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:stop eating meat.

[lindsayt]

Even in 1848, Karl Marx already recognized that the problem isn't supply but rather distribution. This is more true now than ever before. It's not because our prices for grain are high - believe me, my wife's family are all farmers. The US burns enough grain every year as a result of overproduction to feed the entire world many times over. This is only one small part of the planet with high-efficiency fields. There is plenty of food currently being destroyed for nothing or nearly nothing.

The problem is distribution: all this destoyed grain is being destroyed so that it doesn't rot and simultaneously bring prices down. Now, if they could sell this grain instead of burning it, even if they were selling it at a loss, then the farmers and hence the US economy would be better offf than it currently is. The problem is that countries like Somalia (I have Somali neighbors so I know) get huge shipments of US grain that rot on the docks because the Somali "government" (I use the word loosely) lets the grain rot on the pier instead of distributing it, because it suits their political interests. So, if we stopped eating meat here in America and let all that grain we're currently feeding to animals go to other countries, guess what? The pile of grain rotting on piers in Somalia would be twice as big, the Somali people would still be starving, and US farmers would be in an even worse state, and the current agricultural depression would accelerate. Great...