In the discussion about the report from the WMF relating to sustainability, mention was made of the potential use of carbon offset. As part of planning a conference for next year, we could ask or require participants to factor in payments for carbon offset. With no experience in examining carbon offset projects, we are cautious about making any policy to do this, in particular it would be a bad blunder if we start paying in to a carbon offset project that turns out to be a bad or controversial choice later on.
Has the WMF or Affiliates made any prior choices for carbon offset projects, or could the community work out which of the many projects might be the most ethically responsible and well governed to choose from?
An a bonus to tack on, we have used phrases like ''encouraging greener travel options'', which one might interpret as doing things like preferring train travel rather than using flights within the same country. However if, say, a participant can fly within the country at half the cost and get to an event in a couple of hours rather than spending several times longer travelling, is it a reasonable/ethical approach to just fly for convenience and buy some carbon offset "points" (and so flying may well still be significantly cheaper than going by train).
Thanks, Fae
Hoi, When the WMF wants to "green" itself, the most effective way is to make its software and operations greener. The software will reduce the need for energy, the operations ensure that green energy is used. Reducing the need for energy is an investment that will reduce the overall cost and has an effect not only in the datacentres of the WMF but also in the transport of data all over the world. It is only an investment in the time of engineers, there are no other downsides.
In addition you may consider our travels because we want to be green. The biggest problem is that as an organisation that NEEDS to bring our community together, such an aim is like digging a hole we are bound to be unable to climb out of. Thanks, GerardM
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 at 13:16, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
In the discussion about the report from the WMF relating to sustainability, mention was made of the potential use of carbon offset. As part of planning a conference for next year, we could ask or require participants to factor in payments for carbon offset. With no experience in examining carbon offset projects, we are cautious about making any policy to do this, in particular it would be a bad blunder if we start paying in to a carbon offset project that turns out to be a bad or controversial choice later on.
Has the WMF or Affiliates made any prior choices for carbon offset projects, or could the community work out which of the many projects might be the most ethically responsible and well governed to choose from?
An a bonus to tack on, we have used phrases like ''encouraging greener travel options'', which one might interpret as doing things like preferring train travel rather than using flights within the same country. However if, say, a participant can fly within the country at half the cost and get to an event in a couple of hours rather than spending several times longer travelling, is it a reasonable/ethical approach to just fly for convenience and buy some carbon offset "points" (and so flying may well still be significantly cheaper than going by train).
Thanks, Fae -- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
To clarify, the topic was "planning a conference for next year, we could ask or require participants to factor in payments for carbon offset"
This has nothing to do with how green WMF operations might be. It has to do with the greener choices /we/ as volunteers can make for /our/ conferences.
Thanks, Fae
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 at 14:33, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, When the WMF wants to "green" itself, the most effective way is to make its software and operations greener. The software will reduce the need for energy, the operations ensure that green energy is used. Reducing the need for energy is an investment that will reduce the overall cost and has an effect not only in the datacentres of the WMF but also in the transport of data all over the world. It is only an investment in the time of engineers, there are no other downsides.
In addition you may consider our travels because we want to be green. The biggest problem is that as an organisation that NEEDS to bring our community together, such an aim is like digging a hole we are bound to be unable to climb out of. Thanks, GerardM
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 at 13:16, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
In the discussion about the report from the WMF relating to sustainability, mention was made of the potential use of carbon offset. As part of planning a conference for next year, we could ask or require participants to factor in payments for carbon offset. With no experience in examining carbon offset projects, we are cautious about making any policy to do this, in particular it would be a bad blunder if we start paying in to a carbon offset project that turns out to be a bad or controversial choice later on.
Has the WMF or Affiliates made any prior choices for carbon offset projects, or could the community work out which of the many projects might be the most ethically responsible and well governed to choose from?
An a bonus to tack on, we have used phrases like ''encouraging greener travel options'', which one might interpret as doing things like preferring train travel rather than using flights within the same country. However if, say, a participant can fly within the country at half the cost and get to an event in a couple of hours rather than spending several times longer travelling, is it a reasonable/ethical approach to just fly for convenience and buy some carbon offset "points" (and so flying may well still be significantly cheaper than going by train).
