat up a, say, container

so I can have coffee, then that's the
emissions from me burning less fossil

fuels myself and my scope 1 emissions.
Scope 2 might be me using a kettle. So if

someone is a burning coal to generate
electricity for me to kind of boil the

kettle, then that's my scope 2. Now scope
3 might be me walking to a store or into a

coffee shop and all the emissions and all
of that supply chain - that's my scope 3.

So there's this idea of kind of like
dependency chain of carbon, which...

because I'm speaking to a bunch of people
who have some understanding where

technology I think you should be, kind of,
you should be ready to be comfortable with

the concept of dependency chains and
things like that. And to make this a bit

more concrete, I refer to, say, a good
example. So Stripe... Has anyone heard of

Stripe here? Okay, a few of you. Okay. So,
basically, payments company. All right?

Now they are actually pretty good about
sharing information about what they do and

what their emissions are. And you can see
this here. They've basically got... in

2017, they started making noises about
becoming carbon neutral and they started

reporting information in these kind of
scopes here. And you'll see this phrase -

TCO2E, but basically just think of that as
carbon dioxide, the stuff that's warming

up the world because there's different
gases, but they all have more or less the

same effect. So in many cases, people will
use the term CO2E2 to describe all of

these kind of basket of gases. All right?
But you see here that from a scope 1

emissions are quite small because they're
usually just heating a building. Scope 2

is a little bit higher, because they pay
to, say, keep a building running. And then

you'll see down here that there's massive
scope 3, because they tend to pay for a

lift infrastructure and have a lot of
people flying around as if they're prevent

a lists??? and so on. All right? Let's
look at some other other examples. Amazon!

So Amazon repeat started reporting on CO2
emissions for the first time this year.

And long story short, their carbon
footprint is about the same as the country

of Finland. Right. Which is kind of large.
And as you can see, because obviously they

run lots of services, which is why you got
4,5 million tonnes of CO2. They also have

a lot of warehouses and things like that,
and have a lot of kind of cars or vehicles

that are getting things around. But
because they actually have a large supply

chain themselves, they have a massive
honking great scope set of scope 3

emissions. So let's look at another
company, right. Google. So Google is a

Google has a surprisingly low emissions
considering scale, about the same as the

African country of Liberia. All right?
Now, there's something interesting here.

Google have reported their emissions with
scope 1, 2 that you can see here. And 3,

but they have this interesting thing here,
where this is the energy they're using.

But this is the energy they say that
they're using because they are purchasing

what are basically renewable energy
credits, which is one way of using green

energy. If you do not have access to green
energy in certain parts of the grid and

Google are pretty good in this field, but
it's worth bearing that in mind. Google

are transparent about this stuff, where at
Amazon, you don't see these numbers. So

this number could be somewhat higher for
we know. All right. So this gives you an

idea of what some of these numbers might
look like. And then let's look at another

company, which is also, well I assume you
might have heard of. Is this works? Yes. I

go to Apple. Yeah. So Apple has... these
are their emissions with just their

facilities. So just their data centers and
just, say, the offices that they have.

Right. So this is quite low, by
comparison. Right. So this is carbon

emissions of maybe Gambia - another
small African country. All right. And

you'll see once again, by sourcing
renewable energy, they've had a kind of

quite big reduction in the emissions that
they otherwise wouldn't had. But you'll

also see that in scope 3, because there's
lots of flying and because there's lots of

commuting, they have a lovely new office
miles away from anywhere. So you have to

drive to get there, you know, it's like, I
don't know, 40 percent of the emissions

were just their facilities. We have to
drive there and back. All right. But if

you look at the emissions from Apple as
all the products that people buy, you'll

see that the emissions are somewhat
larger, about the same size as Mongolia,

which is kind of large. And you will also
see that there is a large... this is a

breakdown from Apples annual report, and
they basically... they're pretty

transparent about this stuff and they're
good on this. And they say this is where

the emissions come from. And you can see
all the way around here, this is the

manufacturing. The machines they have. And
then if we zoom in to like this bit over

here. Right. You'll see that there's a
little bit of information there. There's

like, obviously use phase. But the main
car, the main impact from what they do is

actually making the electronics. So this
is kind of how we tend to think about a

carbon and how one might report
on carbon and make it and make decisions

to reduce carbon. All right. Now, I'm
going to share with you a mental model,

which I found helpful in this field. I
call it Platform, Packets and Process. And

it's generally aimed taking something
which is quite abstract to this scope 1, 2

and 3 thing, to something that you might
act upon inside the teams that you work

in. And it kind of maps to the kind of
groups that you might be working in if

you're, say, a frontend developer or a
backend developer, or a designer, or

product manager. So it kind of tries to
map to that. And as you can see, platform

might be infrastructure you run; Packets
is infrastructure other folk run, like the

rest of the Internet; and Process would be
decisions that are made inside your

organization that cause that to be
emissions. So if you highlight a large

company and you have a massive, say,
corporate campus which is miles away from

everyone else has to drive to. Then
there's gonna be a load of emissions from

that decision that you actually make. So
let's run through this. On the scope 1, 2,

3 thing I shared with you, this is a kind
of how it maps. And this might look like

some of the things, some activities you
might have been involved in that will

create emissions. So, generally, on the
platform side, if you're running

infrastructure yourself, there'll be scope
2; if it's scope 3 you'll see here and,

well, I'll go into the other ones in more
detail later. All right. So this is the

model that I'm sharing with you today. All
right. So let's have a look at Platform:

infrastructure that you run. There are
kind of three levels, which I'm going to

share with you today, which might be of
use to you. All right. There are so

basically Provisioning, Provider and I'm a
bit worried about showing this last one

because it's kind of new: the other
programing languages. And that's partly

based on some stuff from yesterday. But
also, I'm a bit worried about kind of

inciting the pitchfolks when I share this.
But we'll see where we go with this. So

