Do you give financial support to environmental groups?

[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.