Hi John,

I'm not aware of standards for interim goals. At Dickinson we looked carefully at how to balance direct emission reductions and offsets that are challenging yet realistic given the circumstances of our institution. Dickinson's goal of carbon neutrality by 2020 includes both direct emission reductions (25% from 2008 level) and offsets. Our target for 2030 is to reduce direct emissions 75% from 2008 level and use offsets for the remaining 25%. At present, we purchase renewable wind energy credits to offset 100% of our annual electricity consumption. This practice helps to finance development of wind energy in our region and we think it is a responsible action. In future, our intention is to rely less on purchased offsets by developing partnerships with others to implement projects in our locality and region that reduce emissions. But details are not yet worked out.

Reduction of direct emissions is critical and we all need to be making progress on deep cuts. But partnering with others to realize reductions that are beyond our institutions scope 1 and 2 emissions is needed too.There are good ways and bad ways to do offsets -- maybe AASHE can play a role in developing best practices for offsets.

(It's been awhile since we met at the Bard conference. I just saw Mike Bryson at the AESS conference and caught each other up on what we've been doing since)

Neil

Hey Neil-

Thanks for clarifying.  I think distinguishing between how interim goals/targets are going to be met is helpful.  We are at the front end of identifying mitigation strategies and evaluating our potential for direct emissions reductions in the years ahead.  Once I wrap my arms around that, we will need to consider the role that offsets will play in the near-term and long-term. 

Let's be sure to catch up soon, Neil.

Will you be at the AASHE Conference in Denver?

--John