Director of Communication
Reading Time: 8 min
We often think that generosity is about intentions. What if it was also about results? This is the question William MacAskill poses in his book Doing Good, Better, dedicated to a movement still relatively unknown in France: effective altruism.
The principle is simple: if we want to help, let’s do it where our impact is the greatest. This involves going beyond the obvious, questioning our intuitions, and sometimes exploring neglected or counter-intuitive causes with high transformative potential.
This book challenges without guilt. It invites a step back, to measure the real effect of our donations, and to give not only with the heart but also discerningly.
We offer a series of 5 thematic summaries to discover the book’s ideas, illustrated with concrete examples, and better understand how they can change our way of acting.
We know the climate urgency is there. But a crucial question remains too little asked: among all possible actions, which are the most effective? And if you’re thinking about individual actions, you might be missing some of your potential.
In “Doing Good Better,” William MacAskill proposes evaluating our climate actions with the same rigor he calls for applying to all solidarity causes: health, poverty, rights, education… He advocates for an approach based on real effects, available data, and identifying blind spots.
Climate change affects all aspects of human life: health, poverty, migrations, biodiversity, conflicts. It’s a systemic, global, and lasting issue. Its complexity requires careful selection of where and how to intervene, so we don’t dilute our efforts.
However, as MacAskill shows, committed actions often seem intuitive: planting trees, reducing travel, offsetting emissions. These actions have their value, but their impact is sometimes small compared to other levers like political advocacy or investment in research. A carbon tax, for example, has a systemic effect that individual actions, however sincere, will never have.
The main challenge is prioritization: we rarely know “what really works.” And certain climate interventions have an impact 100 to 1,000 times greater than others with an equal budget.
In the 2010s, MacAskill identified climate as a paradoxically neglected cause: omnipresent in discourse, but largely underfunded compared to its systemic importance. At the time, less than 2% of public development aid was directed towards climate-related actions. This discrepancy between the gravity of the problem and the resources mobilized was striking.
Since then, the climate cause has gained visibility and funding, but MacAskill emphasizes that media visibility does not guarantee the relevance or effectiveness of supported solutions. He advocates for a lucid and strategic approach: supporting what has the most demonstrated impact, including outside the most visible actions.
He also stresses the importance of anticipating systemic risks, as should have been done with pandemics or uncontrolled artificial intelligence. This requires rethinking our relationship with time: “what seems less urgent may have the most lasting impact.” Urgency should not overshadow preparation.
Finally, the book invites moving beyond a vision centered only on traditional NGOs. Supporting research, regulation, or open innovation may be far more decisive than funding poorly understood field operations with relatively little known impact.
MacAskill cites the example of supporting initiatives like the Clean Air Task Force, which works to promote ambitious climate policies, such as emission reduction standards or the structuring of public investments.
He highlights the interest in investing in research for breakthrough technologies: carbon capture, decarbonization innovations. Even if the horizon is uncertain, the potential gains are colossal. Yet these areas remain underfunded by individuals.
Another potentially neglected lever: preparing for climate risks in vulnerable countries. Adapting agriculture, strengthening health systems, or anticipating climate migrations are less visible but crucial actions.
As an individual, one direct way to act is to donate part of your income to organizations with a strong climate impact. Structures like the Clean Air Task Force or those recommended by Giving Green are identified for their proven effectiveness, transparency, and systemic effect. A strategically oriented donation can support the levers neglected by major philanthropies and public policies.
First, educate yourself
The book invites you to rely on rigorous evaluators like Giving Green, which apply methods inspired by effective altruism to climate issues.Then, direct your donations wisely
Direct part of your donations to high-leverage climate projects and integrate an efficiency criterion in your choices, as you would for your savings.Finally, consider the intersection
Climate and health, climate and poverty, climate and AI. Environmental impact can be amplified when it intersects with other global issues.Act for the climate, yes. But by looking where it is truly useful. Because between two seemingly similar actions, the impact can vary considerably.
And what if, this time, you donated for the climate with a compass?
Finland, Iceland, Denmark lead the 2026 ranking. Full list of 147 countries, key findings on social media and wellbeing, and how your donations create happiness.
Human life is precious. It is natural to want to mobilise all our resources to save a life, even if it only prolongs a life by a week. But what happens when other people are also in danger, and our resources are not enough to help them all? As a society, we face practical limits that force us to make difficult decisions.
It’s easy to feel discouraged by the dramatic retreat of glaciers in the Alps and the scale of climate change can easily leave us feeling powerless. This article will equip you with the knowledge to take meaningful climate action, in both your personal life and through your charitable donations.
Assessing the climate impact of donations: between modelling and uncertainty At Mieux Donner, we sometimes use a calculation that is strikingly simple: “€1 = 1
When Greenpeace celebrated a court ruling against Golden Rice, scientists warned of thousands of preventable deaths. What this case reveals about evidence-based giving.
You want to donate to support biodiversity. You’re thinking about a rewilding project near you. However, in some cases, these local restoration efforts can do five times more harm to global biodiversity than good. So how can you avoid causing harm, and where will your donation have the greatest impact on the planet?
