Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck

Seeking the Right Environmental Cause to Support? 184

Posted by Cliff from the for-those-who-would-help-not-hurt-mother-earth dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Seeking the Right Environmental Cause to Support? More

Seeking the Right Environmental Cause to Support?

Comments Filter:
  • I hate giving money to organizations at all, because 90% of the time I can do whatever it is I want to do myself, giving the money directly to the person I want to receive.

    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%.

    In short, save your money, and hire some high school kids to pick up litter. At least you know 100% of the money is going to the cause.


    PS: The notion Human Caused Global Warming is a scam!!!

    • 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 [charitywatch.org] . 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

    • <opinion>
      I'd have to agree with this, about 99+% of the time.

      I'd also have to say that I believe that GreenPeace has some potential issues, perhaps, with following, shall we say, the scientific method/statistical analysis.
      </opinion>
  • Please don't turn this into a debate about whether global warming is an actual threat or how bad other environmental issues actually are

    You realize that this is a discussion forum and you're taking one side of a charged debate. What do you think is going to happen?
  • The problem I see with current GW research is that it is currently pointing the finger at CO(2), which is a normal byproduct of respiration for many life forms, and CO, which is a byproduct of incomplete combustion. But that's just it - that's all they are saying is out there.

    That being said, why not take the money you have and fund your own research? What else is out there causing the problem? Is it really a problem? That sort of thing.

  • Seriously.


    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.

    • The reasons many founding fathers were against the Bill of Rights in the first place is because they didn't want future generations to think only 10 things were gaurunteed as fundamental human rights.

      However, we know that the founding fathers did value privacy as they barred unreasonable search and seizure of a person's home.

      Data collection is not against a person's fundamental human rights; however, the searching of such data is. People do have the right to privacy, even if it wasn't expliciately stated in the Consitituion.

      Had the founding fathers been familiar with the possabilities of how technology could violate a person's privacy, I am confidate they would have included protection against those invasions. However, the founding fathers only made laws about technology they were familiar with, specifically, physically going into a person's home.
    • It seems that the Fourth Amendment speaks to issues of privacy
      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized


      Not absolute privacy, but the privacy against unreasonable searches and seizures nonetheless
      • It's something, but it's far from complete. This part of the constitution appears to only cover 'searches and seizures'. It does not cover observation, for instance.

        I would say that having someone photograph me with a long lense camera while I'm in my back garden is an invasion of privacy. It's not however an unconstitutional act, so far as I'm aware.

    • Re:National Rifle Association (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Deagol ( 323173 ) on Friday August 16, 2002 @11:37AM (#4082812) Homepage
      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 [nativeseeds.org] 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? [npr.org] (which does a good job at showcasing enviromental issues), the National Arbor Day Foundation [arborday.org] (self explanatory), and the local chapter of the Humane Society [hsus.org] (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.

      • I agree with the suggestion of NRA.

        As a card carrying member, I am surprised to find a fellow member that does not appreciate how much hunters, fishermen, and their various organisations like the NRA have done for preserving and honestly managing our environmental treasures like forests, deserts, prairies, wetlands, and the wildlife that they harbor.

        Those of us that enjoy hunting and fishing and generally being outdoors have good reason to place a high value on a healthy environment.

        Besides that, the NRA is a pretty good, general purpose group when it comes to defending our Constitution as a whole, not just the 2nd amendment.

        OBFamousQuote: "If you want to save some endagered species, figure out a way to eat it. Nothing that we like to eat will *ever* be allowed to go extinct." by Rush Limbaugh
    • 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.

      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.

  • Sounds like the Green Party Platform (Score:3, Informative)

    by gmaestro ( 316742 ) <jason DOT guidry AT gmail DOT com> on Friday August 16, 2002 @11:09AM (#4082634)
    From what I know, these guys [greenpartyus.org] 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 [nader.org] for president in 2000, who bothered to answer (some) questions from Slashdot [slashdot.org].
    • 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

      A major problem with them is that they don't differentiate between slantedly pro-corporate initiatives (e.g. GATT/WTO) and general free-trade initiatives (e.g. NAFTA), which makes supporting them basically impossible for anyone who's spent time in a third-world nation and understands the fundamental importance of spurring economic growth to long-term human equality.

