Hi all,
I noticed a logo for "Carbon Neutral website" on a wiki; http://www.wikihow.com/wikiHow:Carbon-Neutral
The concept is to be aware of the carbon production related to the operation of a website/organization and to try to keep the production as low as possible by using energy efficient computers and environmental awareness by people working for the organisation.
And further compensate the produced greenhouse gasses by investing in projects to reduce emissions.
Why doing this: There is a climate problem on earth caused by the human activity's like the release of greenhouse gasses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
If there are people who find this is not correct go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change and voice your beliefs there.
Because a picture says more then thousend words maybe this short picture can made clear what this is about; http://sol3.info/2007/05/no-need-for-words.html
Back to carbon neutral website;
The impact of doing things like this can not be anything else for the environment then symbolic. But I do not think that is an valid excuse for not (trying) to do it. Symbolic actions have also there value.
If some small website does something like this then that is nice but that is all (*). But if a Top 10 Internet website does it then that is an important symbolic signal. And if it would come form a American organization it would be matter even more. Like it or not America has the image in large parts of the world as the largest polluter in world who does not want do anything serious about it.
I would like to raise this topic to the global Wikimedia community and if there is support for (maybe a vote?) the Wikimedia Foundation to take this topic in to account.
And explore if, how and when it could be possible to reduce the environmental footprint of the Wikimedia Foundation projects and maybe get to the point to be become a carbon neutral website.
The vision statement of the WMF is; "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment."
In a future with increased global temperature of more then 2 degrees Celsius the change of that vision getting reality is strongly reduced.
I think it would fit the mission of the WMF to try to at least try to become a carbon neutral website/organisation.
And it would also not hurt from a public relations point of view.
Some people could be concerned about the NPOV attitude of Wikipedia. This is not about advertisements, this is about the future. To stay hard core neutral by doing nothing is saying NOP (Not Our Problem). That is also a POV, a irresponsible one.
Thoughts?
Greetings, Walter
(*) A cleaner environment starts with yourself. Being small is no excuse for not doing anything yourself. I operate the websites wikizine.org and sol3.info . These are Carbon neutral websites because of investments in green power installations by myself.
On Fri, June 8, 2007 11:45, Walter Vermeir wrote:
I noticed a logo for "Carbon Neutral website" on a wiki; http://www.wikihow.com/wikiHow:Carbon-Neutral
<snip>
If some small website does something like this then that is nice but that is all (*). But if a Top 10 Internet website does it then that is an important symbolic signal. And if it would come form a American organization it would be matter even more. Like it or not America has the image in large parts of the world as the largest polluter in world who does not want do anything serious about it.
I don't want to get into discussion about Carbon-Neutral and the rest, but have to say I would worry if we started putting the logo on the WMF projects, and for one simple reason.
Who is to say why *this* logo should be added? Why shouldn't the logos for Breast Cancer awareness, Aids awareness, etc be added too? Or let's get really serious and add the Taiwan flag proclaiming it is entirely independent of China? or a Basque flag?
This could easily either open floodgates of demands for logos and links, or create such animosity between editors, or outside the projects, that I feel it would be very inadvisable.
But, of course, ymmv ...
Alison Wheeler
Alison Wheeler <wikimedia@...> writes:
I don't want to get into discussion about Carbon-Neutral and the rest, but have to say I would worry if we started putting the logo on the WMF projects, and for one simple reason.
Who is to say why *this* logo should be added? Why shouldn't the logos for Breast Cancer awareness, Aids awareness, etc be added too? Or let's get really serious and add the Taiwan flag proclaiming it is entirely independent of China? or a Basque flag?
[cut]
Putting a logo or some sort expression on a WMF website is independent from the issue. This is not about putting logo's on websites but to be aware of the environment impact of the WMF-projects. And to try include those aspects as a factor when making decisions like buying hardware to consider the energy consumption as a factor.
If the WMF would become carbon neutral then that could be included in the relevant Wikipedia articles and on some page on the Foundation website. I personally would not mind to show that by putting a logo on the website but there is no need to do that.
Greetings, Walter
On 08/06/07, Walter Vermeir walter@wikipedia.be wrote:
Alison Wheeler <wikimedia@...> writes:
I don't want to get into discussion about Carbon-Neutral and the rest, but have to say I would worry if we started putting the logo on the WMF projects, and for one simple reason.
Who is to say why *this* logo should be added? Why shouldn't the logos for Breast Cancer awareness, Aids awareness, etc be added too? Or let's get really serious and add the Taiwan flag proclaiming it is entirely independent of China? or a Basque flag?
[cut]
Putting a logo or some sort expression on a WMF website is independent from the issue. This is not about putting logo's on websites but to be aware of the environment impact of the WMF-projects. And to try include those aspects as a factor when making decisions like buying hardware to consider the energy consumption as a factor.
If the WMF would become carbon neutral then that could be included in the relevant Wikipedia articles and on some page on the Foundation website. I personally would not mind to show that by putting a logo on the website but there is no need to do that.
Greetings, Walter
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I seriously doubt that the Wikimedia Foundation has enough money or resources to go carbon neutral. We were saying that the foundation doesn't even have enough money to last more than 4 months a few months ago (although I am sure they do) and going carbon neutral could massively increase expenses.
On 6/8/07, Walter Vermeir walter@wikipedia.be wrote:
Alison Wheeler <wikimedia@...> writes:
I don't want to get into discussion about Carbon-Neutral and the rest, but have to say I would worry if we started putting the logo on the WMF projects, and for one simple reason.
Who is to say why *this* logo should be added? Why shouldn't the logos for Breast Cancer awareness, Aids awareness, etc be added too? Or let's get really serious and add the Taiwan flag proclaiming it is entirely independent of China? or a Basque flag?
