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@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@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l