Thanks, Fae -- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
This has nothing to do with how green WMF operations might be. It has to do with the greener choices /we/ as volunteers can make for /our/ conferences.
Since a fortnight ago you were haranguing* the WMF for using too much air travel and lacking "any actual measurable commitment to picking up a telephone, holding a video conference, or holding a VR conference session", it will be interesting to see what solutions you can come up with for this conference you're organising. Did you consider the options other than an in-person conference that you recommended the WMF adopt, out of interest?
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-09-30/N...
Any general questions like catering for virtual attendees can be raised at the talk page for the 2020 LGBT+ conference.[1] The conference is at the proposal stage with funding yet to be agreed with the WMF. The proposers will be happy to receive feedback and respond to questions.
If no previous conference within our wider Wikimedia movement has used carbon offset projects to benefit its green footprint, that's an interesting fact to confirm as this may well be a great opportunity to try this out.
Links 1. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:Conference/Kawayashu/Queering_Wi...
Thanks, Fae
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 at 20:47, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
This has nothing to do with how green WMF operations might be. It has to do with the greener choices /we/ as volunteers can make for /our/ conferences.
Since a fortnight ago you were haranguing* the WMF for using too much air travel and lacking "any actual measurable commitment to picking up a telephone, holding a video conference, or holding a VR conference session", it will be interesting to see what solutions you can come up with for this conference you're organising. Did you consider the options other than an in-person conference that you recommended the WMF adopt, out of interest?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-09-30/N... _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
In case it is interesting, for the tenders at my workplace that require offsetting, we include this requirement:
" Carbon offsetting will be achieved by means of projects of the following type: CDM (Clean Development Mechanism), JI (Joint Implementation) or VER (Voluntary Emissions Reduction), all certified as 'Gold Standard' by bodies accredited by the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change)."
In practice, https://offset.climateneutralnow.org/ is a place I've used personally where one can easily find projects meeting the above criteria.
For more context, to save a bit of Google-ing:
CDM projects are those assessed and verified by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in developing countries which can sell certified emission reduction (CER) credits, each one equivalent to one ton of CO2. These CERs can be traded and sold and are currently used by industrialized countries to meet a part of their emission reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol(link is external) http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/mechanisms/clean_development_mechanism/items/2718.php .
Gold Standard projects are CDM or voluntary offset projects giving an additional guarantee concerning sustainable development benefits. These are projects awarded the 'Gold Standard'(link is external) http://www.goldstandard.org/ quality label by a Swiss-based non-profit foundation, supported by a group of 50 NGOs.[1]
[1] From https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/funding/faqs-toolkit-and-glossary/frequently-...
Best regards, Bence
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019, 22:55 Fæ, faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Any general questions like catering for virtual attendees can be raised at the talk page for the 2020 LGBT+ conference.[1] The conference is at the proposal stage with funding yet to be agreed with the WMF. The proposers will be happy to receive feedback and respond to questions.
If no previous conference within our wider Wikimedia movement has used carbon offset projects to benefit its green footprint, that's an interesting fact to confirm as this may well be a great opportunity to try this out.
Links
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:Conference/Kawayashu/Queering_Wi...
Thanks, Fae
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 at 20:47, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
This has nothing to do with how green WMF operations might be. It has to do with the greener choices /we/ as volunteers can make for /our/ conferences.
Since a fortnight ago you were haranguing* the WMF for using too much air travel and lacking "any actual measurable commitment to picking up a telephone, holding a video conference, or holding a VR conference
session",
it will be interesting to see what solutions you can come up with for
this
conference you're organising. Did you consider the options other than an in-person conference that you recommended the WMF adopt, out of interest?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-09-30/N...
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I would suggest taking a different approach. Paying for carbon offsets does not further Wikimedia’s goals. It is, at best, a shortcut to brownie points as measured by other organisations. Requiring volunteers to pay extra for carbon offsets is doubly worse as they can’t then spend that money on their other Wikimedia activities.
Instead, perhaps we could invest in projects that will improve our coverage of climate change? Imagine the impact that improving our freely licensed information about climate change could make. Good/featured articles about the organisations that have been named here already? More referenced information in the articles on this topic? More images to illustrate those articles? If that doesn’t make a difference, then we have to answer a rather more fundamental question about our impact on the world.
