HN Explorer

Ask HN: Best ways to spend money towards climate efforts

78 points by esotericn ↗ HN
Hello HN,

I'm going to be putting a significant percentage of my income aside going forward in order to combat climate change.

Let's say, as an order of magnitude estimate, between $250-$2500/mo.

I've already made a lot of changes to lower my personal impact and I'd like to go further. It strikes me that, for example, though I own an electric car, this is almost certainly not the most effective use of funds.

Possible ways include:

- supporting protests globally with funds

- buying carbon offsetting directly

- buying / funding research into carbon capture

- funding renewable energy in general etc

What does HN think? Opinions on specific businesses, charities, platforms, etc?

How can individuals use their earning power to make a difference?

81 comments

[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 151 ms ] thread
rndgermandude
The thing you can spend your money on which would have the biggest effect: condoms (and other contraceptives).

Sounds snarky at first, but really, it isn't. That doesn't mean you shouldn't have any children, but maybe one or two are enough? Also, condoms do not only help you (as in generic you, not OP specifically) in your family planning but may help people who are less well off, too, with the side effect of preventing some STD infections.

Corollary: avoid any charities that oppose directly or indirect family planning and/or contraceptives. That includes anything Catholic and a lot of other Christian charities.

Onanymous
Right. Without realizing the sheer number of people is the root cause of the problem all other climate and biodiversity conservation measures make no sense.
wtf77
Follow this. It's a really interesting topic.
surfgreen_dev
I commute by bike to my office every day and heavily use german train connections. Haven't touched my car for a long time. If I could I'd invest in an electrical freight bicycle, so that I can transport also heavier stuff.

A friend of mine has invested in a sustainable fond that supports green and sustainable project across Europe.

I, myself, have put an amount of money to found my own company that is focussed on green and sustainable web design/development/ux to create energy efficient websites and webapps as the internet is becoming a heavy factor in carbon dioxide emission. With https://www.surfgreen.dev you can test websites regarding their sustainability. It's still in beta and not finished yet, but already working.

Best,

Carl

perfunctory
I have spent a very, very long time thinking about it. Now, I can't give you a detailed report with numbers, but my hunch is this:

After having made personal adjustments and having moved your investments from fossil to renewables, the most efficient way to spend money is to donate to XR [0], and then take some time off (opportunity cost) and join the movement on the streets.

[0] https://xrebellion.org

henryaj
How did you come to this conclusion? Hard to imagine XR being underfunded, spending the money effectively, and being more effective on the margin than other climate charities.
faeyanpiraat
Would something like this work?

1. Find the ways most people try to fight climate change but are wrong.

2. Create compelling article that would make people stop the useless behaviour, and reveal better alternatives.

3. Spend money on ads to direct people to the page.

gardnr
If you look deeply into how carbon offsets work then actually planting trees can be a more tangible and rewarding endevour than buying carbon offsets. If you don't have the time to plant trees, then there are non-profit charities around the world that will do it for you with your donations.

Edit: I would link to one but I don't want to endorse one either way. Please search for: tree planting charity

and make your own critical decision

d--b
I haven't done any calculation, but if I were you, I'd invest that money in companies that push clean energy infrastructure. That money will go directly towards making clean energy sooner. In the end you'll make money because these technologies actually generate cheaper energy than fossil fuels. And from that extra money, you can compound your investment.

Putting $2500/month in research or protest is not going to move the needle one bit.

vectorEQ
on a personal level i'd suggest if possible to have a garden ,or if possible in your area and you don't have a garden buy a garden plot somewhere. this is really helpful if you make it nice for insects and birds. this is someting generally low cost, but does take time and effort.

in my area if you don't have a garden you can get a plot for about 100-200 euros a year. so thats dirt cheap to make a bit of impact.

cleaning in your area / natural areas is also good. walking around with a bag and collecting plastics and other trash left by people which might impact the local wildlife / environment.

those are generally things that do cost time, but not a lot of money, i'm all for activities in your life opposed to just trying to solve it by throwing money at it.

like a silent personal protest :) it's highly effective. for example in my parents garden there are a multitude of bird families who come there every season to live or in passing on their migrations. additionally we see a lot more butterflies and bees again since they started selecting the right type of plans and flowers for the local species.

