I am sorry to report, are the worst offenders, so far as direct mail solicitations go.

Pretty much everything that NWF sends me now is online.  Including their magazine -- which is rather a pity, because their magazine always has gorgeous wildlife photography, and it does not come across on my computer screen.

(By contrast, I hate their catalogues.  Their buyer has wretched taste.)

In general, NWF, Sierra Club, the several branches of the HSUS and their fellows should be pitied.  According to a recent story in the New York Times Magazine on charitable giving, out of around eight categories of the kinds of groups to which we donate, religious groups (e.g. our churches, etc.) and schools (e.g. our almae matres) by far receive the most money, while environmental and pro-animal groups are dead last.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

is that the major environmental groups share member address information.  

I donated to the Nature Conservancy because their methods are most compatible with my personal philosophy.  But now, I receive mailers from NWF, Audubon, and the Sierra Club, etc., every few months.  I understand the reasoning behind it, but I don't like it.  If I want to donate to one of those groups I will, but the constant mailers aren't likely to sway my opinion.  

I can already opt out of credit card offers, how do I opt out of Sierra Club mailers?

www.sierraclub.org - but you should just join them - they're a great group with the best grassroots environmental presence in America

National Wildlife Federation does not "love junk mail."  What we do "love" is the interest our members have to learn about and engage in the most compelling conservation challenges of our time.   Some of our members prefer to receive that information online, so we provide that option.  Other members still prefer to receive updates by mail.  Many organizations and companies offer customers and members the choice to decide what they receive.  That is a choice that should be left up to consumers, not dictated by the government.

All of us who are committed to reducing the chances of catastrophic climate change know that mandatory emissions controls are our only option to get emissions down to the level needed.  To suggest that voluntary measures that allow customers to decide what lands in their mail boxes should be equated with all solutions to reduce carbon emissions is ridiculous.  We all know that the severity of climate change demands a mandatory cap and trade solution that will reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050.

The National Wildlife Federation has been a market leader in getting the paper industry to adopt more conservation-minded practices by convincing major paper suppliers to source their paper from FSC-certified forests, increase post-consumer waste in papers and to address toxics reduction through optimum chlorine-free bleaching technology.

I find it interesting that both the Washington Post and Glenn Hurowitz conveniently left out information about the Direct Marketing Association's Green 15 measures, that we mentioned during both interviews.   We are taking a leadership role within the DMA nonprofit group (which includes 1200 organizations) to encourage everyone to, at a minimum, mail under these principles.  How convenient to leave that part of the story out.

So bulk business mail ("junk mail") is becoming an environmental evil 'du jour'. I think before politizing personal annoyances, some things should be considered. First, since bulk business mail (BBM) is over 50% of USPS mail volume, it acts as a subsidy to keep other postage low. Reasonably priced postage is essential since the poor, the elderly, and many without internet access rely on the USPS for critical communication needs. Second, there's no free lunch. Computers, TV's and other instruments of mass communication (which includes advertising and Grist) create tons of pollution and toxins when they are manufactured and operated. Third, although it's fashionable in the age of the internet to deride mail as hopelessly antiquated, the USPS still offers the only mode of communication that is available in all US states and territories at a universal rate.
So can things be done better? Of course. As a Letter Carrier I'd like to point out that our post office (and many others) recycles all of our undeliverable BBM. Instead of creating "Do Not Mail Lists" which threaten the solvency of the USPS and pit environmentalists against advertisers, mailers, and Postal workers why don't environmentalists encourage recycling and encourage mailers to use more recycled paper? This might have the effect of creating a larger market for all recycled paper that could increase the availability (and decrease the cost) of recycled tissue, paper towels, napkins, etcetera, as well as paper used for printing.
Just a thought.