      A minor problem is that Nader is an extremely effective consumer advocate who I think has accomplished more there than he would as president; it'd be a shame to lose him.

      Oh, well. At least they don't have the problems of the Libertarian party, which outwardly purports to be the defender of individual liberties and small government while inwardly being headed up by crazy neofascist kooks who focus more on eliminating corporate income tax than defending free speech.

      In other words, the Greens would be much better off as a generally moderate party with focus on changing 1-2 major issues. Ditto the Libs. 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.

      Sumner
      • ...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.

        • Sounds like you should be an independent

          As I am, and always have been.

          However [parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things to become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.--George Washington


          Sumner
      • A major problem with them is that they don't differentiate between slantedly pro-corporate initiatives (e.g. GATT/WTO) and general free-trade initiatives (e.g. NAFTA), which makes supporting them basically impossible for anyone who's spent time in a third-world nation and understands the fundamental importance of spurring economic growth to long-term human equality.

        This is not how I read the platform [greenpartyus.org]. Greens disagree with the corporate control of these initiatives. They merely wish to renegotiate NAFTA, I gather to root out corporate oligarchy, for example [greenpartyus.org]: the platform indicates that these initiatives "effectively limit the participation of citizens in decisions. Instead, they create administrative bureaucracies which will be run by corporate interests unaccountable to public input or even legal challenge."

        I don't think they're against helping 3rd world countries, they'd just prefer not to see corporations line their pockets on the backs of those citizens.

        • This is not how I read the platform

          Well, this was sort of why I brought up the Libs at all in the first place. You can't read the Libertarian platform and not think it's great and worth supporting; the problem is that the candidates don't give anything approaching equal effort to things that look equally important in the platform. In the Libs' case, they say they support free speech and repealing the corporate income tax, but most of them (especially those running for the higher-level offices) only put effort into the latter in practice. They come off like a bait-and-switch salesman, saying we're for A (which everyone wants) and B (which many are ambivalent about, but willing to accept for A) but only truly supporting B.

          In the case of the Greens, every candidate I've seen is against free trade agreements prima facia despite whatever their plank may say or direct evidence of substantial benefits to impoverished people resulting from said agreement It's partly a case of PR--you must oppose NAFTA to seem appropriately populist. It's partly a case of mistaken priority--it's not bad for a corporation to get wealthy if the process they're doing it by benefits the individuals, and while many corporate acts are rapacious you can't fall into the "good for them = bad for us" fallacy. And it's partially conflation; the conservatives are for A, B, and C and the populists oppose them; they've shown why A and B are bad, so C must be bad as well. They come off as having excellent goals but policies that don't help achieve those goals. And frankly, even Miss America wants world peace and an end to hunger. It's the policy that's the hard part.

          At least, though, Nader was up-front about the goals and willing to yell at reporters when they made stupid assumptions about what he was working for. He'd lay all his beliefs out on the table, both the popular and the unpopular ones. Harry Brown wasn't nearly so upfront, focusing only on civil liberties issues (which are a small part of the LP platform) in most of his media engagements.

          Sumner
      • Libertarian party, which outwardly purports to be the defender of individual liberties and small government while inwardly being headed up by crazy neofascist kooks who focus more on eliminating corporate income tax than defending free speech.

        I'm really confused by that statement. Who exacltly do you claim is a neofascist kook?

        Whether you like it or not, corporate income tax is a larger issue than free speech. Although libertarians do strongly believe in free speech, it is not really an issue. Every party believes in free speech. Libertarians would rather talk about corporate income tax or the drug war or welfare, because this is where we differ from other political parties. I mean, libertarians could spend all their time discussing how much they believe in democracy, but that wouldn't win any votes. Mostly all political parties believe in democracy. You win votes by differing from the other parties.
        • Whether you like it or not, corporate income tax is a larger issue than free speech. Although libertarians do strongly believe in free speech, it is not really an issue. Every party believes in free speech.

          Exactly the problem. No party is willing to defend free speech. The Libs say they are but they don't either.

          Libertarians would rather talk about corporate income tax or the drug war or welfare, because this is where we differ from other political parties

          Precisely. On the issues that seem most important, and that your "take the test!" things push hard on, they really don't differ. Apparently they think the current state of the 1st and 4th ammendments is just fine. I want a party that will actually defend the Bill of Rights rather than talk about it and then go off on vastly less important issues.