[cut]
Putting a logo or some sort expression on a WMF website is independent from the issue. This is not about putting logo's on websites but to be aware of the environment impact of the WMF-projects. And to try include those aspects as a factor when making decisions like buying hardware to consider the energy consumption as a factor.
If the WMF would become carbon neutral then that could be included in the relevant Wikipedia articles and on some page on the Foundation website. I personally would not mind to show that by putting a logo on the website but there is no need to do that.
Though I support the principle of reducing environmental impact, I am skeptical of this proposal.
We use a large amount of power. I imagine the expense of buying carbon offsets to become "carbon neutral" would be a significant one, and I think using our resources for something not directly related to the mission would not be responsible. (And would we have to account for all of the energy used by contributors to the site, also?)
(I am skeptical of carbon offsets in general. I think they are a fad and have read that many of the programs set up to sell them are only dubiously effective; I'd personally rather simply conserve power where possible and support environmental causes as appropriate.)
There are a lot of good causes that we do not support directly because they are not in line with the fairly narrow mission of WMF, all of which you could say contribute in a broad sense -- feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, and disaster relief, for example -- and I don't think it is a failing if we do not attempt to tackle all of them.
We are currently motivated to conserve energy simply because it costs less if we are efficient, and certainly I think we should take care not to be wasteful! But anything beyond that is using the money that people have given to us to further the creation and distribution of free reference works, and putting it to another purpose -- as if we had given it directly to an environmental organization. And I don't think that this is something we should do.
-Kat
Kat Walsh <kat@...> writes:
Though I support the principle of reducing environmental impact, I am skeptical of this proposal.
We use a large amount of power. I imagine the expense of buying carbon offsets to become "carbon neutral" would be a significant one, and I think using our resources for something not directly related to the mission would not be responsible. (And would we have to account for all of the energy used by contributors to the site, also?)
(I am skeptical of carbon offsets in general. I think they are a fad and have read that many of the programs set up to sell them are only dubiously effective; I'd personally rather simply conserve power where possible and support environmental causes as appropriate.)
[cut]
My proposal is in the first place to ask to take the environmental aspect in to account when doing things/making decisions related to the Wikimedia projects, not to spend money.
I am also sceptical about firms who trade in carbon offsets.
This because if you pay them to do something far away you lose your money. Also if you are not directly involved you do not really know what the do with it.
It can be a really good project, a scam or a project the looks good but actually brings more harm to the environment then good.
Planting trees is good but if you plant fast growing monoculture foreign for the region trees then you are not doing good.
Also bio-fuel is popular. But if that means in reality that rainforest is destroyed to plant there crops to make bio-fuel then long live the natural petroleum.
Or that because of the growing of food for cars (bio-fuel) instead of food for humans the local food prices increase and so increasing the malnutrition then that has also a clear negative environmental impact.
I can tell you what I have done to compensate my environmental footprint. In Belgium there is a very small cooperative company "Ecopower". The do educational projects around rational energy use and build and operate small power plants; a watermill, solar power, windmills. The also sell electricity directly to end users in Belgium. To become a customer from Ecopower you need to become a cooperative member of Ecopower by buying a share.
The are really very small but financially sound. Because I have buyed shares I am co-owner of there windmills and other installations . And annually I get a small dividend. For the money you must not invest in it, it can never be higher then 6%. And also only every 6 years you can sell stock so it is a long term commitment. For me this is better then paying for the planting of trees somewhere far away. And your money is not gone, only long term invested with a low but existing profit marge.
I am absolutely not saying that the WMF should invest in Ecopower, not even that the should invest in anything. But if there budget for externally doing something investing in something like Ecopower seems to be a better idea then sponsoring trees.
Greetings, Walter
Kat Walsh wrote:
We are currently motivated to conserve energy simply because it costs less if we are efficient, and certainly I think we should take care not to be wasteful!
There are a couple of important differences between electricity pricing and ecological cost:
1. electricity at knams and yaseo is donated 2. electricity at pmtpa is charged by peak power usage rather than by energy usage
Thus we waste energy in two ways: 1. we keep more servers switched on at knams and yaseo than we need 2. we make no effort to conserve power during off-peak times, beyond what the servers do by default
-- Tim Starling
On 08/06/07, Alison Wheeler wikimedia@alisonwheeler.com wrote:
I don't want to get into discussion about Carbon-Neutral and the rest, but have to say I would worry if we started putting the logo on the WMF projects, and for one simple reason.
Who is to say why *this* logo should be added? Why shouldn't the logos for Breast Cancer awareness, Aids awareness, etc be added too? Or let's get really serious and add the Taiwan flag proclaiming it is entirely independent of China? or a Basque flag?
This could easily either open floodgates of demands for logos and links, or create such animosity between editors, or outside the projects, that I feel it would be very inadvisable.
Yeah. We're simply a sufficiently high-profile "target" that even if we voluntarily chose to affiliate with one organisation or another, the subsequent volume of demands for similar agreements - even from perfectly worthwhile groups - would be interesting.
Not to mention the fact that it.wp would probably decide it was advertising and threaten to fork ;-)
[Also the good old ultra vires principle - I'm not sure quite how relevant that would be in this case, and I don't know how many teeth it has in Florida, but one should always keep a weather eye on it for guidance...]
None of this should stop us *doing* such a generally "good thing", if we have the money to spare and the legal wiggle room to do it, but making a symbolic *statement* out of it, aligning ourselves with an external pressure group, might cause more trouble than it is worth both within and without the community. And as we don't have the money, anyway... ;-)
[Actually, there's a thought. I wonder how many organisations have considered doing a specific, small-scale, fundraiser specifically to get the money to spend on going carbon neutral, over and above their existing expenses. It could be presented very well; it would have a clearly defined goal; and it would interesting to compare the money raised to that by the normal fundraising process...]
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
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
I do hope it's within WMF's budget to go carbon neutral. While there are certainly plenty of other causes around, being aware of our own energy supply and footprint on the Earth is something that is inward focusing -- looking at intrinsic factors of the organisation, and should be reflected in our core values. And I believe it's our strong values that keep people donating.
I believe we could make the announcement of carbon neutrality without using any particular logo or political affiliation. If it's so problematic, the only link could be to the article on "Carbon neutrality".
I, for one, consider the figurative book of life to be the most important part of the "sum of all knowledge", and a great number of species are threatened now by global warming and climate change. As much as I value Wikipedia, an article with some photos is no replacement for the real thing. I support the possibility of having the organisation leave the Earth no worse than it found it.
Peter Halasz [[User:Pengo]]
On 6/8/07, Walter Vermeir walter@wikipedia.be wrote:
Hi all,
I noticed a logo for "Carbon Neutral website" on a wiki; http://www.wikihow.com/wikiHow:Carbon-Neutral
The concept is to be aware of the carbon production related to the operation of a website/organization and to try to keep the production as low as possible by using energy efficient computers and environmental awareness by people working for the organisation.
And further compensate the produced greenhouse gasses by investing in projects to reduce emissions.
Why doing this: There is a climate problem on earth caused by the human activity's like the release of greenhouse gasses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
If there are people who find this is not correct go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change and voice your beliefs there.
Because a picture says more then thousend words maybe this short picture can made clear what this is about; http://sol3.info/2007/05/no-need-for-words.html
Back to carbon neutral website;
The impact of doing things like this can not be anything else for the environment then symbolic. But I do not think that is an valid excuse for not (trying) to do it. Symbolic actions have also there value.
If some small website does something like this then that is nice but that is all (*). But if a Top 10 Internet website does it then that is an important symbolic signal. And if it would come form a American organization it would be matter even more. Like it or not America has the image in large parts of the world as the largest polluter in world who does not want do anything serious about it.
I would like to raise this topic to the global Wikimedia community and if there is support for (maybe a vote?) the Wikimedia Foundation to take this topic in to account.
And explore if, how and when it could be possible to reduce the environmental footprint of the Wikimedia Foundation projects and maybe get to the point to be become a carbon neutral website.
The vision statement of the WMF is; "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment."
In a future with increased global temperature of more then 2 degrees Celsius the change of that vision getting reality is strongly reduced.
I think it would fit the mission of the WMF to try to at least try to become a carbon neutral website/organisation.
And it would also not hurt from a public relations point of view.
Some people could be concerned about the NPOV attitude of Wikipedia. This is not about advertisements, this is about the future. To stay hard core neutral by doing nothing is saying NOP (Not Our Problem). That is also a POV, a irresponsible one.
Thoughts?
Greetings, Walter
(*) A cleaner environment starts with yourself. Being small is no excuse for not doing anything yourself. I operate the websites wikizine.org and sol3.info . These are Carbon neutral websites because of investments in green power installations by myself.
-- Contact: walter AT wikizine DOT org Wikizine.org - news for and about the Wikimedia community
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, When we happen to be carbon neutral fine. When we do not, there is no budget for fancy stuff. We are underfunded as it is. Thanks, GerardM
On 6/8/07, Peter Halasz email@pengo.org wrote:
I do hope it's within WMF's budget to go carbon neutral. While there are certainly plenty of other causes around, being aware of our own energy supply and footprint on the Earth is something that is inward focusing -- looking at intrinsic factors of the organisation, and should be reflected in our core values. And I believe it's our strong values that keep people donating.
I believe we could make the announcement of carbon neutrality without using any particular logo or political affiliation. If it's so problematic, the only link could be to the article on "Carbon neutrality".
I, for one, consider the figurative book of life to be the most important part of the "sum of all knowledge", and a great number of species are threatened now by global warming and climate change. As much as I value Wikipedia, an article with some photos is no replacement for the real thing. I support the possibility of having the organisation leave the Earth no worse than it found it.
Peter Halasz [[User:Pengo]]
On 6/8/07, Walter Vermeir walter@wikipedia.be wrote:
Hi all,
I noticed a logo for "Carbon Neutral website" on a wiki; http://www.wikihow.com/wikiHow:Carbon-Neutral
The concept is to be aware of the carbon production related to the operation of a website/organization and to try to keep the production as low as possible by using energy efficient computers and environmental awareness by people working for the organisation.
And further compensate the produced greenhouse gasses by investing in projects to reduce emissions.
Why doing this: There is a climate problem on earth caused by the human activity's like the release of greenhouse gasses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
If there are people who find this is not correct go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change and voice your beliefs there.
Because a picture says more then thousend words maybe this short picture can made clear what this is about; http://sol3.info/2007/05/no-need-for-words.html
Back to carbon neutral website;
The impact of doing things like this can not be anything else for the environment then symbolic. But I do not think that is an valid excuse for not (trying) to do it. Symbolic actions have also there value.
If some small website does something like this then that is nice but that is all (*). But if a Top 10 Internet website does it then that is
an
important symbolic signal. And if it would come form a American organization it would be matter even more. Like it or not America has
the
image in large parts of the world as the largest polluter in world who does not want do anything serious about it.
I would like to raise this topic to the global Wikimedia community and if there is support for (maybe a vote?) the Wikimedia Foundation to take this topic in to account.
And explore if, how and when it could be possible to reduce the environmental footprint of the Wikimedia Foundation projects and maybe get to the point to be become a carbon neutral website.