Thanks, Mike
On 11 Oct 2019, at 22:27, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
In case it is interesting, for the tenders at my workplace that require offsetting, we include this requirement:
" Carbon offsetting will be achieved by means of projects of the following type: CDM (Clean Development Mechanism), JI (Joint Implementation) or VER (Voluntary Emissions Reduction), all certified as 'Gold Standard' by bodies accredited by the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change)."
In practice, https://offset.climateneutralnow.org/ is a place I've used personally where one can easily find projects meeting the above criteria.
For more context, to save a bit of Google-ing:
CDM projects are those assessed and verified by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in developing countries which can sell certified emission reduction (CER) credits, each one equivalent to one ton of CO2. These CERs can be traded and sold and are currently used by industrialized countries to meet a part of their emission reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol(link is external) http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/mechanisms/clean_development_mechanism/items/2718.php .
Gold Standard projects are CDM or voluntary offset projects giving an additional guarantee concerning sustainable development benefits. These are projects awarded the 'Gold Standard'(link is external) http://www.goldstandard.org/ quality label by a Swiss-based non-profit foundation, supported by a group of 50 NGOs.[1]
[1] From https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/funding/faqs-toolkit-and-glossary/frequently-...
Best regards, Bence
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019, 22:55 Fæ, faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Any general questions like catering for virtual attendees can be raised at the talk page for the 2020 LGBT+ conference.[1] The conference is at the proposal stage with funding yet to be agreed with the WMF. The proposers will be happy to receive feedback and respond to questions.
If no previous conference within our wider Wikimedia movement has used carbon offset projects to benefit its green footprint, that's an interesting fact to confirm as this may well be a great opportunity to try this out.
Links
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:Conference/Kawayashu/Queering_Wi...
Thanks, Fae
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 at 20:47, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
This has nothing to do with how green WMF operations might be. It has to do with the greener choices /we/ as volunteers can make for /our/ conferences.
Since a fortnight ago you were haranguing* the WMF for using too much air travel and lacking "any actual measurable commitment to picking up a telephone, holding a video conference, or holding a VR conference
session",
it will be interesting to see what solutions you can come up with for
this
conference you're organising. Did you consider the options other than an in-person conference that you recommended the WMF adopt, out of interest?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-09-30/N...
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
+1 to Mike's approach.
An *option* for carbon offsets seems worthwhile. A *requirement* seems potentially at odds with our desire to be inclusive and accessible. And I agree that something specifically tailored to a community built around making information accessible would be a much better fit.
-Pete -- [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 3:21 PM Mike Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
I would suggest taking a different approach. Paying for carbon offsets does not further Wikimedia’s goals. It is, at best, a shortcut to brownie points as measured by other organisations. Requiring volunteers to pay extra for carbon offsets is doubly worse as they can’t then spend that money on their other Wikimedia activities.
Instead, perhaps we could invest in projects that will improve our coverage of climate change? Imagine the impact that improving our freely licensed information about climate change could make. Good/featured articles about the organisations that have been named here already? More referenced information in the articles on this topic? More images to illustrate those articles? If that doesn’t make a difference, then we have to answer a rather more fundamental question about our impact on the world.
Thanks, Mike
On 11 Oct 2019, at 22:27, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
In case it is interesting, for the tenders at my workplace that require offsetting, we include this requirement:
" Carbon offsetting will be achieved by means of projects of the following type: CDM (Clean Development Mechanism), JI (Joint Implementation) or VER (Voluntary Emissions Reduction), all certified as 'Gold Standard' by
bodies
accredited by the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change)."
In practice, https://offset.climateneutralnow.org/ is a place I've used personally where one can easily find projects meeting the above criteria.
For more context, to save a bit of Google-ing:
CDM projects are those assessed and verified by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in developing countries which can sell certified emission reduction (CER) credits, each one equivalent to one ton of CO2. These CERs can be traded and sold and are currently used by industrialized countries to meet a part of their
emission
reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol(link is external) <
http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/mechanisms/clean_development_mechanism/item...
.
Gold Standard projects are CDM or voluntary offset projects giving an additional guarantee concerning sustainable development benefits. These
are
projects awarded the 'Gold Standard'(link is external) http://www.goldstandard.org/ quality label by a Swiss-based non-profit foundation, supported by a group of 50 NGOs.[1]
[1] From
https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/funding/faqs-toolkit-and-glossary/frequently-...
