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

Special report

Two steps forward, one step backward: The Sustainability Initiative

The logo of the Sustainability Initiative.

The Sustainability Initiative was created two years ago. Finally we're seeing some initial successes: steps are now being taken with regard to energy sourcing for the servers and green investment strategies by the endowment after the WMF Board of Trustees voted on these issues earlier this year. But the Wikimedia movement is still far from being environmentally sustainable.

A shared responsibility

The Sustainability Initiative was started in 2015 with the goal of reducing the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement. It was started by Aubrey and me after Greenpeace USA published a report on green hosting, in which Wikipedia scored particularly badly.

Apart from switching our servers to renewable energy, which could set a significant example for the entire internet, it became clear that the Sustainability Initiative had to address other areas, such as the energy used to run the Foundation's offices in San Francisco, and the Wikimedia endowment – it makes no sense to run the servers on renewable energy while at the same time investing in carbon-intensive industries.

The new Wikimedia Foundation offices are located in a "certified green" building (pictured). The move will help reduce the WMF's carbon footprint.

The challenge

The Sustainability Initiative had a slow start. The main challenge seemed to be that reducing our environmental impact is not directly connected to the idea of free knowledge. This is probably why it's been difficult to convince Foundation staff to prioritize the matter. Also, US electricity consumers typically have less flexibility than others in choosing their electricity provider.

A shared solution

So how do you convince such a large organization like Wikimedia to change course? As so often, the solution lies with the volunteer Wikimedia communities. To demonstrate that the Sustainability Initiative has broad community support, we asked Wikipedians from across the globe (in 12 languages) to add their usernames to the list of supporters – and many followed our request. Our conversations – both with WMF staff and experts from Greenpeace – indicated that the first steps had to come from the WMF Board of Trustees, so that any staff efforts could align with a greater corporate directive, rather than being projects outside the annual plan.

Energy sources used for the Wikimedia servers, with renewable energy in green.

Successes and setbacks

After more than 250 community members had expressed their support for the Initiative, the Board adopted a sustainability commitment in February 2017. While the commitment stays behind what we proposed based on similar policies at other organizations, it's a step in the right direction, and helped to finally get the Initiative moving:

Servers: In the week leading up to Wikimania 2017 in Montreal, WMF CTO Victoria Coleman and CFO Jaime Villagomez sent out letters to its big colocation providers Equinix and CyrusOne, asking them to follow up on their own previous commitments by providing information about the possibilities regarding renewable energy for Wikipedia's servers at their hosting centers in Texas and Virginia.
WMF offices: Not directly triggered by the Sustainability Initiative but in line with its goals, the Foundation chose a "certified green" building for its new San Francisco offices.

Map showing international flights to Johannesburg – reaching Cape Town, host city of Wikimania 2018, requires an additional two-hour domestic flight.

Endowment: Just after Wikimania 2017 in Montreal, the Wikimedia Foundation announced that the endowment is currently being invested in funds that are rated for sustainability. A new investment policy will be adopted in the spring of 2018, and WMF chief advancement officer Lisa Seitz-Gruwell expects the new policy to contain similar language.

Travel: It turns out that the most significant step to making the Wikimedia movement more sustainable would be to cancel Wikimania: The carbon footprint of the many long-distance flights is far greater than that of the servers – not only, but especially in the case of Cape Town 2018. Yet, one solution – encouraging remote participation by streaming as many sessions as possible online – would not appeal to those for whom physical meetups are critical.

Currently, well over 300 community members are supporting the Sustainability Initiative. Ideas and comments are welcome on the talk page.

← Previous "Special report"

Next "Special report" →

In this issue

25 September 2017 (all comments)

Special report

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

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]

What do you think of The Signpost? Share your feedback.

Home

About