Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> If you expect that someone just wants to steal your money (and I am not saying such expectation is always wrong), perhaps you just shouldn't give them any.

This is indeed the approach I've been taking with some climate change charities: most of them have an "advocacy" component, and while I'd like to support effective emissions reduction projects, I'm not willing to contribute to the preaching for individual asceticism.

I have no issue giving to "some project + a proportionate share of central/overhead costs".

Unfortunately, it's often extremely hard to find a charity that is tax deductible where you live, part of employer matching programs, effective in running projects you want to support, and not performing activities you specifically don't want to support.




‘Advocacy’ is very broad. I hope you’re not discounting donating to places because you think it can only mean one thing!


The word itself isn't the problem, and in general I don't have an issue donating to organizations that also tackle the problem on a political level.

With climate change specifically, if I can't reasonably rule out the risk that the org will spend the money to tell me that I can't have an air conditioner, meat, or travel (or worse, lobby my government to ban me from having these things), they're not getting any money.

I'm OK with taking some risk that the org will use money in a way that I consider non-optimal, but I draw the line where I see a risk that the money may be used directly against my own interests. "Don't feed the mouth that bites you", I guess.


In particular, drawing on an example from OP, advocacy sometimes includes things like "doing the legwork to be part of employer matching programs".




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: