I have no objection to your idea, but the vagueness of funding 'environmental issues' is difficult.

For instance, you could pay to plant trees. But when people plant trees, they defeat the natural selection that lets nature plant it's own trees. We pretty much plant all red oak trees here--where they wouldn't be native to this area.

Or you could pay for carbon sequestration--a strategy that I think is anti-life and pretty dumb. The fight against carbon is unwinable and dishonest. The people that want a moratorium against coal-fired power plants still expect to use power all day every day.

Or you could pay for posters and plastic cups that say "save the environment" and have a big rally with lots of speakers and trash. See what I mean? it all ends up pretty lame. Kinda like earth day.

Any money you spend will go to pay a person. Fact is, the environment runs better without people. You can't pay a tree or a wolf.

You misspelled environmental "issues". It should read environmental "lobbyists".

Like Hrench says, most cash from a fund raiser goes to people. I don't need to pay more people to issue more conflicting or misleading statements and data. There's plenty of people doing that on their own already.

I'll step in and promote an old idea

Self-funding method to actively control Global Warming

Now to get Congress and the Senate to get started.

wow, junk, that's the most optimism I've ever heard out of you.

Reminds me of Asimov's 'Reason'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason_(Asimov)

I wonder if we can get there from here...

Otherwise, if global warming is truly a problem caused by humans, it will also be a self-correcting problem, as it kills billions of us. Doubt it will be in my lifetime.