          Sumner
    • Yeah, they also split the Democratic vote, handing the election to Bush. Way to go!
  • is too narrowly focused already. If your goal is to help "our planet and the future of our species upon it", is an environmental cause the best way to accomplish it? There are certainly larger and more immediate threats to more people than deforestation and global warming. Hunger, disease, inability to defend oneself against criminals and opressive governments spring to mind. Note that social issues are typically the cause of environmental issues. Greed in the west, poverty in the rain forest.

    • Well, Western greed in the rainforest rather than poverty.

      All of those social issues, as well as the way we treat the planet, go a lot deeper. Giving people food isn't a solution. It just lets a new generation of starving people be born- we must attack problems, not symptoms. Putting people in jail doesn't remove the cause, so you'll just have a steady stream of angrier people.

      All of your more important issues will be meaning less if we've not anywhere to inhabit.
      • I agree wholeheartedly. Many of the more prominent social causes treat symptoms, not root problems. It's a lot more heartwarming to see immediate results from your money - the poor 3rd world child gets a full belly. It's not nearly so gratifying to see your money build a water distribution plant. People who give to charities, any charity, should apply the "give a man a fish" test. Except for immediate aide groups like the Red Cross, your money should go to the groups that treat problems, not symptoms.

        • People pretend that the only option is to let these 3rd world children starve, but giving them just enough food to bear a new generation does a lot more torture to them and their children in the end.

          If you're interested in the well-intentioned farce that is international aid, I highly suggest reading the book "The Road to Hell" by Michael Maren. It's really sick the way the aid-machine works, and how people who are just interested in getting that warm-fuzzy feeling are not only blind to it, but prefer to keep it that way.
  • Ok. You have a 'bundle of money.' Put it to use. Install a solar energy system in your home. Take out your old inefficient fossil fuel burner, and put in a geothermal heat system. Buy a hybrid car (the new Honda Civic's allow you to have a hybrid that looks normal.) Put in a compost heap and compost your biodegradable trash. Install a water recycler that will clean your waste water to use for watering your lawn, cleaning your car, etc. If you have money left over, Donate it to one of these groups. However taking these steps in your home will ensure that your home has almost zero environmental impact for YEARS to come.
    -k

    • 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.

      • 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.
      • Uhh, you can get a diesel in all the big "Canyonerro" style SUV's (Suburban, Excursion), just the same as a van.
    • 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.

    • 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 [wms.org] at home. Get yourself off the grid, [homepower.com] whether it's geothermal or solar and wind. Thoroughly insulate with the right materials [buildinggreen.com]. Support your local farms [fertileground.org] by buying their products. Eat less [earthsave.org] industrially produced [harvard.edu] meat. [globalhunger.net] Drive less. Use Natural Biological Pest Controls. [smartgardening.com]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?
    • I'd say before becoming an activist environmentalist, change your own lifestyle. Even if you consider yourself living life as the best friend of the environment, go through your habits and see if there is any motorized transportation you can skip (less trips to grocery stores, using internet, phone or by mail services rather than going to places to arrange licenses, pay bills etc.) and if daily transportation could not just be done by walking or bicycling, or at least by buses which will drive around regardless of people inside them or not. Get rid of SUVs and pickup trucks, conserve water and power aggressively, make sure you reuse or recycle used products and trash.

      If more people did this we wouldn't have as many SUVs with WWF and greenpeace stickers on them.
  • 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 [thetrustees.org], 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.

  • Environmental Defense (Score:2, Informative)

    by beme ( 85862 )
    Check out Environmental Defense [environmentaldefense.org]. Pretty good record, and a nice variety of issues covered. The variety thing is important if you just want to donate to one organization. Otherwise, I suggest you pick a handful of issues you are most concerned with and find organizations that focus on each one.

    Their Action Center [environmentaldefense.org] is pretty cool. Makes it _very_ easy to shoot out a comment to government and corporate people.

  • Environmentalists don't care about "the planet." They care about humans being able to live on the planet.

    As George Carlin would say to someone who wants to protect the planet: The planet is fine ... the PEOPLE, are fucked!
    • That is fundamental.

      Planet earth survived for millions of years without Homo sapiens. It will survive for billions after we are extinct. What we need to understand is that our existence depends on a very narrow range of environmental parameters and we are doing a lot to drive our climate out of that range.

