Hypocrisy Regarding Climate Change

[fred smith]

Al didn’t happen to mention, however, that his alarmist Alliance for Climate Protection organization reportedly netted more than $88 million in 2008, that the Natural Resources Defense Council took in more than $95 million in 2011 operating revenues, or that the World Wildlife Fund raised more than $238 million last year. Nor did he call attention to his Generation Investment Management hedge fund that realizes huge profits from investors in government subsidized “green” projects.

But Gore hasn’t been the least bit reticent about taking high-profile positions in support of personally lucrative cap-and-trade legislation and alternative energy subsidies. Speaking before a 2007 U.S. Joint House Energy and Science Committee, he enthused: “As soon as carbon has a price, you’re going to see a wave of investment in it–there will be unchained investment."

From Forbes, a look at some of the cash sloshing around... and Gore has the audacity to point to sums that oil and petroleum companies are giving Heartland. Shall we compare amounts? Shall we?

[Mick]

No one doubts there's money pouring into NGO's Fred, or parties, countries and companies will take sides in policy. What's being examined is the bang to buck effectiveness of carrot and stick policies.

When you get down to it, I don't think it's all that complicated, your position I think is a complete opposition to the stick (taxes either direct or in cap and trade) and the carrot (rewards to gravitate to green technology) I get the feeling you consider the waste of a perfectly good carrot, which when you look at wasted investments in companies like Solyndra I can relate to, as well as the money that goes into NGO's conferences, so far I think they have done even less than you think, which is to say had they actually done nothing I think it would have been better than the mess they have created.

Cap and trade in theory is ok IMO, but given the complete balls up these leaders have made of their countries and economies, I would trust these imbeciles to make me a ham sandwich let alone allocate and manage hundreds in billions to companies for CO2. Well placed carrots, absolutely, incentives to home owners to invest in solar, tax breaks for companies going green and use of the stick, in the right way at the right time of course.

But as I mentioned earlier, I don't think they are the only two options that should be being discussed, as with Europe and US discussing who to tax next, what benefits to people should be cut to get their economies back on track, one thing is forgotten or gets little mention. This donkey is overloaded with parasites that are getting a free ride for too long, IP laws need to be revised to do away with hidden costs associated with everyday products, stupid laws targeting someone who smokes a joint. Time for governments to actually use their resources wisely and not screw the public they are supposed to represent by lining the pockets of corporations.

[cfimages]

Al didn’t happen to mention, however, that his alarmist Alliance for Climate Protection organization reportedly netted more than $88 million in 2008, that the Natural Resources Defense Council took in more than $95 million in 2011 operating revenues, or that the World Wildlife Fund raised more than $238 million last year. Nor did he call attention to his Generation Investment Management hedge fund that realizes huge profits from investors in government subsidized “green” projects.

But Gore hasn’t been the least bit reticent about taking high-profile positions in support of personally lucrative cap-and-trade legislation and alternative energy subsidies. Speaking before a 2007 U.S. Joint House Energy and Science Committee, he enthused: “As soon as carbon has a price, you’re going to see a wave of investment in it–there will be unchained investment."

From Forbes, a look at some of the cash sloshing around... and Gore has the audacity to point to sums that oil and petroleum companies are giving Heartland. Shall we compare amounts? Shall we?

Money raised is only half the issue. You need to look at money spent as well to see whether it's being wasted through hands-in-the-trough approach (as you seem to suggest) or is actually being used correctly. An efficient charity / NGO should have an administrative cost of less than 15%. According to the most recent financial report, the World Wildlife Fund spent 8% on admin costs. This places them at the very top of the list in terms of financial efficiency and shows that they are spending money where they should be and not enriching themselves.

To compare with a few other non-climate related charities (these are Australian ones simply because I found their costs first), we can see administrative costs of

World Vision 14%
MSF 14%
Cancer Council Aust 32%
National Heart Foundation 37%
Surf Life Saving Foundation 62%

They are all NGO / charities that probably everyone in Australia would be happy to support, and are ones that highly regarded and seen as proving essential services. They all cost more to administer than WWF.

[fred smith]

Money raised is only half the issue. You need to look at money spent as well to see whether it's being wasted through hands-in-the-trough approach (as you seem to suggest) or is actually being used correctly. An efficient charity / NGO should have an administrative cost of less than 15%. According to the most recent financial report, the World Wildlife Fund spent 8% on admin costs. This places them at the very top of the list in terms of financial efficiency and shows that they are spending money where they should be and not enriching themselves.