Provisioning is one level you might
actually have if you build digital

products and you run servers. All right.
So this chart you see here is a chart from

the CEO Power of Wireless Cloud Report.
This basically shows how Australia uses

the Internet and it gives you an idea
that, well, we don't use the Internet in a

uniform fashion all the time, because
basically if you think about us being set

at midnight as we tend to fall asleep, we
tend to use Internet less. All right. And

then as we wake up, we might say kind of
have coffee or something like that, then

as more of us come to work, we start using
it more. And then later on we work during

the day, then we'll go home. But you will
start watching Netflix and things. And

then once again, we fall asleep and then
we get to there. So there is a kind of

pattern. And if you have any analytics on
how your own tools are using your ad

services are used, you'll see these kind
of waves and patterns in how it works. And

this is worth bearing in mind, because
traditionally when we've had to provision

services to support something like a Web
site or a video streaming service, the way

that we used to do it was basically buy a
big server that can handle the peak usage.

And we just accept that. Because
Provisioning is quite a difficult kind of,

because it's a pain to do. We just leave
this big box idling most of the time in

the hope that we could actually hit the
surfing at the peak, right. Now the

downside of that is that, well, if we can
make this conceptual leap that the cloud

computing is someone else's computer, then
it shouldn't be that much of a leap again,

to realize that computers run electricity
and we generally burn fossil fuels right

now to generate electricity. So in the
example we had before, when we had this

big box that wasn't being used, we would
basically be burning money to pay for

capacity, we didn't have. But we're also
burning fossil fuels and causing emissions

one way. Now we've got better kind of
running infrastructure. All right. So

we've had this kind of trend over the
last, say, 10 to 15 years to abstract

machines away to make them easier to
manage. So this might be VMs or

containers, or dinos, or unicorns, or
whatever you might prefer to use. But in

general, the pattern is make something
more abstract and then make it easier to

spin it up and down in response to demand.
All right. This is better because we now

have something looks a bit like this. So
we are not... we're wasting less well,

we're burning less money, but we're still
burning money. And as a result, we're

still burning fossil fuels. Now, there's
some new changes in the last few years,

which are relatively recent, and we're
seeing kind of changes in how we work now,

which look a lot, look and sound is
sometimes referred to as like service lists

or functions as a service if you work on
the backend with the servers, right. Now

here, this is interesting, because we're
rewarded for efficient use of computers,

because we basically pay on a per request
basis. So if someone tries to load a page,

we pay for specifically that request. And
then when we're not using it,

theoretically we're paying for nothing and
theoretically things can spin right down.

So there's a much clearer mapping between
the usage and what you would pay for here.

Now, there is a trade off here that is the
number of providers that if you want to

use tools like this and have this much
tighter mapping is that we end up with a

small number of people who do provide
this. So if you were to go to, if you want

to move to something like this, you
generally end up using something like

either Microsoft Stacks or Google or AWS.
And this kind of presents us with a kind

of awkward problem right now. If we care
about climate and we care about like

basically being able to solve problems, as
say professionals, we have to choose two

of these three things. So we kind of care
about the fossil fuel thing because we're

in a climate crisis officially now. All
right. Also since I think December, when

the EU parlament declared this. If you've
used to running any kind of online

service, you'll be aware that in many
cases there is a kind of shift to

basically use a hosted thing, because it
turns out that running infrastructure is

extremely complicated. And in many cases,
if you can buy versus build, then you'll

often save yourself a lot of hassle. And
the final one thing is, well, avoiding

oligopolies is quite a good thing, and
because diverse ecosystems are healthy

ecosystems and we kind of don't really
have so many options right now; if you do

care about this, it does feel a little bit
like this. And as we saw from just

yesterday, if you are at this stage, you
saw Gillian Oliver talking about this and

how much infrastructure you had to run
themselves, in many cases because we

didn't win it with this consolidation,
where if you want to use one service, you

have to buy into all these other things
associated with that company. All right.

So that's one of the trade off you might
have to think about when it comes to, say,

Platform and Provisioning. Provider is
also another decision that might affect

it. Now, I didn't mention in the beginning
of this talk that you can basically reduce

emissions from what you do. If you say a
cloud provide like AWS just by running it

in a different region. So you can see this
map here. This is by this person who is

best paid by Amazon to build kind of
sketch naughty things. And this is a list

of all the data centers and you'll see the
ones with the green leaves, which are

marked as kind of sustainable regions. And
you see on the right hand side on the east

coast of America, which is around North
Virginia, which has traditionally been

coal country - you don't have much in the
green regions there, but on the left hand

side, where you see a lot of kind of
leaves. And that's because on the west

coast of America, there's a lot more hydro
and things like that. So, you know,

with kind of a lower CO2 for each kind of
unit of computer that you're paying for.

So, yes, you can reduce emissions just by
switching from one region to another

region. And this is because, basically, to
expand that point I shared with you

before, where you are in the world... like
the place will affect the carbon intensity

of the emissions that come from running
infrastructure anywhere. So let's have a

look at Europe. Right. So France kind of
green full of nukes, right. So that's good

for some people, maybe less so in Germany.
Right. Germany, which is up here, this is

the land of solar and coal. Right. So
we're not all that green. England is

actually got lit up quite a bit better
than it was before. But up here, you can

see Poland: aww, not so good. Poland is
really, really into coal. And as you can

see up here in the Nordic states where
there's loads and loads of mountains and

wind and water, that things are really,
really green. And this gives you an idea

that you can kind of see where the
emission, the likely emissions might be

depending on where you're on the world and
that you might make decisions based on

this. But to have to kind of compare
against this is gonna be quite complicated

process. So one thing that we do. All
right. The Green Web Foundation, which is

where I currently work, is we build like a
directory to make it easier for you to

make that, to do the right thing. And we
present this information as an API and as

data sets for you to kind of build into
your own tool in which I'll expand a

little bit later. But one of the key
things is that your provider will actually

have an impact on who you... basically,
where something is will have an impact on

emissions from here. There is also... At this point
here I wanna segue a bit into kind of

energy markets, because when you start
working with computers and if you have to,

if you're responsible for any service, the
more you think about cloud or how to work

with cloud, the more you realize how many
parallels there are to energy markets.

