Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-09-25/Special report

Discuss this story

This reminds me of green stuff. Legoktm (talk) 05:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Legoktm – yes, this issue had been raised a few times before, but the discussion never went anywhere. --Gnom (talk) 07:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can a reliable source be provided for the statement "The carbon footprint of the many long-distance flights is far greater than that of the servers." Has any thought been given to purchasing carbon offsets for airline travel? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cullen, please see meta:Talk:Sustainability Initiative#rough estimate of carbon impact of Wikimania 2017: >2x servers for some rough math by LuisVilla. And yes, carbon offsets obviously come to mind regarding the environmental impact of travel, but reading the article makes it clear that less flights would be a significantly better option. But we should definitely look into the costs of buying offsets for an event like Wikimania. --Gnom (talk) 07:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that "rough, rough, rough" estimate says that Wikimania airline travel generates 2.25 times as much CO2 as the servers. When I read "far greater", I was thinking that perhaps it was 100 times greater. Precision is better than vagueness, Gnom, and when very rough estimates are used as sources, that should be disclosed. Simply saying that "less flights" is a "significantly better option" requires much deeper analysis. What percentage of worldwide air travel supports the Wikipedia/Wikimedia movement? I think you will need a whole lot of zeroes to the right of the decimal point when you answer that question.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything you say. But my opinion is when we need to save our planet, everybody needs to do their part, including us Wikimedians. If you can help gather more precise information, I would very much appreciate it. --Gnom (talk) 08:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen³²⁸, representing statistics in the manner you advocate does nothing but bury the GHG problem, as we all contribute approximately 7 billionths to the problem, so "whatever" right? What's so wrong with jet-setting around? It is only when we act to reduce our consumption and develop carbon neutral sources, that any hope can be found. For those playing with statistics, to make themselves feel better, the only hope is someday they'll wake up with a newfound perspicacious illumination. Fingers crossed, right?

Boundarylayer (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boundarylayer, regarding statistics, I simply ask that they be cited and summarized precisely rather than vaguely. What is wrong with that? As for reducing carbon emissions, I have consistently supported two highly effective green environmental organizations with regular financial donations for 41 years and operate only low emissions vehicles in my small business. I fly infrequently and have never attended Wikimania. All I ask is that decisions be made based on verifiable evidence rather than vague assertions. When it comes to reducing carbon emissions, I favor continuing to pick the low hanging fruit: increasing average motor vehicle fuel efficiency and increasing production of solar and wind power. Cancelling Wikimania would be about #́15,842 on my personal list of things to do. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boundarylayer, then I'm gonna cheat on my tax, since there are millions of taxpayers and it won't make an appreciable difference. Are your ethics coming from the Trump administration? Tony (talk) 01:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've just made a userbox User:Salix alba/Sustainability Initiative Userbox for users to show support for this iniative. --Salix alba (talk): 06:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Salix alba! I've added that box to my user page. MeegsC (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]