on the other comment, i don't think 'overpopulation' is a problem. just how the population behaves. but i suppose that's a matter of opinion formed by where you live. i don't live in a huge city, so that might skew opinions on that matter a bit.

another idea is giving free workshops to people how to live consciously and environment friendly. a lot of people would like to do this kind of things ,but don't have the know how to do it. an hour or two with the right content of workshop can totally convert someone to living more environment friendly the rest of their lives. they will also give those insights to their childrent, propagating the effect.

all in all its more a mindset problem than anything. people are not conscious of this problem, which keeps it in place.

if you really want to throw money at it. try funding and helping researchers / students working on renewable / cleaner living solutions. in most countries there's some university or research group focusing on this topic. they could always use some money if you have some to 'burn' ;). 2500$ a month can get them a bunch of research equipment and buy them time to spend with that equipment to research. some people don't even earn that much, so you could fund someone to spend all of their time on this topic.

marapuru
Another way of approaching this could be to look into what you can do without money. As a wealthy person, it makes sense to think that money is the only way to DO something or to make a change.

But how about this:

- Work less (no transportation needed, less power needed)

- Go out for a walk in a park, meadows, forest etc.

- Explore and discover nature and realize how much benefit it already gives you (apart from oxygen, food etc.)

- Inspire other people to take a walk

This could stress the importance of nature for well-being to others. Making it more easy for them to make a eco-friendly decision.

Juliate
I'm considering doing so as well (after having read https://nadiaeghbal.com/microgrants) with a small personal fund first, that I will consider to open to friends & family later. France context.

However I'm wondering about the efficiency, that will start as an experiment first.

Not many different targets than yours, but my hunch starts with funding & following up in their development _local_, identified young students projects/studies working on energy, water, food, environment & politics.

The benefit is that:

  * they're already aware of the situation,
  * they'll see support from people for that area specifically
    (both financial and moral, and networking),
  * they'll have far better energy & networking & ideas & initiative to spread this further,
  * I can spread funding to more different people at first
   (funding with a significant impact is easier to reach toward students).
moviuro
As an individual, I have done 3 things:

1. Invest in renewable businesses (ethical+biological/natural food & clothing : Loom, bioburger, etc.)

2. I get my power from a business that finances as much green energy as I consume (e.g. Total Spring, ekWateur, Engie).

3. I buy locally-sourced groceries from the local store

And also, happy coincidence, I can walk to work.

ptah
I would say: - go vegan - learn permaculture/similar to grow some of your own food - invest in tree planting/greening initiatives
wtdata
Let's please stop with the vegan fallacy. Cutting all meat production (and it's support industries) in USA and EU together, would have an impact of the global emissions of only 1%. [1] [2]

The more we try to mix personal ideologies (i.e. animal rights) with climate change, the more we are going to make the public at large ignore everything about the theme.

P.S: If you are really after a personal action to fight climate change, take public transportation to work, or better go by bicycle. [3] That - unlike veganism, actually makes a huge difference.

EDIT: Added links with the actual facts supporting both points. USA Meat Industry and associated industries emits 3% of their country total.[1] Same for every highly developed country due to very high efficiency of the process. Transportation on the other side, accounts for 27% of the country total in USA. [3] USA and EU together account for 20% of the world total emissions [2]

[1] citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.182.3630&rep=rep1&type=pdf

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

[3] https://skepticalscience.com/animal-agriculture-meat-global-...

ptrkrlsrd
What source says cutting all meat production in USA and EU would impact global emissions by 1%?
z_open
Do you have a source on the 1%? Everything I've read supports an individuals veganism being roughly equivalent to a typical individual's transportation. And land for crops for cattle is currently the leading cause of deforestation.
bloudermilk
Not sure what your source is, but this contradicts Drawdown:

> Shifting to a diet rich in plants is a demand-side solution to global warming that runs counter to the meat-centric Western diet on the rise globally. That diet comes with a steep climate price tag: one-fifth of global emissions. If cattle were their own nation, they would be the world’s third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

> Plant-rich diets reduce emissions and also tend to be healthier, leading to lower rates of chronic disease. According to a 2016 study, business-as-usual emissions could be reduced by as much as 70 percent through adopting a vegan diet and 63 percent for a vegetarian diet, which includes cheese, milk, and eggs. $1 trillion in annual health-care costs and lost productivity would be saved.

https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/food/plant-rich-diet

itcrowd
1) You're confusing vegetarianism with veganism. Veganism is more than just meat.

