Slashdot Mirror
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."
For years, many have been trying to erode the Constitution by removing or severly limiting our basic right to bear arms. The geeks' constant fight for free speech and free computing is a relatively recent advance. You can bet that a bunch of gun toting NRA members would stand by your side if any of the constitution rights were watered down. Their cause is of a great concern to them and they already have a large lobby and many voters.
Don't confuse privacy issues with the constitution, however. Nowhere in the Constitution does it gaurantee a right to privacy. If privacy is your cause, then the NRA might not be a good choice.
From what I know, these guys were a minor issue-party, but have evolved into a serious, well-rounded party fighting corporate control of the government and the political process. They even had a good candidate for president in 2000, who bothered to answer (some) questions from Slashdot.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
What you'd be best off doing is looking into the organizations you are interested in, and support the ones who's views most closely match your own. That's better than taking our word for it. With most organizations you can obtain information as to the general breakdown of their finances - and I would suggest avoiding groups that don't give that info out.
Another thing is to consider groups that are primarily local to you. Here in MA, for instance, there's an organization called The Trustees of Reservations, a private group that buys, manages, and preserves properties all across the state, and maintains them for public use. That's one I support, though they're not an environmental group first and formost, they mesh pretty well with my interests. There are other groups I support as well, most of which are local/regional in orientation.
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
Their Action Center is pretty cool. Makes it _very_ easy to shoot out a comment to government and corporate people.
-beme
1971
Environmentalists don't care about "the planet." They care about humans being able to live on the planet.
... the PEOPLE, are fucked!
As George Carlin would say to someone who wants to protect the planet: The planet is fine
"And like that
I give all my environmental money to outdoor clubs that work to preserve trails and wild areas. This is because I am a hiker/backpaker, but also becuase they tend to do tangible things, have benefits reaped by large numbers of people, and are more pragmatic and less political and idealistic.
This way you are preserving wilderness forever - you great, great grandkids will be able to hike on the trails you support. (And by preserving green space, you're helping out with other problems also)
Well, just my 2 cents.
_sig_ is away
the reason "animal rights activists" don't like the meat industry is that it operates under the "black box" paradigm: here's a shed, you put in food, water, and electricity, and you get out meat and excrement. (Actually, a whole lot of excrement, which we'll get to later). The question is how to turn the most food into the most meat using the least square footage -- and the answer is one that treats animals in less than favorable conditions. But let's not consider whether animals live in painful conditions for the months before they die (who cares), but look only at the environmental impact of this scheme. Viz.
.
14-120 pounds of food, mostly human-edible, go into 1 pound of meat. The rest (what isn't burned away by the animals' metabolism), comes right back out as excrement. Ruminate on these link links for a bit.
If you're concerned not just about environmentalism, but human starvation, then consider that the reason many starving countries can't afford our harvests is that we're feeding them to our animals instead; i.e. becoming highest-bidder for that food. So when you eat a quarter-pound of meat, consider that the reason you're paying $1.28 for it is so you can have purchased the 5-8 pounds of human-edible food used to feed that quarter-pound. And if you weren't paying $1.00 for it, some third-world country would be paying $38 cents. Supply and demand.
For an alternative view (against the argument outlined above), see here
Notice that it says "the world right now is producing more food than people could eat if they had it in front of them. The amount of
food produced is not the problem."
and yet we know that people are starving. Why? Because we're producing more non-meat food than all people in the world can eat, and we're feeding it to our animals. Notice later that the excremenet problem I listed above is turned around and said to be a positive source of manure. If only that were the case...
Of the admittedly small sample of people I've known who seemed to care about the environment and human starvation (can you imagine what it's like to *starve* *to* *death*), none concluded after looking into the meat industry that it is something worth supporting, except for "organic" meats grown really on pastures where only grass grows, and not within today's farming paradigm. The food they consume is not human-consumable, and the methods of rearing are much different, and result in a much smaller environmental impact, especially considering the number of animals / square foot that exist on a large open pasture versus today's typical meat industry.
You say you have money, so if you don't like the idea of giving up meat, you can boy elitist organic meat -- but the 99% of the meat industry (I dont' know what the actual number might be) that most arguments are aimed against is definitely something you do not want to be supporting.