Best regards, Bence
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019, 22:55 Fæ, faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Any general questions like catering for virtual attendees can be raised at the talk page for the 2020 LGBT+ conference.[1] The conference is at the proposal stage with funding yet to be agreed with the WMF. The proposers will be happy to receive feedback and respond to questions.
If no previous conference within our wider Wikimedia movement has used carbon offset projects to benefit its green footprint, that's an interesting fact to confirm as this may well be a great opportunity to try this out.
Links
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:Conference/Kawayashu/Queering_Wi...
Thanks, Fae
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 at 20:47, Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com
wrote:
This has nothing to do with how green WMF operations might be. It has to do with the greener choices /we/ as volunteers can make for /our/ conferences.
Since a fortnight ago you were haranguing* the WMF for using too much
air
travel and lacking "any actual measurable commitment to picking up a telephone, holding a video conference, or holding a VR conference
session",
it will be interesting to see what solutions you can come up with for
this
conference you're organising. Did you consider the options other than
an
in-person conference that you recommended the WMF adopt, out of
interest?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-09-30/N...
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Even at the scale of the WMF, the costs of offset would not be high. At the scale of individual travellers where a typical trip would cause less than 1 tonne of emissions, and offsets available already at the 1$/tonne price range and below - I would argue that if you or your organisation has the resources to pay for your flight, you are likely to be able to afford offsetting your emissions.
In any case, buying offsets or going climate neutral in other ways does not preclude us contributing to knowledge about climate change - it is merely one of the ways of being good global citizens (like paying taxes, respecting copyrights, insisting on inclusive spaces).
Best regards, Bence
On Sat, 12 Oct 2019, 00:21 Mike Peel, email@mikepeel.net wrote:
I would suggest taking a different approach. Paying for carbon offsets does not further Wikimedia’s goals. It is, at best, a shortcut to brownie points as measured by other organisations. Requiring volunteers to pay extra for carbon offsets is doubly worse as they can’t then spend that money on their other Wikimedia activities.
Instead, perhaps we could invest in projects that will improve our coverage of climate change? Imagine the impact that improving our freely licensed information about climate change could make. Good/featured articles about the organisations that have been named here already? More referenced information in the articles on this topic? More images to illustrate those articles? If that doesn’t make a difference, then we have to answer a rather more fundamental question about our impact on the world.
Thanks, Mike
On 11 Oct 2019, at 22:27, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
In case it is interesting, for the tenders at my workplace that require offsetting, we include this requirement:
" Carbon offsetting will be achieved by means of projects of the following type: CDM (Clean Development Mechanism), JI (Joint Implementation) or VER (Voluntary Emissions Reduction), all certified as 'Gold Standard' by
bodies
accredited by the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change)."
In practice, https://offset.climateneutralnow.org/ is a place I've used personally where one can easily find projects meeting the above criteria.
For more context, to save a bit of Google-ing:
CDM projects are those assessed and verified by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in developing countries which can sell certified emission reduction (CER) credits, each one equivalent to one ton of CO2. These CERs can be traded and sold and are currently used by industrialized countries to meet a part of their
emission
reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol(link is external) <
http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/mechanisms/clean_development_mechanism/item...
.
Gold Standard projects are CDM or voluntary offset projects giving an additional guarantee concerning sustainable development benefits. These
are
projects awarded the 'Gold Standard'(link is external) http://www.goldstandard.org/ quality label by a Swiss-based non-profit foundation, supported by a group of 50 NGOs.[1]
[1] From
https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/funding/faqs-toolkit-and-glossary/frequently-...
Best regards, Bence
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019, 22:55 Fæ, faewik@gmail.com wrote:
Any general questions like catering for virtual attendees can be raised at the talk page for the 2020 LGBT+ conference.[1] The conference is at the proposal stage with funding yet to be agreed with the WMF. The proposers will be happy to receive feedback and respond to questions.
If no previous conference within our wider Wikimedia movement has used carbon offset projects to benefit its green footprint, that's an interesting fact to confirm as this may well be a great opportunity to try this out.
Links
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:Conference/Kawayashu/Queering_Wi...