Now energy markets are really interesting
in lots of strange ways, right. So in

Europe, but actually in lots of places
around the world, you can have cases where

the cost of electricity is actually
negative rather than positive. So like on

a day where there's which is really,
really sunny or really, really windy, it's

actually cheaper for the grid to basically
pay people to basically take energy off

the grid to keep it stable than it is to
say power down a nuclear power station

or power down some kind of large coal
fired power station. And then under

assault, you end up with these scenarios
where you have a negative and you have

negative cost. And one of the reasons here
is to basically get people to kind of take

this demand and put it to use in other
places. And I'm sharing this with you

because it's the kind of the idea like
shifting load might be might be something

you're aware of as developers or trying to
kind of delay jobs, for example. But you

see this manifesting now in how we use
energy, but basically things like with

IV's and things. So this is an example:
Bulb energy in the UK. They will

basically... if you have a car, they,
basically have time rest now, where

depending on the time of day or if you're
prepared to kind of provide, be a little

bit less strict about when you need
something running, then you'll get a

cheaper electricity. And why am I sharing
this with you? Because I think you start

to see things like this in the realm of
like computing now. So this is a paper

that was shared this year, the ICT for
Sustainability (ICT4S), basic conference

in Lapperate, which I've misspelt. Sorry,
Finnish people. And the general idea is

that these people started building Kubernetes
Scheduler to basically run a docker container,

run machines, run workloads where
energy was cheap and green by basically

tracking where it was sunny really. And
they were able to do this on where they

end up working with Microsoft to do this,
because Microsoft is one large company

that has a number of data centers all
around the world. But it kind of sucks

that there's only one company that you can
actually get this stuff from, or if you

wanted to do something kind of
cool with, say, a more

decentralized use of the web that... you
have to kind of go through one large

company. And if we were to look at say,
well, maybe a more kind of open, green and

decentralized web or Internet might look
like there is actually some lessons we

could learn from the energy sector over
the last, say, 10 to 20 years. So Germany,

one thing that we saw was the Energie-
wende over the last 15 years. And the

result of that was that we had like cheap
green distributed energy. So that we,

Germany is interesting in the sense that
it has quite a heterogeneous grid. So

there's lots and lots of smaller providers
of energy rather than just a handful of

huge providers. And there's lots of
reasons why having a diverse ecosystem is

helpful in this, right. And I kind of
wonder like this is one I share with you

as an idea. What if we'd something like
a digitalwende? Right. What if we could

do something like this to, kind of,
abstract computing away to the point that

you can run these in the same way? There
are companies that are now doing stuff

like this right now. And there's one
company called Helios Exchange that does

exactly this. But the paper I showed you
before, shows you this stuff around there.

So this may provide a way away from having
to rely on just basically an oligopoly and

concentrating more power. If we were to
kind of be prepared to think a bit more

about how we run computing around. So
final thing is, as this possible way of

sharing was programing language. So where
appropriate, you can have an impact here

as well, because different languages have
different goals and that can result in

reducing emissions from just much more
efficient use of resources. So this is

Hannes Mehnert yesterday. He was
presenting some work he's been doing on

MirageOS unikernels. All right. And
whether you probably can't see it. He was

basically making the point that this is
how he used running this stuff before.

When he switched to using unikernels, he
saw memory usage and CPU dropped massively

by just having a kind of better use of the
existing resources. So this was like a 25

fold decrease in compute use and a 10
times decrease in like RAM usage. And you

see the same things with other computing,
other languages. And the nice thing is

this is recorded now so you can see it too
tomorrow. All right. But there's also

papers that talk all about this stuff. So
depending on what your goals might be,

there may be certain languages which are
really better kind of optimized for the

task that you might actually have. Now,
does this mean that I'm saying that we

should all go out and code everything in
Ocaml, C and Rust? No, that's a really,

really... we choose languages for a wide
range of reasons from ecosystem to hiring,

to like developer happiness. And when you
look at a project or a product level,

you'll see that these kind of micro
optimizations, more than fun, might not be

the most effective way to achieve some
emissions reductions. But it's still out

there and it's worth being aware of. And
also, it's worth thinking about if you are

able to kind of think about the entire
stack of tools you might be using, then

you're kind of doing something like this
in many cases. If you say use like Redis

or nginx or something to serve things. So
that's the idea for, like, platform. Now

let's talk about packets. So this is...
I've spoken of infrastructure you control,

this is infrastructure you do not control.
All right? Now, you cannot really control

the other parts of the Internet, and
that's generally considered a good thing.

But what you can do is control how much
data you send over the wire instead, allright.

And if we were to kind of look at,
say, the amount of energy we sent over the

wire and we figured out that both sending
data uses infrastructure, it uses energy,

which uses fossil fuels. Then we've got
some bad news, like we've seen pages

growing in size to the point that in
average they... I think the mean web page

size is now larger than the original
download of Doom. All right. But we're

also seeing it, because we have mobile
phones, so we use this more. All right.

