I think that the term "carbon pollution" is not technically accurate because carbon is not a pollutant

[holanita]

@greenhsu123 here is one more comment from the course forum. let's discuss in the new year. happy hoidays!

On the page https://trainingportal.linuxfoundation.org/learn/course/green-software-for-practitioners-lfc131/hardware-efficiency/introduction?page=2, located at "05. HARDWARE EFFICIENCY > Introduction > Key Concepts", the term "carbon pollution" is used several times. I think that the term "carbon pollution" is not technically accurate because carbon is not a pollutant. Carbon is a naturally occurring element and is the building block of all life on Earth. It is only when carbon is emitted into the atmosphere in excessive amounts, such as through the burning of fossil fuels, that it can become a problem. In this context, it is more accurate to refer to the emission of excess carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as "carbon emissions."

[greenhsu123]

@jawache or @aecurrie, you may have a strong view on this.

I can see how the phrase "carbon pollution" can seem incorrect, as described above, that carbon is a naturally occurring element. However, because of where we are with the climate, any carbon emitted from human industrial actions has harmful effects, and we should consider it a pollutant.

What do you guys think?

@holanita- I am keen to hear what Asim and Anne think, but we could reply to the above with "Thank you for your feedback. It's an excellent point. While we agree that carbon is naturally occurring, the alarming scale emitted to the environment through human industrial actions has harmful effects. Therefore, we would like to emphasise to our readers the strong connection hardware has with carbon, and they should be treated as excessive emissions, aka carbon pollution."

[aecurrie]

I'm happy with carbon pollution. Anything out of balance and wildly in excess is pollution. Nitrogen in the soil is natural but too much is pollution

…

On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 7:44 PM Sarah Hsu ***@***.***> wrote: @jawache <https://github.com/jawache> or @aecurrie <https://github.com/aecurrie>, you may have a strong view on this. I can see how the phrase "carbon pollution" can seem incorrect, as described above, that carbon is a naturally occurring element. However, because of where we are with the climate, any carbon emitted from human industrial actions has harmful effects, and we should consider it a pollutant. What do you guys think? @holanita- I am keen to hear what Asim and Anne think, but we could reply to the above with "Thank you for your feedback. It's an excellent point. While we agree that carbon is naturally occurring, the alarming scale emitted to the environment through human industrial actions has harmful effects. Therefore, we would like to emphasise to our readers the strong connection hardware has with carbon, and they should be treated as excessive emissions, aka carbon pollution." — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#140 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AD2TULES75FTGREEGNIDOB3WQ4QCRANCNFSM6AAAAAATDLIVT4> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[jawache]

I'm actually open to changing it 😉 this is a long time handover from the previous version of the principles, I remember originally i was being more "controversial" with my wording to grab attention.

The new Asim wouldn't use pollution any more, I'd probably use maybe emissions?

[greenhsu123]

In that case, should we go back with "Thank you for your feedback. It's an excellent point. While we agree that carbon is naturally occurring, the alarming scale emitted to the environment through human industrial actions has harmful effects. Therefore, for the first version of the course, we would like to emphasise to our readers the strong connection hardware has with carbon, and they should be treated as excessive emissions, aka carbon pollution. However, we will note this suggestion and revisit it for the next version of the course." ?

[aecurrie]

Sounds good to me!

…

On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 10:27 AM Sarah Hsu ***@***.***> wrote: In that case, should we go back with "Thank you for your feedback. It's an excellent point. While we agree that carbon is naturally occurring, the alarming scale emitted to the environment through human industrial actions has harmful effects. Therefore, for the first version of the course, we would like to emphasise to our readers the strong connection hardware has with carbon, and they should be treated as excessive emissions, aka carbon pollution. However, we will note this suggestion and revisit it for the next version of the course." ? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#140 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AD2TULGAE6D5XPARURQWBULWRPR2HANCNFSM6AAAAAATDLIVT4> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[holanita]

Reply sent. Changing the label to 'enhancement' and adding it to our task list for the future.