Seeking the Right Environmental Cause to Support?

Bakajin asks: "I have always been a passive environmentalist. I think that any intelligent person must have concern about our planet and the future of our species upon it and that the Slashdot crowd has many such people. I have increasingly become more concerned about global warming as more and more signs seem to point to its likely effects. I try to make changes in my personal habits but, like many Slashdotters, don't have much time to try and effect larger changes to policy and science. I do however have money. I want to know what organizations Slashdot members think are most worthy of contribution and will give me the most effect for my money, politically or scientifically. This question fits well within Slashdot because it seems to have many members who think critically about the world and their role within it. There also seems to be a willingness to openly express mistrust of the same large corporations that either ignore environmental issues or outright cause them. Please don't turn this into a debate about whether global warming is an actual threat or how bad other environmental issues actually are, but rather about which organizations are the most effective and trustworthy for me to give my hard earned cash."

Comments

Re:National Rifle Association

[perljon]

The reasons many founding fathers were against the Bill of Rights in the first place is because they didn't want future generations to think only 10 things were gaurunteed as fundamental human rights.

However, we know that the founding fathers did value privacy as they barred unreasonable search and seizure of a person's home.

Data collection is not against a person's fundamental human rights; however, the searching of such data is. People do have the right to privacy, even if it wasn't expliciately stated in the Consitituion.

Had the founding fathers been familiar with the possabilities of how technology could violate a person's privacy, I am confidate they would have included protection against those invasions. However, the founding fathers only made laws about technology they were familiar with, specifically, physically going into a person's home.

Re:National Rifle Association

[bowronch]

It seems that the Fourth Amendment speaks to issues of privacy

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

Not absolute privacy, but the privacy against unreasonable searches and seizures nonetheless

Re:National Rifle Association

[Deagol]

As a card-carrying NRA member myself, I have to agree with you. However, the poster asked about environmental causes.

I often find myself thinking about the environment. First, I started at home: changed out all incadescent lights for compact florescents; took advantage of Salt Lake's curb-side recycling program; compost everything we can. We've reduced our power bill by 25% and we can go 2-3 weeks without taking the trash cans to the curb.

I figure living as an example, and showing it doesn't take much "sacrifice", is a great way to start. You know, the whole "think global, act local" mantra.

We also patronize Native Seeds for our garden's seed supply. These folks propogate heirloom varieties of crop seed suited to the southwestern US region. Since I live in Utah (mostly desert), these varieties require less water, which is a good environmental goal. It also allows me to thumb my nose at Monsanto and other big Evil(tm) agriculture companies. :)

Also, I've looked seriously into mutual funds that target certain ethics of investors. A search on Google should yield many mutual funds which agree with your cause. Certainly not as direct as funding a proactive organization, but companies affect the environment, too.

I've personally contributed to NPR? (which does a good job at showcasing enviromental issues), the National Arbor Day Foundation (self explanatory), and the local chapter of the Humane Society (ferral pets cause local environmental damage).

I haven't put out a lot of money to these groups (maybe a couple of hundred a year, total), but every little bit counts. If everyone ponied up $50/year for a cause, the world just might improve a little.

Re:Small Pet Peeve

[LordNimon]

I don't know why you would say that. All the environmentalists I know care a great deal about non-human lifeforms, sometimes even more than humans. Polution and toxins are bad for everything, not just people.