And then because cellular network tend to
use more energy to shift the same amount

of data as, say, wired or Wi-Fi networks,
we have a loss here. So from a kind

of energy and climate point of view, this
is like the worst scenario we can imagine

right now. Thankfully, there are this, if
we think about Web page budgets as

basically carbon budgets, we realize we
have lots of tools that we can repurpose

for carbon reductions. So one example is
Google's Lighthouse. It basically runs

checks against your page, then it grades
you on how well your page is optimized. So

what we've been doing at the Green Web
Foundation is taken Lighthouse, we

forked it and we made Greenhouse. Which
was basically the same idea, but it kind

of looks at how many resources you run and
then says, well, yeah, climate emergency

folks, maybe you don't want to get all
your stuff from fossil fuels. And there's

some other things far worse than we can
make it, kind of, work out the carbon

footprint from this, because these numbers
exist, but that's further down the line.

But you can also see that I'm referring to
the ethical web principles here. If you

care about this as a professional, this is
something that the creators of the web are

now saying and giving you license to be
doing. If you do say, look, I don't want

to do this, there is a moral argument for
doing this. And if I want to build the

web, as Tim intended, then you can refer
back to these ethical principles now for

this. But I will need to share with you
that that doesn't mean that we should just

like reader optimize every single web page
and they'll be fine. Right. It's worth

getting a sense of perspective around
this. All right. Video like, video just

dwarfed web traffic. When we think about
designs, we might make like to give you

some context. This chart is just showing
you an idea of where like usage of

like data flows. Right. Now, 60 percent of
this basically is just telling us that all

the video used and streamed is about 300
kind of megatons of CO2. And that was what

it was in 2018, which is roughly the
carbon footprint of Spain. All right. So

all the video = Spain, that's kind of
numbers and numbers you might want to look

at. Now, video on demand like, say,
Netflix and stuff - just like the country

of Chile. Porn - that's like Austria. All
right. So these are some kind of like

reference points is for you to kind of
refer to now. All right. And I speak about

that process now. And like, this is why
it's worth thinking about some other thing.

This is why I also care about kind of making the
web green, because I think it's going to

be easier to make the entire Internet
green than it is to stop people watching

porn, basically, which is a statement, I
suppose. So I spoke a bit about the

process and how there are other things you
can do outside of computers. All right. So

they are obvious. There's two ways I'm
going to show this. So there's kind of

inward looking at process, like the
greening of how we build digital products.

Right. This isn't visible to the end
users, but it's still a useful thing to

do. Now, an example of this is the company
called WHOLEGRAINDigital. I really admire

that. They're really really cool company
doing some good stuff on the web and they

are one of the original kind of WordPress
agencies and they basically say, yes, we

do everything with WordPress and green
energy and they started working at their

own missions and blogging about this. And
what they said was that they know, that

they looked at these figures and they
switched to running on green infra because

that was the kind of right thing for them
to do. But when I started doing that, they

started looking at where else are their
emissions and what they do. And they

basically looked at and some realized
that, oh, wow, a large part of their

emissions just comes from travel. And you
guys, you can see office and home energy.

And of the travel, around 94 percent of
their emissions came from commuting. So

this is why I'm saying that it's more than
just playing around with computers and

optimizing stuff. All right. So this was
kind of useful and this kind of inspired

some of the work agreement foundation for
us to start sharing this. And what we've

been doing recently is basically take this
model and build some, like I guess in VCC,

which is I'm afraid is minimum viable
carbon calculator, not the post-growth,

other kind of acronym there. And we
basically built like a simple spreadsheet

that is very, very fast to fill out. So we
picked two people to kind of get an idea

of, okay. These are the things I'm paying
to run. This is the like if I build a web

project, this is how much data I'm
shifting over time. And then because it

turns out that it uses energy to keep
people warm and dry inside buildings and

people tend to use energy commuting. Then
we tracked it, we tracked that as well.

And we do this to give people some figures
and get some idea of where they might want

to act upon this, because the current ways
that you report on, say, emissions or

think about this is like an annual report
every year. That's a really, really slow

debugging cycle. That means we have like
eight or nine kind of hits of the F5 key

before, like it's a climate apocalypse.
That feels like we should all do a little

better than that. But this is entirely
open, you can link to the template

yourself. And we've we learnt some
interesting things and we did this. We

realized that when we were working on this
because the team were pretty good on

commuting the let them cycle to work. They
were emissions are quite low there. But we

also realized that there was actually an
argument for changing how we design, say,

a Web site. We found that one chunky
background video, you know, those things

that we all hate. Right. That had the same
carbon footprint as basically the entire

team commuting for the entire project. All
right. So it's quite easy to make an

argument to get rid of that and it kind of
meaningful, measurable reduction there. So

these are some of the stuff that we do now
in this. The other thing is an outward

process. So these might be decisions you
make that affect the kind of emissions

through use or for your end users. And
these are gonna be much more visible to

end users. The example I like to refer to,
because I'm a fan of the company. is

Fairphone. You folks have heard a
Fairphone here, right? Yeah. Like they're

basically the canonical Fairtrade smart
smartphone, really. All right. That's the

best way to describe them. And they
also... there's lots of good things about

what they do, but they also share lots of
information about their own carbon

emissions and what steps they're trying to
take to reduce them in a relatively honest

way, which is also really good. And
because they publish it, we can read it.

Now, we've seen trends in electronics over
the last, say, five or six years where we

had modular things and we saw a few failed
attempts at having modular smartphones.

We've been a shift towards like systems on
a chip and stuff like that. So if you are

going to do that, that means in some way
that having a modular design is a

challenge. But it means that if most of
the energy or impact on building

electronics is coming from basically
turning sand into a chip with lots, lots

of energy then we'll need to think about
where we might have a way to decouple this

from the rest of it. All right. To make us
the electronics we do have last longer.

