Some of the same individuals who would denounce this trend look past local environmental organizations in favor of the big 25.

Is it time to move passed issue-based donating to region-based?  Aren't ALL environmental problems LOCAL problems with LOCAL solutions?

Andy

No.  For example, air and water pollution travel long distances.  Pollution created in one bioregion can and does travel into other bioregions.  Destruction of an ecosystem can cause surrounding ecosystems to suffer or collapse.  Causing extirpation of a species in one bioregion can cause problems for that species, and the species and ecosystems that benefit from it, in surrounding bioregions.

That said, I totally agree that people should donate to small groups, not just the "big greens."  In deciding to whom to donate, first pick the groups that work on the issue or issues that you care most about.  Then, determine which group or groups are most effective in achieving what you would like to see.  Don' just donate to a big group because you know its name and it's synonimous with environmentalism.  My biggest concern is wilderness and wildlife protection, so I donate all my money to the Center for Biological Diversity (based in Tucson), because they've been by far the most effective group in accomplishing that goal over the past 15 years.

Jeff Hoffman

More important is that Dowie has a suggestion about how to make it better through support of grass roots organizations that have been neglected for too long at the expense of the big DC NGOs.  Environmentalism is not dead.  Far from it.  Projects like Shifting Baselines and Grist are proof.

Now, let's see Shifting Baselines get one of the million dollar "Dowie" grants!

I would only add this:  Not only should funds be redirected to grassroots organizations, but they also should be redirected from North to South.  

As an anthropologist working in Guatemala, I have watched dozens of terrific environmental organizations of many shapes and forms (indigenous, national, activist, regional) disappear because of lack of funding--while the large international conservation groups like Conservation International hog donor dollars.  Worse yet, they waste these funds on fancy meetings in  5-star hotels -- when the real work of conservation in communities suffers from lack of funding.  

The executive directors of many wonderful organizations in the developing world make less than half of what a receptionist earns in one of the DC enviro. organization.  

The big international organizations pose as more "trustworthy" and accountable to funders, but I'd say that wasting money on fancy offices, exorbitant travel budgets, and slick publications is a different kind of corruption, but corruption nonetheless.

Let's encourage funders to have faith in grassroots organizations not only in the U.S. but organizations outside the U.S., too.

-Liza Grandia

Kind of like a crummy horror movie that ends up number one at the box office, not because its well made but because the audience is just ready for that genre.

The audience was ready for a major critique of the movement, and for that reason the large environmental organizations had better keep a close eye on their behavior -- clearly there is an angry mob that has assembled.  Which is a shame.  

Mark Dowie's book, "Losing Ground," ahead of its time as it was, offered up very clear warning signals in 1995 which seem to have gone largely ignored.  Hopefully the leadership is listening a little more closely this time around.  Much of the recent critique could have been avoided.

- Randy Olson

From reading some of the book "Don't Think Of An Elephant" I understand that much of the reason that conservatives are doing so well politically right now is that they banded together to form a few mega-funded think tanks and then used the results of their studies to craft campaigns that use liberal and environmental messages against themselves with the "regular" voter. Liberals have no overarching strategy to combat this one-sided discussion and so appear to be floundering in their message by being defensive.

It seems to me that the same thing has happened with the environmental movement.  Corporations use their money to greenwash and use their influence with the govermental agencies to get the legislations passed that they want passed and kill the ones they don't.  Enviros fight corporations who own the playing field.  What the environmental movement needs, beyond a strong, charismatic, intelligent person or people to be a "face," is a strong, centralized think tank of its own to craft policies and influence government agencies with proof that the people really do want more protection from corporations' careless use of resources and people.

We won't achieve this by dividing monies up among hundreds of local organizations, worthy as they all are.  We need to fight fire with fire and beat corporations at their own game by becoming entrenched in the government.  Why don't politicians always vote the way of the enviros?  Because the corporations give them more money.  So let's start throwing money at them too.  I hate to think that the ends justify the means, but this is how our current government gets stuff done.  And, seriously, how well is our current strategy of attacking each environmental problem separately working?

We want subsidies for renewable energy comparable to those for current energy sources?  Throw money at the politicians who vote them in.  We want government changed to take precautionary measures toward new products instead of the "wait and see what harm it does" approach?  Throw money at the politicians in charge of appointing the heads of the agencies.  Get our lobbyists some face time too.

We want people to realize that its in our best interest as a nation and as a world to take care of the earth?  Start appealing to their bottom lines - their families (love), their health, national security (fear), independence (security) - because the environment seems too far removed from their reality.  No matter how cute the seal is, they want to know what's in it for them before putting their hard-earned money on it.  And don't ALWAYS ask for money - it gets old.  Give people easy actions they can take.  Have fundraisers people can come to and participate in fun activities.  Imagine a carnival where all proceeds go to the environment!

"The big international organizations pose as more "trustworthy" and accountable to funders, but I'd say that wasting money on fancy offices, exorbitant travel budgets, and slick publications is a different kind of corruption, but corruption nonetheless."

In doing this, they attract money and the politicians who follow money.  It's unfortunate that this is the world we live in but I can't see it as corruption.  We all strive for something better, but people's definitions of better vary widely.  It is inspiring to mainstream America, and no doubt the people in other countries who are moving here in droves to be part of the dream, to see the slick publications and the fancy clothes.  If we need to wave a bit of bling in their face like a red cape, so be it.  At least they're listening.  Conservatives seem to have realized long ago that people are sheep and are acting accordingly.  It sounds incredibly cynical to say it, but we need to do it too, albeit in a more honest and thoughtful way.  The fancy clothes can be made from organic cotton; the slick publications can be printed on 100% unbleached, chlorine-free paper using soy ink.

Unfortunately the environmental message has disconnected from the real world, IHMO.  We need to continue devoting a lot of money to a few large organizations that are set up like the United Nations, Red Cross, etc. to handle multiple issues.  These mega-eco-orgs are the ones who craft the campaigns, dole out the fun money and get the results enviros all want.  These mega-eco-orgs should have hundreds of local initiatives that carry out various campaigns based on what each location is in need of.  Existing small, local organizations can join and be funded by these mega-eco-orgs.  NRDC comes to mind as a fairly good example of this; the Rainforest Alliance is an even better one.

These organizations shouldn't be divorced from other social issues either.  We can take care of environmental problems using the talents of local disadvantaged kids who went to college on grants from the mega-eco-orgs.  Reinvest in the people who need it as well as use those who've made it on their own.  We will capture attention and their hearts by helping to educate and empower them.

I'm fairly ignorant about this political stuff.  There is a lot out there I haven't seen, and I know it's not as simple to achieve as I've stated it.  But I can see that the environmental message isn't getting across to mainstream America as well as it should.  It should've been a HUGE factor in the 2004 elections, and instead it was kicked aside to listen to Bush ramble incoherently about flip-flopping.  We can't let it happen again in 2008.  I applaud Rainforest Alliance for their recent successes, and MoveOn.org for successfully getting attention for many issues.  I look forward to more of these developments in the future!

Phew!  I'm off my soapbox now, let the flames begin....

(As an aside, I just noticed how similar corporation and corruption sound.  Maybe we can use this in future campaigns!)  :-)

Visit http://www.therainforestsite.com daily!