2) Your 1% figure is not sourced and allegedly only involves USA & EU. Global climate changes demands global solutions, the EU and USA together can't solve everything.

3) The best estimate if you want to put a number on it is closer to 15% [1]. Of course, you can't eliminate all of that with veganism because animals produce other non-food items that are useful, such as fertilizers.

I'm all for cycling and public transport, agree on that. Don't agree that veganism doesn't make a (huge) difference. The animal rights argument is something that you brought into this discussion. Total straw man.

I'd like to add: fly only if really necessary and try to offset carbon emissions from flying if you must fly.

[1] Start reading here and follow the sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_p...

kitd
> Cutting all meat production (and it's support industries) in USA and EU together, would have an impact of the global emissions of only 1%.

The problem lies in meat production using deforested areas. A lot of processed meat, eg fast food, ready meals, etc, comes from such sources.

As your 2nd link highlights, deforestation & meat production are 2 of the top 3 CO2 emission concerns, so meat imported from such sources is a double hit.

chunkyslink
Yes. This is the single best thing any human can do. It would have an overnight impact on climate change if the world stopped consuming meat from Agribusiness.

Forests would not be cut down for beef, therefore sustaining trees that remove C02. Species extrinction would slow down because of sustaining habitats.

ptah
you can sign up for this. it starts 30 sept. if you do: i'll see you in class discussions :)

https://pace.oregonstate.edu/catalog/permaculture-design-cer...

codingdave
I'm all for such a course, but watch out for region-specific advice. I live in a high-altitude desert, and some typical permaculture techniques work fine, others are complete failures. If the course doesn't get into which techniques work in which environments, I'd encourage you to ask the instructors to look into it more and add it to their curriculum.
ptah
the intro course definitely addressed different climates and this one does too. the lead instructor practices permaculture in Arizona and he is all about using shade properly and water harvesting. he specialises in desert agriculture: https://www.permaculturerising.com/andrew-millison

EDIT: I live in a temperate high rainfall area

duckerude
The effective altruism movement should be worth checking out. They're focused on finding the most cost-effective options for charitable giving.

They mainly target other cause areas in which they expect marginal donations to do more good, but their general approach is very useful to understand even if you have a narrower goal.

There is general information about the approach here: https://www.effectivealtruism.org/

And an analysis of climate change in particular here: https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/research/other-causes/climat...

https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/post/2013/11/less-burn-for-y... evaluates a few specific charities that attempt to reduce greenhouse gases.

henryaj
Note that the Giving What We Can recommendations are from 2013; they're likely no longer valid.
counterpig
Maybe look into investing in triodos bank or something similar.

A lot of the changes that need to happen are quite costly and realistically unless you are a millionaire there isn't a lot you can do to fund a solar or wind farm on your own. But by investing in an ethical bank with a focus on renewable energy you can pool money with other like minded investors to fund these projects.

Another option is a p2p lending platform like abundance https://www.abundanceinvestment.com/investments

But bare in mind these are pretty risky investments.

You could also make steps to reduce your own carbon footprint e.g purchasing solar panels or something similar. Or if you have access to a renewable energy provider or a provider with a green tariff consider switching.

Finally aside from money, investing your time in your local government to make it clear you think they should be doing more is potentially more impactful. Especially if you are based in the US.

dgellow
If I may be slightly off-topic, I have a similar question I still haven't found a satisfying answer to:

What's the best way to spend my work time towards climate efforts? (i.e: I have useful professional skills, how can I help in a serious way?)