All right. And this is what I found in
there, over LCA life CO2-analysis report,

where they look at the emissions over the
entire process. They... basically the

first thing is their actual use is pretty
small for this. But what you can see here

- the emissions were from the production.
And the thing they decide to do was make

the phone as easy as possible to repair
for end users or replace parts of it. To

make it go from, say, a 5-years project
product to a sort... from a 3-years

product to a 5-years product. And this had
the impact of reducing the emissions by a

measurable figure. And it's a pattern that
we might follow ourselves. All right. Now,

actually. Fairphone and it make a real
feature of this now, they've talked about

this to their, kind of, audience. So they
basically say if you can just say upgrade

just the camera rather than the rest of
the phone, that is still kind of working,

then you can reduce the carbon footprint
over the lifetime by these kind of

figures. And I think this is actually
worth sharing because it hints that there

are options for us to actually be doing
something until we can run everything on

green power, which would affect these
numbers. And I think I've shared with you

like a mental model and see how it can be
activated. I've spoken with you about kind

of carbon. Now I'm just gonna give you
some steps of where to go next. So, okay.

It's 2020. Right. And I kind of feel this
feels like this table stakes. And I'm

really glad that at least one person is
taking photos of this. I'd really like it,

if more of you to take some photos of this
and share with your peers, because I think

the single most effective thing we can use
in community is stuff like this. All

right. We would expect we need to kind of
make this just... we need to change the

static about how we build things. So in
the same way that we would expect a

builder to know about asbestos and we
expect automotive engineers to know about

lead poisoning in particulars. I think as
professionals we need to know about the

impact of carbon and what we do and that
we don't need it to build digital

services. And I think if we can build
electric cars in the automotive center,

then we can build green stacks in
technology. And I think we need this to

become the norm. So this is what I need. I
need your help me to share this with your

boss, with your coworker. Set something
like this. We've had people talk about

just how bad the situation is. And like
this is really like one of the minimum

things we can do. Which doesn't actually
have a massive cost for us, as you do. So

if we do, we need something like a cloud
moonshot to get off fossil fuels. And this

is one thing I really would ask you to
really consider. So asking for this is a

bit easier if you have friends. So I'm in
a group called ClimateAction.tech, where

it's basically just a slack group with a
few other things that we now run from

here, on meet ups. And the idea is that we
do this to kind of share what the

strategies are to actually kind of push
for this kind of stuff, because not

everyone can join Extinction Rebellion.
And I'm not sure that everyone should join

Extinction Rebellion. They used that we
have different aspects of ourselves that

we bring in our work compared to where
else we might work. Now if you are

interested in acting upon any of this. I
work at Agreement Foundation and we

provide, we have like an open source
platform where you can check your stack

and then the tools you have to do this.
And if you are interested about any of

this stuff, we are trying to find a way to
make it easier or to make some of this

much more transparent, because I shared
with you before about how large companies

can basically fudge some of the numbers to
make them look greener than they otherwise

might be. So tomorrow we're running a kind
of on lecture room M2. We're running

something like a workshop to figure out
what some of this might look like in the

same way that we set up robots.txt. So
carbon.txt a way to verify this. There's a

Web site that that's been hastily put
together to give you some idea for this.

And finally, I'm just gonna wrap up now.
Thank you for letting me talk to you about

this stuff here. If you're interested in
getting in touch and talk to me, please do

the Green Web Foundation. I'm Mr. Chris
Adams on Twitter and GitHub. We're asked

to do some training around this because we
realize that although most of us do care,

we don't have much ways to act upon this
kind of stuff. Then finally, if you find

this interesting, there's a newsletter
which I've started with a friend of mine,

Martin, where we're basically sharing what
we learn as we go through it, which bits

are hard, which bits aren't so hard. And
yeah. Thank you everyone!

applause

Herald: Thank you very much. We do have
plenty of time for Q&A. Nonetheless, I

would like the Q&A to be of high quality.
So when you ask a question, it should be a

question. Thanking the speaker is lovely
and nice, but don't waste our collective

bandwidth on that and do that afterwards
on your own. And I don't really care what

your name is or what your affiliation is.
Just ask a question, and make it short and

so on. And the first two questions go to
the Internet.

Signal Angel: You've mentioned the preview
for other workshop, a carbon.txt just now.

Can you already share some strategies how,
for example, the Green Web Foundation and

other sites directories can protect
themselves against being abused by

companies, for example, through
greenwashing.

Chris: So I think... you just need to read
some reports about this kind of stuff. And

get familiar with this. Now, I really
apologize - a large bunch of this was

incredibly dry. There was lots and lots of
dry material around this to, actually,

figure this stuff out. I think it's mainly
a case of working out what numbers you...

what questions you might actually have to
ask. And I can share a link specifically

for the questions that you need to ask.
But generally, I think the four things I

would look for: if the organization hasn't
made a public statement about when they're

going to hit zero emissions; if they're
not sharing their progress on an annual

basis; if they're not sharing how much of
their business they get from basically the

from fossil fuels right now; then how much
of their business is still involved in

extracting fossil fuels from the ground. I
think these are the key things and if

they're not using this kind of scoped
emissions process, which is a clear thing

of finding numbers, those are the biggest
ones. There is a page on that I've got

which lists these questions to ask and
I'll share link to everyone since I get on

the webs to link to this.
Signal Angel: And the second question from

IRC: The numbers that you've mentioned
that the companies themselves publish. Can

you verify them? And if yes, how?
Chris: So the thing that you can... Oh,

that's the thing is - independent
verification is the thing you need to ask

for, it's the final one. So I have just
finally seen where the voice is coming

from. It's like the voice of God speaking.
The independent verification is very

important. All the examples I pointed to,
had independent verification, usually from