The vision statement of the WMF is; "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment."
In a future with increased global temperature of more then 2 degrees Celsius the change of that vision getting reality is strongly reduced.
I think it would fit the mission of the WMF to try to at least try to become a carbon neutral website/organisation.
And it would also not hurt from a public relations point of view.
Some people could be concerned about the NPOV attitude of Wikipedia. This is not about advertisements, this is about the future. To stay hard core neutral by doing nothing is saying NOP (Not Our Problem). That is also a POV, a irresponsible one.
Thoughts?
Greetings, Walter
(*) A cleaner environment starts with yourself. Being small is no excuse for not doing anything yourself. I operate the websites wikizine.org and sol3.info . These are Carbon neutral websites because of investments in green power installations by myself.
-- Contact: walter AT wikizine DOT org Wikizine.org - news for and about the Wikimedia community
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
On 6/8/07, Walter Vermeir walter@wikipedia.be wrote:
If there are people who find this is not correct go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change and voice your beliefs there.
That page is to discuss the article not to engage in general debate.
On 08/06/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/8/07, Walter Vermeir walter@wikipedia.be wrote:
If there are people who find this is not correct go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change and voice your beliefs there.
That page is to discuss the article not to engage in general debate.
Absolutely. Please *do not* go and debate global warming on Wikipedia - there are plenty of forums on the internet dedicated to that kind of thing, Wikipedia is not one of them.
Thomas Dalton schreef:
On 08/06/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/8/07, Walter Vermeir walter@wikipedia.be wrote:
If there are people who find this is not correct go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change and voice your beliefs there.
That page is to discuss the article not to engage in general debate.
Absolutely. Please *do not* go and debate global warming on Wikipedia
- there are plenty of forums on the internet dedicated to that kind of
thing, Wikipedia is not one of them.
Yes, sorry about that.
Walter, cool idea and great to have it raised. I agree with some of the replies so far - let it literally be a community decision by having a separate fundraiser targeting logged-in users. if it raises the required amount, put it towards going carbon neutral. if it doesn't, well, some more shrapnel (small change) for WMF. I also agree it would be better on the wikimediafoundation.org site rather than, say, the footer of every WMF project page.
It reminds me a bit of the Linguist List fundraising model. They hold a general fundraiser, and during it they announce "We are going to try and raise funds specifically for project X. the required amount is Y. if we reach the target in Z days, we will fund the project." so donors can vote with their dollars for this or that project. (Some may recall that it's how they raised funds to pay for someone to edit Wikipedia linguistics articles.)
I like it, but I guess it is more appropriate to community-internal fundraising rather than the general-public fundraising we currently do.
cheers, Brianna user:pfctdayelise
having a separate fundraiser targeting logged-in users. if it raises the required amount, put it towards going carbon neutral. if it doesn't, well, some more shrapnel (small change) for WMF. I also agree it would be better on the wikimediafoundation.org site rather than, say, the footer of every WMF project page. -- Brianna Laugher
Could that money then be used to get the Tampa server cluster to use renewable energy, e.g. (quick Google, I'm not connected to them) the Tampa Electric's Renewable Energy program http://www.tampaelectric.com/environmental/renewableenergy/?
On 6/8/07, Jack jackdt@gmail.com wrote:
Could that money then be used to get the Tampa server cluster to use renewable energy, e.g. (quick Google, I'm not connected to them) the Tampa Electric's Renewable Energy program http://www.tampaelectric.com/environmental/renewableenergy/?
It would depend how it was defined although I would argue that we would be better off going nuclear.
In any case it makes little difference to wikipedia's carbon footprint which will mostly be due to the machines of the users (see second life character carbon footprint).
having a separate fundraiser targeting logged-in users. if it raises -- Brianna Laugher
We could instead include on the donations pages http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising that donations that start off with
"May be used to reduce WMF's ecological footprint"
in the public comment edit boxes, may be used by the foundation for greening itself.
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]]
{{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
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
On 7/10/07, Peter Halasz email@pengo.org wrote:
Well we are dumping chemicals: greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. So do we walk away from the mess we've made?
If we banned people from making pointless tiny changes with automated tools, we'd probably cut our electricity consumption in half.
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
Hi!
- 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
There is easy way to be carbon-neutral and still do what we do. Nuclear energy.
Hoi, You could opt for a more Dutch solution and start have a windmill on the roof .. :) The power of the wind has been used since the 17th century.. without it our country would not exist. Thanks, GerardM
On 7/10/07, Domas Mituzas midom.lists@gmail.com wrote:
Hi!
- 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
There is easy way to be carbon-neutral and still do what we do. Nuclear energy.
-- Domas Mituzas -- http://dammit.lt/ -- [[user:midom]]
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hi!
You could opt for a more Dutch solution and start have a windmill on the roof .. :) The power of the wind has been used since the 17th century.. without it our country would not exist.
Dutch also have no such concept as 'landscape' or 'nature'. The country would have the problem as well if it didn't reclaim land from sea.
Cheers,
Hoi, For some history lesson, rather opportune, the Dutch heated their houses using turf. To get the turf they dug it up and as a result lakes were created. These lakes grew in size because of the erosive effects of water. In order to prevent further erosion of the land, polders were created. They did not only give us some quality arable land, it tamed the erosion at the same time. Where the turf had not been dug away another problem surfaced; because of the way the water was managed more of the land was exposed to the air and the turf has slowly degraded ever since. The consequence is that much of the Dutch country side has slowly but surely sunk.
Domas, you are wrong where you think the Netherlands do not have landscapes or nature. Because of its position in a delta of two big rivers, we have many distinct landscapes. As to nature, the Oostvaardersplassen are in a polder that is younger than I am and it is considered a nature reserve of European importance.
