The work done must be measured and must be part of a pre-existing environmental strategy.
This implies uniformity in how you report it. If you have an attributional approach for measuring impact at an organisational level, you'll need a way to convert between the two if you are using a consequential method for a project.
Organizations today typically must assess their spending records and then look up tables that estimate the average emissions associated with them. This falls far short of what the world really needs, which is the ability to pull accurate and near real-time data directly from the emissions sources themselves.
OK, so this suggests they're intending to eventually replace the extended environmental input output models that are the defaults in most carbon accounting tools with their own models.
My guess is this would be their moat in many cases.
Ensuring that the regional market is competitive and that there are incentives for companies to buy local cloud infrastructure is a role that only government actors can fulfill. Moreover, it is a responsibility that is clearly within their mandate. Not coincidentally, such an approach clearly aligns with the European Commission’s and some European Union member state governments’ laudable competition and antitrust strategies, echoing attempts to safeguard the European market and uphold strong values throughout the EU.
This is literally the opposite of how it works right now, with some procurement specifying AWS
It’s true! None of these tactics, on their own, will address complex, deep-rooted social problems. But each of them represents a potential pathway that we can ascend when other routes are blocked.
Useful framing in the syllabus.
We have some idea of the goals, and talking in terms of methods provides options to suite the context