      • To correct and enlighten: our planet existed almost 4 and a half billion years without homo sapiens, and life has existed here for about 3.5 billion years. But because the sun in growing more luminous as it moves along the main sequence, our planet will become too warm for life in just about 900 million years.

        So when you're walking through a beautiful forest or along the eternal ocean, think about the fact that this planet is in its late middle age, growing elderly. The long story of life on this planet is mostly past.

    • Re:Small Pet Peeve (Score:2, Insightful)

      by LordNimon ( 85072 )
      I don't know why you would say that. All the environmentalists I know care a great deal about non-human lifeforms, sometimes even more than humans. Polution and toxins are bad for everything, not just people.
      • I don't know why you would say that. All the environmentalists I know care a great deal about non-human lifeforms, sometimes even more than humans. Polution and toxins are bad for everything, not just people.

        1. No sane person cares about other animals and plants more than people, overall.

        2. People that care about the welfare of animals and plants do so in the context of preserving the human race. In the end they understand that if we kill "enough" plants and animals, it will have a negative effect on the human race.

        People naturally want to preserve the human race, not plants, animals, or the planet, per se.
        • People naturally want to preserve the human race, not plants, animals, or the planet, per se.
          There are plenty of people who think nature and other species have an intrinsic value, e.g. Arne Naess [haven.net]. It is also an important element of the beliefs of many indeginous peoples (see animism [everything2.com]).

          I think most have some kind of feeling that there are other values in nature worth fighting for beyond the survival of the human race. I'm pretty sure that most people who are concerned about the environment primarily aren't too troubled about the rational stuff, like the long term survival of mankind. What people care about is those majestic rain forrest trees being cut down or those poor gorillas being shot by poachers. If it was only about preserving the human race, few people would be interested. People are usually pretty immune to rational arguments -- just look at how hard it is to get people to stop smoking (or not starting in the first place).

    • While the parent post may have been inteded as a "funny" or a flame it is really to the point. Population is a multiplier for any action so population control/reduction will do more than any other environment action.

      Take home message: cross your leggs people!

    • Don't tell us. Tell a heath hen, or a moa, or a passenger pigeon, or a dodo. If you can find one.
    • I love George Carlin, but it just so happens that I am a people. And I don't want to.., er nevermind.
    • The final solution to the human problem on the planet will come when humanity is exterminated, or at least a massive reduction of the surplus population is achieved. Humankind should be reduced back to stone-age tech level so as to be incapable of further harm to Gaia.

      The Deep Greens are currently working quietly in positions in genetic engineering. The human-terminator virus should be along in 20-30 years or so.

      • I realize you're trying to be over the top here, but this is the point. The planet doesn't need our help to survive. We are not doing permanent harm to the planet -- only, perhaps, to our ability to keep living on the planet. The human terminator virus is not ready, because we ARE the human terminator virus.
  • 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.

  • stop eating meat. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    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 [google.com] 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 [colorado.edu].
    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... [earthsave.org]

    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.
    • 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. ...

    • Its true that 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. But the problem is not that we're feeding it to our animals. The problem is that political estabilishments inhibit the distribution of food. Similarly, if there were changes in the demand for beef, there would be changes in the demand for grain which would affect the production of grain. Its a very complex economic, social, and political issue.

      Besides, if you really want to point to a waste of food resources you should be looking at grain-based alcohol. Granted, that doesn't do much for animal rights.
    • For the (hopefully significant) fraction of readers who want to find out more about this, instead of issuing snappy comebacks with no facts or logic behind them, let me recommend Diet for a New America [amazon.com], and parts of Small Wonder [amazon.com].

    • Re:stop eating meat. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by lindsayt ( 210755 ) on Friday August 16, 2002 @03:55PM (#4085030)
      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...
      • 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.

        Political gamesmanship is a big problem, but it's often overstated. Cultural ignorance is often equally culpable. It was a huge problem in Ethiopia; when you're used to cooking with teff and other native grains, a big shipment of wheat is not nearly as useful to you as it is to people who are used to using it in their daily cooking.

        Sumner
  • The Political Economy Research Center [perc.org] is a great place for you libertarians to support for free market environmentalism.
  • 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.
    • That is really important. Often local groups can do more to preserve your environment than any national organizations. Even the Sierra Club is most active at the community level with local chapters. THere is still a struggle to even preserve the natural areas we have in our urban neigbourhoods, let alone the Amazon rain forest.

