 Hi everyone, my name is Erin Morris. I'm a senior travel and convening specialist on the Wikimedia Foundation's travel team. In addition to my role on the travel team, I also contribute to sustainability projects at the foundation, including our annual environmental sustainability report. So I'm going to be sharing the results from that report today. Even though this is pre-recorded, we'd still love to hear your questions and feedback. You can email me at the address listed here. There's also going to be some additional ways for you to get in touch with us on the last slide of this presentation. I'm going to be covering the key takeaways of the 2022 report today. So hopefully you all come away with a good understanding of where our emissions come from, how they've changed over the years, and what we're doing to mitigate those emissions, particularly through our newly created internal carbon fund. To kick things off, I wanted to give you a little bit of background on sustainability efforts at the foundation. Back in February 2017, in response to a community-led sustainability initiative, the board adopted an environmental impact resolution pledging to minimize our overall impact on the environment. This eventually led to our first ever carbon footprint report, which was published in June 2019 and covered calendar year 2018. In May 2020, the 2030 movement strategy recommendations were shared, and later that year environmental sustainability was prioritized as one of the key initiatives, which has informed a lot of our work around this since. In June 2022, the board updated its 2017 resolution and formally committed us to the publication of periodic environmental sustainability reports. And then in July 2022, so a little over a year ago, we established an internal carbon fund, which is being supported by a $50 per ton fee or tax on our emissions. And that revenue is being used to support community-led initiatives around sustainability. In April of this year, we published our fifth consecutive report on calendar year 2022, which is what I'm going to be focusing on today. So just a few key concepts before we dive into the results. A greenhouse gas, as I'm sure you're all familiar, is a gas that traps heat in the atmosphere. For comparison purposes, we convert all greenhouse gases into their carbon dioxide equivalent based on their global warming potential. Wikimedia's greenhouse gas inventory was prepared according to the World Resource Institute's greenhouse gas protocol, which is a widely used global standard for measuring and managing emissions. The protocol classifies emissions into three different categories. Scope one are direct greenhouse gas emissions that occur from sources controlled or owned by a company. For us, this is really small. It includes natural gas and refrigerant consumption at our San Francisco office. Scope two emissions are indirect emissions from the purchase of electricity, heat, steam or cooling. This includes electricity and steam used at our San Francisco office, but it does not include electricity used by our co-located data centers. Because our vendors are the ones purchasing that electricity and including those emissions in their scope two category. So scope three is basically a catch-all for everything else. It's usually the largest and most difficult to account for. And these are indirect emissions from a company's operations or supply chain. In our case, this includes water use and waste at our San Francisco office, electricity used by our data center vendors, WMF sponsored staff and volunteer business travel, commuting and new as of this year energy related to remote work. We're going to be talking a lot about tons of carbon, but I think it's difficult for most of us to wrap our heads around what that means. So I wanted to give you a few examples here. For those of you who flew to Singapore for this year's Wikipedia conference, your round trip flight was probably between two and three tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. Most of you watching probably emit somewhere between four and 15 tons of CO2 per year with the global average being about five. Okay, so now I think we can get into some of the major takeaways of the report. In 2022, our scope one, two and three emissions totaled 2.9 kilotons of carbon dioxide equivalent, which is less than 1% of other top 10 website platforms like Google and Meta. In 2022, we also decided to expand our scope three emissions to include estimated remote work impacts, which added another half a kiloton and increased our overall emissions by about 20%. We're now a remote first organization. We have staff across more than 50 countries and only a handful of staff regularly commute to our San Francisco Bay Area office. So we made this change to better reflect that new reality. Remote work impacts include estimated home energy use and commutes to workspaces other than the San Francisco office. Like many of our peers, we're still trying to figure out how to best quantify the impacts of a distributed workforce. And we know we have a lot more work to do to understand those impacts, which we'll get into more in a minute. So third, while business travel resumed in 2022, we're still well below pre pandemic levels of travel, despite significant growth in our workforce. Our travel related emissions were actually 25% below 2019 levels, even though we increased our staff from a little over 400 to over 700 over that time period. These lower levels of travel were due to some continuing impacts of the pandemic. Annual events like Wikipedia and our staff all hands were still held virtually, for example. And they're also due to an organizational effort to be more intentional about our travel. And then finally, Wikipedia continues to grow as an important resource for education and awareness about the climate crisis. Wikipedia recorded almost 350 million page views across more than 31,000 articles about climate change in 2022, with billions more on other sustainability related topics. So we have three major sources of emissions. The largest is business travel at 44% or about 1.3 kilotons of CO2 equivalent in 