I like the idea.

Have you tried talking to those brands and see if they would be open to moving the donations to effective causes, instead of starting a new company from scratch?

Nice! Thanks for sharing it :)

I think I caught a typo:

but I stayed quite because of worries…

Shouldn’t it be “quiet”?

Among the members who have explained their reasons for taking The Pledge, which quote did inspire you the most?

A Spanish translation is now also available.

As it turns out, there is a near-linear relationship between cumulative emissions and global warming

Very interesting. Thanks!

What role would potential tipping points like permafrost loss play on the "near-linear relationship between cumulative emissions and global warming"?
As far as I understood, there was a lot of uncertainty on that.

Some of the reasons I heard are:
* it is difficult to understand that donating for technology innovation is really a donation, it feels more like investing in companies. 
* policy advocacy sounds like lobbying
* it is kind of abstract if one compares it to other donations more widely known like planting trees; or donating medicines, vaccines or books to improve the health of the poorest.
* the impact of the donation is uncertain and based on estimations only.
* such a donation does not give this inner glow/good feeling that they expect to get when making a donation

Thanks for the input, henrith.

This anecdotal evidence from Sweden that you mentioned is what I also noticed when talking to people interested in climate change, but not into the EA-movement.

Regarding Giving Green, there was a very interesting discussion in the forum.

It seems like the differentials between BURN and CATF are more than 10x and could be even 100x, if CATF eventually managed to have an impact of $0.20/ton. This does not seem unrealistic considering that the estimations of $1/ton are conservative.

The study I referenced about Eden Reforestation mentioned an estimated impact of $0.36/ton. This would actually be in the same order of magnitude as the conservative estimates for the most effective organisation. This is why I mentioned that organisation as a potential alternative.

An additional point to consider is that it might not be the same:
 * making a personal recommendation to someone that might probably not donate otherwise.
* recommending it on a website. 

If an organisation is recommended on a website, there is the risk that people that would otherwise donate to the most effective organisations will change their donation to those less effective ones, having a relative negative impact. If I remember well, this was one of the arguments Johannes used, which I found fair enough, especially if we are talking about orders of magnitude of difference.

Looking forward to hearing more thoughts on this topic :)