      I am vice-chair of a local organization that acts to preserve neighbourhood greenspace (woodlots, meadows, ponds etc.) in urban areas. You would think that having a place to walk your dog or stroll around looking for wildflowers and chipmunks would be seen as part of the amenities that a city should preserve. Often we are the only "citizen" representatives speaking to Planning Committee about changes of land use. The developers will have half a dozen speakers, justifying the selloff of parkland, but weekday meetings are hard for average citizens to get to when you need to take time off work. No problem for the developers who make millions from a change in zoning at the stroke of a pen.

      But one of our biggest battles is to stop government agencies selling off parkland, "undeveloped" land etc. to developers who see it as cheap land banking. Here in Ontario, municipal politicians can get campaign money from corporations, who can deduct it as expenses, while individuals who contribute to election campaigns have no tax writeoff. Guess where our local politicians get most of their campaign contributions?

      Recently, our mayor appeared on the front cover of a "New Homes" flyer extolling the virtues of a new subdivision next to a Class 1 wetland, even before city council had voted to allow the zoning to proceed.

      Political involvement to ensure that environmental concerns are on the radar is one of the most important things one can do. Computer geeks can do a lot because the Internet is becoming a really important source of information for issues that have previously been suppressed by media control. Remember that big city newspapers find developers a huge source of advertising revenue. They certainly have no incentive to warn people of loss of greenspace to new development.

  • 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.
  • A great deal of global warming, smog, etc. comes directly or indirectly from cars. Manufacturing them, driving them, and drilling for oil to support them all have environmental effects. Not to mention that the need for oil will probably be one of the major reasons for wars in the next few decades, and war is pretty bad for the environment too.

    Reduce your community's dependence on cars by

    a) donating money to a political party to support the local transit system

    b) donating money to support the transit system

    c) taking the bus or biking more often yourself when possible.

    This way you will be in a position to see your money making a difference, and it will directly and positively improve your quality of life as a result.

    Cheers!
    • 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.
  • 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.

  • Educatate youself; Start with Natural Capitalism (Score:3, Interesting)

    by km790816 ( 78280 ) <wqhq3gx02&sneakemail,com> on Friday August 16, 2002 @12:04PM (#4082980)
    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 [amazon.com]. 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 [simplelife.com] who work everyday on these issues. Check out the web site: http://www.natcap.org [natcap.org]
  • 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").

  • Warning (Score:3, Interesting)

    by leastsquares ( 39359 ) on Friday August 16, 2002 @12:31PM (#4083196) Homepage
    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.
  • 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.
    So as long as these organisations are effective you don't care whether they are solving the wrong problems?

    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.

    • "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.
      • 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.

    • On a sociological level, each child won't get the attention they need to thrive in modern socioty.

      You mean they won't be the common only child spoiled brat. Good responsible parents give all their children the love and attention they need no matter how many kids they have. With bigger families, it just requires more effort and that can be a big problem if one has the feminist 'stay-at-home parents are losers' mindset. Some people tend to forget that the most important job that anyone will ever have is raising the next generation.

      • 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.

    • 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 [charitywatch.org] 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

      • The concept of a country would soon raise moral problems.

        How long can the US hold in it's resources while other countries starve? this may not be true right now...but in 20 years this would definetely be the case.

        will the US let it's citizens live their grand life styles or share and become average?

    • The some of the most socialist countries in the world are in Europe and their populations would be shrinking if it wasn't for immigration. The people that reproduce the most are the people in the greatest poverty (i.e. they do not benefit from socialism). When it would seem a sure bet that one's children will survive to adulthood, most mothers just want to invest as much as possible into a few children.

      Most Europians used to have several children, as well, before the modern age. Did their culture somehow change to smart and hardworking?

      • 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.

    • I understand your anti-Catholic feelings. We need to have more religious intolerance in the world, not less. The Mormons are just a cult that made it big.
    • Popoluation is not a controllable thing! To ask a person to have fewer children is to deny him the basic human right to self propagate.
      • Popoluation is not a controllable thing! To ask a person to have fewer children is to deny him the basic human right to self propagate.

        What amazing insight (of the knee-jerk variety).