Thanks, Fae
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 at 20:47, Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com
wrote:
This has nothing to do with how green WMF operations might be. It has to do with the greener choices /we/ as volunteers can make for /our/ conferences.
Since a fortnight ago you were haranguing* the WMF for using too much
air
travel and lacking "any actual measurable commitment to picking up a telephone, holding a video conference, or holding a VR conference
session",
it will be interesting to see what solutions you can come up with for
this
conference you're organising. Did you consider the options other than
an
in-person conference that you recommended the WMF adopt, out of
interest?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-09-30/N...
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Mike
Paying for carbon offsets does not further Wikimedia’s goals.
Not directly, any more than paying for petrol or aviation fuel does. If you regard it as part of the cost of travel, and that travel does indeed further the Foundation's goals, then it seems reasonable to pay for it.
Henry
I agree with Bence. Right now, offsetting is cheap, likely 1-2 percentage points of the cost of travel. Those money could be asked directly in the grant to the WMF, for example, because offsetting several tonnes in bulk is probably cheaper than doing it person by person.
But carbon offsetting is just one strategy. Those money could be also invested in charities that conserve rainforest (and thus native people, and thus native culture > perfectly aligned with Wikimedia goals), or manage to plant new trees and forests.
I know for sure that Wikimedia Deutschland has contacts with Ecosia¹, a search engine that plant trees with revenue from web ads. There are surely ways we could partner with them in reforestation projects, or other. And they surely know a lot more than us about carbon offsetting, so we could just ask for suggestions.
On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 10:00 AM Henry Wood henry.wood.1869@gmail.com wrote:
Mike
Paying for carbon offsets does not further Wikimedia’s goals.
Not directly, any more than paying for petrol or aviation fuel does. If you regard it as part of the cost of travel, and that travel does indeed further the Foundation's goals, then it seems reasonable to pay for it.
Henry
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Maybe it's cheap... for European participants in a conference. People coming from developing nations tend to live further and require longer trips to participate in events and conference, mostly hosted in Europe or the US. So, not only you are asking us to spend larger hours on flights but also pay (or make someone else pay more) for it. I calculated how much carbon offset costed for my Wikimania travel, using the websites offered at the WM wiki, and it wasn't 1 or 2 usd. It was 107 euros, around 10% or more of the cost of the trip. I'm all for making a greener Wikimedia movement, but we should do it not affecting those that, supposedly, we want to include more in our movement.
El sáb., 12 de oct. de 2019 a la(s) 11:27, Andrea Zanni ( zanni.andrea84@gmail.com) escribió:
I agree with Bence. Right now, offsetting is cheap, likely 1-2 percentage points of the cost of travel. Those money could be asked directly in the grant to the WMF, for example, because offsetting several tonnes in bulk is probably cheaper than doing it person by person.
But carbon offsetting is just one strategy. Those money could be also invested in charities that conserve rainforest (and thus native people, and thus native culture > perfectly aligned with Wikimedia goals), or manage to plant new trees and forests.
I know for sure that Wikimedia Deutschland has contacts with Ecosia¹, a search engine that plant trees with revenue from web ads. There are surely ways we could partner with them in reforestation projects, or other. And they surely know a lot more than us about carbon offsetting, so we could just ask for suggestions.
On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 10:00 AM Henry Wood henry.wood.1869@gmail.com wrote:
Mike
Paying for carbon offsets does not further Wikimedia’s goals.
Not directly, any more than paying for petrol or aviation fuel does. If you regard it as part of the cost of travel, and that travel does indeed further the Foundation's goals, then it seems reasonable to pay for it.
Henry
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
The price really depends on the project selected and can vary from less than a dollar to close to $20 per tonne, and the cheaper projects do not necessarily have less of an impact (more likely they have fewer levels of independent verification).
Do note that apart from the company recommended on the Wikimania wiki, there are other options out there. For example, on the UNFCCC portal you will find many in even under the $1/tonne range: https://offset.climateneutralnow.org/allprojects if you check the individual projects, there is quite a lot of detail and documentation included to be able to have confidence that the money goes to the correct place. The ones that come with further certification can cost more of course, with the projects on the Gold Standard website being on the $10-15/tonne price range (they have a "basket" of projects option at $11[1]), and Terrapass chosen by the organisers of Wikmania also seem to be around the $9 mark (they count in pounds for some reason on their website).
