sexybiggetje
@FediFollows
I can't seem to find what GWF considers green. The reason I look for this is that in .nl we consider biomass green, but we make it from imported materials from Poland, which actually causes us to create more co2 output. Also companies that buy certificates to compensate are considered green. But compensation somewhere else isn't really green.
That's a long story. But I'd be hesitant to advertise green services when the origin and method are not immediately clear.
@greenfediverse
sexybiggetje
@greenfediverse
Yes, I agree. We need to make it transparant who are green by heart and who are green for marketing
@FediFollows
FediFollows
I think GreenFediverse uses this site as a reference point?
https://www.thegreenwebfoundation.org
There's details on the site about criteria etc?
GreenFediverse
@FediFollows @sexybiggetje
I did a lot of research the last days and documented it in the database, but haven't send it through the pipeline yet. What I can tell you, there are a lot of companies who consider to be green but at the same time buying from suppliers who offering fossil energy. This is very frustrating, not the fact alone that they are not fully green, to see the motivation behind that many try to cover the real structures. Transparency is the way!
GreenFediverse
@sexybiggetje @FediFollows
Thats why we are doing this. ;)
Do some research, as far as we can go, document it and make it transparent to everyone.
btw. the list is working again, it is synchronizing with the GWF.
We now do some research and fill the database the coming days and weeks.
If you are interested in investigation, let me know.
sexybiggetje
@FediFollows @greenfediverse
Had to split this toot up. But we should celebrate green energy! But we should also be more realistic about what is actually green.
Chirp! is a social network. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.1-beta0, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All Chirp! content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.