        In case you haven't noticed, population can be controlled to a significant extent without harming human rights. The Catholic church has been doing it for a long time, just in the wrong direction. On the flip side, providing useful sexual education and easy access to contraception may help to limit population growth. No trampling on human rights required. Or just slip the Pope a mickey and convince him to say kids are bad.

        In re-reading your post, I see that you say that asking someone not to have kids is an denies them their human rights. You're stupider than I previously believed. Should a panhandler be charged with theft because he asked me to give him money? If my girlfriend asks me to be at her place at 7:00, should I sue her for false imprisonment or kidnapping?

    • 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.
  • Worth magazine recently compiled a list [worth.com] of worthy organizations. In summary, they named:
  • Many environmental organizations have been hijacked by extremist radicals and are no longer effective or relevant. These include World Wildlife Fund, Sierra Club, and others. Greenpeace has always been out of the question.

    Some honest organizations I'd recommend are:

    Audobon Society [audubon.org]

    Ducks Unlimited [ducks.org]

    Nature Conservancy [nature.org]

    Pheasants Forever [pheasantsforever.org]

    • I'll second that: many "environmentalist" groups are run and operated by far-left dimbulbs who live in downtown LA or New York and wouldn't know a wild animal if it bit them on the ass. Another excellent real conservation group is the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation [rmef.org]. Started in the 80's by four guys who were pissed off about their favorite hunting grounds being turned into condos and ski resorts (most likely for the afforementioned dipshits) they put their money where there mouth was and started buying up land and getting conservation easements. The organization's since gotten freakin' huge, with branches in most states and several countries. They claim 89 cents on the dollar goes directly to conservation efforts; only 50 cents is considered good by most nonprofit organizations. It's not just about elk or hunting, it's for anybody who wants to keep some land wild and accessible to the public.
    • Support the National Wild Turkey Federation [nwtf.org]. Thanks to them, there are more wild turkeys in KY than when the white man crossed the Cumberland Gap, they are good eating too.
  • Because the single most important thing we as a human race needs to do to assure survival is to Get Off This Rock.
  • The Nature Conservancy [nature.org] 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 [nature.org] and here [nature.org]. More about their goals and methods can be found here [nature.org]. And press releases can be found here [nature.org]. The Yahoo category can be found here [yahoo.com].

  • Worthy Charities (Score:2, Informative)

    by mildness ( 579534 )

    While many of the above comments are interesting the query was for favorable charitable organizations.

    The Sierra Club [sierraclub.org] 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 [nature.org] 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 [worldwildlife.org] is another conservation group worthy of your time and money.

    Finally for balance I support the Blue Ribbon Coalition [sharetrails.org] 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

  • I am sure it must already have been said, but I would definately donate money to the Green Party. I know that here in Canada, there are Provincial wings, as well as the Federal Green Party. I am sure it is the same in the United States.

    I feel that groups such as Greenpeace, while fighting for a formidable cause, are approaching it the wrong way. I realize that the chances of the Green Party winning an election - especially in the States - are very slim, indeed. However, the more votes the Green Parties get, it will hopefully encourage the incumbents to make their own platforms a little more Green.

    And as an added bonus, political donations are tax deductible. Again, I am speaking from a Canadian perspective.
  • 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.

    • The fact that you lump the Sierra Club [sierraclub.org] (SC) together with Greenpeace shows you know nothing about its actual mission. Greenpeace is a fringe group with perhaps good intentions, but horrible execution and little results. SC is mainstream, moderate environmental organization dedicated to conservation. Yes, SC (non-profit, but not a charity) does spend money on lawyers and lobbyists, but it is a grassroots group run by volunteers at the local level. Buying land may be a nice idea but frequently not an option.

      To give an example, there is a very unique area in California called the "Gaviota Coast" (north of Santa Barbara). Most of the land is currently owned by ranchers and farmers. Financial pressure from Orange county/LA developers and taxes have led some owners to sell. Value of the whole area is roughly half a billion dollars! Millions of $$$ have already been spent protecting bits and pieces but there are not enough resources for everything. Therefore, lawyers are needed to ensure development restrictions are properly followed. Lobbyists try to convince state reps and senators the coast is worth protecting. SC works within the system and its members are passionate not "beligerent".

