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

Sounds like the Green Party Platform

[gmaestro]

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.

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:Make a difference-Take action yourself.

[Deagol]

Before you spend $20k on a solar system, make sure you reduce your consumption first. In solar circles, the rule of thumb is that conservation costs 1/4 the amount of equivalent solar infrastructure.

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.

Educatate youself; Start with Natural Capitalism

[km790816]

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

Warning

[leastsquares]

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.

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...