James Hall’s Post

Many assume GreenOps is synonymous with FinOps, but when do CO2e and costs NOT match? 👇 While often linked, optimising cloud costs and reducing carbon emissions (CO2e) are not mutually inclusive. I often find myself explaining the antagonistic use cases to new customers: 🍃 Some practices that WILL reduce both Costs and Emissions include: - Right-sizing - Eliminating Unused Instances - Autoscaling - Data Compression These actions have a dual positive impact, contributing to both financial and environmental sustainability. ❓ But others are designed to reduce cost or emissions, not both: e.g. - Savings Plans (cost) - Reserved Instances (cost) - Migrating Workloads to Low Carbon Regions (carbon) It’s important to recognise when FinOps does not ALWAYS = GreenOps. Despite all this, the biggest problem in my opinion is even when activities like 'Right-sizing' have been initiated (usually as part of a FinOps program), many businesses are not reaping the GreenOps benefits. While it’s logical to ASSUME that this activity is reducing carbon emissions as the AWS Well-Architected Framework's sustainability pillar will tell you it is, it’s impossible to quantify by how much. And if you don't know, you're unable to claim the value for sustainability teams, Net Zero goals and reduction initiatives, or get tech teams involved in a sustainability culture in any meaningful way The right data like Greenpixie's can retrospectively evaluate FinOps initiatives through a sustainability lens - bringing a new perspective and lots of new value to work they’ve already done. #culture #sustainability #finops #greenops