To compare with a few other non-climate related charities (these are Australian ones simply because I found their costs first), we can see administrative costs of

World Vision 14%
MSF 14%
Cancer Council Aust 32%
National Heart Foundation 37%
Surf Life Saving Foundation 62%

Ah... young grasshopper... so easy to resolve these issues... say, for example, that I use my money to fund grants with "partners" some of whom just happened to have once worked with World Vision or WWF... that would mean that my money is going 100% for efforts in the field BUT for these subcontractors many of whom one may know personally or with whom one may have worked personally, the connections and back scratching are all present but the "administrative burden" is off the books. Now, what about the subcontracted work? Is it, too, 8% administrative costs? I don't think so... and this is where the tricks come into play... nice try but no cigar. I have seen how this works and I am NOT convinced.

[fred smith]

No one doubts there's money pouring into NGO's Fred, or parties, countries and companies will take sides in policy. What's being examined is the bang to buck effectiveness of carrot and stick policies.

When you get down to it, I don't think it's all that complicated, your position I think is a complete opposition to the stick (taxes either direct or in cap and trade) and the carrot (rewards to gravitate to green technology) I get the feeling you consider the waste of a perfectly good carrot, which when you look at wasted investments in companies like Solyndra I can relate to, as well as the money that goes into NGO's conferences, so far I think they have done even less than you think, which is to say had they actually done nothing I think it would have been better than the mess they have created.

Cap and trade in theory is ok IMO, but given the complete balls up these leaders have made of their countries and economies, I would trust these imbeciles to make me a ham sandwich let alone allocate and manage hundreds in billions to companies for CO2. Well placed carrots, absolutely, incentives to home owners to invest in solar, tax breaks for companies going green and use of the stick, in the right way at the right time of course.

But as I mentioned earlier, I don't think they are the only two options that should be being discussed, as with Europe and US discussing who to tax next, what benefits to people should be cut to get their economies back on track, one thing is forgotten or gets little mention. This donkey is overloaded with parasites that are getting a free ride for too long, IP laws need to be revised to do away with hidden costs associated with everyday products, stupid laws targeting someone who smokes a joint. Time for governments to actually use their resources wisely and not screw the public they are supposed to represent by lining the pockets of corporations.

Summary: No NGO or government entity has achieved anything in reducing CO2 emissions.

The question then is why individuals feel the need to fund them to show that they care? or to at least do something all of which unfortunately is irrelevant and pointless? Okay... some people gamble... some people collect stamps... others invest in causes... all hobbies for which only the individual in question can determine the value... that being said, no stamp collector gets the public stage to demand that everyone else start collecting stamps for the FATE OF THE WORLD is at stake. THAT is the major difference. We tune them out... and for essentially the same reason... we don't see the point and we don't care...

[cfimages]

Money raised is only half the issue. You need to look at money spent as well to see whether it's being wasted through hands-in-the-trough approach (as you seem to suggest) or is actually being used correctly. An efficient charity / NGO should have an administrative cost of less than 15%. According to the most recent financial report, the World Wildlife Fund spent 8% on admin costs. This places them at the very top of the list in terms of financial efficiency and shows that they are spending money where they should be and not enriching themselves.

To compare with a few other non-climate related charities (these are Australian ones simply because I found their costs first), we can see administrative costs of

World Vision 14%
MSF 14%
Cancer Council Aust 32%
National Heart Foundation 37%
Surf Life Saving Foundation 62%

Ah... young grasshopper... so easy to resolve these issues... say, for example, that I use my money to fund grants with "partners" some of whom just happened to have once worked with World Vision or WWF... that would mean that my money is going 100% for efforts in the field BUT for these subcontractors many of whom one may know personally or with whom one may have worked personally, the connections and back scratching are all present but the "administrative burden" is off the books. Now, what about the subcontracted work? Is it, too, 8% administrative costs? I don't think so... and this is where the tricks come into play... nice try but no cigar. I have seen how this works and I am NOT convinced.

Cough up some links then Fred. Back up your statements with some real world figures. Or is this just your feeling?

[fred smith]

Cough up some links then Fred. Back up your statements with some real world figures.

Well, here are some slightly different World Wildlife Fund statistics from 2010...

