Guest post by Indur M. Goklany
On its website Oxfam reminds us that its name comes from the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief. Today it claims to work to “find lasting solutions to poverty and injustice.” So imagine the surprise when I read on WUWT that Oxfam is now pushing an international tax on maritime transport.
Why the surprise?
Such a tax would increase the price of all goods that are traded via shipping. First, it would add to the difficulties that many developing countries have in meeting their demand for food. In particular, a substantial share of the food consumed in developing countries is imported:
- In least developed countries, cereals account for 57% of the calories consumed. But net imports of cereals amount to over 15% of domestic production. [Data from FAOSTAT.]
- In Africa, cereals account for 50% of food calories consumed, but net imports amount to 41% of indigenous production.
Thus, even a small increase in the price of imported crops would push many who are already living on the margin in these areas into poverty and hunger. The UN Food and Agricultural Organization estimates that 925 million people suffer from chronic hunger worldwide. Adding to these numbers would seem to be antithetical to the purpose of the Oxford Committee on Famine Relief.
Second, a tax that would increase the price of traded goods would reduce trade and, with that, economic growth. But economic growth is the best antidote to poverty. Historical experience shows that poverty is reduced fastest where economic growth is greatest, as suggested by the following figure.
This figure shows that the most spectacular reductions in poverty occurred in East Asia and the Pacific, where the number of people living in “absolute poverty” (defined as living on less than $1.25 per day in 2005 dollars), dropped from 1,071 million to 316 million between 1980 and 2005. And as anyone who has bought anything in the past few years ought to know, their economic growth was driven substantially by trade.
To summarize, despite Oxfam’s claim that it works to “find lasting solutions to poverty and injustice,” the policies it pursues assures that it will never be out of a job.
Figure: Poverty rates (in %) in the Developing World, 1981-2005. Source: PovCalNet, World Bank (2010).
Oxfam and the rest of the similar anti western NGOs are primarily interested in maintaining market share and their revenue streams just like all other institutions. The Roman catholic church took the message of a gentle prophet and turned into a nasty, misogynist, guilt peddling ideology and ruthless orthodoxy that it took over 1000 years for serious opposition to manifest. These eco/humanitarian leeches have similarly taken noble causes, given them the St Augustine makeover and freely borrowed from the Catholics the hate language, hypocrisy and guilt peddling, corporatised beyond both recognition and caring in the slightest about the odd unintended consequence of their actions.
It is now all about corporate profile, the self importance of the new high priests of dogoodism and slithering sanctimoniousness.
When will these greasers have their Putin moment? It cannot come soon enough.
Richard says (paraphrased):
Well said. However, this is just a Fact of Life, equally applicable to the genesis of all institutions – which at the (implied) moment of reckoning, have three choices: to reform, to close, or to continue B.A.U. with hypocrisy, until shutdown is forced.
We all know here that serious reform is needed in high places, in Science, and now in WWF and Oxfam. But change always starts with me, with strengthening my own integrity before challenging that of another. Real reform takes years of dedicated activity – so one has to envision, is this something that will help humankind and make me feel good to do?
I’d like to know which anti-poverty organisation we should support. Any? Should we set up our own science-based one? Or shall we just moan? By the way John Marshall clearly doesn’t know how much bankers earn. The CEO of Oxfam got £107,006 last year to run an organisation with a turnover of £350m – much less than she’d earn for an equivalent organisation in the private sector.
A recent exchange with Oxfam – I should have got round to doing this before now.
–Original Message–
From: gbdorset@xxxxxxxx.xx
Date: 12/09/11
To: enquiries@oxfamunwrapped.com
Subject: Oxfam Policy[#3099010]
Until Oxfam stops supporting the poverty maintaining policies propagated by the Climate Change alarmists/IPCC, you will not have our support. How you can justify sending an army of attendees to the Durban Conference is quite beyond me. It seems like Oxfam has become more interested in providing lucrative remuneration for its officers and perks for its employees – a complete loss of its original sense of purpose and direction. Please remove us from your e-mail listings.
Disappointed
GBDorset
______________________________________________
–Their Reply–
Thank you for your email and feedback I shall forward this message onto our head office once I have removed you from our lists.
So that I can check your records and remove you from our mailing list, may I just ask for your billing address and postcode, so that I can locate you on our database?
Thanks again for contacting us and I look forward to hearing from you shortly.
With Best Wishes
XXXX
Oxfam Online Shop Team
Tel: +44 (0)300 200 1252 (Monday to Friday – 9am to 6pm)
E-mail: enquiries@shop.oxfam.org.uk
Website: http://www.oxfam.org.uk/shop
Unfortunately the “network” is stuck in all places and things are not what they seem, indeed large organizations like this, and some are driven by dark hands and intentions … not too noble.