For personal offsetting I am quite happy to go by the UN site and I think that is a good start to starting offsetting if one did not do it before. If one has more resources or time, they can spend it on selecting projects that meet their specific criteria (for example, social impacts beyond climate impacts, projects in specific geographic regions, or an extra level of certification) taking into account the extra cost.
Best regards, Bence
[1] https://www.goldstandard.org/take-action/offset-your-emissions, https://www.goldstandard.org/projects/climate-portfolio-variety-projects
On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 at 17:24, Osmar Valdebenito b1mbo.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe it's cheap... for European participants in a conference. People coming from developing nations tend to live further and require longer trips to participate in events and conference, mostly hosted in Europe or the US. So, not only you are asking us to spend larger hours on flights but also pay (or make someone else pay more) for it. I calculated how much carbon offset costed for my Wikimania travel, using the websites offered at the WM wiki, and it wasn't 1 or 2 usd. It was 107 euros, around 10% or more of the cost of the trip. I'm all for making a greener Wikimedia movement, but we should do it not affecting those that, supposedly, we want to include more in our movement.
El sáb., 12 de oct. de 2019 a la(s) 11:27, Andrea Zanni ( zanni.andrea84@gmail.com) escribió:
I agree with Bence. Right now, offsetting is cheap, likely 1-2 percentage points of the cost
of
travel. Those money could be asked directly in the grant to the WMF, for example, because offsetting several tonnes in bulk is probably cheaper than doing
it
person by person.
But carbon offsetting is just one strategy. Those money could be also invested in charities that conserve rainforest (and thus native people,
and
thus native culture > perfectly aligned with Wikimedia goals), or manage
to
plant new trees and forests.
I know for sure that Wikimedia Deutschland has contacts with Ecosia¹, a search engine that plant trees with revenue from web ads. There are
surely
ways we could partner with them in reforestation projects, or other. And they surely know a lot more than us about carbon offsetting, so we could just ask for suggestions.
On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 10:00 AM Henry Wood henry.wood.1869@gmail.com wrote:
Mike
Paying for carbon offsets does not further Wikimedia’s goals.
Not directly, any more than paying for petrol or aviation fuel does. If you regard it as part of the cost of travel, and that travel does indeed further the Foundation's goals, then it seems reasonable to pay for it.
Henry
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Lots of good suggestions. Thanks for the feedback.
Calculating the amount of travel by flight and train for a conference is not a lot of extra bureaucracy if the estimated distance made part of documenting the grants and expense claims. Playing around with some calculations of my own, it makes sense that rather than expecting individual participants to add carbon offsetting to their personal costs, we instead plan as a group to make a single donation to a credible project. This might even be something that a large affiliate like WMDE or the WMF might consider rolling up and managing. Especially for shorter flights (like 500 km round trips), the administrative cost as part of the donation works out as much as the amount that would go to the end project, so a single large payment would make far more sense than at the individual level.
Regardless of exactly how carbon offsetting might be arranged, it would be great it the proposed LGBT+ conference in 2020 reports the total travel figure, as part of the conference's aim to minimize our carbon footprint. If a matching payment to a carbon offset project is between 2% to 5% of the travel grants paid out, that seems entirely manageable as part of being responsible global citizens (thanks for that phrase!).
The separate issue of ensuring virtual engagement, such as catering for remote presentations, is a critical way of both reducing carbon footprint and allowing access for folks or organizations that have difficulty travelling long distance, wish to minimize their personal carbon footprint, or wish to participate but are unable to commit to devoting several days full time. WM-LGBT+ has been successfully using Zoom open source videoconferencing with participants in several countries at the same time, and with the launch of Facebook Horizon in 2020, this particular conference might be a well timed opportunity to set up a VR space to the benefit of the planned workshop discussions in a far more engaging way than passive videocasting of presentations allows. Who knows, maybe Facebook might loan us some headsets? ;-)
If folks want to continue to chip in with suggestions for the conference, the WM-LGBT+ user group talk page on meta is worth watching, and there are several other communication channels linked there if you prefer direct messaging or tweets. See https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_LGBT+/Portal
Thanks, Fae
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org