Before you work on your home's heating system make sure you insulation is up to date. A 90+ furnance will emit more polutants in a 100 year old leakly home and a 40% 1950's furnance in a house insulated to modern standards. (Well not quite, the 90+ will have more complete combustion, but there will be more fuel burned in any case) Modern windows and insulation are very good.
Before you buy a Hybrid car, consider a VW TDI, which is pretty good emmissions wise, and better for fuel consumption for long trips. For the short trips where the Hybrid shines you should get a bicycle. (With a trailer - see kid trailers, which work for shopping too) A SUV is nice to have when you need to haul people, but a van hauls more people in comfort, on less fuel (get a diesel), the times where you need the additional abilities of a SUV are times where you should stay home anyway.
You don't need air conditioning on most days. Learn to live with the heat as long as possible. Open the windows at night, close them (and the curtians) during the day.
It is best to start at home. Show people that they can live a better life by doing it yourself. Once you have done it to your house, tell your neighbors. Get them to follow in your footsteps because the bottom line pays off.
There is a lot of debate over enviormental issues. There are too many variables to come to conclusions (like the Earth's tempature is colder than normal right now if we read the fosile record correctly, so is global warming a problem or a normal cycle) with absolute certianly, either way. However even if everything the enviorments think turns out to be false, you will be better off not paying high fuel bills, and that is the worst case, while more likely you have done something useful instead of chancing your money on polititions.
The Political Economy Research Center is a great place for you libertarians to support for free market environmentalism.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
Seriously, it sounds cliche, but I've always thought the best environmental support you can offer comes in your own neighborhood. Barring that, find a locally-concerned group that runs an educational nature center. The Sierra Club (and most larger organizations) could use your money, but the narrow focus of a local group gets more for the dollar. Maybe go to a city planning (or county commission meesting) if you want to be more involved. They deal a lot with traffic congestion (and pollution), green space construction, local conservation and noise pollution. Besides, they tend to really care if you show up. If we all took a little more time in our own corner of the world, we'd make a larger difference.
Large, generally-focused organizations (in my case, IMBA, a trail-rights organization for mountain bikers... www.imba.com) can represent your views in the "big picture", and that is important. Pick one, and donate. But, the best thing you can do is get even marginally involved on a local level.
And, to a large degree, Carlin is right. The ecosystem will take care of us if we become too much of a burden.
Amateurs discuss tactics. Professionals discuss logistics.
Before you get into any environmental issues, you really must read Daniel Quinn's "Ishmael" trilogy- including the books Ishmael, My Ishmael and the Story of B. Could be thought of as environmental books, but not in the typical way. Very easy reads, fiction books that are philosophy/fact very thinly veiled by a boring plot. But what is really being said is more than enough to keep you going.
The first book, Ishmael blows the minds of some, but I can't say it did me. The Story of B was much more valuable to the way that I think.
Also, remember that is what is good for the planet is good for us. While it has it's own worth, deep ecology [1] and gaia type stuff is easily attacked and broken down like any emotion-based thing. All of this stuff (/me waves arms) isn't worth anything if we cannot sustain our own lives and the life support system we call Earth.
[1] This is coming from an ecologist, an actual scientist. Not sure why they call it deep ecology rather than deep environmentalism- ecology is real science and deep ecology is not.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Probably the best use of your money would be in your own backyard. Insulating your house, buying envionmentally friendly appliances, replacing all your incandecents with compact flouescents and maybe looking into using alterantive energy (photovoltaic, solar heating or whatever is appropriote where you live). You will save yourself money and energy use which will help the envionment and you would be surprised how being an example will generate intrest in your own neighborhood. Once you have done that then look at giving to a cause, or maybe joining a local envionmental group? Giving money is the easy way out, but contributing personally by making your home an example and then going out and helping others will give you the best bang for your buck.
Example: A $10 25W compact florescent will give you the same illumination as a 100W incadescent bulb. That's a savings of 75W. If you were to keep the incadescent and go to a solar system, that one light bulb will contribute $40 to the total price if the system (panels, batteries, inverters, etc.).
Multiply that by every light bulb and appliance in your house. It adds up very fast.
Method of processing duck feet
Educate yourself first. Learn the issues. Know the vested interests. Find something that really makes you mad and fight for it.
I have one suggestion: Natural Capitalism. The best book I have ever read on the subject. This book is totally infuriating and completely inspiring.
