Do you give financial support to environmental groups?

[turbo]

My wife and I support the World Wildlife Fund, the National Wildlife Federation, and the Arbor Day Foundation to try to preserve habitat, fund research and repopulation efforts, and encourage tree-growth. We have a life-time supply of return address labels and little note-pads, though I wish the groups would keep those and put all of our donations toward their causes instead. I know the "freebies" are inexpensive and it would cost the groups more to make exceptions for people who would like to opt out, but it would be nice to opt out of multiple mailings and freebies. Just mail us once a year and collect your check.

 

[Chi Meson]

I have supported Sierra Club, WWF (not the wrestlers), and AMC (of course), along with a few others that come to my door (I have solar panels on my roof--they see that, and their eyes go "ka-CHING"). And yes, I too have more than enough return-address labels.

I have recently made it a principle to determine that a group must be not anti-nuclear before I support them. That means Sierra is out, and WWF is still in

 

[Ivan Seeking]

We have given to any number of organizations over the years. But for now, in order to support all environmental causes, all of our donations go to Obama and the Democrats.

 

[turbo]

We have given to any number of organizations over the years. But for now, in order to support all environmental causes, all of our donations go to Obama and the Democrats.

There is a lot of stuff that needs funding. Since my wife and I both have respiratory conditions, we also support the American Lung Association, though our largest annual and disaster-related donations (by far) are reserved for the Salvation Army. They do a LOT with little money, unlike many aid organizations. After a particularly large check toward Katrina relief, they started dunning us frequently. I asked them to stop, while assuring them that we will help out with other disasters. After our check for their Haiti fund, we got a nice thank-you from the SA, but no more begging. They are good.

 

[Evo]

I give to the local animal shelter.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Well, I'm a mere 17. The most I've ever donated was about 200$ to Doctors without Borders during a campaign. I'll probably support WWF when I get older.

 

[TMFKAN64]

I give to the Sierra Club and POST (a local group that buys land and preserves it as open space). But honestly most of my donations go to organizations like Second Harvest.

 

[turbo]

I give to the local animal shelter.

My wife and I do, too. She has been unable to volunteer time because she is caring for an elderly mother with dementia, but when she sees pet food or cleaning products on sale, she'll often pick some up for the shelter. A while back, she was concerned about possible contamination in the raw materials used to make pet treats (think Melamine in Chinese milk-solids), so she started making all of Duke's treats at home, and I took two large shopping bags full of treats to the shelter.

 

[russ_watters]

No.


[....]

 

[turbo]

I give to the Sierra Club and POST (a local group that buys land and preserves it as open space). But honestly most of my donations go to organizations like Second Harvest.

I donate organically-raised seedlings and garlic to the community garden, but that's more a social security net for people in need of good food. Not much money involved - just labor and minimal costs for materials.

My closest biker-buddy has chosen the local women's and children's shelter as his favorite. He and his wife take extra produce to them to help reduce the shelter's food costs.

 

[cronxeh]

Heh.. environmental groups. Right about now I think Louisiana seems like a perfect example why they don't work. Just a waste of money to keep Yale types employed at mediocre no-risk management jobs managing volunteers. I say its pathetic.

Case in point:

"The Surfrider Foundation was started in Malibu, California in 1984 by a handful of surfers to protest threats to their local surf break at Malibu Point." God dang hippies

"The Xerces Society is an international non-profit organization that advocates for invertebrates and their habitats by working with scientists, land managers, educators, and citizens on conservation and education projects. Core programs focus on endangered species, native pollinators, and watershed health" Who knew.. invertebrates are endangered species

 

[Cyrus]

Hell no!

 

[lisab]

Local food banks, Habitat for Humanity, World Vision, Partners in Health. No environmental groups.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I am fairly skeptical of the level of return (actual work towards the groups apparent goals) on the money that is donated so I generally do not donate to anything. If I knew some charities that I knew were actually good and did real work with their funds I would donate (when I have money) though I would likely be more inclined to donate to charities for education and literacy.

 

[Chi Meson]

Case in point:

I believe you mean "fallacy in point."

