This is one reason why I have stopped supporting the Red Cross financially:
The IFRC ( International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies) has sent a 30-strong delegation to COP 19 in Warsaw, with members drawn from 15 National Societies with an interest in climate change, and technical specialists from the secretariat and the Climate Centre, headed by Evgeni Parfenov, the IFRC Europe zone’s Head of Operations. The IFRC has been actively engaged in the COP process for at least a decade in an effort to highlight the effects of climate change on vulnerable communities around the world.
It would be interesting to know what the total cost of this huge delegation (and their assistants) adds up to. During the COP19 the even normally high Warsaw hotel prices have gone up considerably, and the Red Cross people are used to staying in rather good hotels.
Instead of sending tens of bureaucrats on useless and costly trips to the Warsaw global warming jamboree, the IFRC should be putting all available resources on relief operations, in the Philippines and elsewhere.
PS
Another good reason for not donating any money to the Red Cross is this:
The American Red Cross is one of the nation's most venerable and largest charitable organizations, founded in 1881, with revenues of $3.5 billion in 2010. That year, Red Cross CEO Gail J. McGovern took home total compensation of $1.04 million.
(Just for comparison: US President Barack Obama's salary is $400,000 annually)
And this:
Sir Nick Young, the chief executive of the British Red Cross, saw his pay jump by 12 per cent to £184,000 since 2010, despite a one per cent fall in the charity’s donations and a three per cent fall in revenues.
(UK Prime Minister David Cameron earns £142,500 a year)
In fairness to IFRC: many National Societies have a strong interest in climate change issues and come to meetings like these on their own individual initiative and on their own individual budgets. The IFRC as an observer has the capacity to include these people in their delegation and achieve better co-ordination. One meeting I attended had one "bureaucrat" - me - involved but only part time, but the delegation was more than 25 people.
ReplyDeleteIn this case it is not the substance that is wrong but the optics. Which is unfortunate.
Munin is exactly right. That delegation would have a couple of IFRC people and a lot of National Society people there to defend the interests of the most vulnerable people in their own countries and communities. The only way they can take part is to come as part of an IFRC delegation.
ReplyDeleteThe notes about the salaries of other people are totally irrelevant to the point about Warsaw.
To Munin and Unknown:
ReplyDeleteThe Red Cross should focus on its original task, helping people in need. Sending large delegations to useless global warming gatherings is an enormous waste of money.
In my blog post I mention the huge salaries of certain Red Cross employees as another reason for not donating money to this organisation - a very relevant point.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI thought the IFRC existed to represent the members? http://ifrc.org/en/who-we-are/vision-and-mission/
ReplyDeleteThe post is not only about Warsaw, but about excesses, so s/he is within his/her rights to point out what s/he believes to be excessive salaries for charity workers.
However, saying they money would be better spent on "the Philippines and elsewhere" shows a certain naivete.
Although, the quote from Ronnie Raygun at the top makes me think that our Nostradamus might be a climate change denier.
To Joe:
ReplyDeleteI agree with the first two sentences. Without them, I would have deleted you comment.
Your way of denigrating one of the greatest US Presidents ever by misspelling his name is not acceptable.
Your comment makes me think that you might be a supporter of the global warming church.