Did you know that the subsidies that go to coal mining in Germany, if paid to the miners directly, would give them an annual income of US$65,000? Crazy...
Start with this book. Support the authors who work everyday on these issues. Check out the web site: http://www.natcap.org
A speech...
I have had a VW Golf TDI for about a year now (had a Honda Civic before) and it gets great mileage (the same or better then the Toyota Prius). And generally diesel is cheaper then gasoline. But if you are looking at getting a hybride don't get a VW TDI, it will cost less and last longer (VW desiels last eons it seems), use less fuel and you don't have to worry about the envionmental impact of the batteries.
No matter what change you want to effect in the world, ultimately it comes down to the battle of ideas and expressions. If there is no outlet for the ideas you believe in, it doesn't matter where you throw your money because the cause will be stifled, muted, and dwarfed by those in control of the media. So whatever your cause is (uh, well, unless its "maintaining a media monopoly"), you should probably throw some money to decentralized media, grassroots democracy, and watchdog organizations. There is IndyMedia. Democracy Now. Public Citizen. FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting). The list goes on... In general, helping putting power back in the hands of the people helps your cause whatever it is (because by deduction, you are part of "the people").
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Would like to mod that up.
Yes, set a good example. You don't have to "effect larger changes to policy and science". Start making a difference at home. Get yourself off the grid, whether it's geothermal or solar and wind. Thoroughly insulate with the right materials. Support your local farms by buying their products. Eat less industrially produced meat. Drive less. Use Natural Biological Pest Controls. Expand on this list.
Then teach your kids, they are our future.
Yes, these things are harder than just handing over some money to a cause and continuing on as always. But starting at home has a greater impact. Setting an example has a greater impact. You will feel so much better by doing something. And of course we can't all just donate money while continuing to cause the problems in the first place. What good does that do?
Operator, give me the number for 911!
the reason "plant rights activists" don't like the vegetable and grain industrys is that they operate under the "black box" paradigm: here's a field, you put in food, water, and perstesides, and you get out plants and excrement. (Actually, a whole lot of excrement, which we'll get to later). The question is how to turn the most food into the most vegetable using the least square footage -- and the answer is one that treats the plants, animans and the envoronment in less than favorable conditions. But let's not consider whether plants live in painful conditions for the months before they die (who cares), but look only at the environmental impact of this scheme. Viz. ...
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
First an introduction. I consider myself extremely environmental conscious. I recycle as much as possible. I never drive to work. yadda yadda yadda. I keep myself upto date with environmental issues, so I think I have an idea about what I talk about. With that said...
Do NOT support greenpeace. They are a terrorist organisation... All around the world, they support groups with interfere with the oil companies business. They damage (and in at least one case sink) military and scientific ships. They promote the destruction of crops in GM trials.
If you don't believe me do a search on google.
They have a noble cause, but they are furthering it by the wrong means. The really annoying thing is that several of my friends and even some of my family support them financially. I've tried smacking them with a clue-bat, alas with little success.
The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg has a lot to say about what environmental issues affect people the most and which are little more than scare stories.
IIRC the biggest threat to human health is the lack of clean drinking water and sanitation. Air polution is probably the biggest problem in developed countries. IMHO any organisation that talks more about nuclear power, global warming, GM foods, etc than these two issues is not effectively combating the important environmental issues.
(cue Balmer jumpling around)
All environmental problems stem from human over-population. More mouths = more food consumed, more housing, more roads, more SUV etc.
Even worse, there are superstitions that encourage this abuse - Catholoism, Momronism, and Socialism* are the ones I'm familiar with.
A family of 6 in *not* a beautifull thing - on a physics level, they are increasing the entropy of the universe, and on an environmental level is a disaster. On a sociological level, each child won't get the attention they need to thrive in modern socioty.
*Modern Socialism encourages over-breading by burdening the producers of wealth with taxes, and transfering that wealth to the lazy and stupid. The lazy and stupid, for some reason, breed more than normal.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
"Modern Socialism encourages over-breading by burdening the producers of wealth with taxes, and transfering that wealth to the lazy and stupid. The lazy and stupid, for some reason, breed more than normal."
