Yes, because in the end you can summarize all ethics under "feelgood". As I said, I read that in the broadest sense of the word. So stopping dumping chemicals is feelgood. Of course besides that there is also a legal aspect that should be taken into consideration, and that is different between these two cases. because dumping chemicals in a creek is illegal, and 'dumping CO2' not. So Required by law might have to be added to the list too yes, it is possibly the strongest argument. Just not very well available here... But we are talking about an organization here, and feelgood is for sure a very good argument, let's not neglect that. The donators i would have summarized under 'Good PR'. But of course it could just as well give 'Bad PR', so maybe that has to be added too.
I was not trying to give a solution, or an answer, I've not made up my mind yet, but I am only trying to summarize the real arguments and make the discussion a little better to follow. So if I'm correct, the list is now:
* What are the benefits for the Wikimedia Foundation? ** '''Legal Requirements''' (i.e. we have to obey the law...) ** Good Feeling ** Good Publicity
* What are the disadvantages for the Wikimedia Foundation? ** It costs money ** It might damage the neutrality of the projects if announced publicly ** Possibly problems with the tax status (might have to be checked) ** Possibly bad Publicity
BR, Lodewijk
2007/7/10, Peter Halasz email@pengo.org:
You frame the situation in an odd way. As going carbon neutral is somewhat altruistic, it would take a fairly superficial or image conscience organisation to seek direct benefit. Let's frame it a different way. If you were a board member of a chemical plant that dumped heavy metals into the local creek you could also be asked "what's in it for us to not do this? Why should we stop polluting? Just to feel good?"
Well we are dumping chemicals: greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. So do we walk away from the mess we've made? We need to act responsibly and reduce our emissions. The cost of electricity does not factor in its environmental impact and we need to consider that. It's part of the WMF's triple bottom line.
As discussed, to begin with we can ask donors if it's ok to use part of their contributions to offset our emissions.
Peter Halasz [[user:pengo]]
On 7/8/07, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
{{OFF-TOPIC}}
Instead of discussing whether the greenhouse effect is really based on CO2-emissions, what renewable resources are, what the latest developments are for nuclear plants, I think we should consider the following questions:
- What are the benefits for the Wikimedia Foundation?
** Good Feeling ** Good Publicity
- What are the disadvantages for the Wikimedia Foundation?
- It costs money
- It might damage the neutrality of the projects if announced publicly
- Possibly problems with the tax status (might have to be checked)
If anybody has to add possible advantages or disadvantages, please do so. I capture the future for our children etc under "Good Feeling", please read that in the broadest sense of the word. (we are talking about an organization here, so it might be about feelings of it's board, staff, volunteers etc)
Thanks for the move to on-topic.
BR, Lodewijk
2007/7/7, Peter Halasz email@pengo.org:
If people are still interested in looking into providers of carbon offsets, "Clean Air-Cool Planet" has evaluated 30 offset providers. (CA-CP is a science-based, non-partisan, 501(c)3 non-profit). Looks like a good starting point.
http://www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/ConsumersGuidetoCarbonOffsets.pdf (1
MB)
Peter Halasz [[User:Pengo]]
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l