Hi Bella,

Thanks a lot for the feedback. Updated the form so people can give qualitative feedback there. Will make the google sheet clearer, and see if I can make the title and copy more compelling. Appreciate it!

Echoing themes of what some other people have said, I think it's important to have space in your life where you are not always optimizing for effectiveness. You were on vacation! Choosing to use some of your vacation time and a significant chunk of money is admirable.

The ONLY worry I would have if I were in your shoes from an EA perspective is "this $1000 I spent, would I have otherwise donated it to a super effective charity?" If the answer is yes then maybe there's some reflection to do about how you are approaching effectiveness. But if - as I'm guessing - that $1000 came out of money that you would have spent to make yourself happy I'm some other way, then it's admirable you decided to use it to help this dog.

How I think about it: I have a effective giving budget, and a guilt-free spending on myself budget. I spend $1000+ per year on things like movies, going out to eat, etc., and don't feel bad about it because I have budgeted for it and can't do an effectiveness calculation every time I make a decision about how to spend my time or money.

Thanks - maybe I'm giving them too much trust.

In their impact report they say "We’ve granted out $14.89m in total and we estimate that it will avert 102m tonnes in CO2-equivalent emissions."

I would not give too much credence to that from a non-EA aligned org, but I've been giving them decent credence with regards to counterfactual impact reporting since they're EA aligned.

You're saying I should treat their reports less like givewell reports, and more like I would treat a random non EA charity. Any particular arguments for why? Or is it just that you wouldn't take the prior of assuming that they are at the evaluation quality of givewell? (Or maybe you don't trust givewell on this either)

I have actually been thinking of creating a tool to help people do exactly what you are trying to do! I will DM you after I make my first version to get your input

Were in a little bit of a tangent but an interesting one I think. I've heard that idea before about special obligation towards christians, but I've never found it very compelling - less for strict theological reasons and more for emotional, philosophical, and commonsense morality reasons (my common sense may differ from others' of course).

I'm much more moved by the story of the Good Samaritan or Jesus' instruction to care for the least of these than Paul's exhortations.

But I also don't put that much stock in what Paul says relative to other Christians (https://www.modelsandmorality.com/blog/st-paul-was-just-some-guy-so-hes-not-always-right).

Fixed - thanks!

I'm so glad to hear it

That's awesome to hear - it was worth the effort of me writing it up then!

Agreed with harfe's comment - if your goal is just to offset your own emissions then you would probably want to donate a bit less. If you don't fly more than the average American, then probably $20. Veganism might push the number down a little bit too, but like harfe said, the intercontinental flights are a bigger factor.

Of course I wouldn't discourage anyone from donating above and beyond the amount needed to offset their own emissions!

Thanks a lot for writing this up - motivated me to donate to do offsets this year!