Been running a campaign against Oxfam’s Climate obsession in my blog. Here’s some extracts from one of my posts:
The major beneficiaries of the proposed Climate Green Fund are the NGOs themselves with WWF and Oxfam positioning themselves to grab a huge chunk of the fund’s resources. We can expect NGO staff and consultants with strong links with WWF and Oxfam to grab all the top positions at the Fund – positions that comes with hefty tax free salaries comparable to multi-lateral agencies such as the World Bank and the United Nations. While taxation of the aviation sector will make it difficult for ordinary global citizens to fly, such a fund will ensure that WWF’s and Oxfam’s top executives and board members continue to fly business class unfettered. The taxation of of the shipping sector will give a fillip to inflationary pressures of food commodities which should be bad news for global poverty and hunger.
Oxfam has also been a high profile player in promoting Climate Smart Agriculture through its reports ‘Growing Better Future’ and ‘Overcoming the Barriers: How to ensure future food production under climate change in Southern Africa’. In context to the former report where this blog made a detailed critique we exposed Oxfam attempting to pass off propaganda as research. Oxfam’s CEO, Barbara Stoking claimed for example “The food system is pretty well bust’, contradicting observational data for the last 100 years. Crop yield growth rates might be plateauing as the limits to a finite biological system will eventually be reached. But that is very different from equating it as going bust. Yield levels are still higher by at least a factor of 7 from the launch of the Green Revolution. India is poised for a second consequent record breaking harvest this year is a validation of this point. This untruth from Stoking as CEO gives us an insight of the degree of intellectual corruption that pervade NGOs like Oxfam.
Oxfam makes the remarkable case “Climate change poses a grave threat to food production. First, it will apply a further brake on yield growth. Estimates suggest that rice yields may decline by 10 percent for each 1°C (1.8 °F) rise in dry-growing-season minimum temperatures” Remarkable as the study is based on a measly 100 sq metres experimental plot maintained by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the Philippines.
Some comment earlier here painted Oxfam in the business of famine production. That exactly is what Climate Smart Agriculture does, particularly in Africa. We have done a critique of it (http://devconsultancygroup.blogspot.com/2011/12/climate-smart-agriculture-new-eco.html) but we wish more people would write against it. We must remember that though a Global Climate Treaty has been deferred NGOs like Oxfam are implementing this dastardly programme in over 100 countries in the world
Everybody wants to stop poverty, but when Oxfam decided to capitalize on such a divisive issue as climate change this was a step too far for the charity. No more money for charities to have lavish parties in Durban or anywhere else. This is lost charitable donations going on political junkets.
NGOs: The Self-Appointed Altruists
Their arrival portends rising local prices and a culture shock. Many of them live in plush apartments, or five star hotels, drive SUV’s, sport $3000 laptops and PDA’s. They earn a two figure multiple of the local average wage. They are busybodies, preachers, critics, do-gooders, and professional altruists. They are parasites who feed off natural and manmade disasters, mismanagement, conflict, and strife.
http://samvak.tripod.com/ngos.html
@Dave Pitchford says: Should we just moan?
Depends whether you’re giving your money away to feel good about yourself, or you genuinely care.
If the former, sure. Look the other way. Don’t give a damn. Keep doing the same thing. Keep getting the same result.
Seal the envelope. Drop it in the post. Cross “guilt” off your “To Do” list. Ahh, that feels better.
But seriously, Oxfam deserves censure for this. Just as it does for its dishonest advertising campaigns that continue to exploit bogus weather event correlations that even the IPCC rejects. How can you maintain a moral high position when you knowingly lie to raise money?
We have three options: play dumb, quietly boycott Oxfam or complain. Which one do you think is more likely to end in a positive outcome for the human race?
Standard socialist stuff really – we centralise power, because nobody is as smart as us, then we soak the “wealthy” middle classes because…..well….who else has got money without the power to protect themselves. So the middle class gives up and then there’s certainly not enough to go round. So then we have to sacrifice a few for the good of the many and guess what those few just happen to be the ones we started out to protect.
Dave Pitchford says:
December 13, 2011 at 3:34 am
I’d like to know which anti-poverty organisation we should support. Any? Should we set up our own science-based one? Or shall we just moan?
Yes, it should be science-based. Go find someone who validly needs help yourself. Then do it.