Conclusion; the Dutch have been dealing with diminishing natural resources for hundreds of years, we have a history rich in windmills. Sure, it may be a bit off topic but :) the subject is inviting this kind of musings. Thanks, GerardM
On 7/10/07, Domas Mituzas midom.lists@gmail.com wrote:
Hi!
You could opt for a more Dutch solution and start have a windmill on the roof .. :) The power of the wind has been used since the 17th century.. without it our country would not exist.
Dutch also have no such concept as 'landscape' or 'nature'. The country would have the problem as well if it didn't reclaim land from sea.
Cheers,
Domas Mituzas -- http://dammit.lt/ -- [[user:midom]]
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, GerardM wrote:
Domas, you are wrong where you think the Netherlands do not have landscapes or nature. Because of its position in a delta of two big rivers, we have many distinct landscapes. As to nature, the Oostvaardersplassen are in a polder that is younger than I am and it is considered a nature reserve of European importance.
Domas is confused with the thought that Polish countryside is without peer, whereas this is still a subject of active peering [Wilkowski and Pulecka, 2002]. And haven't all countries reclaimed land from nature to turn it into beautiful farms, terraces, and parking lots?
SJ
On 7/10/07, Domas Mituzas midom.lists@gmail.com wrote:
Hi!
You could opt for a more Dutch solution and start have a windmill on the roof .. :) The power of the wind has been used since the 17th century.. without it our country would not exist.
Dutch also have no such concept as 'landscape' or 'nature'. The country would have the problem as well if it didn't reclaim land from sea.
Cheers,
Domas Mituzas -- http://dammit.lt/ -- [[user:midom]]
SJ,
Domas is confused with the thought that Polish countryside is without peer, whereas this is still a subject of active peering [Wilkowski and Pulecka, 2002].
For such humor you may be subject to ultra-violence. :-)
And haven't all countries reclaimed land from nature to turn it into beautiful farms, terraces, and parking lots?
Windmills are far more intrusive, in terms of height and areas they're seen from. Nuclear plants on the other hand can be built under the water - imagine how Clearwater would be popular then.
BR,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
GerardM wrote:
Hoi, You could opt for a more Dutch solution and start have a windmill on the roof .. :)
I think this would cause power surges during hurricane season. ;)
- -- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.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?"
In addition to the legal difference already mentioned, there is another key difference. It is possible to completely stop dumping heavy metals in the local creek. It is not possible to completely stop carbon emissions. We can reduce them, certainly, but not eliminate them (offsetting is at best a stall tactic).
With the chemical plant there is a finite cost associated with stopping dumping and the company can simply decide to spend that money. With carbon emissions there is an unlimited cost associated with reducing emissions with ever diminishing returns. It's not a matter of deciding whether or not to spend the money, it's a matter of deciding how much to spend. Should we reduce emissions 10%? 50%? 90%? It becomes necessary to assign a numerical value to the reduction in order to determine how much it is cost effective for us to reduce by. How do you suggest we do that?
To reply to a number of people again
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. [effe iets anders]
Point taken, however... 1. Dumping chemicals has not always been illegal, and is still not illegal everywhere, and 2. dumping CO2 is becoming illegal -- carbon trading schemes (like Kyoto) already put a price on "dumping" carbon in most countries by creating a global cap. It is true, however, that the Unites States has not, as yet, ratified any such agreement, and dumping of CO2e is very much legal there.
The real place where my analogy breaks down is when we consider the cleanup strategies. Unlike a creek, the atmosphere is a global "reservoir", so paying to lessening pollution on the other side of the world has an equivalent effect (of course not identical) to lessening pollution you produce yourself.
There is easy way to be carbon-neutral and still do what we do. Nuclear energy. [Domas Mituzas]
As I mentioned before, uranium is not a renewable resource. However, as we're not trying to debate specific carbon-offsetting methods or technologies at this point, I will try my best to refrain from starting a debate about nuclear's environmental, economic, and proliferation issues.
However, I will say that even if nuclear were to be considered, good carbon offset schemes will invest in new renewable energy programs, rather than than simply giving money to established industry.
It is possible to completely stop dumping heavy metals in the local creek. It is not possible to completely stop carbon emissions. [Thomas Dalton]
It is possible for the WMF to stop its own carbon emissions: We could put a wind turbine on the roof, as suggested by GerardM. But more seriously, we could neutralize our carbon emissions through investment in renewable energy programs (carbon offsetting).
offsetting is at best a stall tactic [Thomas Dalton]
The major problem with carbon credits (yes, I'm saying it has a problem) is that many investments made today will not reduce global carbon emissions until some time in the future, and AFAIK this is generally not taken into account (but correct me if I'm wrong). So there is a delay between the investment and the payoff. For example, trees planted today may take tens of years to offset the carbon they were planted to offset. Is this what you mean by "stalling"?
It becomes necessary to assign a numerical value to the reduction in order to determine how much it is cost effective for us to reduce by. How do you suggest we do that? Should we reduce emissions 10%? 50%? 90%? [Thomas Dalton]
100%. We can reduce our effective carbon emissions to zero. We can measure the cost effectiveness of engineering an energy efficiency solution by comparing the cost of implementation to the cost of the electricity (with carbon offsets) it saves. However, As our electricity is largely donated, and the workforce is largely volunteer, attempts to manage the process at such a level would be misguided. Instead we can simply aim for low hanging fruit: Tim Starling already suggested some problems to be solved:
- we keep more servers switched on at knams and yaseo than we need
- we make no effort to conserve power during off-peak times, beyond what
the servers do by default [Tim Starling]
Dutch also have no such concept as 'landscape' or 'nature'. [Domas Mituzas]
I'm not sure what the discussion of the Netherlands has to do with anything, but despite their land reclaiming practices and supposed lack of 'landscape' or 'nature' concepts, they appear to have quite large remaining forested areas and national parks, especially for a European nation.