  • So the more people we have on the planet the larger the
    impact those people will have on the environment. Most
    all "environmental problems" stem from this. GW, Acid rain,
    deforestation, dessertification, Smog, species extinction, etc ,etc.
    Even if we each individually reduce our impact, our _collective_ impact generally continues to grow. Therefore my #1 environmental
    organization is Zero Pollulation Growth. http://www.zpg.org/

    Good luck with your endeavor to help "save" the world. Thanks!
  • Support companies that are seeking new ways to use natural resources. If it wasn't for capitalism, the horse would be exstinct, so support capitalist enterprises that seek to use resources that you want to see around for years to come, and while you're at it check out this link [aynrand.org].
  • I may be one of the few professional environmentalists to read slashdot regularly -- but that's because I work for an environmental organization that's pretty innovative -- ONE/Northwest (Online Networking for the Environment [onenw.org].

    We work to help environmental organizations in our bioregion (the Pacific Northwest) use technology more effectively. We do a little bit of a lot of the things that many Slashdotters do -- networking, email list hosting, online activism, Web development, training, etc. As we like to say, we "Power the Voice" of the environmental movement.

    For many people, environmentalism starts close to home. My personal opinion has been that the best environmental groups are often the ones that are rooted in specific communities, and working to improve the quality of life in specific places. It's incredible how "winnable" local issues are, and the best part is that as people discover that they can protect their local communities, they figure out that it's not that hard to reach beyond and start impacting the big picture.

    So, my advice to the slashdot crowd would be: look for the groups that are working near you on the issues you care about. (For folks in the Northwest, we have an online directory [onenw.org] that lists over 1200 Northwest conservation groups.

  • No amount of money can solve the problem, it's the intent of each human living on this planet can save the world. We don't need a hero..we need heroes

    How many of us are willing to give up our SUVs and the big-ass airconditioners we have? Temporary heaven leads to longterm hell. quote from matrix : Agent Smith: I'd like to share a revelation that I've had, during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure.

    The collective motive of a species comes from individual motives. The only way we can keep the planet alive is to change our mentality towards resources and it's consumption. The question is what do we really need to live a comfortable life....just because one has money one need not flaunt it. There's a limit to the worldy pleasures a human can have and those pleasures are inversely realated to the number of fellow humans on this planet. A list of things one can do to help the environment: 1) Always recycle plastic grocery bags. 2) Drive a high mileage car. 3) Drive a SUV/Mini-van only if your whole family is on it. 4)Use cieling fans when u can, instead of A/C 5)Turn your PCs off when you leave work. 6)Don't buy too much stuff that's cheap..buy few things that are expensive :)

  • If your state allows you to do net-metering (selling back excess power to the utility company), you could convert houses to use renewable energy. Or build new houses that use renewable energy depending on your local economics.

    I just read an article (sorry I forget where) about a guy who bought a new house with solar panels already installed. He wouldn't have normally installed them but since the house came with them, he uses them. The house didn't cost much more than any other house in the neighborhood (maybe due to tax incentives). Since he is on-grid, he doesn't notice any difference in his power availability. The maintance costs are very small. The biggest difference is in his significantly decreased power bill.

    You could even build or convert several of these houses. Real estate is generally a pretty safe investment (it seems especially good now) so in a few years when you sell the house you could get your money back and use it for another environmental project. It would also help the renewable energy contractors and manufacturers. And as an added bonus it directly affects the bottom line of the New Robber Barons [enron.com].

    There are green builders popping up all over the country. Here's a list [state.or.us] of green builder's resources for my state [oregon.gov].
  • Then if you have that taken care of, I like the WWF and the Nature Conservancy.

    Ways to use less:
    - get an LCD monitor instead of a CRT
    (make sure the CRT is recycled properly)
    - get energy efficient lightbulbs. Ikea sells such bulbs along with nice lamps they fit in.
    - if you must have AC, get an efficient one (one with a high SEER)
    - use the car less. walk and use public transit more. replace your vehicle with a gas-electric hybrid, they are much more efficient.
    - take the stairs instead of the elevator
    - turn off the lights and stuff you're not using when you leave
    - use less water. get more efficient water using devices.

    There are so many things you can do as an individual. I think you have to walk the talk. Just paying the talk is trying to avoid changing your lifestyle while buying some "feel good".

Slashdot Top Deals

You know, the difference between this company and the Titanic is that the Titanic had paying customers.

Close