Do you really mean to imply that since
A: there is a non-profit group of surfing "hippies," and
B: Environmental groups did not prevent the rupture of a deep-sea oil well,

therefore: all environmental groups fall into a certain pejorative stereotype.

Environmentalism should not be considered sole property of the "left," and people opposite that persuasion should not need to feel the urge to **** on the environment every chance they get.

 

[cronxeh]

I believe you mean "fallacy in point."

Do you really mean to imply that since
A: there is a non-profit group of surfing "hippies," and
B: Environmental groups did not prevent the rupture of a deep-sea oil well,

therefore: all environmental groups fall into a certain pejorative stereotype.

Environmentalism should not be considered sole property of the "left," and people opposite that persuasion should not need to feel the urge to **** on the environment every chance they get.

I mean to imply that they are all useless, contrary to their claim to be of use, I believe they do not accomplish any of the goals they set out to accomplish. Sure some of it is a generalization, but overall I haven't seen the environmentalist succeed on getting through on the major news networks and spreading their message.

Where is Green Peace? I go to their website http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/greenpeaceusa_blog/2010/05/12/volunteer_info_for_gulf_oil_spill click a link on 6 ways to help, and the link is broken!

I, sir, laugh in disgust now and get back on my couch :)

Oh I should add, they are better at being wild life photographers than agents of change

Oh I should add further, I read through their agenda.. http://members.greenpeace.org/action/index.php

and its laughable. I mean I am literally giggling here. Who comes up with these things?

 

[Chi Meson]

I mean to imply that they are all useless, contrary to their claim to be of use, I believe they do not accomplish any of the goals they set out to accomplish. Sure some of it is a generalization, but overall I haven't seen the environmentalist succeed on getting through on the major news networks and spreading their message.

Where is Green Peace? I go to their website http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/greenpeaceusa_blog/2010/05/12/volunteer_info_for_gulf_oil_spill click a link on 6 ways to help, and the link is broken!

I, sir, laugh in disgust now and get back on my couch :)

Oh I should add, they are better at being wild life photographers than agents of change

I too laugh in disgust. Let's not waste any more time talking to each other, agreed?

 

[cronxeh]

I too laugh in disgust. Let's not waste any more time talking to each other, agreed?

Oh your heart bleeds, eh? Did you write your Congressman or do some duck cleaning lately?

 

[rootX]

No ..

 

[rootX]

Oh I should add further, I read through their agenda.. http://members.greenpeace.org/action/index.php

 

[Loren Booda]

To start with, I volunteered for 10 hours per week at a local nature center over 17 years. I recently told a Greenpeace solicitor this, and ignoring what I said, he insisted to cadge me for money.

 

[brushman]

There are so many better things to donate money to then environmental groups.

 

[Chi Meson]

Oh your heart bleeds, eh? Did you write your Congressman or do some duck cleaning lately?

Please don't try to divine my intentions and positions. I'm pretty far from "bleeding heart." I see no reason to jump to insults when faced with disagreements.

 

[Vanadium 50]

WWF (not the wrestlers)

Not the wrestlers? Ooops.

 

[turbo]

Not the wrestlers? Ooops.

The "wrestlers" have their own supporters, though I doubt there is any overlap with the people that support environmental issues.

 

[turbo]

There are so many better things to donate money to then environmental groups.

Perhaps not. When I get an appeal for donations, I read the literature and then hit the 'web to see if their claims are supportable. If they claim to have set aside 5000 acres of some rare habitat for instance, I want to verify it. There is no point in supporting a group that doesn't produce, or that has some goals that are antithetical to my own.

We all need clean air, clean water, and biological diversity. It's a very broad area, with lots of overlaps, so pick something that has the best bang for the buck and start there. Trees are very good at removing carbon dioxide and generating oxygen, and they stabilize soils to the benefit of our watersheds, plus they are a renewable supply of lumber, pulp-wood, etc. For these reasons, it seems a good idea to promote reforestation efforts. Such investments are long-term, unlike donating to a soup kitchen or a shelter, and they help sustain jobs for the future.