As discussed, to begin with we can ask donors if it's ok to use part of their contributions to offset our emissions, until such a time as we become comfortable with budgeting it as a normal expense.
Peter Halasz [[user:pengo]]
Hi!
As discussed, to begin with we can ask donors if it's ok to use part of their contributions to offset our emissions, until such a time as we become comfortable with budgeting it as a normal expense.
I might look shortsighted, but... the only way foundation emits CO2 directly, is by breathing of people involved. Everyone stop breathing! OK, at least avoid burning calories - don't do any sports. And don't fart - lots of greenhouse gases are produced that way. Should I mention, that every Wikipedian should stop eating meat? Not only meat farms produce lots of greenhouse gases, but also consume lots of agriculture products, that could feed everyone. Oh, and don't eat rice - the way they're grown produces greenhouse gases too.
The other, indirect emissions - travel and electricity by servers.
Now, we don't travel as insane, and the only issue is probably wikimania (where we even manage to boast that 50 different country representatives come). Should we do not do inter-cultural or inter- national socialization? Should we travel in sailboats?
As for the servers, we're not in business to produce energy. We're in business to provide platform for sharing the knowledge. I'm not sure how much we're efficient at the level of cpu-power-per-watt, but I think we're incredibly efficient at how much cpu power we need. Before that it just could be shown as advantage in terms of how many servers we purchase (nearly none, compared to other platforms), but now I can put that in your face - we don't have many servers, therefore we don't suck too much of energy.
As I mentioned before, uranium is not a renewable resource. However, as we're not trying to debate specific carbon-offsetting methods or technologies at this point, I will try my best to refrain from starting a debate about nuclear's environmental, economic, and proliferation issues.
So why do you talk about carbon-neutral/low/aware website, and you deny the obvious way not to do any carbon emissions at all? Also, there's also fusion, not only fission. Simply by doing our task and providing the world with knowledge at hands, we may build the society that will solve all the small technological details about producing vast amounts of energy. Also, as only 20% of US energy is nuclear (will increase some day in future), we could move our servers to France (80%!) :)
Anyway, should we change anything? Probably not much. Really, just ranting about that, without looking at actual operations, doesn't make sense. Do you, dear interested Wikipedians, use yourself energy efficient light bulbs? Do you ride bike instead of a car? Do you buy local production instead of far-made stuff? ... Can we call ourselves carbon-aware website? Yes - we have articles about it, and in my opinion, we're efficient enough. We were forced to be by tiny budgets for all that energy-consuming equipment..
It is possible to completely stop dumping heavy metals in the local creek. It is not possible to completely stop carbon emissions. [Thomas Dalton]
It is possible for the WMF to stop its own carbon emissions: We could put a wind turbine on the roof, as suggested by GerardM. But more seriously, we could neutralize our carbon emissions through investment in renewable energy programs (carbon offsetting).
offsetting is at best a stall tactic [Thomas Dalton]
The major problem with carbon credits (yes, I'm saying it has a problem) is that many investments made today will not reduce global carbon emissions until some time in the future, and AFAIK this is generally not taken into account (but correct me if I'm wrong). So there is a delay between the investment and the payoff. For example, trees planted today may take tens of years to offset the carbon they were planted to offset. Is this what you mean by "stalling"?
A wind turbine on the roof will eliminate our carbon emissions from electricity usage. What about travel? Manufacture of various things used around the office? Hell, what about people breathing while contributing?
Offsetting is a stall tactic because it will only work for a limited amount of time. There are only so many trees that can be planted, only so many light bulbs that can be replaced by energy saving ones, etc. The cost of carbon offsetting will steadily increase in price as the "low hanging fruit" is all picked until the cost becomes too great for us to be able to afford it. After that point, will be no longer be carbon neutral.
Becoming carbon neutral is not simply a matter of writing a cheque and being done with it. It is an ongoing quest for perfection that will never be reached. Deciding how far along that quest we want to go is not a simple matter.
On 10/07/07, Peter Halasz email@pengo.org wrote:
You frame the situation in an odd way. As going carbon neutral is somewhat altruistic,
You mean "is marketed as being somewhat altruistic".
- d.
Walter Vermeir wrote:
Hi all,
I noticed a logo for "Carbon Neutral website" on a wiki; http://www.wikihow.com/wikiHow:Carbon-Neutral
The concept is to be aware of the carbon production related to the operation of a website/organization and to try to keep the production as low as possible by using energy efficient computers and environmental awareness by people working for the organisation.
According to
https://wikitech.leuksman.com/view/Tampa_Rackspace
which is somewhat out of date, we use about 45kW of electricity continuously at our Florida colo. According to the 1999 figures here:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2report.html
the South Atlantic region of the US generates CO2 at a rate of 1.342 lb/kWh, so that works out to about 20 tonnes of CO2 per month.
Some carbon offset prices:
http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/carbon_offset_wind_credits_carbon_reduction....
If we assume a mid-range carbon offset price of $10 per tonne, then that would be $200 per month. This is for the Florida colo alone, and it doesn't include sq31-50 or the new 2x4 core apaches.
I believe the power itself costs quite a bit more than that, which is why we carefully consider the energy efficiency of bulk server purchases.
-- Tim Starling
Carbon offsetting is a very short term method of reducing emissions. Yes, it reduces our emissions this year, and maybe next year, but over the next 20 years it won't make much difference. There is a very limited amount of emissions that can be easily reduced - once people have put enough money into offsetting schemes to reduce all of them the cost of offsetting will grow enormously.
