« Olympic Logo For Schools Revealed - "Get Head" | Main | Calling Isaac Hayes »

Oxfam gets it right, a bit.

More than 4.5m children will die if money for aid is diverted to climate change - Oxfam - Telegraph

A new Oxfam report has warned that at least 4.5 million children could die, more than 75 million fewer children are likely to attend school and 8.6 million fewer people could have access to HIV/Aids treatment if aid is diverted to help poor countries tackle climate change.

Prioritization, isn't that what Bjørn Lomborg was lambasted for talking about. We only have finite resources and getting the best bang for our buck means that shovelling money at Climate Change whatevers is low on the list compared to schools, food and medicines.
But the answer that we just need to increase spending to cover everything isn't the right one.


There seems to be something of a disconnect here. In my local high street Oxfam have a sign in the window and several inside the shop promoting the 'climate change' conference in Copenhagen. It is encouraging people to join a conga chain and to also promote it. Now they come out with this? It seems they need to get their act together and decide what they really want.

They ought to know from a moral point of view that propagating lies is at best stupid (AGW). How many people have stopped giving to them because they advocate AGW? Yes, it has happened! It is not the people running Oxfam who will suffer but those that they claim to help. Maybe the organisers should do some serious thinking and consider those people who need help rather than themselves.

It is sad to see such an otherwise good charity fall foul of the gravy-train. It is just as upsetting to see so many valiant volunteers having their efforts wasted by a few 'superior' beings at the top of the organisation.

Meh. Lefties have always been sanguine about writing off the lives of little brown children* in pursuit of their agenda (OXFAM has never been 'good'; it is a profoundly malevolent entity, like Christian Aid, War on Want and CAFOD). It's like they read the Kantian Golden Rule through some kind of prism that utterly inverts its sense. The sunlit pastures they promise us somehow always manage to be in the future, just out of reach. After 200 years of Jacobin and Syndicalist and Marxist and Fascist terror, perhaps we're entitled to ask, "OK, that's two hundred million eggs. Where's our fucking omelette?"

* or just inconvenient, individual, people in general

Post a comment