a set of companies that do auditing of
this kind of stuff. Now there is again,

there's a firewall of tedium around this
stuff, like that thing where I showed you

with a Google with Google's numbers being
high and low. This is because you need to

kind of go into the minutiae of
understanding market based reporting,

because location based reporting and
there's reporting around this stuff,

there's like lots of academic literature,
but there's just not very accessible to

lots of people right now. They need to be
more of us who do do this stuff. This is

partly one of the reasons we want to have
something like carbon.txt was to basically

give people a chance to see this, but also
linked to the specific documentation

they're referring to. So you can ask.
Okay. So it's nice you've done this. But

whereas this was a third party
verification of this or why is the same

guy called Trevor being basically audited
all of these companies and like literally

it's the same dude who's reported Amazon's
and Apple's. And I'm not sure about

Google. Right. But Trevor is probably a
good guy. But the fact that there is only

one person doing this is kind of...
come on, we know that there are things that

you probably don't want to do in this
field. Also in Europe, at least, if you

want to sell renewable energy, you do need
to register this with the government

registry. And there is something in
there... I didn't really talk about this

in the session. The aim is talk about more
in carbon.txt, how to find this and how to

look this up. Basically, everything we
know about SSL and DNS, you can apply that

to solve this kind of problem without
needing a freaking block chain. All right.

And you can actually find something useful
here, right? Like this data is out there.

It's just the we need to better know the
right questions to ask and make sure that,

well, we are running stuff on a green
stack rather than a brown stack.

Herald: Ok. Microphone number 6, state
your question.

Mic6: Hello and thanks. Very good. Thanks
for your great talk.

Herald: I've said something about thanking
the speaker before.

Mic6: I know. That's why I said it. I
understand you could try to convince

people to reduce their carbon emissions.
Now the managers I have been working under

are generally good in reducing cost. Do
you think it would help to translate

carbon emissions into cost and have this
problem solved by the invisible hand?

Chris: So this is actually the approach
that Amazon use. And for some of the

spreadsheets I've showed you before where
we do not have numbers forecast for

emission, for reported emissions, the best
thing you can go on is going to be sector

level averages for the carbon intensity of
spending a 1000 pounds or 1000 euros in a

particular area. So you might look at it
like that. I kind of feel that there are

certain people who really respond to this
kind of like cost base messaging. But I

think it's more attractive for us to kind
of change the aesthetic around what we do

so rather than us continually striving. I
mean, if we had the narrative for people

for our generation was to basically save
the planet, that feels a much more

attractive thing than using cost. But I
do... I'm aware that if you are in an

organization where the primary driver is
cost, then you need to be able to use that

language. And that's why we've been
speaking about some of that. But there are

lots and lots... there's actually stuff in
this field to show this. There are

organizations that will basically help you
quantify the risks from doing nothing

versus the cost of action. Because in many
cases, when we talk about this, we think

that we often use... you hear the phrase:
"Well, what's it going to cost to shift to

kind of green energy?", for example. But
it's like - what we pretend is there is no

cost to inaction, when it really, really
is. And we've seen just the five years

massive, massive changes in the
destruction of companies and industries

and, well, hundreds and hundreds of lives
as well. So I think that you can use costs

for this, but I think it's a bit reductive
to only use costs.

Herald: Shall be microphone number 2.
Mic2: You in your research, did you

encounter a tradeoff between privacy and
security and carbon neutrality? And if

yes, in which cases?
Chris: Yes. In fact, I used to work at a

company, Amy. One of the key ideas behind
the company was that if you can understand

the company's CO2 emissions, you can
understand the supply chain. And if you

understand the supply chain, then in some
ways you can use it as a kind of cost to

kind of beaten organization to reduce
their prices, because you can see that

they're much more wasteful compared to
other ones. But at the same time, this

is... so that works at an organizational
level. There's also a personal aspect to

this. And I think that this is a field
that in many cases is focusing on

individual action and kind of shaming
people has been proven not to be very,

very effective. But that doesn't mean that
you shouldn't do anything, that there

isn't a cause for individual action,
because I think that provides the cover

for politicians to make the decisions
which will result in kind of real

meaningful changes. So there is a
tradeoff, because in order for you to

understand emissions, because basically
emissions are essentially a proxy for

activity and you will usually see this and
there are plenty of stories around this

and hopefully there might even be a topic
about this specific subject on Republica,

in May. Because, yeah, there is lots of
interesting literature around this

tradeoff that we do actually have to make.
Herald: Microphone number 1.

Mic1: Hi. Can you make an educated guess
on how much emissions could be spared if

like the big providers would follow your
advice?

Chris: So I guess it's tied to the, you
know... I've showed you the numbers of

Google like that different kind of charts.
Right. You could make the list, kind of

like coyork??... just cheat argument. You
say, well, maybe all of it. Right. But I

don't think that's really accurate.
Generally, if we are looking at just the

CO2 emissions from just like running the
Internet, right. I reckon you could

probably wipe out two thirds to 80 percent
of it, what actually depends on where you

might be looking at this, actually. So
more than half comfortably. All right.

Because if you look at, say, data centers,
the main driver there, the main source of

emissions is from them being on 24/7,
continually use like three quarters of the

emissions, assuming that data centers are
full of servers which are used for three

to five years, which is common. I'm not
sure this is the case. Please talk to me

if that's not the case, because I hear
rumors that that might not be the case at

large companies, but no one will write
this down. So until you know that I can't

give you a really educated, a really kind
of better guess than that, but it'll be

lovely to find out if that data exists and
there are lot of hackers who might get to

know about this kind of stuff.
Herald: Microphone number 4.

