But GP raises a good point: Are these two things that benefit from any kind of synergy in terms of skills required by the employees working there, target audience etc.?
If not, it generally seems like a better idea to keep the two concerns separate in two different non-profit organizations. (I don't think it would be a problem for one non-profit to donate funds to another, especially if doing so was explicitly stated as its goal when it's incorporated.)
It seems they kind of do this already. [1] "We send out payments to different partners each month to plant and protect trees in biodiversity hotspots across the globe."
Their youtube channel covers what their partner orgs do in depth. It's a pretty cool channel if you ever wanna watch local organizations around the world trying to safeguard their natural communities
I didn't assume so, but they still do two things: Making money, and picking a purpose of what to do with it (in this case, planting trees).
As somewhat of a sympathizer of effective altruism (the idea of efficiency being an important factor in charities, not necessarily the implementation and even less the community), this isn't super appealing to me.
This just seems like a donation with complicated extra steps, in the same way that e.g. "rounding up to charity" or even "round up savings" do not appeal to me at all.
That might well be an idiosyncratic preference, and to some the idea of "planting trees via running web searches" might appeal much more than a nonprofit search engine that donates to a basket of charities, or one that directly pays the user for showing them ads and lets them decide what to do with the money and then the user donating the proceeds themselves.
If not, it generally seems like a better idea to keep the two concerns separate in two different non-profit organizations. (I don't think it would be a problem for one non-profit to donate funds to another, especially if doing so was explicitly stated as its goal when it's incorporated.)