OXFAM . . . must be Old English for “Head Stuck up Wazoo”
The pattern I see with several “Doo Gooder’ enterprises is how they harm the people they claim to benefit.
Today they want to force farmers to not allow boys to run equipment at a young age. A city kid with no job has a greater risk of death than a farm boy on a large tractor. Jacking up fuel costs for farming show up in high food costs for those on food stamps. 2008 the price of corn tortillas in Mexico trippled. That meant no money for meat with the tortilla. This was during high energy prices. America is 25% of global GDP. It takes a lot of energy to make industrial goods, raise food and do general commerce. A farmer on a tractor with 200 gallon fuel tank can raise more grain per energy unit consumed than can poor people with hand tools.
Old Goat says:
December 13, 2011 at 1:28 am
People give money to these organisations
——————————————————————
OG, we all give to Oxfam whether we like it or not! 30%+ of Oxfam funding comes from the public purse. Why they are they called NGOs? (non-governmental organisations)
Out of
£318.0m – Total gross income
£112.7m – Income from government and other public authorities
£7.3m – DFID – Partnership Programme Agreement
£120.0m – Total government funding
Sec1:40 – http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/downloads/reports/report_accounts09_10.pdf
Send farm animals to poor people in marginal desert areas. They can start a cottage industry with say…goats.
Ursus Austusus, tell us how you really feel. When I was confirmed (a rite of passage for 12 year olds), I was told that the Bishop would give me a little slap on the cheek and then present his hand for me to kiss. Needless to say I had a righteous Irish fit over that and refused to allow either one to happen. I was raised on a farm and knew where men put their hands so I wasn’t gonna kiss a man’s hand if Jesus came down from the cross and demanded it. And the only time I ever got slapped was when I had a potty mouth. Since I had done nothing wrong to deserve a slap, I wasn’t gonna let that happen either. So I got confirmed without the slap and without the kiss.
Tax alarmist rhetoric! I want to create an ouroboros of tax-wealth creation.
I call this the immutable law of liberal irony: the end results of liberal’s programs will always be the complete opposite of their intentions.
Liberals simply have no clue how economies/businesses work, so their clumsy actions simply cause distortions, inefficiencies and mismangement of labor, resources and capital. It’s a travesty to watch.
Millions suffer from liberalism’s ignorance.
Oxfam, like Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth etc., have completely lost their mission.
What is it about these Multinational NGOs that they so quickly become more concerned with their own importance and existence than the existence of the things they were originally trying to protect?
I write as one who supported these organizations in my youth and am now saddened by the depths to which they have fallen.
Biofuels are already raising the cost of food, as perfectly nutritious material is converted to expensive meaningless fuel. So, why not raise the cost even more with a shipping tax which will be used to fund third world countries who need money for food?
Wait, wait, how does that work? Oh, the UN will skim their part off the top and THEN give money for food, maybe, that is, if there is any money left after 1000 bureaucracies feed themselves.
This is just fine. Isn’t it the goal of the greenies to kill people? If they do it by starving them to death, that’s natural, right? No problem. But, they were only trying to help? How could they be hurting anybody?
if one acts on a belief, e.g., altruism or collectivism, and it produces the opposite of the advertised effect every single time, one might question the theory, eh? but nooo – you’ll be teaching your kids about santa clause and congress just as you have done – and produce the same results again until there’s nothing left to ruin.
charity is the destruction of values in order to destroy the virtues which produced them.
collectivism is the means by which one parasite strives to live at the anothers’ expense.
none of it could be done without your agreement and endorsement and funding.
why not stop it? it never works. repeatedly screwing up the same way is not regarded as sane.
These “NGOs” have assumed gigantic proportions. Some of them are multimillion pound organizations. Clever positioning, really: what Scrooge would have the nerve to question the bona fides of charities? There are literally hundreds of thousands of them in Britain, some tiny of course. Is anybody aware of investigative journalism into the whole sector? I can’t see a dicky bird said against them on Amazon.
gnomish says:
December 13, 2011 at 7:46 am (Edit)
“charity is the destruction of values in order to destroy the virtues which produced them.”
=====================================
That is the absolute truth.
Remember charity is always about the giver, never the receiver.
I’ve been to Oxford. There’s no famine there.
When I worked in Nigeria in the 1960s and shopped in the local marketplaces, I used to buy rice that came from a cardboard drum with the stencilled “A gift to the people of Nigeria from OXFAM”. I observed that a scoop of rice cost locals two pennies, whereas it cost me 5 pennies. I told an Oxfam campaigner about this a few years later and he assured me this wasn’t so, that the locals probably enterprisingly made use of an empty barrel. Yeah, right!