This is something we often forget, but the amount of individuals who will stand up for an issue so large that they have the courage to make a difference in it is nothing short of heroic.
In the environmental movement, we often talk about the “independent” person. In other words, someone who is not dependent on the outcome of the issue they care about. It’s often used as a metaphor for the idea of the “true independent.” In the context of the environmental movement, the true independent is someone who is not dependent on the outcome of the issue they care about and is willing to stand up for it. And here’s where I think this story really hits home for me.
The truth is that most large environmental organizations are not independent. They are dependent on the outcome of the issue they believe in and their funding. For example, the Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental groups rely on outside donations to fund their campaigns. There are some very good reasons for this, but in general, there are some very bad ones too.
One of the bad ones is that outside donations allow these groups to grow their influence. As a result, they don’t take the time to examine the reasons for the donations and the effects they have. Instead, they just accept the donations and then take whatever they can get after them. They then do what they want with the donations and usually don’t bother to ask questions about why they are giving them.
This is a problem because it lets us into groups that have no interest in giving the environment their best effort. For example, the environmental group that started The Ocean Conservancy, is doing a good job of protecting the ecosystem on the planet, but they have allowed the organization to grow in size too. The people who run the Ocean Conservancy are not exactly the type of people who would want to know why they are giving to them.
The people running the Ocean Conservancy are the kind of people that wouldn’t want to know why they are giving the environment their best effort. They care about the environment and they care about protecting it, but they also care about money and power, and they want to keep control of that. It’s a conflict of interests that the Ocean Conservancy has no interest in having.
So this is a question that we’ve been asking for a while. What is the proportion of independent conservationists who donate? The answer is we don’t know and we don’t know how to ask. There’s a lot of money lying around from the oil and gas guys who need to be kept in check and the environmental groups don’t want to know about their money. That’s a conflict of interest that the conservation groups don’t want to have.
The conservancy has been talking about this for a while, but it was difficult for them to come up with a definitive answer. For them it is a gray area and theres no real way to know who is making the donations. For us, it is very important because we are trying to measure exactly who is donating so we can figure out who we should be donating to.
So how are they trying to do this? They have a web page that tracks the number of donations they receive and what percentage of those donations are from independent groups. They send out a survey to all donors that include a question asking what percentage of every donation is made from outside of government programs. They then look at the percentage of donations from each of these groups. From this they know how much donation money is going to groups that are not government programs.
I think the answer is pretty obvious. They’re trying to make money. The idea of an independent group being a threat to the status quo is a fairly common trope in the gaming world. Gamers generally hate big-corporate corporations and are generally not very happy with how the U.S. has run things during the last few decades. That’s not to say some of these groups don’t exist out of pure spite, but the idea that they’re threatening the status quo is fairly common.