2022. This is mostly travel to team off sites, which is a consequence of us being globally distributed. We really see value in that face to face time. The community convenings category you see here, which includes staff and WMF sponsored volunteer travel to movement events like Wikimania and Wikimedia Summit was lower than usual because there was no Wikimania in 2022. We obviously expect this category to increase next year due to this year's Wikimania being held in person. Data centers are our second largest source of emissions at 38% or about 1.1 kilotons in 2022. These emissions come entirely from electricity consumption. We don't account for water use due to data collection issues with our vendors, but most of our sites use water free or closed loop cooling. We have nine co-located data centers across North America, Europe and Asia, but most of our energy consumption and therefore our emissions come from our application services sites in the US, where most of our hardware lives, specifically our sites in Virginia and Texas. I also want to mention that while our data centers are a big part of our footprint, Wikimedia projects are really quite efficient and they produce less than 1% of the emissions per page view as the average web page. I just want to jump back to this graph for one second to talk about the working environments category previously just called the San Francisco office. This is our third and smallest source of emissions. This was responsible for about 18% or half a kiloton of CO2 equivalent in 2022. This category has two components. The San Francisco office which stayed more or less the same year over year and new as of this year remote work impacts, which as you can see we're responsible for a majority of those 500 tons. As I mentioned earlier, remote work impacts include commutes to alternative work spaces like co-working spaces and cafes. And it also includes estimated home energy use, both the electricity needed to power our devices and also space heating and cooling, which is often the most difficult of the two to quantify. Because official guidance on this has yet to be published by the greenhouse gas protocol, this is just an estimate, but we plan to update it as clear guidance is published in the future. We're also going to be looking for other ways to continue improving this category. I'm really excited for example that Google plans to release a carbon calculator for Google workspace. This is going to allow us to quantify the impacts of the use of our everyday products like Gmail, Google Meet and Google Drive. So how are we doing over time? The pandemic has obviously led to major fluctuations in travel. But again, even with travel reopening in 2022, our travel related emissions are still well below 2019 levels, despite a large increase in staff. The average staff at the foundation is only taking about two trips per year. And then data centers, most of the changes in data center emissions in the lighter blue here are attributable to methodological changes. The external consultants who prepared our report the first three years factored in renewable energy credits purchased by our data center vendors in 2019 after not having done so in 2018, which is why you see that large drop between 2018 and 2019 and 20. We brought the reporting in house for the 2021 report and made several updates, including using the emission factors of the grids where our data centers actually operate instead of factoring in the procurement decisions of our vendors. We did this because we wanted to be more conservative and this resulted in a 75% increase in calculated data center related emissions between 2020 and 2021. And finally, emissions associated with the office have been declining over the years, mainly due to the fact that people are no longer regularly commuting. The decision to include remote work impacts did increase our working environments category a lot year over year, which you can see in the lighter gray here in this year's report. And we are also excited to release more information about our internal carbon fund, which was established in 2022 and is supported by a $50 per ton internal carbon fee or tax on our scope one, two and three emissions. As you've seen, we already have a pretty small footprint compared to our peers. Our projects are quite efficient as it is. And while we are trying to be more intentional about the travel that we do, we think face to face time is really important for collaboration, and it is necessary on some level. Because of all that, we know that reaching carbon neutrality through emission cuts alone won't be feasible, at least in the short term. So we wanted to invest in an innovative alternative to offsets. And we felt that investing in efforts to increase climate content on Wikimedia projects would be far more effective than purchasing offsets through a third party. In our first year of the fund, the fee was assessed on both 2020 and 2021 emissions and 113,000 was included in our fiscal year 23 budget cycle. It's just ended in June. That money was used to fund an organizer lab pilot last fall, and that was a nine week online learning experience that helped participants design projects around prioritized knowledge gaps with a special focus on sustainability. We graduated 21 people, 10 of whom applied for grants. Ultimately, six of those projects were funded. And those grant recipients were announced in April via a diff post so you can check out diff for more information on the recipients. And then in year two of this program, so our current fiscal year that just started on July 1, we have about $150,000 available to us to support additional community led sustainability campaigns. If you want to learn more, you can view the full report on Wikimedia Commons. There's also a blog post on diff covering the highlights. The sustainability page on meta is also a great resource. It has links to all of our old reports. You can also ask us a question on that talk page or email us at sustainability at Wikimedia.org. We'd love to get your feedback and hear what we're doing well or what we could be doing better. Thank you so much for listening.