Exactly, they did not help in MI. They claimed they did not have the expertise or resources, when a semi loaded with cases of bottled water would have been a start, easily accomplished and relatively inexpensive. At times, first world activists seem to get a special boost from helping the impoverished third world at the expense of the ones right under their noses. I'm not necessarily throwing rocks at them (yet). There's just things that don't make sense. Some of the accounting doesn't look right at first glance. I've got to give it another shot when I'm not exhausted.

Another example besides the market investments mentioned above - Their storage space for water and equipment is donated, but they spent almost $750k in rent in 2015. Granted, it is in NYC, but if your target areas are half the world away why set up headquarters in one of the most expensive places in North America?

Charity: Water - Please help donate!
 

Every charity has certain goals and different regions which they work in. Realistically speaking, the majority of the charities that help 3rd world countries are run by first world activist. Without them, nothing would really get achieved and things would be worse than it is now.



The money that is spent on rent, etc. is paid for by donating investors and not donations like the one I posted. All donations go directly to water.

They're pooling donations and investing them in the market. That just feels weird. I'll read the rest of the financials later.

pay no attention to that person, they post many asinine comments.

good luck with your charity.

I appreciate it, thank you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd be more than happy to see one of those solutions. So far, the solutions you have offered up will only make more people die down the road.

So, you're a mind-reader, too?
A reduction of use here is not going to affect how much water is available over there. A reduction in use over there is the only real, long-term solution.
My standard of living will not be lowered by a futile attempt to "rescue" a few people. However, that of future generations will be when even more people are in the same situation because of misguided "help."

What's your point? Either those golf courses are in areas of the world that have plenty of water or they are moving their areas in the same direction as the places you want to "save."

Stopping such practices sounds to me to be a major step in the right direction. My whole point has been that consumption must be reduced. Not sure why anyone would be against it. Oh, wait. Your remark was poorly done sarcasm, wasn't it? ;)

People dying is part of Nature. If nobody died, we'd all be in the same situation - all resources would be quickly depleted. When any species overpopulates an area, there will be a die off to maintain balance - it may not be pretty but that's just the way it is.

Please enlighten us as to what those ways are. Apparently you don't see birth control as a viable solution. Just what is?

It doesn't matter only if if we don't attack the root cause of the problem. I'm sure you mean well but your solution will only make things worse. If the load on the ecosystem is not reduced, all other "fixes" are just bandaids; and poor ones at that. The best way to help them is to show them how to help themselves.