Incidentally - does anyone know where I can find statistics to see if the "A cleaner environment starts with yourself" concept is true? What percentage of carbon emissions come from things a typical person can reduce on their own?
The servers should be fed from a nuclear power plant. Problem solved.
On topic: If we would have the funds to do something about the environment, it would be great. But we don't.
And buying carbon permissions is a waste of money, that could be spend on real environmental saving, such as machines that require less power.
On 6/8/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Carbon offsetting is a very short term method of reducing emissions. Yes, it reduces our emissions this year, and maybe next year, but over the next 20 years it won't make much difference. There is a very limited amount of emissions that can be easily reduced - once people have put enough money into offsetting schemes to reduce all of them the cost of offsetting will grow enormously.
Incidentally - does anyone know where I can find statistics to see if the "A cleaner environment starts with yourself" concept is true? What percentage of carbon emissions come from things a typical person can reduce on their own?
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Bryan Tong Minh wrote:
And buying carbon permissions is a waste of money, that could be spend on real environmental saving, such as machines that require less power.
Perhaps we could provide the contents of an encyclopedia over the Internet instead of printing it on paper?
On 6/8/07, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
Perhaps we could provide the contents of an encyclopedia over the Internet instead of printing it on paper?
Printing on paper can create quite a considerable offset. Since people tend to hang onto books you can get a fair bit of carbon locked up in them.
The internet on the other hand well:
http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/12/avatars_consume.php
Thomas Dalton schreef:
Incidentally - does anyone know where I can find statistics to see if the "A cleaner environment starts with yourself" concept is true? What percentage of carbon emissions come from things a typical person can reduce on their own?
"A cleaner environment starts with yourself" was, I think, a slogan of a environmental awareness campaign in the Netherlands some time ago.
I means in this context that you can not wait for other to do something or point to the others to justify your inactions.
And that is very true I find. I am from Belgium. That is a small densely populated country with lost of roads, many trucks passing by Belgium to get to the neighboring country's. a large ports, heavy industry (like petroleum's refinery's), very intensive agriculture.
There is very extensive envirmental legislation's to monitor the impact of all those act ivies and to regulate it. Envirmental issues are taken seriously. Yes, it could be better but things are improving like the water quality of the rivers and ground water.
But whatever the efforts Belgium does that will never make a noticeable effect on the global scale. But that is not taken as an excuse for not doing it.
As a citizen that is exactly the same only on a even smaller level. You can only try to do your best whatever the small impact. And that means doing things like isolate you house, get a new more efficient heating system for you home, bring your old cooking oil, paint and other household chemical waste to the local communal collection point and do not put them in the non-sorted trash.
And that is what "A cleaner environment starts with yourself" means. It is an attitude to take personal responsibility.
Greetings, Walter
But whatever the efforts Belgium does that will never make a noticeable effect on the global scale. But that is not taken as an excuse for not doing it.
As a citizen that is exactly the same only on a even smaller level. You can only try to do your best whatever the small impact.
All emissions come from a country, so if every country does their bit, emissions are greatly reduced. Not all emissions come from an individual, so even if every individual in the world did their bit, it wouldn't make as much difference. What I'm asking is how much of a difference that is. Is it worth individuals doing their bit, or should we be concentrating on getting industry, etc., to do theirs? If only 1% of emissions come from individuals, then there is really little point trying to reduce it - we should put the effort in elsewhere.
Hoi, First, this discussion is way off where it started from. Second, when you buy a product, it has an energy footprint. So if you buy beans from Africa in the European bean season, something is hopelessly wrong it you consider this not to be your problem. It is not only the energy that you can safe directly it is also the energy you can safe indirectly. Who do you think is the customer of industry ? Thanks, GerardM
On 6/9/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
But whatever the efforts Belgium does that will never make a noticeable effect on the global scale. But that is not taken as an excuse for not doing it.
As a citizen that is exactly the same only on a even smaller level. You can only try to do your best whatever the small impact.
All emissions come from a country, so if every country does their bit, emissions are greatly reduced. Not all emissions come from an individual, so even if every individual in the world did their bit, it wouldn't make as much difference. What I'm asking is how much of a difference that is. Is it worth individuals doing their bit, or should we be concentrating on getting industry, etc., to do theirs? If only 1% of emissions come from individuals, then there is really little point trying to reduce it - we should put the effort in elsewhere.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
First, this discussion is way off where it started from. Second, when you buy a product, it has an energy footprint. So if you buy beans from Africa in the European bean season, something is hopelessly wrong it you consider this not to be your problem. It is not only the energy that you can safe directly it is also the energy you can safe indirectly. Who do you think is the customer of industry ?
It's not emissions that are important, it's unnecessary emissions. While all emissions end up being caused by a person, not all unnecessary emissions are.
Hoi, You have it wrong. It is all about emissions. The notion of acting against global warming is about reducing emissions, all emissions. It seems relatively easy to get people to reduce the "unnecessary" ones, but that does not get you at the target that is needed. Thanks, GerardM
On 6/9/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
First, this discussion is way off where it started from. Second, when you buy a product, it has an energy footprint. So if you
buy
beans from Africa in the European bean season, something is hopelessly
wrong
it you consider this not to be your problem. It is not only the energy
that
you can safe directly it is also the energy you can safe indirectly. Who
do
you think is the customer of industry ?
It's not emissions that are important, it's unnecessary emissions. While all emissions end up being caused by a person, not all unnecessary emissions are.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
To reply to a few random bits, while trying to avoid another rant on why we should try to reach zero-emissions:
1.
Nuclear power is not a renewable energy source.
2.