 

[Gokul43201]

Heh.. environmental groups. Right about now I think Louisiana seems like a perfect example why they don't work. Just a waste of money to keep Yale types employed at mediocre no-risk management jobs managing volunteers. I say its pathetic.

Case in point:

"The Surfrider Foundation was started in Malibu, California in 1984 by a handful of surfers to protest threats to their local surf break at Malibu Point." God dang hippies

"The Xerces Society is an international non-profit organization that advocates for invertebrates and their habitats by working with scientists, land managers, educators, and citizens on conservation and education projects. Core programs focus on endangered species, native pollinators, and watershed health" Who knew.. invertebrates are endangered species

Too true! I used to support science, until the Schön affair went down at Bell Labs, and I realized the whole thing was just a big scam.

 

[Gokul43201]

The only "environmental" organization that I actively support (by volunteering time, I have no money) is the Appalachian Mountain Club.

 

[Chi Meson]

The only "environmental" organization that I actively support (by volunteering time, I have no money) is the Appalachian Mountain Club.

Right on, me too! (except I do the money thing, I have no time).

 

[brushman]

Perhaps not. When I get an appeal for donations, I read the literature and then hit the 'web to see if their claims are supportable. If they claim to have set aside 5000 acres of some rare habitat for instance, I want to verify it. There is no point in supporting a group that doesn't produce, or that has some goals that are antithetical to my own.

We all need clean air, clean water, and biological diversity. It's a very broad area, with lots of overlaps, so pick something that has the best bang for the buck and start there. Trees are very good at removing carbon dioxide and generating oxygen, and they stabilize soils to the benefit of our watersheds, plus they are a renewable supply of lumber, pulp-wood, etc. For these reasons, it seems a good idea to promote reforestation efforts. Such investments are long-term, unlike donating to a soup kitchen or a shelter, and they help sustain jobs for the future.

Unless an environmental hazard is significantly negatively affecting human lives (like clean water), then a donation to, for example, children in Africa would be far more beneficial.

 

[turbo]

Unless an environmental hazard is significantly negatively affecting human lives (like clean water), then a donation to, for example, children in Africa would be far more beneficial.

While that might be true, aid distribution in much of Africa is notoriously corrupt, so supplies and food may be diverted from the needy for the benefit of insurgents and militia groups that are making them needy in the first place. Plus, the aid distribution often must be coordinated by a large international organization with some UN military back-up for the security of the workers and the protection of citizens at aid-distribution centers. NGOs do not fare as well there.

I want to evaluate and choose my causes sensibly. I don't support the Nature Conservancy, for example, because of some problematic actions they have taken, and because of some too-cozy relationships with energy companies and other entities (especially in the west) that have vested interests in maintaining the status quo. They are a powerhouse, anyway, and don't need my money as much as some organizations. NWF and WWF have a built-in draw for some segment of the population because of their focus on animals, but many people don't see the value in supporting an organization that focuses on re-forestation and sustainable wood harvesting, despite the overall good such a group can do for our environment and our economy.

 

[fluidistic]

No, I do not give any financial support to environmental groups. Not that I know much either. To me Greenpeace is a joke. It says it wants to prevent a climate change (as if it is good if the climate of the Earth becomes suddenly "static" so that humans can still live. The Earth passed by lots of climate changes and humans could even start to exist... so what's the problem with a drastic climate change? It wouldn't close the doors to new species.), save animals from extinction (More than 98% of all the species that ever existed on this Earth are already extinct, and no, the human didn't do it all. Why would we want to go against "nature" by "saving" some cute species?). On their website they refer to many anthropocentric ideas. It's clear to me that their goal is to enlarge the lifespan of humans by somehow "freezing in time" the Earth as it is now. I personally dislike very much a non-governmental organization that doesn't state their goals in the first place and in fact lies.
For an interesting point of view about all of this, I suggest you to have some fun watching .
Some references of some claims I made: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_events, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change and http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

The "wrestlers" have their own supporters, though I doubt there is any overlap with the people that support environmental issues.

You missed the part where Hulk Hogan suplexed global warming?

