The Response to the Australian Bushfires

 In episode 64, we explore the philanthropic response to the ongoing bushfires in Australia and what it highlights about philanthropy issues and trends. We also give take a look at some of the other top philanthropy stories in the news.

The Aussie Bushfires:

How does the philanthropic response to the Aussie bushfires compare to the Notre Dame Cathedral fire last year? Does it tell us anything about the differences between our response to man-made vs natural disasters, or disasters affecting man-made heritage vs natural heritage? Does the fact that the Aussie bushfires are highly dispersed make a difference? Are environmental issues less likely to be perceived as “elite”, and thus philanthropy focused on them less likely to be criticised as “self-interested”? Is the response to the bushfires partly about people feeling a sense of agency over the issue of climate change, which often seems so huge that it can cause donation paralysis? Does the fact that animals as well as humans have been affected make a difference? Has the ongoing nature of the fires helped to make the relief effort itself a focus of philanthropy? What questions does the voluntary nature of the firefighting services some raise about state responsibility vs that of philanthropy? Has the response of elite philanthropists been slower than in the Notre Dame case? If so, why? Could the fact that many Aussie philanthropists have made their money in extractive industries play a part in making them reticent to engage with a problem that is clearly being linked to climate change? Celeste Barber’s Facebook fundraiser: what does her runaway success tell us about the distributed nature of fundraising in the future? What challenges does it highlight? Other fundraising efforts: “The Nude Philanthropist” and altruistic drug dealers…

 

In other news:

MIT releases damning report into Jeffrey Epstein links- not good for the institution Is there a “war on philanthropy”? Karl Zinnsmeister’s op ed for the Wall Street Journal, and the ongoing debate in the US. Columbia Journalism Review article on challenges with philanthropic funding skewing the priorities of non-profit news orgs. Harry & Meghan: stepping away from royal duty to focus on other things, in which philanthropy likely to play large role. Does this raise potentially interesting questions about the nature of inherited vs created wealth, ownership/stewardship, and the role of philanthropy vs being a public figure.

 

Related links

Aussie Bushfires

Our Giving Thought podcast on “Notre Dame: Lessons for Philanthropy” Article in The Australian “Bushfire recovery: Donor war as Andrew and Nicola Forrest donate $70m” Former podcast guest Krystian Seibert’s Conversation Au piece on “How to Give to Bushfire Relief” Zagefka et al (2010) “Donating to disaster victims: Responses to natural and humanly caused events”, European Journal of Social Psychology, Volume 41, Issue 3, April 2011, 353-363 ABC News, “Why Celeste Barber's bushfire fundraiser is more complicated than it seems” ABC News, “Gina Rinehart hits back at Celeste Barber’s criticism over bushfires” Vox, “Nude photos raised over $1 million for the Australia fires” NZ Herald “Drug dealer promises to donate 10 per cent of cocaine earnings to Aussie bush fire appeal” CAF World Giving Index: 10 Year Trends

 

In other News:

MIT’s report into links with Jeffrey Epstein (and check out our Giving Thought podcast on Tainted Donations) Karl Zinnsmeister’s WSJ op ed ($),a critical response in Non-Profit Quarterly (And for more context, my piece for HistPhil on the history of state vs voluntary provision) Columbia Journalism Review piece on foundation funding and non-profit journalism (and check out our Giving Thought podcast from 2019 with Sameer Padania)