Give as You Live

Mark 13 Comments

I have been using Give as You Live for over a year.  After the usual amount of clicking and filling in fields you can open an account which allows you automatically to donate some of what you spend to a charity of your choice – and there is a big choice!

Now I know that some will say that this is BAD – because it links your charity donation to consumerism but I think that is just nonsense (in my case at least).  I think Give as You Live is well-named and is GOOD.

My spending on just three types of item have generated £32.15 for the RSPB over the last year or so.  That isn’t a huge amount, but it hasn’t cost me a thing.  It has actually cost Vistaprint (from where I have ordered those nice Christmas cards by Ralph Underhill and my business cards), Premier Inn (who get my business now and then and got a fair bit of it last January- April as I did some work for WWF in Godalming) and East Midlands Trains which is my greenest route into London.  All of that money would have been spent with those companies anyway.

So I think it’s pretty good.  If only I remembered to click the relevant buttons slightly more often I would have painlessly raised a little more money.

I’ve just changed the NGO receiving my ‘donations’ from the RSPB (rspb?) to Butterfly Conservation.  I think Butterfly Conservation deserve a share of my spending for a while because they are doing a great job.  I’m not planning to spend a fortune though, so it might not add up to that much through 2014.

 

 

[registration_form]

13 Replies to “Give as You Live”

    1. Ralph – thanks. but that’s not a counter-argument to my views. That’s a counter argument to someone else’s views.

      1. Sorry Ralph but the arguement in the link you posted doesn’t really stand up and speaks more about the author of the blog then the person/people who choose to donate in this manner, for example does Mark “fit” into the description laid out in the blog post? I personally believe if you’ve gone through all the effort to register then you’re probably unlikely to stop contributinng in other ways.
        The other arguement that it encourages consumerism is rot, even the most “hardcore” anti-captilist spends money, think how much money for charity could’ve been raised by NIgella’s helpers?

  2. I donate to the BTO via Give as you live and have raised a similar amount as you. But my husband is encouraging me to use Top Cash Back as the returns are so much greater and you can then make a larger donation to your chosen charity. Not a bad idea, if you remember to make the donation!
    I agree with you and think these donation sites are a good thing.

  3. Just consume less and donate to charity.

    Surely that the obvious thing for a “conservationist” to do?

    We need to consume less; you know – climate change and all that. If we don’t get it here, it’s a pretty poor show and a dismal outlook. This is just dancing around an elephant in the room – again.

    1. Steve – you don’t really pay attention do you? How do you suggest I get to London if not by train? And there is no choice of train supplier. But if I make a simple ‘click’ East Midlands trains give some of my fare to a wildlife charity of my choice. Is that climate change unfriendly? Is it rampant consumerism?

  4. Ralph Underhill’s piece is evidence-based and makes an excellent case. It cannot be glibly dismissed.

  5. Of course I pay attention Mark. However, the scheme is not just about you. A point you seem to be missing. My comments refer to the scheme, not you. It needs to see it in the wider context in which it operates, which is what Ralph’s evidence-based piece details. In fact all our actions need to be seen in a wider context. In terms of climate change, overconsumption and habitat loss, time is ticking. We need to make real changes not piecemeal tinkering to assuage our guilt.

    1. Steve – but you don’t have any evidence that that is how this scheme works. I gave you some examples from my use of the scheme – is my rail travel to London overconsumption? No, it isn’t. Does it lead to money going to charities that can make things better? Yes, it does. Is it a bad thing? You keep saying it is. It isn’t.

  6. I have not read all of Ralphs link above but the first example quoted there “took two groups of people and asked both to come up with a logo for a car sharing scheme. The first group was encouraged to think about the money they would save from car sharing while the other group were told about the environmental reasons for doing so. Both groups were then asked to throw their waste paper in the bin. The group given environmental reasons for car sharing were more likely to throw their paper in the recycling rather than the bin. ” This is supposed to show the first groups self interest. Surely it just shows most people don’t think about the environment unless reminded about it. So being reminded of your environmental charity every time you shop must be a good thing.

  7. Mark’s train travelling is something he has to do (I assume – there are no race tracks in London are there?)…so fair play.
    However, cancelling Christmas would make a huge difference re. over-consumption/crazy consumerism and also massively reduce personal and family stress…..and anyway, only a very few people still believe in all that virgin birth stuff….
    We’d cut out most of those white vans hurtling about the place delivering gifts bought online and all the squillions of Xmas cards too (never mind all the horrendous stuff they put on TV at this time of year)! We could still have a decent holiday and even eat and drink a (little) bit too much if that’s what is required to keep the mid-winter blues away…
    Nick

Comments are closed.