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
The price really depends on the project selected and can vary from less
than a dollar to close to $20 per tonne, and the cheaper projects do not
necessarily have less of an impact (more likely they have fewer levels of
Do note that apart from the company recommended on
Maybe it's cheap... for European participants in a conference.
People coming from developing nations tend to live further and require
longer trips to participate in events and conference, mostly hosted in
Europe or the US.
So, not only you are asking us to spend larger hours on flights but also
I agree with Bence.
Right now, offsetting is cheap, likely 1-2 percentage points of the cost of
Those money could be asked directly in the grant to the WMF, for example,
because offsetting several tonnes in bulk is probably cheaper than doing it
person by person.
But carbon offsetting is
> Paying for carbon offsets does not further Wikimedia’s goals.
Not directly, any more than paying for petrol or aviation fuel does.
If you regard it as part of the cost of travel, and that travel does
indeed further the Foundation's goals, then it seems reasonable to pay
Even at the scale of the WMF, the costs of offset would not be high.
At the scale of individual travellers where a typical trip would cause less
than 1 tonne of emissions, and offsets available already at the 1$/tonne
price range and below - I would argue that if you or your organisation has
+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.
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
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),
> 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/
Since a fortnight ago you were haranguing* the WMF for using too much air
travel and lacking "any actual measurable commitment to
To clarify, the topic was "planning a conference for next year, we
could ask or require participants to factor in payments for carbon
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/
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
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
Mail list logo