[HCoop-Discuss] EnvironmentalPolicy

[ntk at hcoop.net]

> On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 8:04 am, Robert Ledger wrote:
>> On 29/11/06, David W. Bettis <dwb at hcoop.net> wrote:
>>>  I'm OK with this proposal as the cost is so low (and the marketing
benefits, as you mentioned, are good).  But if it (or any other
Environmental Policy) becomes a substantial burden on coop members, I
would oppose it.
>> I second this view.
> To stay on the topic at hand, I would agree here as well.

I've always been of the opinion that being responsible environmentally
will so far from being a substantial burden to the co-op, will actually be
a net benefit, even financially, given the value to our image.

As I pointed out from the outset, clean electricity will cost us $0.04 per
member per month (and for the first year, $0 since I'm paying for it). 
This will go down as we better utilize our resources.  I don't see that as
a substantial burden.  We're not trying to save the world, just make sure
that HCoop isn't damaging it with its direct activities.

Other policies are required by law anyway.  NYC requires recycling paper,
the EPA requires proper disposal of toxic electronics.  Buying recycled
paper is not required, but is a no-brainer with a cost to members so low I
can't even compute it.  Let's stay ahead of the curve, rather than being
grudgingly pushed into bare compliance like some investor-owned
corporation.

> I'm seeing a
> lot of agree/disagree "votes" going in the list, so perhaps it is time
to put a poll in the portal, each person having the option of Yay, Nay
and Abstain. What does the list think on that subject?

This was discussed on IRC.  Since a lot of members were present for that,
I will paste rather than rehash:
02:10 < Smerdyakov> Best to take a poll before adding a fundamentally
different
                    use of dues.
02:15 < ntk> Smerdyakov: I'm not sure about polling this issue.  This is the
             kind of microexpenditure that I don't think we should weary
the
             membership about and I think we have a mandate to Get Things
Done
             without timidly waiting around all the time.  And the outcome
of
             the poll depends completely on who bothers to read and
respond to
             the email, and how the poll is worded.
02:15 < ntk> I don't think we should have a poll unless we first have a
poll to
             decide the wording of the poll.
02:16 < ntk> Would you prefer Poll A: Option 1. Buy clean wind energy to help
             keep smog out of asthmatic kids lungs and the icecaps from
melting
             and making the Tuvans homeless, or 2. Doing nothing.
02:17 < ntk> or Pobb B: Option 1. Give money to communist godless liberals to
             waste on hippie projects, or 2. Save money!
02:17 < ntk> s/Pobb/Poll.  you get the point.

I stand by the above, since I think it is impossible for us to get
meaningful poll results and we should not take action based on irrational
data.  Most members will not trouble themselves to pay attention and
inform themselves and vote in an inevitably loaded poll about what to them
is an $0.04 expenditure, and the more polls we take on micromanagement the
less seriously the membership will take voting on important issues like
board elections and bylaws amendments.  I'm not sure that this discussion
has been particularly fruitful either.

-ntk