For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010, WWF's program expenses were:



Conservation field and policy programs 129,238,725
Public education 57,531,450
Total Program Expenses: $186,770,175

Leaving field and policy programs aside for the moment, what does public education mean to you? awareness campaigns? and at one-third of the total spend? how does one achieve these? and does paying someone's salary to go out in the field, including their hotel, per diem and flight expenses, on a three-week program to "raise awareness" NOT come in under administrative costs? But the money is still primarily going to pay a "staff member" or a "consultant" to go out to speak to groups in conferences rooms (no doubt with Powerpoint slide presentations) on how to "raise awareness" or how to "take action."

Governance

Chief Executive : Carter Roberts, President and CEO
Compensation*: $455,147

For those who had any doubts about NGOs being akin to corporations with similar interests and SIMILAR pay scales, here is the salary for the president and CEO... not too shabby... but I am sure that he CARES greatly about the environment and even more so about WILDlife... haha

Paid Staff Size: 725

Paid staff size... 725... can we assume that the lowest of the low probably gets at least $15,000 to $20,000 per month, then we no doubt have lots of vice presidents and CFOs and accountants and perhaps marketing experts for those fund raising campaigns and and and... so let's take ONLY the $20,000 and NOT include the social benefits like health insurance, paid vacation, etc. and say... hell... 600 of the 725 make $20,000 per year (remember these figures do not include all of those volunteers) and what do you get.... $12 million.... and then let's say the next 75 get $40,000 so what do you get $3,000,000 and then the next 50 get $75,000 for $3,750,000 for a total of nearly $20 million and then there is the rent and office expenses and phones and faxes and copy machines and electricity and and and ... for these people... I am wondering how exactly one calculates 8% in administrative fees...

In one country where I worked, WWF (by way of example) paid its executive director $125,000 per year and his apartment was $150,000 per year and the rent on the office was roughly $150,000 per year and there were three administrative positions for locals averaging $25,000 per year and the program worked with six other "partners" and these were partially funded by grants of $50,000 to $200,000 each per year and each of these partners had a director (local) for a cost of about $40,000 each and three administrative positions at $25,000 each and then field workers and consultants who were paid project by project but hotel costs even in the country where $200/night with $75 per day for per diem plus the air fare (roundtrip roughly $500 per person) BUT the car rental to get around these areas was $400/day with driver and then if there were any copying costs to distribute materials to students in awareness raising classes plus hotel conference room rental... roughly $400 per day...


So this is what WWF claims:

Programs: 84% Fund Raising: 12% Administrative: 4%

Total income $235,041,817
Program expenses $186,770,175
Fund raising expenses 27,589,160
Administrative expenses 9,901,134

Total expenses $224,260,469
Income in Excess of Expenses 10,781,348
Beginning net assets 227,351,912

Ending net assets 238,133,260
Total liabilities 139,385,321
Total assets $377,518,581

Now, how is it divvying up its personnel costs to account for a $10 million administrative expense? Is it including rental of office space? salaries? copy machines? and then of course one would well imagine as per my description above that much of the program expenses might also have a personnel cost and administrative component but these are simply not presented as such...

Or is this just your feeling?

No... I think that I have a lot more to go on than just a feeling here.

[cfimages]

Cough up some links then Fred. Back up your statements with some real world figures.

Well, here are some slightly different World Wildlife Fund statistics from 2010...

For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010, WWF's program expenses were:



Conservation field and policy programs 129,238,725
Public education 57,531,450
Total Program Expenses: $186,770,175

Leaving field and policy programs aside for the moment, what does public education mean to you? awareness campaigns? and at one-third of the total spend? how does one achieve these? and does paying someone's salary to go out in the field, including their hotel, per diem and flight expenses, on a three-week program to "raise awareness" NOT come in under administrative costs? But the money is still primarily going to pay a "staff member" or a "consultant" to go out to speak to groups in conferences rooms (no doubt with Powerpoint slide presentations) on how to "raise awareness" or how to "take action."

Public education is part of their charter / mandate / purpose.

Governance

Chief Executive : Carter Roberts, President and CEO
Compensation*: $455,147

For those who had any doubts about NGOs being akin to corporations with similar interests and SIMILAR pay scales, here is the salary for the president and CEO... not too shabby... but I am sure that he CARES greatly about the environment and even more so about WILDlife... haha

I personally don't think that salaries like that should be paid out. But, it's been explained that in order to attract an executive with the necessary skills and experience, salaries of that size have to be paid. I don't know whether I agree with that reasoning though - since hearing that explanation I've been on the fence about it.