Tim Starling's estimate of $200 per month ($2400 year) to become carbon neutral doesn't sound like a lot of money to me, even if the total is three times this. Of course he's said it was an underestimate, but it gives a possible ballpark figure. I can't imagine it would be difficult to raise as part of the next fundraiser, whether it's asked for explicitly as a separate fund or simply made part of the budget.
3.
I know it was said in jest, but to correct a misconception, and have a bit of an off topic rant: paper production actually releases a surprising amount of carbon. Especially when the woodchip for the pulpmill was from an old growth forest that will take hundreds of years to regain its previous level of carbon storage in the trees and soil. A large part of the carbon of a forest is found in the soil, and this is often burnt after the wood is harvested, releasing massive amounts of carbon (at least from what I understand of the situation around here in Australia. Probably different elsewhere). A large percentage of the wood does not end up in paper or wood products either (I've heard numbers upwards of 90%, but I don't know where they were pulled from). I understand there are some papers coming out about this soon. A huge amount of carbon dioxide emissions can be saved simply by not cutting down trees and unfortunately the value of not logging forests was left out of the Kyoto protocol. (plantations are a different matter). </rant>
4.
What percentage of carbon emissions come from things a typical person can reduce on their own?
It's much much more than 1%, It is, however difficult to answer because they don't seem to divide up usage into "individuals" and "other".. (and Wikipedia isn't a "person")... but to quote the IPCC: In 1990, industry accounted for two-fifths of global primary energy use, residential and commercial buildings [that'd include Wikipedia] for a slightly smaller amount, and transportation for one-fifth of the total.
That's from: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/emission/067.htm#tbl34
For other ways to divide it up, see: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/emission/118.htm
I'm sure there's better stats around. I've seen a nice graphical chart in one of these reports once but I can't seem to find it again.
5.
once people have put enough money into offsetting schemes to reduce all [easily reduced emissions] the cost of offsetting will grow enormously.
That's the point of carbon trading schemes and creating a market for carbon. The world says: this is our target for total emissions, if you're going to go over your quota, you'll have to buy some from someone else. If the prices are going up, then there's more incentive to find better ways of not polluting, which brings prices down again. It's a market.
6.
Suggestions to consider the efficiency of the servers (and not only the $ cost) is good. We could consider raising money to pay for the work that needs to be done on that too, if necessary. How easily would this work be transferable to other (non-WMF-related) projects? For example, could we build a --sleep-server-when-not-needed switch into Mediawiki, or otherwise what level is the code for it done at? (Or is it not something you'd automate?)
I think that's all for now :)
Peter Halasz user:Pengo
On 6/9/07, Peter Halasz email@pengo.org wrote:
To reply to a few random bits, while trying to avoid another rant on why we should try to reach zero-emissions:
Nuclear power is not a renewable energy source.
Neither is anything else unless you are going to rewrite the laws of thermodynamics. Nuclear reactors using fast breeder technology will last long enough.
I know it was said in jest, but to correct a misconception, and have a bit of an off topic rant: paper production actually releases a surprising amount of carbon. Especially when the woodchip for the pulpmill was from an old growth forest that will take hundreds of years to regain its previous level of carbon storage in the trees and soil. A large part of the carbon of a forest is found in the soil, and this is often burnt after the wood is harvested, releasing massive amounts of carbon (at least from what I understand of the situation around here in Australia. Probably different elsewhere). A large percentage of the wood does not end up in paper or wood products either (I've heard numbers upwards of 90%, but I don't know where they were pulled from). I understand there are some papers coming out about this soon. A huge amount of carbon dioxide emissions can be saved simply by not cutting down trees and unfortunately the value of not logging forests was left out of the Kyoto protocol. (plantations are a different matter). </rant>
I live in the UK. Between about the end of ww2 and the 1960s we planted rather a lot of pine forests. Now harvesting the stupid things. Got to do something with them.
geni a écrit :
On 6/9/07, Peter Halasz email@pengo.org wrote:
Nuclear power is not a renewable energy source.
Neither is anything else unless you are going to rewrite the laws of thermodynamics. Nuclear reactors using fast breeder technology will last long enough.
This is science-fiction upto now. No fast breeder nuclear reactor in the world has produced more energy than it has used, and it will be like this for any foreseeable future. Pretending the opposite is just propaganda.
Regards,
Yann
On 6/9/07, Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net wrote:
This is science-fiction upto now. No fast breeder nuclear reactor in the world has produced more energy than it has used, and it will be like this for any foreseeable future. Pretending the opposite is just propaganda.
Regards,
Yann
BN-600 has been kicking out 600MW of electricity for over 2 a decades.
geni a écrit :
On 6/9/07, Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net wrote:
This is science-fiction upto now. No fast breeder nuclear reactor in the world has produced more energy than it has used, and it will be like this for any foreseeable future. Pretending the opposite is just propaganda.
Regards,
Yann
BN-600 has been kicking out 600MW of electricity for over 2 a decades.
You have to take into account energy used for research, building the reactor, for fluel production and reprocessing, and the future energy used for dismantling the plant. When this is accounted, very little is left if any for a single reactor. The interest of fast breeder reactor is really for producing military grade plutonium. Energy is at best a by-product.
Regards,
Yann
On 6/9/07, Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net wrote:
geni a écrit : You have to take into account energy used for research, building the reactor, for fluel production and reprocessing, and the future energy used for dismantling the plant. When this is accounted, very little is left if any for a single reactor. The interest of fast breeder reactor is really for producing military grade plutonium. Energy is at best a by-product.
Regards,
Yann
over 98,179,200,000 KWH is a heck of a lot of energy.
You don't need fast breeders to make plutonium (can be done with a magnox light water reactor) and I doubt japan's program is weapons based.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org