Global warming not necessarily "more important" on an abstract level,
but the fact is we are contributing to it by purchasing and using
non-renewable energy -- so lessening that contribution through
investment in renewable energy helps offset what the WMF is directly
responsible for -- at least until a time comes when governments compel
energy providers to be responsible for their own emissions.
The main problem seems to be money, but we haven't even estimated a
ballpark figure for how much it would cost. Can we conduct even an
informal guestimate-ish audit, if not a proper one?
If using contributor funds is a problem, let's look at requesting that
money from the community separately. Dismissing carbon credits or
offsets as a "fad" and of "dubious effect" are poor excuses. There is
enough brainpower here to find carbon offset investments which are
genuine.
Peter Halasz
On 6/9/07, Marco Chiesa <chiesa.marco(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
Not to mention the fact that it.wp would probably
decide it was
advertising and threaten to fork ;-)
Yeah, we will probably do. In the past the community got quite upset whn
some users decided to personalize the logo for Christmas, Halloween or
World AIDS day, so definitely any logo will be considered advertising
:p. I think endorsing any (good) cause goes against NPOV policy. Why
should global warming be more important than feeding the hungry or
getting a person his/her first million before he/she turns 30?
Cruccone
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l