For example, is there anything like a job board focus on companies/organizations/scientist labs/other structures working on stuff related to climate change? As a software engineer, I would greatly prefer to work for a group that has some positive impact on the situation, and I would expect that there is a demand for better tools, platforms, etc that can help research or whatever is the important thing to do.

gleglegle
Collective action is probably much more meaningful than individual action. So spporting candidates that are serious about implementing policies like a carbon tax or eliminating exsisting economic incentives for fossil fuels is probably the most effective way to spend. That said, personally it has felt much more gratifying to stop using a car and take up biking and public transportation.
chvid
Buy some nice office plants ...
code_scrapping
I have the feeling that the answers below are going away from what the OP was trying to find out.

It's not about going vegan, starting a garden or using condoms. If a person is already exhausted personal efforts (to the extent one can with a given life condition), where can we help by directly investing.

Because I'm a working professional with solid income, maybe I don't have time/space to do the time-consuming activities proposed, but I do have excess funds that I can direct to the higher cause.

So - where should we invest our money, and not our time? Because we possible have the first, and not the later :(

rndgermandude
You miss the point of condoms. They do not work just for you, and a sizable chunk of the world population has limited or no affordable access to contraceptives, or doesn't know how to use them. And there are quite a few charities dedicated to changing this, thus not only helping the climate, but lowering human suffering (starvation, overcrowding, STDs) in general.
toomuchtodo
Support candidates who have climate change mitigation as part of their top priorities. Local, state, federal, whatever. You will have no greater leverage than through public policy. Until an election cycle occurs, aggressively engage with your representatives or pay an org to do so.

The US military is one of the largest CO2 emitters in the world. No non profit or startup can fix something like that, but public policy can. At the local level, you can form a muni electric coop and buy only renewable energy in bulk. You can change zoning to phase out gas stations, disincentive internal combustion use, and acquire electric buses for mass transit (both cheaper and faster to deploy than light rail). Similar changes can be made at the state level. But these changes are then impactful act scale.

Find a political point of leverage and exert maximum force. I understand the squeamish feeling, but these are not tech problems; these are people problems. The tech is already mostly solved.

detcader
I do agree that answers in the vein of "doing more stuff" doesn't help when someone wants to spend money, not time. But with a mindset of incrementalism, vegetarianism and veganism can be mostly effortless. Mentally/spiritually grappling with and letting go of the social incentives and punishments around having children (called "natalism" by some) may take effort, but if you are already in a position where these don't really affect you, it's effortless: it's not doing something.

What's more, I can frame purchases within these lifestyle choices what OP wants: buying more expensive substitutes for animal-based food I'm used to is investing in the environment and the well-being of sentient creatures. Purchases for hobbies, adopted pets, and experiences is money I would have spent on child-rearing.

esotericn
Right.

I wholly agree with all of those. In fact I'm doing all of the ones that are practical for me.

The main purpose of my post is - I believe that my talents in software development allow me to use that for good.

Essentially, that by me voluntarily reducing my consumption and redirecting it towards climate efforts, I can do more and faster.

I think this is genuinely more efficient than quitting my job and going all-in on protest or working directly for a charity.

Whether it's more efficient than starting one - time will tell.

[dead] Khanhanhan
I'm on the same boat. Buying a land to turn it into a forrest tops my list at the moment. It's possible to get some money back thanks to subsidies (I'm in EU), and maybe I will live long enough to sell some timber one day.

It would feel nice to own a forest, however, it would lock my funds and perhaps I could do better by investing the money into more impactful ventures, so I'm still looking for ideas.

kmjg88nvf8
Move to a city where you don't need a car, would be a start. That's likely to cost money, although I am not sure if it would cost more than the running costs of a car.
AllegedAlec
- Support nuclear energy

- Don't buy an electric car EDIT: Apparently: Do buy an electric car

- Plant trees

Faaak
I'm pretty sure that you're wrong to thing than an electric car is worse than a petrol one
madcol
I believe the rule is don't buy an electric car if you already have a car but if you're buying a new car an electric car over its lifetime will be better than getting a combustion car
cies
I think habit-change and lobby for increased taxation on climate burdening behavior are the best options.

A vegan requires a fraction of the climate burden for his/her food compared to someone on a regular diet.

And without a fair-and-square climate impact tax (i.e.: a CO2eq tax), we are going no where.