Haha, there couldn't possibly be any correlation between the socioeconomic class of these "lazy and stupid" people and their "over-breading" could there? Maybe you need to reanalyze the causal relation here.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Some honest organizations I'd recommend are:
Audobon Society
Ducks Unlimited
Nature Conservancy
Pheasants Forever
correlation betewwn the socioeconomic class...
I know where you're comming from but...
When I was young, I use the moan about the plight of the poor in America. They were beaten, down-trodden, and rejected. O woe was them.
Then I happed to have the oppertunity to meet a young man from Vietnam that made his way to America. (After being tourtuted) He diden't speek any english at the time, and had no money to his name.
By working hard, studying english, and not buying stupid things (druges, fancy cars, expensive getto-ware, alcohol, TV) he's became quite sucuessfull, married and has two beautifull, inteligent, children. He never talked about his past problems - and only after we became close friends would he mention the torture he endured. He is a brave person.
*then it hit me*
Jesus, fucking christ! If one gets thier housing paid for, food paid for, education paid for - and *still* can't make it in America - than one deserves to FUCKING STARVE TO DEATH. Painfully. As an example to the other fuck-wits out there.
If some short, illiterate, pain-ridden, destitute boat-person can do it, thean the fuckers that constantly drain this country of tax money, sympathy, and government-cheese can do it.
In short, I save my sympathyes for people like my friends, and not the lazy whiners.
And in retrospect - I realied that I has grown up in a poor house. The sewer backed up into the basement - thick rich poop and urine had to be cleaned every three months during the rainy season. Any yet, I don't care. But you can bet your bottom doller that all the fuck-heads in section 8 housing would be cring "opression" the soon as their tax-payer funded housing even dripped one peice of poop onto their crack-stash.
Personally, I think America should do a bit better job handing out opertunity, and not free-food and housing. If we took the money we waste on the lazy and put it into free higher-education, we'd be a lot better off.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
Your correct, there are many decent familes that have raied a large, inteligent and thoughfull families. And yes, there are a lot of spoiled-little-brats raised by yuppie dual-income families that are more worried about their BMW payemnt than their child's future.
I didn't meany to disparage the families that do it right. But on balance, large familes *are* more difficult to raise, and hence should probably not be the norm considering the fact that there are already 5.5 Billion people on this earth.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
Even the most well run orgs run with a 10-25% administration costs, and I'd rather send directly to the cause I believe. A lot of the organizations have administrative costs of 50-80%.
Quite true and it seems as though the largest and most well-known charities are often the most wasteful.
I URGE anyone who gives money to any charity -- environmental or other -- to spend $3 and get the Charity Watchdog Report produced by the American Institute of Philanthropy . This group analyzes the financial books of over 400 charities and summarizes it for you so you know how wisely they spend the money they collect from you. I, myself, have quit supporting several charities I used to (and gave the money to other charitiable organizations in the same field) because of what I've read in the Watchdog Report.
GMD
watch this
When people think about overpopulation, they often think of India and China which have very obvious problems. But the biggest threat to the environment in overpopulation in the US. Why? Because our standard of living (a euphimism for how much which consume) is so high. An American consumes far more of the planet's resources than a European or an Indian or a Chinese. The larger the population in the United States, the faster the drain on the world's resources.
As crazy as it sounds, if you're concerned about the environment, you need to be concerned about rampant illegal immigration. I am NOT against legal immigration. The "melting pot" concept is one of the reasons the US is such an incredible country. What I'm against is a flood of immigrants coming here faster than our system can handle. And if you're an environmentalist, you need to be concerned about this, too. Consider spending some of your philanthropic dollars on a population control group (but check The American Institute of Philanthropy first).
Of course, the real cure would be to get Americans to quit using so much gas, food, electricity, etc. but, let's be realistic, that's not going to happen anytime soon.
GMD
watch this
The Nature Conservancy is one of the best environmental groups to donate money to. They do a really good job with their money and always work with communities and businesses rather than causing trouble. Information on fiscal year 2001 can be found here and here. More about their goals and methods can be found here. And press releases can be found here. The Yahoo category can be found here.
-- Argel
While many of the above comments are interesting the query was for favorable charitable organizations.
The Sierra Club is the most effective Conservation Group politically. This is the first group I joined when W became President. Note that they will call you every month to squeeze more $$$ out of you. You can ask to be taken off their call list and still contribute annually which is what I do.
The Nature Conservancy is another particularly effective outfit whose tact is to purchase land outright ensuring that it is permanently set aside for conservation.
The World Wildlife Fund is another conservation group worthy of your time and money.
Finally for balance I support the Blue Ribbon Coalition as they keep trails open that might be closed by my other contributions.
Another poster made a great point that Green Peace's brand of violent activism is not worthy of support.
Cheers,
Bill
bamph
I've been a member of the Nature Conservancy for some time (though I just let my membership lapse - need to renew). When I was facing the same question as the poster about seven years ago, I looked around. Groups like the Sierra Club and (gasp) Greenpeace annoy me because (1) They are beligerent, and (2) They use the money to hire lawyers and lobbyists. The money doesn't actually go to environmental protection in either case. I don't want my $100 to pay some greasy mercenary lobbyist - I want it to preserve land and protect our world.
This is where the Nature Conservancy comes in - they own the most land of any private organization in the US (I assume that excludes the Catholic Church). Instead of wasting members' money on politics, they use it to buy and protect land, setting up privately-held nature preserves. Rather than battling in court about a highway going through a swamp, they just buy a similar swamp and guarantee its ongoing protection.
Sure, I understand that the political aspect of environmentalism is also important, but I'd rather support something directly. Also, as a Nature Conservancy member, you're allowed on the preserves to enjoy nature. Much cooler than a bunch of left-wing extremist Greenpeace idiots letting diseased lab rats out of cages into the environment, or a bunch of overpaid Sierra Club suits paying off senators.
I did not design this game/I did not name the stakes/I just happen to like apples/And I am not afraid of snakes-AniD
Given that the question is about neither privacy nor guns, why did you bring this up? Are you suggesting that he use a gun to shoot anti-environmentalists?
p.s. Don't forget Amendment IX.
...rather than associating yourself with a particular party.
> But that's a problem with parties in general; they
> try to force you to accept an entire platform
> rather than finding out what people want issue by
> issue
That's not a problem with parties, that's what parties are all about, a platform. The idea is to take a few basic principles and apply them to the concept of government. IOW, given principle X and issue Y, what should OUR policy be? Note the "OUR". This is a GROUP of people, ganging together, and pooling resources with hopes of increasing their influence by operating as a bloc. Obviously it involves compromises between the individual party members, but so far "partying" has been wildly successful.
Of course you are free to disagree, no one is forcing you into anything.
I suggest that you do what the founders intended and select a *candidate* as recipient of your vote, rather than a party. You will rarely find one that agrees with you on every issue you bring up, but I can often find one that is a close fit, or at least one that agrees with me on what I consider the major issues. I know it takes more work than simply "voting the party line", but that's OK if you really want your vote to be useful. If you don't want to research the candidates, that's OK too. Just don't vote.
Hey, if you are really unsatisfied with what's available, run for office yourself. No one but you is stopping you. That's what freedom is all about. Live your own life as you see fit, IOW, the freedom to govern yourself.
Good luck which ever path you choose.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
I don't think your typical rich enviro will be sitting alongside the bums on the Metro bus. Buses don't serve the dance club areas very well, either. Best to stick with the environmentalist vehicle of choice, the SUV. This isn't flamebait, look at the parking lot at your local Sierra Club meeting, it's a real eye-opener.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
European, and particulary Scandinavian, Socialism is a bit differewnt than American Socialism. European sytle, is socialism amung eaquels - were most people are hard working and smart. American soclaimism is where the stupid and lazy sponge off the hard working.
I would not gruge the European style, but I can tell you from experience, the American style sucks. Especially if you're part of the working class.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
For a really good organization in your area, check out the Nature Conservancy (or alt. website for CA). They also have hikes and trips, but even better, they purchase lots of land and preserve it in its natural state.
Near LA, they own most of Santa Cruz Island. They also have other projects between Ventura & LA and in the Santa Ana Mountains between LA & San Diego.
More mouths = more food consumed
You have your causal relationship backwards. Consider: people are made of food, we are literally what we eat. Every molecule in your body is there because at one point or another, it was eaten.
Therefore, altho' it looks like food production must be expanded to cope with larger populations, in fact, increased food production has created the increase in population!
This is why I am so skeptical of "famines" in Africa. No matter how much financial and material aid the West sends, it makes no difference. There are no food shortages - it's solely corrupt governments starving their populations deliberately.