Paid Staff Size: 725

Paid staff size... 725... can we assume that the lowest of the low probably gets at least $15,000 to $20,000 per month, then we no doubt have lots of vice presidents and CFOs and accountants and perhaps marketing experts for those fund raising campaigns and and and... so let's take ONLY the $20,000 and NOT include the social benefits like health insurance, paid vacation, etc. and say... hell... 600 of the 725 make $20,000 per year (remember these figures do not include all of those volunteers) and what do you get.... $12 million.... and then let's say the next 75 get $40,000 so what do you get $3,000,000 and then the next 50 get $75,000 for $3,750,000 for a total of nearly $20 million and then there is the rent and office expenses and phones and faxes and copy machines and electricity and and and ... for these people... I am wondering how exactly one calculates 8% in administrative fees...

In one country where I worked, WWF (by way of example) paid its executive director $125,000 per year and his apartment was $150,000 per year and the rent on the office was roughly $150,000 per year and there were three administrative positions for locals averaging $25,000 per year and the program worked with six other "partners" and these were partially funded by grants of $50,000 to $200,000 each per year and each of these partners had a director (local) for a cost of about $40,000 each and three administrative positions at $25,000 each and then field workers and consultants who were paid project by project but hotel costs even in the country where $200/night with $75 per day for per diem plus the air fare (roundtrip roughly $500 per person) BUT the car rental to get around these areas was $400/day with driver and then if there were any copying costs to distribute materials to students in awareness raising classes plus hotel conference room rental... roughly $400 per day...

Most staffers tend to be part time or casual. In Australia (the only place I can speak from experience having worked for a couple of intl. NGO's there), roughly 80% of the paid staff are on an hourly wage that's about the same as what a waiter or telemarketer or retail clerk earns before tips / commissions. It's not a lot, but then people don't go into NGO work for the money.

So this is what WWF claims:

Programs: 84% Fund Raising: 12% Administrative: 4%

Total income $235,041,817
Program expenses $186,770,175
Fund raising expenses 27,589,160
Administrative expenses 9,901,134

Total expenses $224,260,469
Income in Excess of Expenses 10,781,348
Beginning net assets 227,351,912

Ending net assets 238,133,260
Total liabilities 139,385,321
Total assets $377,518,581

Now, how is it divvying up its personnel costs to account for a $10 million administrative expense? Is it including rental of office space? salaries? copy machines? and then of course one would well imagine as per my description above that much of the program expenses might also have a personnel cost and administrative component but these are simply not presented as such...

Of course salary, office space etc comes under admin costs. Program expenses are just that, program expenses.

[fred smith]

Public education is part of their charter / mandate / purpose.

And all of that for what? 30% 50%... 90%?

I personally don't think that salaries like that should be paid out. But, it's been explained that in order to attract an executive with the necessary skills and experience, salaries of that size have to be paid. I don't know whether I agree with that reasoning though - since hearing that explanation I've been on the fence about it.

So apparently, you agree that talented people should be paid more... funny though that the Occupy Wall Street and other leftie movements have failed to see that the 1% includes many including the CEOs of NGOs like World Wildlife Fund. Hey, great, but know what you are "fighting."

Most staffers tend to be part time or casual.

Prove it.

In Australia (the only place I can speak from experience having worked for a couple of intl. NGO's there), roughly 80% of the paid staff are on an hourly wage that's about the same as what a waiter or telemarketer or retail clerk earns before tips / commissions.

Average minimu wage is between $8-$10/hour... Times 40 hours (assuming average of $9/hour) gets you $360 x 52 weeks per year and you are um near $20,000/year no? AND THAT IS NOT including insurance and any other benefits. So, what's your point?

It's not a lot, but then people don't go into NGO work for the money.

Except as you have noted the CEO and maybe the COO and maybe the CFO and maybe the head of the fundraising campaign and the marketing manager and the country directors and... right? So, what is your point? that those at the top deserve to get paid a lot and that they are able to get the salaries that they are getting because those at the bottom are too stupid to realize that? So because the cause is good, the underpaid 99%ers are willing to allow the 1% to benefit... but then what exactly are all those public relations/awareness campaigns achieving? What is actually happening on the ground to make the situation better for the, er, world wildlife? And that my dear boy is for YOU to prove.