Mic4: When you talk about moving
computation around the globe, basically

cause to the weather. I wonder if there
isn't a lot of overhead associated with

that, like additional communication. Maybe
if you know, you're far away from a

database, you need rooting hops or
whatsoever. Do you know anything about

that?
Chris: Yes, I spoke to the guy to Alan

James, who was actually working on that.
And I said, hey - what you said, I said,

yeah, we take that into account because we
can work out the emissions from moving a

container of this size to over there. And
in many cases, we might move to the state

that we watch you when a query there as
well. So his approach was to basically

apply various kinds of metadata tags to
the kind of jobs you might want to run to

provide this kind of flexibility. And this
is not new idea like a Mastodon ... is a

kind of data science company that started
doing something like this 10 years ago.

They're kind of the ... Green Cloud
people doing this kind of stuff. And even

before then, there's this phrase called
"chasing the moon". Where was this idea that

you can do this if you run stuff on the
dark side of Earth, which sounds super

metal. Right. There is... this is not a
new concept, really, but it is cool.

Herald: Microphone number five, please.
Mic5: Hi. Do you see any chance of getting

governmental support with this, for
example, like with tax cuts for electronic

cars? I mean, maybe it would be possible
in here, too.

Chris: Yes. I was actually at the EU
Commission Green Public Procurement

workshops. They've been doing for the last
like few months. And I was... there were a

tiny number of people from small
companies. There were lots of large, large

companies who were there saying, yes, they
think you should do is move to our cloud.

That's the clear solution to the climate
crisis. But they actually, it does look

like there is guidance and there is going
to be support in this field. All right. So

I do know there's going to be... well,
we've already seen this like we've seen

the European Parliament declare climate
emergency saying: we need to halve

emissions by 2030. That's around 8%, year
on year for the next 10 years. Now, most

of us don't know what that looks like
because the last time you saw 8% drop in a

single year was the collapse of the Soviet
Union. Which is partly why I'm kind of

sharing stuff like this, because I think
the idea of having a more managed

reduction of emissions feels more kind of
conducive to I guess a kind of

continuities of how we live than the
collapse of the Soviet Union. So I think

there is stuff out there. But in many
cases, we don't have the knowledge right

now as people in the sector to know what
is effective. And this is something that

we need to, as professionals, learn, to
learn where the levers are if we want to

consider ourselves as professionals facing
the scale of the challenge that is ahead

of us.
Herald: Microphone number two, please.

Mic2: Hello. So my question is about you
talked a lot about how much a carbon

emission happens because of running a
server in the server side. But if the

traffic goes really, really high in a real
larger scale, you might have a lots of

emission just because of their
transmitting the package through the

datacenter from and ... and backbones plus
like there carbon emission from rendering

the page in the like formZ and everything
around that. Is there... I was looking for

it for a while, but I couldn't find a
number like saying okay, one TB of traffic

in the data center from United States
going to cause like this much of carbon.

Chris: Yeah. Is that your question? What
is the carbon footprint of a gigabyte of

data or something?
Mic2: I want to have some numbers saying

like which one is like translate traffic
to a number.

Chris: Okay. So there are two
organizations who are doing some work in

this field. In fact, there's a whole kind
of community around greener web

performance where they are tracking this
kind of stuff now. There's a group called

the Shift Project, who I've referenced
before, who talk about the carbon

footprint... the video being the carbon
footprint of Spain. They've actually got

some browser extensions which you can
install into Firefox. I'll give you

numbers as you browse to see this. I've
also put together just like some

interactive notebooks, you can get some
ballpark figures of this kind of stuff

yourself. So very quickly, you can decide,
well, do I do this or do I do something

different. So, yes, look at Green Web
Foundation, there's a link specifically to

a notebook with the numbers for this.
Herald: Next question goes to the

Internet.
Signal Angel: Hey, IRC states that in

their experience, Kubernetes has a quite a
high CPU idle usage, about 40 percent as

mentioned. This mechanism that you showed
to adapt the server usage to the demand.

Does this mitigate against this?
Chris: I don't really know enough about

Kubernetes to give a useful opinion on
Kubernetes. So my thing was like this is

an interesting idea because it's treating
cloud and compute like a utility. And as a

result, we see patterns that we've seen
that have success in other sectors. But

that could be applied to us. I don't know
beyond that, but I can tell you that

there's a lot of well, there's basically
funding going into this kind of stuff now.

But I'm sorry, I don't know much more than
that. But if you do work with Kubernetes,

please you talk to me because I would be
really nice to have a better answer than I

don't know in future.
Herald: Microphone number three.

Mic3: How many talks do I have to attend
here? So that it will have been worth it

traveling here from Munich instead of
watching this online.

Chris: So it depends what... Okay. First
of all, I think coming to a conference,

just because there's talks, that's not the
reason to come to a conference. You come

to a conference to have high quality, high
context conversations with other people

and get something useful from that,
because like you said, you don't need to

do that. That said, the idea of like
having kind of physical community is

actually very, very useful. I think that
there isn't a number, I can't say like

seven because that's going to be
meaningless. But there is a whole issue

around basically the carbon footprint of
traveling to events and in many cases, so

for some context: I was organizing a
conference in London called Helping

Organize your Conference called Map Camp,
and we were trying to internalize the

carbon costs of people traveling, and we
found that some basically a minority of

people coming across the Atlantic Ocean
wiped out, I think, by half the carbon

footprint, the kind of carbon budget for a
600 person conference. So there is some

numbers around that. We've actually hired
a group to give to actually publish some

of this information out there. And there's
a couple of widgets to figure this stuff

out. But if you're here for the talks,
that's one thing. But really, you should

be here to make speak to the other people
and get some kind of meaningful connection

you can have from there.
Herald: Microphone number one.

Mic1: Is this possible to create like an
automated way, a platform or service that

tech companies can connect to and
estimate, like have a rough estimate about

the carbon footprint based on the stack
they use, based on the bandwidth, based on

the, you know, different process
information.

