If the cost is really only going to be only "between $0.05 and $0.15 per member monthly" then I do not object. However, this is silly; it's more about serving our own emotional needs than it is about helping the environment, building a sustainable energy economy, or repairing damage that we cause.
We would not be buying "clean" electricity, or electricity at all. We would be buying something called "renewable energy credits," which, according to NativeEnergy's site, are "a commodity that consist of the rights to claim the emissions reductions and other environmental benefits of green power." (I have added this definition on the wiki). In other words, we are not helping the environment; we are merely buying the right to "claim" the emissions reductions that other purchasers of electricity actually accomplished. This is not a "right" in a legal or economic sense, either; it's more of a moral/ethical right to claim that you are doing a good thing. It is purely psychological. I ride a bicycle to work every day. As a result, I can claim that I am helping the environment. It hadn't occurred to me, until now, that I could make a few bucks on the side by selling to others the right to "claim" my emissions reductions: give me, say, $1 a month, and then you and not I get to claim that you are doing the right thing. But come on; if a guilty automobile commuter took me up on this deal, the environment doesn't actually benefit, because he's still driving a car and I'm still riding a bike. If anything, by alleviating the guilty commuter's sense of guilt, I've made it less likely that he will ever change his environment-harming behavior. I don't think buying these "CoolWatts" in any way morally absolves us from buying dirty power through our current provider. This is really just an elaborate charitable donation to a for-profit power company. But it's a small donation, and because other cooperative members seem to feel very strongly in favor of this, I will not object. ----- Original Message ---- From: Michael Olson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 12:40:23 AM Subject: Re: [HCoop-Discuss] EnvironmentalPolicy Nathan Kennedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > First, there is the Rochedale Principle of social responsibility and > the basic moral principle of cleaning up after ourself. Hosting is a > fairly clean business; the two biggest environmental costs are > hardware disposal and dirty electricity generation. > > From a less altruistic perspective, the tiny cost of going totally > green presents a great marketing opportunity. We can use green-e and > NativeEnergy tags, join the EPA Green Energy Partnership, be listed in > green business directories, and just generally attract interest as not > only a unique cooperative providing great service at great value, but > wind-powered too. These are both fairly compelling reasons, and the cost isn't prohibitively high, so I support this. -- Michael Olson -- FSF Associate Member #652 -- http://www.mwolson.org/ Interests: Lisp, text markup, protocols -- Jabber: mwolson_at_hcoop.net /` |\ | | | Projects: Emacs, Muse, ERC, EMMS, Planner, ErBot, DVC |_] | \| |_| Reclaim your digital rights by eliminating DRM. See http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm for details. _______________________________________________ HCoop-Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://hcoop.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hcoop-discuss _______________________________________________ HCoop-Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://hcoop.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hcoop-discuss