Office space is under 9% administrative? oh really? and the salaries too? Okay, now you have some work to do to prove that all goes under the categories that you are saying it does because I don't believe it. And I doubt that the salaries in question are uniformly low as we have discussed. I have thrown that bone to you but if you believe that, then I guess it is time for you to pony up by PROVING it. I will wait. It certainly has not been my experience that office rent and equipment and services would come in at such a low rate as to be below 9% and most of the people that I know in the Third World are making better salaries than you have suggested. I would suggest (haha) that WWF is using creative accounting. I have given the figures and I for one cannot see how they add up unless of course the personnel costs are being divided up among the program costs as I have suggested and my personal experience suggests that this is exactly how the organization is getting this to fall under 9%. It is still bullshit. But if you disagree, prove that these NGOs are achieving what exactly? with how much money? and where is that coming from? This is all a smoke and mirrors charade. But you and others continue to genuflect before the NGO as being purposeful and well-meaning. I agree but only if by that you mean the directors saving up a sterling pension fund.

[cfimages]

Public education is part of their charter / mandate / purpose.

And all of that for what? 30% 50%... 90%?

Go read their charter and you'll probably find out.

I personally don't think that salaries like that should be paid out. But, it's been explained that in order to attract an executive with the necessary skills and experience, salaries of that size have to be paid. I don't know whether I agree with that reasoning though - since hearing that explanation I've been on the fence about it.

So apparently, you agree that talented people should be paid more... funny though that the Occupy Wall Street and other leftie movements have failed to see that the 1% includes many including the CEOs of NGOs like World Wildlife Fund. Hey, great, but know what you are "fighting."

Read what I said.

Most staffers tend to be part time or casual.

Prove it.

As I mentioned, that's based on my own experience working in a number of them.

In Australia (the only place I can speak from experience having worked for a couple of intl. NGO's there), roughly 80% of the paid staff are on an hourly wage that's about the same as what a waiter or telemarketer or retail clerk earns before tips / commissions.

Average minimu wage is between $8-$10/hour... Times 40 hours (assuming average of $9/hour) gets you $360 x 52 weeks per year and you are um near $20,000/year no? AND THAT IS NOT including insurance and any other benefits. So, what's your point?

Part time / casual is not 40 hours a week. Part time / casual hourly wage earners don't get any insurance or benefits from employers.

It's not a lot, but then people don't go into NGO work for the money.

Except as you have noted the CEO and maybe the COO and maybe the CFO and maybe the head of the fundraising campaign and the marketing manager and the country directors and... right? So, what is your point? that those at the top deserve to get paid a lot and that they are able to get the salaries that they are getting because those at the bottom are too stupid to realize that? So because the cause is good, the underpaid 99%ers are willing to allow the 1% to benefit... but then what exactly are all those public relations/awareness campaigns achieving? What is actually happening on the ground to make the situation better for the, er, world wildlife? And that my dear boy is for YOU to prove.

No, it's not up to me to prove that. It's not the point I'm making. Nowhere in this recent exchange in the past day or two have I made any claim like that and no where have I discussed the effectiveness of the programs.

Office space is under 9% administrative? oh really? and the salaries too? Okay, now you have some work to do to prove that all goes under the categories that you are saying it does because I don't believe it. And I doubt that the salaries in question are uniformly low as we have discussed. I have thrown that bone to you but if you believe that, then I guess it is time for you to pony up by PROVING it. I will wait. It certainly has not been my experience that office rent and equipment and services would come in at such a low rate as to be below 9% and most of the people that I know in the Third World are making better salaries than you have suggested. I would suggest (haha) that WWF is using creative accounting. I have given the figures and I for one cannot see how they add up unless of course the personnel costs are being divided up among the program costs as I have suggested and my personal experience suggests that this is exactly how the organization is getting this to fall under 9%. It is still bullshit. But if you disagree, prove that these NGOs are achieving what exactly? with how much money? and where is that coming from? This is all a smoke and mirrors charade. But you and others continue to genuflect before the NGO as being purposeful and well-meaning. I agree but only if by that you mean the directors saving up a sterling pension fund.

It's your claim that this is not under the 8% so the onus is on you to prove that if you don't believe it. The accounting figures and annual reports are open for anyone to read - if you believe they are wrong, then go ahead and demonstrate that. Not with the hypotheticals and assumptions you've been making so far but actual hard data. If you choose not to, that's fine. I'm not the one with doubts.