Chris: It depends. This relies on the
organization having access to the matrix

that will go in as an input. So garbage
in, garbage out. Right. So the spreadsheet

I pointed to gives you a very, very low
quality version of doing that. There's

also a tool called AWS Green Cost
Explorer. We've basically forked a diverse

cost. AWS Cost Explorer worked out which
ones, which regions are running on fossil

fuels and then we present that information
back to you so you can get some idea for

this so you can work out these numbers.
But I don't see them right now, largely

because a lot of organizations see this
information is commercially sensitive. So

they don't like to share this. So we have
to go on basically kind of some rough

numbers here. And this is one of the
problems that we do have. And that came up

with the grim public procurement thing was
that we don't have the transparency right

now to make the particular informed
decisions about this. But theoretically,

yes.
Herald: Microphone number five.

Mic5: Hi. I have a question about this
double things that you are doing. On one

side, you have the getting things done
like building sustainable infrastructure.

And in the last days, yesterday, there was
a couple of examples of that. And on the

other side is generate momentum like
convincing people to join the movement and

be more aware of that. So I was wondering,
how does, for example, the Green Web

Foundation apply to that? In the sense
then how radical can you be like, can you

kick out people from your directory
because you think they are not doing green

enough? Or how does this work?
Chris: So I should be clear about the

Green Web Foundation just being a handful
of guys. It's not a big thing at all.

Right. So it's been running for about 10
years. And this is a thing that we have

been doing for the last six months. I
mean, I joined in March and we started

looking through this and we are basically
now, we've been contacting our providers

and say: look, we need you to provide some
more useful and some more rigorous data

evidence to back up your green claims. For
this reason, because you can't...

basically, it's as the stakes are got
higher, it's become more and more

important to actually do this. And if
you're going to base decisions about how

you kind of choose infrastructure from now
on, it makes a lot of sense to do that. So

we are heading in that direction to say,
look, if you can't share this information,

we're going to stop listing you. But we
have given, because we're not so sure

ourselves in this, we we're giving people
a deadline to get this information. So you

probably see some the stats change over
the coming weeks as the way that we do our

reporting changes. But because we released
open data sets around this on a regular

basis, you can actually see this.
Herald: Microphone number two.

Mic2: Hey, have you heard about the
Science Based Targets initiative? And if

yes, what do you think of them?
Chris: So Science Based Targets is

interesting because they are one of the
drivers to basic... So if you're not

familiar what Science Based Targets are:
Science Based Targets are basically a way

to say, well, if you're an organization
and you want to hit net zero, the science

dictates that you need to take these steps
here. I actually think they're better than

nothing in a lot of cases and I think
they're probably one of the more effective

things to use. And they also insist that
you do need to understand emissions in

your supply chain. So I imagine
organizations that sign up to Science

Based Targets will come on pump against
the problems that I've just explained

about, trying to get numbers from the
large companies who tend to be coy about

sharing this stuff. I think it makes total
sense at corporate level. If you're not a

state body. But I feel that the legally
binding targets that are now in place in

the U.K. and we are likely to see in
Europe in the next six months to a year,

would be greater levers, because they
provide a degree of certainty for people

to then justify decisions. Because it's
the law now, rather than being a thing

that you might get unemployed for.
Herald: Question from the Internet.

Signal Angel: You mentioned that video on
the Internet is a large majority of the

energy usage. Can you say something about
how this breaks down to encoding, storage,

transmission and decoding?
Chris: Yes. Those numbers, I understand,

are all about just the transfer. So I
don't think there is much about the

encoding parts on that. That's just
sending.

Signal Angel: And quick follow up: can you
approximately say how much people can save

by, for example, staying on single
definition or SD instead of HD?

Chris: I... was it four times? I don't
know what that the change in resolution

would be and it's not something I feel
comfortable showing numbers on, because I

basically be making up on the spot. I feel
that the solution is telling people to not

do something like this - I think it's
really, really hard ask and seriously,

speeding? Getting off fossil fuels is a
much better way to solve this problem than

telling people they're not allowed to
watch Netflix ever again or only in low

resolution, for example. Like we like
technology because we're like 15000 people

here because we like technology. Telling
everyone you don't get to use technology

anymore is gonna be much, much harder to
sell than just use green power and stop

running fossil fuels.
Herald: Okay. Last question goes to

microphone number one.
Mic1: Hello. I work for a company that...

Herald: I've said something about
affiliations and introductions. Stage your

question? We're pretty much out of time.
Mic1: If a company owns a lot of servers

and the only solution to reduce the carbon
footprint was to switch to green energy,

this would increase the costs for the
energy. And I'm afraid that I don't have

good arguments to go to ask them to switch
to green energy because of the costs.

Chris: Green energy is cheaper than fossil
fuel energy now, like ... so, we've seen

this massive reduction in costs like a
like storage has come down by 85 percent

in the last say 10 years, we've seen a
massive drop in renewables, like this

argument is kind of being solved at that
level there. It's a choice of provider or

something separate. But I think in many
cases it's going to be a case of choosing

who you want to do that. And if you're
trying to make this argument here, you can

make the argument that generally people
tend to want to work in companies that are

not destroying the planet. And if you want
to retain people or attract new people

saying, hi, we're part of the solution,
not the problem is a good way to present

this. And that's why lots of organizations
talk about kind of green credentials

because it's a recruiting tool in the same
way that they talk about open source or

working from home or anything like that,
especially as we get older and have more

kids and then realize that: wow, they'll
be alive when this stuff happens! Okay.

Herald: Thank you so much. We're out of
time.

applause

36C3 postroll music

Subtitles created by c3subtitles.de
in the year 2021. Join, and help us!