Page Text: Video conferencing (Zoom alternatives)
Summary of issue
With NIME moving to a hybrid format, video conferencing and communication will be essential for the conference. Additionally, the spread of COVID-19 has meant that the already established practice of everyday video conference calls has increased manyfold. While the carbon footprint of video calls is often significantly lower than that of non-local in-person meetings, a number of parameters can be considered in choosing the least polluting technologies and practices. Additionally, there have been a few privacy concerns related to Zoom in the past [8].
Questions Raised
What is the carbon footprint of a video call?
2.
What parameters determine the footprint of video calls?
3.
What are the different alternatives for video calls?
4.
How does the footprint of video calls relate to that of travel?
Notes
Carbon footprint of a video call
The energy efficiency of the internet has been roughly doubling every two years [1].
Video calls use 250 MB - 1.3 GB of data per participant per hour, depending on the quality [3].
The most recent reputable peer- reviewed estimate of the energy intensity of the internet found an average of 0.06 kWh per GB for 2015. Assuming that it is still halving every 2 years, it would now be around 0.015 kWh/ GB [3].
The German grid carbon footprint is (2018) 0.4690 kgCO2e per kWh [5]. Use link [5] to find the footprint of most countries.
One hour of video conferencing, then, is between 0.0018 and 0.0091 kgCO2e per hour of video conferencing.
Based on these numbers, a rough calculation of the relationship between virtual and physical attendance for one person from Berlin for NIME 2021 in Shanghai:
Attendance