 

[elfboy]

I do not give to charity. Uncle Sam already takes enough of my money as it is.

 

[Pinu7]

This summer, I planted some trees on public property with a group of local volunteers.

However, I do not understand why people would want to donate to an environmental group. Your money would either go to lobbying and/or public relations.

Donations should be more humanitarian. It would be better spent that way.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

However, I do not understand why people would want to donate to an environmental group. Your money would either go to lobbying and/or public relations.

And what do you think causes change? I want my donations going to lobbying. I want my money going to public education. I want the issues highlighted in the meda. That is how we change things.

Of the species that have been removed from the most endangered list, perhaps the coolest is our own national symbol, the bald eagle. In recent years, we've even seen two nesting in our trees. I had never seen a bald eagle in the wild before. It was quite startling to see two on our own property!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It is a simple fact of life: [At the national level esp] Your money is worth more than your vote.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It could be argued that the best donation that one can make in the public interest, is to give to PBS; in particular, to the News Hour, and Nova. No matter what cause you support or your political preferences, publically funded broadcasting has proven to be a powerful tool for public education.

In a first-of-a-kind study of bias in the media, the PBS NewsHour came out as the most centrist.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/

The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.

"Our estimates for these outlets, we feel, give particular credibility to our efforts, as three of the four moderators for the 2004 presidential and vice-presidential debates came from these three news outlets — Jim Lehrer, Charlie Gibson and Gwen Ifill [PBS]," Groseclose said. "If these newscasters weren't centrist, staffers for one of the campaign teams would have objected and insisted on other moderators..."

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

Nova has a long track record of producing top-notch, science-based programming.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/programs/

When you give to PBS, you are effectively donating to environmental causes, political causes, and social causes of all kinds, by investing in factually accurate and balanced reporting and analysis. You are also taking action to show that quality programming, and public education free from the hyperbole of cable and internet chatter, has value. IMO, it is hard to get more bang for the buck. It is an investment in the signal to noise ratio of the media, which in turn is increasingly critical to all issues.

 

[aquitaine]

If I had the money, I wouldn't donate to environmental groups. When I was younger I was very much an environmentalist, I was even in the Earth Club in high school, and I used to toe the line about conventional agriculture, genetic engineering, and nuclear power...until I actually looked into these issues for myself, and I realized they were full of it, at least with regards to those issues.

Why am I singling out just those issues? Because food and energy production are two of the most critical issues we have, and as the third world, led by China and India industrialize and develop, these issues are becoming more pressing. Our climate is changing, even though we are accelerating it, it will still continue to change regardless of what we do (North Africa used to be a very green place) and so we will need to adapt our agriculture to cope with that. Genetic engineering is the only way we can do it quickly enough, so why not use it? Becuse it goes against doctrine of course.

As for energy, nuclear is the only sane way forward. It's per kilowatt cost is low, it's very efficient, and it's clean. Yet many of the environmentalists instead want us to commit our entire production method (what can't be filled by river wrecking dams that is) to solar and wind, in other words have all our computers, lights, and industries powered by two of the least efficient and most unreliable we have. Frankly, this doesn't make sense to me. But, despite the mountain of scientific and technical evidence we have to the contrary, they still keep spouting the same old "nuclear is dangerous because of chernobyl/waste/etc". Earlier this year a friend of mine went to a lecture, where the speaker was from The Sierra Club talking about how dangerous and bad nuclear power is. A few months ago, the Greenpeace anti-nuclear blog got rid of its comments section and erased all archives of all previous comments because people would constantly post about their inaccuracies and poor reasoning. This is telling of what this is all about: dogma.

So, environmentalism has somehow (d)evolved from a means to identify real problems and suggest practical solutions (resulting in such good things as the clean water act to stop toxic chemicals from being dumped everywhere) into a religion. While I do agree with some of what they say, save the whales, don't dump crap into the water, etc., I feel they aren't helping us anymore by pushing for low efficiency food and energy production. I don't have faith in them anymore, I have faith in science now. But yeah, if I wasn't a broke student I'd be donating to PBS. They do good work, and don't get the credit they deserve.